Document alpinecountyca_gov_doc_fcbb6f0c44

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Section 364, 364.1, 555, and 601 Title 14, California Code of Regulations Regarding ELK HUNTING SCH [PHONE REDACTED] December 8, 2015 STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES III LIST OF APPENDICES IV CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY 5 PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES 5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 6 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY 7 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED 7 FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALANCY 7 CHAPTER 2. THE PROPOSED ACTION 9 BACKGROUND AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 17 THE MANAGEMENT OF ELK IN CALIFORNIA 17 Historical Perspective of Roosevelt Elk Management 17 Historical Perspective of Rocky Mountain Elk Management 18 Historical Perspective of Tule Elk Management 19 Tule Elk Management (1971 through Present) 21 Existing conditions regarding elk hunting 23 PLM Hunts 23 Cooperative Elk Hunting Area hunts (Section 555, Title 14, CCR). 24 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 24 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 25 POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 26 Methodology 28 Compensatory Response 29 IMPACTS OF HUNTING ON ELK POPULATIONS 31 IMPACTS ON THE GENE POOL 43 IMPACTS ON SOCIAL STRUCTURE 46 EFFECTS ON HABITAT 48 EFFECTS ON RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 51 EFFECTS ON OTHER WILDLIFE SPECIES 52 EFFECTS ON ECONOMICS 54 EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY 55 GROWTH-INDUCING 55 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 56 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 56 WELFARE OF THE INDIVIDUAL ANIMAL 56 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 56 Effects of Private Lands Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Management (PLM) Area Program 57 Effects of Drought 58 Effects of Wildfire 61 Effects of Disease 62 Effects of Habitat Loss and Degradation 62 Effects of Illegal Harvest 63 Effects of Depredation 63 Effects of Vehicle-Caused Mortality 64 CHAPTER 3 - ALTERNATIVES 66 ---PAGE BREAK--- ii ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO PROJECT (NO CHANGE) 66 ALTERNATIVE 2 – INCREASED HARVEST 66 ALTERNATIVE 3 – REDUCED HARVEST 66 ALTERNATIVE 4 – HERD GROWTH 66 BIBLIOGRAPHY 67 ---PAGE BREAK--- iii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLE 1. IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE 2. HARVEST LEVEL TABLE 3. ROOSEVELT AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK HARVEST, 2014 TABLE 4. TULE ELK HARVEST, 2014 FIGURE 1. CALIFORNIA TULE ELK POPULATION ESTIMATE, 1971-2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- iv LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1. 2014 Elk Tags Issued and Harvested on PLM Ranches Appendix 2. 2016 Proposed Elk Tag General Hunt Tag Quota Ranges………………...72 Appendix 3. Scoping Summary – Notice of Preparation Documents…………………….76 Appendix 4. Computer Model Runs (Elk Pop) Harvest Scenarios……………………...115 Appendix 5. New Hunt Boundary Maps (Del Norte and Humboldt)…………………….226 Appendix 6. New Hunt Boundary Maps (Marble Mountain North and South)…………228 Appendix 7. New Hunt Boundary Maps (Mendocino North Coast, Middle Fork, Upper Russian River, Little Lake, and South Appendix 8. New Hunt Boundary Maps (Independence and Goodale)………………..231 Appendix 9. Hunt Boundary Map (San Emigdio Mountain)……………………………...233 Appendix 10. Hunt Boundary Map (Camp Appendix 11. New Hunt Boundary Map (La Appendix 12. New Hunt Boundary Map (Grizzly Appendix 13. New Hunt Boundary Map (Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast Appendix 14. Estimated Elk Distribution and Land Ownership, 2015………………….238 Appendix 15. Historic Elk Distribution within California………………………………….239 Appendix 16. Tule Elk Relocation Appendix 17. Existing Elk Hunting Regulations…………………………………………..241 Appendix 18. 2015 PLM List and Authorized Harvest……………………………………263 Appendix 19. Section 555, Title 14, California Code of Regulation…………………….264 Appendix 20. Modification to Existing Regulations………………………………………266 Appendix 21. Impacts of Proposed Regulations………………………………………….270 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY The 2016 Elk Hunting Environmental Document is intended to support the actions of the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) as that body considers regulations pertinent to the conservation and recreational opportunities that may be presented to the Commission. These actions are consistent with the wildlife conservation policy adopted by the Legislature as set forth in Section 1801, Fish and Game Code (FGC). The State's wildlife conservation policy, among other things, contains an objective of providing hunting opportunities when such use is consistent with maintaining healthy wildlife populations. Elk hunting regulations adopted by the Commission are set forth in Sections 364, 364.1, and 555, Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR), and enforced by the Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department). These regulations are authorized under the following statutes: Section 203, FGC, authorizes the Commission to regulate game mammals in the state. Section 203.1, FGC, requires the Commission to consider populations, habitat, food supplies, the welfare of individual animals, and other pertinent facts when adopting hunting regulations for elk. Section 207, FGC, requires the Commission to hold public meetings when considering mammal hunting regulations and to hear the recommendations of the Department, other agencies, and the public. Section 332, FGC, provides that the Commission may determine and fix the area or areas, the seasons and hours, the bag and possession limit, and the number of elk that may be taken under rules and regulations that the commission may adopt from time to time. Sections 3950 -3952, FGC, designates elk (genus Cervus) as a game mammal in California; authorizes the Commission to regulate take of elk; and requires the Department to prepare an elk management plan. The 2016 Elk Hunting Environmental Document sets forth the findings of the Department and recommendations for regulatory changes. PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES The project discussed in this document (proposed project) involves modifications to the current elk hunting regulations for the 2016-2017 elk hunting season and subsequent seasons until a new environmental document is prepared and certified. Specifically, the ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 Department is proposing to modify annual tag quotas, establish 9 new hunt zones, and modify hunt boundaries, season dates, and hunt periods for various existing hunts. The Department is also providing the Commission with a range of alternatives to the proposed project that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. It is anticipated that the proposed project will fall near or below the median of the proposed tag ranges in most zones. Alternative 1 (no change) would maintain the existing analyzed harvest for each hunt zone without change. Alternative 2 (increased harvest) involves harvesting elk at approximately 50% above the proposed project. Alternative 3 (reduced harvest) involves harvesting approximately 50 % fewer elk than the proposed project. Alternative 4 (herd growth) proposes a harvest level if the elk populations increased within the zones. Population growth for elk zones were estimated based on the potential for those herds to increase in time. Growth estimates ranged from 18% to 400% depending on the zone. The time frame to reach the herd growth level for the analyzed population under this alternative will vary by herd. This is an alternative harvest that could be utilized within the life span of this environmental document. Current and proposed harvest strategies, for most herds, allow for population growth through time. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Table 1 summarizes Department findings that there are no significant long-term adverse impacts associated with the proposed project or any of the project alternatives considered for the 2016 elk hunting regulations. Table 1. Impact Summary Alternative Significant Impact Nature of Impact Mitigation Available Nature of Mitigation (Proposed Project) No None N/A N/A 1. No Change No None N/A N/A 2. Increased Harvest No Some population levels may temporarily be reduced N/A Reducing hunting opportunity in future years 3. Reduced Harvest No None N/A N/A 4. Herd Growth No None N/A N/A It is anticipated that the number of tags issued will fall near or below the median from the proposed ranges (Appendix The resulting harvest for 2016 will likely be lower ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 than the proposed tag median because hunter success has historically been less than 100 percent and hunts with multiple periods may have low number of tags issued or not have tags issued in every period every year. Based on success rates from previous years, the Department expects that the actual harvest will range from 55-80 percent of the elk tags allocated for 2016 (1990-present, Department of Fish and Wildlife data on file in the Wildlife Branch, Sacramento, California). AREAS OF CONTROVERSY A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project was prepared and circulated on August 17, 2015. The NOP included the Initial Study which provided a project description, a preliminary, relatively brief environmental impact analysis for the proposed project, and information regarding a public scoping meeting to be held on August 26, 2015. This started a 30-day scoping period, which ended on September 15, 2015. A public scoping meeting was held on August 26, 2015 in Sacramento, CA. The Department noticed stakeholders about the NOP, scoping period, and scheduled scoping meeting through the following methods:  Posting in the State Clearinghouse  Posting Initial Study and meeting notification on CDFW’s public notice website  Email meeting notification to members of the Big Game Management Advisory Committee dated August 14, 2015 The Notice of Preparation, initial study, preliminary impact assessment, summary of the issues identified at the scoping meeting, and written comments received during the 30- day scoping period are located in Appendix 3. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED As provided by existing law, the Commission is the decision-making body (lead agency) considering the proposed project, while the Department has responsibility for management activities, such as hunting, translocating elk to suitable historic range, and preparing management plans. The primary issue for the Commission to resolve is whether to change elk hunting regulations as an element of elk management. If such changes are authorized, the Commission will specify the areas, seasons, methods of take, bag and possession limit, number of elk to be taken, and other appropriate special conditions. FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALANCY California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the proposed project will be conducted in accordance with the Commission’s certified regulatory program (CRP) approved by the Secretary for the California Resources Agency pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.5 (See generally Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, 781.5, and ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 15251, subd. CEQA requires all public agencies in the State to evaluate the environmental impacts of projects they approve, including regulations, which may have a potential to significantly affect the environment. The Department has prepared this Environmental Document (ED), which is the functional equivalent of an Environmental Impact Report, on behalf of the Commission in compliance with this requirement. The ED provides the Commission, other agencies, and the general public with an objective assessment of the potential effects. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 CHAPTER 2. THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed project being considered consists of the following modifications to existing elk hunting regulations: 1. Tag Ranges In order to maintain hunting quality in accordance with management goals and objectives, it is periodically necessary to adjust quotas in response to dynamic environmental and biological conditions. This proposed project adjusts elk tag ranges to account for fluctuations in population numbers and hunting pressure (Appendix Elk Pop (Smith and Updike 1987) is a microcomputer-based model which was developed by the Department for the purpose of analyzing harvest alternatives. Elk Pop was used to assess effects of the proposed project (and project alternatives) on the specific Roosevelt, Rocky Mountain, and tule elk herds where hunting is proposed. The model allows the user to vary carrying capacity to reflect real-world changes in habitat capability. Population age and sex ratios (observed and estimated) are primary inputs to the model. Elk Pop allows analysis of multiple harvest alternatives simultaneously and is easily adapted to most herd situations. Elk Pop utilizes data on age and sex composition of the herd, maximum calf survival, estimated population numbers, nonhunting mortality, and hunting mortality. Age and sex composition and maximum calf survival figures used in the model are based on observed and estimated rates. Population level and nonhunting mortality rates were estimated. Estimates of nonhunting mortality rates were considered valid representations of actual nonhunting mortality rates when the model predicted the observed herd composition ratios for 10 consecutive years. Effects of various harvest scenarios were then predicted on the basis of composition ratios and estimated nonhunting mortality rates. The computer model runs for various harvest scenarios (proposed project and the alternatives) for each elk zone where hunting is proposed can be found in Appendix 4. 2. Establish New Hunts: a. Split existing Northwestern Roosevelt elk hunt into two separate zones within Del Norte, Humboldt, and Trinity counties (Del Norte and Humboldt Roosevelt elk hunts) and modify season framework. Public opportunity to hunt elk in Del Norte, Humboldt, and Trinity counties currently exists. The proposal would establish two zones within Del Norte, Humboldt, and Trinity counties and adjust tag ranges and season dates. These zones will be created by splitting the Northwestern Roosevelt Elk Hunt zone into two zones (Del Norte and Humboldt Roosevelt elk zones – Appendix 5) and minor boundary adjustments for clarification. The establishment of these zones will allow the Department to distribute ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 hunting pressure to address landowner concerns over elk damage and increase opportunity while providing a biologically appropriate harvest within each zone. Bull 20), antlerless (0-50), and either-sex (0-10) tags would be available to the public during five hunt periods. Each hunt period would begin on the first of the month for September, October, November, December, and January and extend for 20 consecutive days. b. Split existing Marble Mountains Roosevelt elk hunt into two separate zones within Humboldt, Shasta, Siskiyou, and Trinity counties (Marble Mountain North and Marble Mountain South Roosevelt elk hunts) and modify season framework. Public opportunity to hunt elk in Humboldt, Shasta, Siskiyou, and Trinity counties currently exists. The proposal would establish two zones within Humboldt, Shasta, Siskiyou, and Trinity counties. In addition it would make minor boundary adjustments, modify seasonal framework, and adjust tag ranges. These zones will be created by splitting the Marble Mountain Roosevelt elk zone into two zones (Marble Mountain North and Marble Mountain South – Appendix The establishment of these zones will allow the Department to distribute hunting pressure in relation to elk distribution, increase opportunity, and obtain an appropriate harvest level. As part of these modifications hunting periods will be divided into early season archery/muzzleloader either-sex (0-20); period 1 bull (0-50), antlerless (0-20), and either-sex apprentice period 2 bull 10) and antlerless (0-40); period 3 bull (0-5) and antlerless (0-15) tags would be available to the public during the hunt periods in each zone. Early season archery/muzzleloader shall open on the last Wednesday in August and continue for 9 consecutive days. Period 1 would open on second Saturday in September and continue for 12 consecutive days. Period 2 shall open on the last Saturday in September and continue for 12 consecutive days. Period 3 shall open on the first Wednesday in November and continue for 16 consecutive days. c. Split and expand the existing Mendocino tule elk hunt into five elk hunts within Mendocino County. (Mendocino North Coast, Mendocino Middle Fork, Mendocino Upper Russian River, Mendocino Little Lake, and Mendocino South Coast elk hunts). Public opportunities to hunt elk are limited in Mendocino County. The proposal would establish five zones within Mendocino County (splitting the current Mendocino elk hunt zone and extending the boundaries (Mendocino North Coast, Mendocino Middle Fork, Mendocino Upper Russian River, Mendocino Little Lake, and Mendocino South Coast elk hunt zones – Appendix Sufficient numbers of elk occur within the proposed hunt boundary to provide opportunity for the public to hunt elk. The establishment of these zones will allow the Department to distribute hunting pressure to address landowner concerns over elk damage and increase hunter opportunity while providing a biologically appropriate harvest within each zone. Mendocino North Coast, bull (0-10) and antlerless (0-40); Mendocino Middle Fork, bull (0-10) and antlerless (0-40); Mendocino Upper Russian River, bull (0-10) and antlerless (0-40); Mendocino Little Lake, bull (range 0-5) and antlerless (0-10), no tags to be issued under current conditions (establishing zone boundaries); Mendocino South Coast, bull antlerless (0-10) tags would be ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 available to the public in each zone. The bull season shall open on the Wednesday preceding the third Saturday in August and continue for 10 consecutive days. The antlerless season shall open the first Saturday in November and continue for 10 consecutive days. d. Split the Independence tule elk hunt in Inyo County into two zones, establishing a new tule elk zone (Goodale) in the Owens Valley. In conjunction with zone boundary modifications for the Independence tule elk zone a new zone (Goodale – Appendix 8) will be created by dividing the Independence zone into two zones (Goodale and Independence). This zone is being established to efficiently distribute hunting pressure and manage harvest. Sufficient numbers of elk occur within the proposed hunt boundary to provide opportunity for the public to hunt elk. Creating a new hunt boundary (splitting the zone) allows the Department to more appropriately manage harvest. The proposal would add a new hunt (portion of existing Independence zone) in Inyo County. Bull (0-10) tags and antlerless tags (range 0-10) would be available to the public during the established seasons. e. Establish new tule elk hunt in portions of Kern, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties (San Emigdio Mountain tule elk hunt). Public opportunities to hunt elk in Kern, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties are limited or non-existent. Sufficient numbers of elk occur within the proposed hunt boundary to provide additional opportunity for the public to hunt elk. The proposal would add a (new) hunt for elk in Kern, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties called San Emigdio Mountain tule elk hunt (Appendix The establishment of this zone will allow the Department to address landowner concerns and increase opportunity while providing a biologically appropriate harvest. Bull (0-15) and antlerless (0-40) tags would be available to the public during a season beginning on the second Saturday in November and continuing for 14 consecutive days. f. Establish new tule elk hunt in portions of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties (Camp Roberts tule elk hunt). Public opportunities to hunt elk in Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties are limited. Sufficient numbers of elk occur within the proposed hunt boundary to provide additional opportunity for the public to hunt elk. The proposal would add a (new) hunt in Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties called Camp Roberts tule elk hunt (Appendix 10). Bull (0-10) and antlerless (0-20) tags would be available to the public and military during each of the three hunt periods. The season for period one shall open on the third Saturday in September and continue for 16 consecutive days. The season for period two shall open on the second Saturday in November and continue for 16 consecutive days. The season for period three shall open 16 days prior to January 2 and continue for 16 consecutive days. ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 3. Modify Existing Hunt Boundaries: a. La Panza tule elk hunt boundary modification. Existing regulations specify boundaries for the La Panza tule elk hunt. In conjunction with modifications to the Fort Hunter Liggett boundary the La Panza boundary will also be modified (Appendix 11). A portion of the area previously within the La Panza zone north of highway 198 will now be within the Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast tule elk zone. This is in an effort to better distribute harvest within these zones, increase opportunity, and address landowner concerns. The La Panza season framework will remain as previously identified. b. Grizzly Island tule elk hunt boundary modification. Existing regulations specify boundaries for the Grizzly Island tule elk hunt. During the last several years elk population numbers have increased and their range has expanded beyond existing hunt boundaries. The modifications will expand the boundary to outside of the Grizzly Island Wildlife Area (Appendix 12). The proposal to expand boundaries for the Grizzly Island tule elk hunt is necessary to improve hunter opportunity and implement an appropriate harvest level. c. Fort Hunter Liggett tule elk hunt boundary modification. Public opportunities to hunt elk in Monterey and San Benito counties are limited to the lands within the confines of Fort Hunter Liggett Military base and a portion of the La Panza and San Luis Reservoir tule elk zones. Tule elk populations have increased and their range has expanded beyond existing hunt boundaries. The proposal expands boundaries for the Fort Hunter Liggett tule elk hunt to encompass portions of Monterey, San Benito, and San Luis Obispo counties. The new hunt zone will be called the Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast tule elk hunt (Appendix 13). (Note: the new hunt boundary does not change how public and military hunts are conducted within the military base itself.) In conjunction with modifications to the La Panza zone, a portion of the expanded hunt zone will encompasses the northern portion of the previously established La Panza tule elk zone north of highway 198 to the boundary of the San Luis Reservoir tule elk zone. This is in an effort to improve hunter opportunity, address expanding elk populations, and respond to landowner concerns. These modifications will result in an appropriate harvest level. 4. Modify Season Dates, Hunt Periods, and Tag Ranges: a. Siskiyou Roosevelt elk hunt. Public opportunity to hunt elk in Siskiyou County currently exists. The recommended changes will increase opportunity and address private property conflicts through the establishment of primitive weapon, apprentice, and additional hunt periods while ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 maintaining an appropriate harvest level. As part of these modifications hunting periods will be divided into early season archery/muzzleloader either-sex (0-20); period 1 bull (0-40), antlerless (0-40), apprentice either-sex period 2 bull (0-10) and antlerless (0-40); period 3 bull (0-5) and antlerless (0-20) tags would be available to the public during the hunt periods in each zone. Early season archery/muzzleloader would open on the last Wednesday in August and continue for 9 consecutive days. Period 1 would open on second Saturday in September and continue for 12 consecutive days. Period 2 would open on the last Saturday in September and continue for 12 consecutive days. Period 3 would open on the first Wednesday in November and continue for 16 consecutive days. b. Northeastern Rocky Mountain elk hunt. The proposal modifies the season dates for the bull and antlerless tags in the Northeastern Rocky Mountain elk hunt zone. This is an effort to distribute hunter pressure for this zone. This change will modify the hunt dates for the antlerless tag to begin separately from the bull season. Currently the Northeastern Rocky Mountain elk hunt has authorized tag ranges for antlerless (0-10) and archery only either-sex (0-20). In an effort to manage at an appropriate harvest level and provide additional opportunity the proposal would modify tag ranges for antlerless (e 0-20), add archery only bull 10), and archery only antlerless (0-10) tags The bull season shall open on September 19 and continue for 12 consecutive days. The antlerless season shall open on the second Saturday in November and continue for 12 consecutive days. c. Cache Creek tule elk hunt. Currently the Cache Creek tule elk hunt has authorized tag ranges for bull (0-4) and antlerless (0-4) tags. In an effort to manage at an appropriate harvest level and allow additional future opportunity to hunters the proposal would modify tag ranges for bull 10) and antlerless (0-10) tags. d. La Panza Tule Elk Hunt. Currently the La Panza elk tule elk hunt has authorized tag ranges for bull (0-12 Periods 1 and 2) and antlerless (0-10 Period 1 and 0-12 Period 2) tags. In an effort to manage at an appropriate harvest level, allow additional future opportunity to hunters, and address landowner concerns, the proposal would modify tag ranges for bull (0-20 Period 1 and 2) and antlerless (0-30 Period 1 and 2) tags. e. Grizzly Island Tule Elk Hunt. The Grizzly Island tule elk population has substantially increased over the last several years. The proposal modifies the seasonal framework, adds additional hunt periods, and modifies tag ranges. This is in an effort to safely distribute hunting pressure while maintaining an appropriate level of harvest. Currently there are five hunt periods ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 consisting of four days each, bull (0-3 during periods 1-3 and 0-2 during periods 4-5), antlerless (0-12 during all periods), and spike (0-6 during all periods). The proposal modifies tag ranges for bull antlerless (0-12), and spike (0-10) for each of the proposed 13 periods. f. Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast tule elk hunt. As part of the overall modifications to the Fort Hunter Liggett tule elk hunt zone. This proposal modifies season dates for the Fort Hunter Liggett tule elk hunts, adjusts tag quotas, and identifies the name change to Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast tule elk hunt. Due to military use constraints, hunt dates on the base are subject to change from year to year. This is part of an effort to increase hunter opportunity and success while achieving an appropriate harvest level. The following season dates apply to both civilian and military tags (military tags are only valid on Fort Hunter Liggett military base). The archery only either-sex hunt shall open on the last Wednesday in July and continue for 9 consecutive days The archery antlerless hunt shall open on the last Wednesday in September and continue for 9 consecutive days (0-10). Period 1 bull (range 0-14) and antlerless (0-16) shall open on the first Thursday in November and continue for 9 consecutive days. Period 2 bull (0-14) and antlerless (range 0-16) shall open November 22 and continue for 9 consecutive days. Period 3 bull (0-14), antlerless (0-14), apprentice bull (0-2) and apprentice antlerless (0-8) hunt shall open on the third Saturday in December and continue for 16 consecutive days. The muzzleloader bull 10) and antlerless (0-6) shall open on the second Saturday in October and continue for 12 consecutive days. Early season military only hunt bull (0-2) and antlerless (0-2) shall open on August 22 and continue for 5 consecutive days. g. San Luis Reservoir tule elk hunt. Tule elk numbers have significantly increased within the San Luis Reservoir zone. The proposal modifies the season dates for the San Luis Reservoir tule elk hunt zone, establishes three separate hunt periods, and modifies tag ranges. This is an effort to distribute hunter pressure over time, reduce potential crowding in popular hunt areas, provide additional opportunities for hunters, and achieve an appropriate harvest level. Currently San Luis Reservoir elk hunt has authorized tag ranges for bull (0-10), antlerless (0-10), and either-sex (0-10). The proposal would establish three separate hunt periods, bull (0-10), antlerless (0-20), and either-sex (0-10) tags for each period. The season for period 1 shall begin on the first Saturday in October and continue for 23 consecutive days. The season for period 2 shall begin on the second Saturday in November and continue for 12 consecutive days. The season for period 3 shall begin on the third Saturday in December and continue for 12 consecutive days. h. Bear Valley tule elk hunt. Currently the Bear Valley tule elk hunt has authorized tag ranges for bull (0-4) and antlerless (0-2) tags. In an effort to manage at an appropriate harvest level, address ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 landowner concerns, and allow additional future opportunity to hunters the proposal would modify tag ranges for bull (range 0-10) and antlerless (range 0-10) tags. i. Lake Pillsbury tule elk hunt. Tule elk numbers have increased within the Lake Pillsbury zone. The proposal modifies the season dates for the Lake Pillsbury tule elk hunt zone, establishes three separate hunt periods, and modifies tag ranges. This is an effort to distribute hunter pressure over time, reduce potential crowding in popular hunt areas, provide additional opportunities for hunters, and achieve an appropriate harvest level. Currently Lake Pillsbury elk hunt has authorized tag ranges for bull (0-4) and antlerless (range 0-4). The proposal would establish three separate hunt periods, bull (0-10) and antlerless 10) tags for each period. Period 1 shall open on the Monday following the fourth Saturday in September and continue for 10 consecutive days. The season for period 2 shall open on the second Wednesday in October and continue for 10 consecutive days. The season for period 3 shall open on the fourth Wednesday in October and continue for 10 consecutive days. j. Santa Clara tule elk hunt. Currently the Santa Clara tule elk hunt has authorized tag ranges for bull In an effort to manage at an appropriate harvest level and allow additional future opportunity to hunters when appropriate the proposal would establish tag ranges for antlerless 20) tags and modify the bull tag range to 0-15. k. Alameda tule elk hunt. Currently the Alameda tule elk hunt has authorized tag ranges for bull In an effort to manage at an appropriate harvest level and allow additional future opportunity to hunters when appropriate the proposal would establish tag ranges for antlerless (0-10) tags. l. Cache Creek apprentice tule elk hunt. Currently the Cache Creek apprentice tule elk hunt has authorized tag ranges for bull (0-4) tags. In an effort to manage at an appropriate harvest level and allow additional future opportunity to hunters the proposal would establish tag ranges for antlerless (0-2) tags. m. Grizzly Island apprentice tule elk hunt. Currently the Grizzly Island apprentice hunts have authorized tag ranges for period 1 antlerless spike (0-4) and period 2 spike In an effort to manage at an appropriate harvest level and allow additional future opportunity to hunters the proposal ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 would establish tag ranges for period 2 antlerless (0-4) tags, period 3 and 4 antlerless and spike (0-4) tags in addition to the established tag ranges for period 1. n. Owens Valley multiple zone tule elk archery only hunt. Currently tag holders can hunt in the Bishop, Independence, Lone Pine, Tinemaha Mountain, and Whitney zones. As part of the zone splitting of the Independence zone and to more effectively distribute hunting pressure the proposal would make the tag valid in the Bishop, Independence, and Lone Pine zones. o. Multi-zone Fund Raising License Tag. Current season dates for each of the zones this tag is valid in (Siskiyou, Marble Mountain, Northwestern, Northeastern, and La Panza) begin prior to the earliest season opening date within each zone. In conjunction with modifications (zone splitting) and the season frame work (additional hunt periods) within these zones and for consistency of seasonal framework the proposal establishes a single season for this tag which shall be valid across the zones. The season for all zones (Del Norte, Humboldt, Marble Mountain North, Marble Mountain South, Northeastern, and La Panza) shall open on the second Saturday in August and continue for 90 consecutive days. The Department is recommending that the Commission adopt regulations that will provide for limited public hunting of Roosevelt, Rocky Mountain, and tule elk in 31 zones. The department is recommending tag allocations within the ranges listed in Appendix 2 for each hunt area with the following seasons: Archery only, muzzleloader only, general, apprentice, archery/muzzleloader only, military, SHARE, and fund raising hunts. Based on historic quotas from the past 5 years, the department expects that the tag quota for 2016 will fall near or below the median of the listed ranges. Additional hunt periods have been added to several hunts to provide the framework for yearly tag adjustments in response to elk movements and distribution. It is anticipated that tag issuance within hunt periods will fall below the median for most periods. Three of the bull elk license tags shall be made available for fund-raising purposes, as authorized pursuant to subsection 332(d), FGC. These tags will be sold pursuant to a regulation adopted by the Commission. In addition, up to 55 Cooperative Elk Hunting tags would be available (directly correlated with the number of general elk tags issued for each hunt). Hunting under authority of the PLM Program would continue and not more than 115 antlerless and 140 bull tags would be recommended under the PLM Program. One element of the proposed project provides archery only elk hunt periods at specified locations. The proposed project provides archery only tags each for Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast tule elk hunt, Northeastern California Rocky Mountain elk hunt, and tule elk hunts within the Owens Valley. Hunt periods exclusively for archers are designated at each location. ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 Another element of the proposed project provides muzzleloader only elk hunt periods at specified locations. The proposed project provides muzzleloader only tags for Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast, and hunts within the Owens Valley tule elk hunts. An additional element of the proposed project provides archery/muzzleloader only hunt periods at a specified location. The proposed project provides combination archery and muzzleloader only tags for the Marble Mountain (North and South) and the Siskiyou Roosevelt elk hunts. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING CONDITIONS THE MANAGEMENT OF ELK IN CALIFORNIA There are three subspecies of elk in California: Roosevelt, Rocky Mountain, and tule elk. Roosevelt elk occupied the Cascade and Coast mountain ranges as far south as San Francisco (Harper et al. 1967), and eastward at least to Mount Shasta (Murie 1951). Tule elk were distributed throughout the Central, Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys and the grasslands and woodlands of central California's Coast Range (McCullough 1969). Although there appears to be disagreement regarding their subspecific status, both Murie (1951) and McCullough (1969) included portions of Shasta, Siskiyou and Modoc counties in northeastern California within the historical range of Rocky Mountain elk. Further clarification of the historical and current subspecific status of elk in northeastern California is unlikely because of the translocation of Rocky Mountain elk to the Pit River area in the early 1900s. However, predictions of genetic flow across the landscape supported by the journal entries of early American explorers suggest that elk have been endemic to northeastern California for thousands of years. Locations where historical specimens of Rocky Mountain elk have been recovered have helped scientists map the probable routes taken by these highly mobile ungulates as they populated North America (McCullough 1969). Because of their large body size and the availability of smaller prey, it is unlikely that Native Americans had a significant impact on elk populations in California. Early explorers also had little direct impact on elk populations. Apparently they preferred domestic livestock to elk (McCullough 1969). However, these early explorers were responsible for the introduction of exotic annual grasses and domestic livestock, both of which had long-term, deleterious impacts on California's elk populations. Livestock competed directly with elk for forage and contributed to the conversion of the native perennial grasslands to annual grasslands, which resulted in the loss of important forage plants used by elk during the summer and fall months. Historical Perspective of Roosevelt Elk Management Although once widely distributed throughout northern California, by the late 1800s, Roosevelt elk were extirpated throughout much of their historic California range. ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 Barnes (1925a, 1925b) reported that by 1925, Roosevelt elk range in California was reduced to one small area in Humboldt and Del Norte counties. Mining, logging, agriculture, and market shooting were factors that contributed to the decimation of Roosevelt elk in much of California. Because of their large body size and herding behavior, elk were vulnerable to market shooting. Harper et al. (1967) discussed the historical distribution of Roosevelt elk in California and reported that by 1967 the population was increasing in size and in no danger of extinction. Based on the current distribution of Roosevelt elk in California (Appendix 14), population growth and range expansion has continued since 1967. Public ownership (USFS and BLM) of large tracts of Roosevelt elk habitat and the associated Congressional mandates and directions to provide for and maintain wildlife habitats have resulted in significant Roosevelt elk population increases during the 20th century. Roosevelt elk herds in California are now healthy and viable. Populations of Roosevelt elk currently exist in the coastal areas of Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte counties, in addition to the Cascade and Klamath mountain ranges in Siskiyou and Trinity counties. Some of these populations were established when the Department (in cooperation with other State and Federal agencies) relocated elk to suitable historic range. Other populations were established when elk moved into California from Oregon. Additionally, new populations have become established through the dispersal of elk from existing populations to adjacent suitable areas. The Department currently estimates the statewide Roosevelt elk population at between 5,000-6,000 individuals. This estimate is based on field observations and professional judgment and experience obtained in studying elk throughout California, the Department has determined that this estimate of total population size is reasonable. Tule elk generally exist in open habitat types and can be captured in large numbers (40 or more at a time) by herding them into large corral type traps with the aid of a helicopter. On the other hand, Roosevelt elk use forested habitat types, where they are often impossible to see from a helicopter because of the dense forest canopy. For this reason, helicopter-assisted capturing of Roosevelt elk is generally not effective in California. Nevertheless, successful Roosevelt elk translocations have occurred when large groups have been captured in Redwood National Park or on winter range in Oregon. Since 1985, the Department has translocated more than 280 Roosevelt elk to reestablish populations in portions of southern Humboldt, Mendocino, Siskiyou, and Trinity counties. Historical Perspective of Rocky Mountain Elk Management There are currently three populations of Rocky Mountain elk in the State (Appendix 14), totaling approximately 1,500-2,000 animals. This estimate was developed using procedures similar to those used to estimate Roosevelt elk numbers. One population of elk has become established in the Warner Mountains in Modoc County. This population was established by natural immigration of elk from ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 southeastern Oregon and/or northern California. Two populations of Rocky Mountain elk exist in the southern part of the State. One population in southwestern Monterey and northwestern San Luis Obispo counties occurs on the Los Padres National Forest and the surrounding private lands. Another Rocky Mountain elk population exists in southern Kern County. Based on periodic ground and aerial surveys conducted by the Department, there are approximately 300-500 elk in these two southern populations, which were established through translocation efforts. The population of Rocky Mountain elk proposed for regulated public hunting is scattered throughout portions of Lassen, Modoc, Shasta and Siskiyou counties. A portion of this population was established in 1913 by the Redding Elks Club. Fifty elk were loaded on boxcars in Gardiner, Montana (near Yellowstone National Park), and released at the Bully Hill Mine in Shasta County. During subsequent years, animals dispersed from the release site (and from other locations in southeastern Oregon) to scattered locations throughout northeastern California. Historical Perspective of Tule Elk Management Although smaller than Roosevelt elk, the tule elk is one of the largest land mammals endemic to California. Tule elk likely evolved from Rocky Mountain elk in California during the Pleistocene (McCullough 1969). Tule elk made a lasting impression on the first Europeans to arrive in California. Accounts in journals and diaries of these early explorers indicate that approximately 500,000 tule elk inhabited much of the oak-woodland and oak-grassland habitat types in the State (McCullough 1969). Appendix 15 depicts historic tule elk range. The discovery of gold at Sutter's Mill in 1848 brought about the greatest impact on the tule elk population, both in terms of immediate reduction of total elk numbers and permanent loss of habitat. The large influx of people into California during the gold rush era resulted in tremendous pressures placed on the State's wildlife resources. People needed clothing and food, which could be obtained from elk. Market hunters soon eliminated tule elk from large accessible areas of their range. The elk's large size, coupled with their social behavior (herding), increased their vulnerability to market shooting (McCullough 1969). However, more important than market hunting, competition with livestock, or the conversion of perennial grasslands to annual grasslands, was the conversion of large amounts of tule elk habitat to agricultural land uses. By the late 1860s, tule elk were extirpated from all but one small locale in the southern San Joaquin Valley (McCullough 1969). In 1874, while draining a marsh on the Miller-Lux Cattle Ranch in what is now Kern County, workers observed a small group of tule elk. Henry Miller, an extremely wealthy and powerful landowner, ordered complete protection of tule elk on his land. This was to be the first in a series of cases where, under complete protection, tule elk numbers and distribution expanded, resulting in considerable damage to private property (Fowler 1985). ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 By the turn of the century, the elk on the Miller-Lux Ranch were causing extensive damage to fences, crops, and irrigated pasture. Miller requested the elk be relocated in an effort to reduce his damages. Over the next few years, the U.S. Biological Survey attempted to relocate tule elk via the "rodeo technique" (ropes and horseback). This technique did not provide positive results. In fact, the majority of the elk were killed during capture attempts or during transport to the release sites. A single relocation was considered partially successful when 21 elk were relocated to the Sequoia National Park. However, they died out by 1926 (McCullough 1969). McCullough (1969) stated that by 1914 tule elk were causing $5,000-$10,000 damage per year on the Miller-Lux Ranch. At this time, the California Academy of Science took over the tule elk relocation effort. The Academy was much more successful in capturing tule elk because they baited elk into a corral trap instead of attempting to capture them from horseback. During the period from 1914 to 1934, the Academy relocated 235 tule elk to 22 different locations, including Cache Creek and the Owens Valley. As was the case with the earlier relocation attempts by the U.S. Biological Survey, the majority of the relocation projects were unsuccessful. Tule elk at Cache Creek were allowed to expand their range and, until the summer of 1986, did not cause significant damage to private property. At the Tupman Tule Elk Reserve, elk were confined to a 953-acre enclosure, no mechanisms for population control were used, and the herd expanded to a point where the habitat was essentially destroyed and artificial feeding was necessary. This situation was greatly improved as a result of reducing the population by moving tule elk to other sites. In addition, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has undertaken numerous habitat improvement projects. In an effort to reduce damage to the improved habitat, the Department of Fish and Wildlife has held the herd size at 30-35 individuals by periodically relocating surplus elk. In the Owens Valley, the Miller-Lux story repeated itself. Under total protection, elk numbers in the Valley increased rapidly, and local farmers and ranchers soon were experiencing serious depredation problems, including damage to fences, irrigation equipment, and alfalfa. In 1943, the Department attempted to provide depredation relief by recommending public hunting of tule elk in the Valley. From 1943 through 1969, the Commission approved a total of seven elk hunts. These hunts were not well received by farmers, who wanted all the elk removed, or animal preservationists, who objected to the rather drastic herd reductions. By 1960, concern by tule elk preservationists resulted in the formation of the Committee for the Preservation of Tule Elk. The Committee and other interested groups opposed hunting of tule elk. After the adoption of the 1969 tule elk hunt by the Commission, the Committee for the Preservation of Tule Elk sought legislation to prohibit hunting of tule elk. In 1971, specific legislation (commonly referred to as the Behr Bill) was enacted into law. This law restricted the Commission's authority to authorize the take of tule elk until their statewide numbers exceeded 2,000 or until the Legislature determined that ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 there were insufficient areas available to accommodate such a number in a healthy state. It also required the Department to relocate elk to suitable areas and to report to the Legislature every two years on the status of the State's tule elk herds. Additionally, the legislation stated the Owens Valley elk population should not exceed 490 individuals. Tule Elk Management (1971 through Present) In 1971, Section 332, FGC, was amended to prohibit the Commission from authorizing the take of tule elk until the statewide population estimate exceeded 2,000 animals (Koch 1989). At that time, approximately 500 tule elk inhabited California. In 1971, upon amendment of Section 332, and addition of Section 3951, FGC, the Department was required to identify suitable relocation sites for a species which was known to wander great distances (over and through fences) and for its potential to damage agricultural crops. There were very few individuals or government agencies with suitable tule elk habitat which offered their lands for tule elk relocation. In 1976, the United States Congress passed Public Law (PL) 94-389, which concurred with the amended California law in recognizing that the establishment of tule elk populations totaling 2,000 animals was an appropriate national goal and in setting the ceiling of 490 tule elk for the Owens Valley. More important, however, PL 94-389 required the secretaries of Defense, Agriculture, and the Interior to cooperate with the State in making suitable Federal lands reasonably available for tule elk. Additionally, in 1977, the Secretary of the Interior recommended to Congress that an Interagency Task Force be established to carry out the provisions of Federal and State legislation. At the direction of Congress, the Tule Elk Interagency Task Force was established in 1977. The Management Plan for the Conservation of Tule Elk was completed by the Task Force in 1977 and revised in 1985. In the plan, the Task Force provided specific criteria to be met for an area to be considered a suitable tule elk release site. These criteria are based on sound biological principles, and take into account land-use practices and the laws and regulations of the State (Appendix 16). Since its preparation, the Management Plan for the Conservation of Tule Elk has served as the foundation for the Department's tule elk management activities. Total protection after 1971, coupled with an aggressive reintroduction program in which over 1,170 tule elk have been moved to new areas of the State, resulted in a dramatic increase in the statewide tule elk population. However, as in the past, this increase in elk numbers and occupied range has resulted in a situation where at least 12 of the State's tule elk herds have caused or are continuing to cause damage to private property. In response to the increasing level of tule elk damage to property occurring in the State, Hauser introduced legislation (AB 998) in 1987 which amended FGC sections 332 and 3951. Assembly Bill 998 was approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor on September 27, ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 1987. As amended, Section 332 allows the Commission to authorize tule elk hunting if the average of the Department's statewide tule elk population estimate exceeds 2,000 animals. Section 3951 specified that the maximum number of tule elk in the Owens Valley should not exceed 490 individuals, and directed the Department to relocate tule elk to suitable areas within the State and report to the Legislature every two years on their status in California (the last report to the Legislature was submitted in October, 2000 and legislation in 2001 eliminated the reporting requirement). The statute also requires that, where economic or environmental damage occurs, emphasis shall be placed on managing each tule elk herd at biologically sound levels through the use of relocation, hunting, or other appropriate means determined by the Department. Section 3951, FGC, also requires the Department to prepare management plans for "high priority areas, including, but not limited to Potter Valley and Mendocino County..." The Legislature only defined Potter Valley and Mendocino County as high-priority areas and left the responsibility of determining other high-priority areas to the Department. In addition to Potter Valley and Mendocino County, the Department identified Grizzly Island, La Panza, Cache Creek, Lone Pine, Tinemaha, and Bishop as other high-priority areas. Management plans for these and eight other areas have been completed and approved by the Department. In 1987, the statewide tule elk population exceeded 2,000 animals and the Commission established regulations under which a limited number of tule elk would be hunted in 1988 (Fish and Game Commission, Statement of Purpose for Regulatory Action, January 11, 1988). However, in September 1988, a citizens group obtained a court order preventing implementation of the regulations, based primarily on a finding that the Commission's decision did not comply with CEQA. In 1989, the Department prepared an environmental document regarding tule elk hunting, which was circulated for review as provided for by CEQA. The Commission certified the environmental document and adopted regulations providing for the take of up to 95 tule elk from specific areas in the State (the Bishop and Lone Pine subherds and a portion of the herd at Cache Creek). Eighty-four elk were taken by hunters during the 1989 tule elk hunting season. Since 1989 the Department has prepared the appropriate environmental documentation to continue to provide for public hunting of tule elk from specific populations. In 1990, Hauser introduced legislation which was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor (AB 2848), amending Section 332, FGC, to allow the Commission to authorize issuance of up to three elk tags for fund-raising purposes. All revenue generated by the "fund-raising" tags is to be used for elk management in California. Since 1990, the Commission has authorized public tule elk hunting at additional locations, including Alameda County, Glenn County, Grizzly Island, Fort Hunter Liggett, Fresno County, Kern County, Kings County, Lake County, Mendocino County, Merced County, Inyo County, Santa Clara County, and Stanislaus County. The dramatic increase in numbers and distribution has provided a substantial increase in opportunities for viewing, photographing, and natural history study of tule elk. ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 Currently (October 2016), there are at least 5,100 tule elk in 22 separate herds throughout California (Appendix 14). Four herds (San Luis, Tupman, Point Reyes, and Grizzly Island) have formal interpretive programs where the public has the opportunity to view, photograph, and observe the natural history of tule elk with assistance provided by experienced State, Federal, or volunteer staff. A tule elk viewpoint along a major highway has been established for the Tinemaha subherd. There the public can view, photograph, and study the behavior of tule elk. Interpretive signs can also be found for the Cache Creek tule elk herd. Additionally, major land acquisitions by the Department, The Nature Conservancy, and BLM in the La Panza Tule Elk Management Unit in San Luis Obispo County and in the Cache Creek Tule Elk Management Unit (Colusa, Lake, and Yolo counties) provide increased access to areas used by elk. The management plan for the La Panza Tule Elk Management Unit contains a specific element for developing formal interpretive programs. In addition to the herds which have established interpretive programs, approximately one-half of the State's tule elk exist on public lands where the public has opportunities to observe and photograph tule elk. Existing conditions regarding elk hunting Regulated public hunting for Roosevelt elk has occurred annually in California since 1986, whereas annual hunting for Rocky Mountain began in 1987. Public tule elk hunting has been authorized by the Commission annually since 1989. Although additional public hunts for Roosevelt, Rocky Mountain and tule elk have been established subsequent to 1986, annual elk hunting has been part of the existing conditions in California for the last 29 years. Appendix 17 lists the verbatim for the current condition of elk hunting in California. PLM Hunts The PLM Program was authorized by the Legislature to protect and improve wildlife habitat by encouraging private landowners to manage their property to benefit fish and wildlife. Economic incentives are provided to landowners through biologically sound yet flexible seasons for game species, resulting in high-quality hunting opportunities which may be marketed by the landowner in the form of fee hunting and other forms of recreation. Section 601, Title 14, CCR, contains regulations adopted by the Commission pertaining to the program, and sections FGC 3400-3409 contain the subject statutes. Landowners have the right to charge access fees for hunting, fishing, and other recreation on their property. The Department carefully reviews each plan to ensure that required habitat improvement efforts benefit many species of wildlife and that harvest strategies comply with accepted goals and objectives for management of the game species involved. The PLM Program further allows the Commission to authorize hunting and fishing seasons and bag limits specific to licensed PLM areas pursuant to ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 approved management plans. The PLM Program currently is an element of the Department's elk management program. During 2015, five landowners offered opportunities to hunt Rocky Mountain elk, 33 landowners offered opportunities to hunt tule elk, and 12 landowners offered opportunities to hunt Roosevelt elk through the PLM Program. It is anticipated that up to three additional landowners will enroll in the program and hunt Roosevelt elk in 2016 and potentially two will enroll and hunt tule elk in 2016. During 2016, the Department does not expect major changes to the PLM participants identified in Appendix 18. Cooperative Elk Hunting Area hunts (Section 555, Title 14, CCR). To encourage protection and enhancement of elk habitat and provide eligible landowners an opportunity for limited elk hunting on their lands, the department may establish cooperative elk hunting areas and issue license tags to allow the take of elk (Appendix 19 Section 555, Title 14, CCR). The existing regulations also provided for up to 40 tags through the Cooperative Elk Hunting Program during 2015, however only 30 tags were issued. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The Legislature formulates laws and policies regulating the management of fish and wildlife in California. The general wildlife conservation policy of the State is to encourage the conservation and maintenance of wildlife resources under the jurisdiction and influence of the State (Section 1801, FGC). The policy includes several objectives, as follows: 1. To provide for the beneficial use and enjoyment of wildlife by all citizens of the State; 2. To perpetuate all species of wildlife for their intrinsic and ecological values, as well as for their direct benefits to man; 3. To provide for aesthetic, educational, and non-appropriative uses of the various wildlife species; 4. To maintain diversified recreational uses of wildlife, including hunting, as proper uses of certain designated species of wildlife, subject to regulations consistent with the maintenance of healthy, viable wildlife resources, the public safety, and a quality outdoor experience; 5. To provide for economic contributions to the citizens of the State through the recognition that wildlife is a renewable resource of the land by which economic return can accrue to the citizens of the State, individually and collectively, through regulated management. Such management shall be consistent with the maintenance of healthy and thriving wildlife resources and ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 the public ownership status of the wildlife resource; 6. To alleviate economic losses or public health and safety problems caused by wildlife; and 7. To maintain sufficient populations of all species of wildlife and the habitat necessary to achieve the above-stated objectives. With respect to tule elk, the Legislature has established the State's policy regarding management in sections 332, 3951 and 3952, FGC. Section 332 provides that the Commission may determine and fix the area or areas, the season and hours, the bag and possession limit, procedures for making elk hunting tags available (including fund-raising tags), and the number of elk that may be taken under the rules and regulations of the Commission. This law also provides that the Commission may authorize the take of tule elk if the average of the Department's statewide tule elk population estimate exceeds 2,000 animals or the Legislature determines, pursuant to reports provided by the Department, that suitable areas cannot be found in California to accommodate such a number in a healthy condition. In addition to providing the Commission with the authority to authorize the take of tule elk pursuant to Section 332, Section 3951 requires that when relocating tule elk to suitable areas the Department shall cooperate to the maximum extent possible with Federal and local agencies, as well as private landowners. Sections 3951 and 3952 require that, when economic or environmental damage occurs, the Department shall manage tule elk herds at sound biological levels through the use of relocation, hunting, or other appropriate means, as determined by the Department. Section 3951 establishes a maximum tule elk population level of 490 animals in the Owens Valley. The Department has concluded that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. No mitigation measures or alternatives to the proposed project are needed. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Climate changes caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are expected to result in marked changes in climate throughout the world (deVos, J.C. and T. McKinney, 2007). Although many wildlife habitats in North America have become progressively warmer and drier in the last 12,000 years, the greatest rate of change has occurred during the last 150 years (Fredrickson et al. 1998). Predicted changes due to continued warming include increased frequency and severity of wildfires, increased frequency of extreme weather events, regional variation in precipitation, northward and upward shifts in vegetative communities, and replacements of biotic communities. These changes are expected to affect abundance, distribution, and structure of animal and vegetative communities. Local and specific regional changes in climate and associated changes in vegetative communities will be the determining factors regarding the distribution and abundance of elk in California. Although research specific to elk responses to climate change is ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 limited, what information does exist indicates that both adverse and beneficial effects - depending on a variety of local/regional factors such as latitude, elevation, topography, and aspect – can be expected to result. For example, in the Rocky Mountain National Park where snow accumulation currently limits elk winter range, computer simulations suggest a reduction in future snow accumulations of up to 25-40%. An expansion of winter range would serve to increase over-winter survival and recruitment of juveniles into the adult population, leading to an increase of the overall elk population in that area (Hobbs et al. 2006). Conversely, research in Banff National Park, Canada indicates climate change will result in colder winter temperatures, increased snowfall, and a higher frequency of winter storms (Hebblewhite, 2005). These factors would result in a decrease in over-winter survival and recruitment, leading to an overall reduction of the elk population for that area. Elk hunting in California is regulated by the State Fish and Game Commission. Hunting seasons and tag quotas are proposed to the Commission for adoption on an annual basis. These seasons and quotas are based on annual population and harvest data, annual population model results, and area-specific population/harvest objectives. Although the impact of climate change on California’s elk population is difficult to predict and warrants continued study, the Department and the Commission have the ability to quickly respond to population fluctuations (positive or negative) by increasing or decreasing hunter opportunity in accordance with current and future management objectives for this species. However, reducing one mortality factor (sport hunting) will not alone mitigate for impacts associated with global climate change; the ability to manage and provide adequate amounts of required habitats is the ultimate deciding factor in wildlife populations. POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The potential for significant effects include impacts on the gene pool, impacts on social structure, effects on habitat, effects on recreational opportunities, effects on other wildlife species, effects on economics, effects on public safety, growth inducing impacts, short-term uses and long term productivity, significant irreversible environmental changes, welfare to the individual animal, and cumulative impacts. The proposed project allows limited public, PLM, and Cooperative hunting of Roosevelt elk in six areas including all or portions of Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Tehama, Trinity, and Siskiyou counties. In addition, Rocky Mountain elk in portions of Lassen, Modoc, Monterey, Shasta, San Luis Obispo, and Siskiyou counties, and tule elk in portions of Alameda, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Lake, Mendocino, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, and Ventura counties. The project is designed to avoid adverse environmental impacts and will result in removing not more than 603 Roosevelt elk, 108 Rocky Mountain elk, and 621 tule elk as a result of hunting programs on an annual basis (Table 2, including PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative Elk Hunting). The number of tags issued to result in at or below the analyzed harvest is based on previous years average hunter success for the ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 corresponding zone and tag type. Of these tags not more than 255 tags will be issued to hunt at specific locations in California under the PLM Program. In summary, the proposed project will involve elk hunting (public, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags) for six of the State's Roosevelt elk areas, three Rocky Mountain elk areas, and 16 tule elk areas. TABLE 2 HARVEST LEVEL ANALYZED (Includes General, SHARE, Cooperative, Military, and PLM) Hunt Zones Type Roosevelt Elk Hunts Bull Antlerless Del Norte 42 62 Humboldt 64 65 Marble Mountain North 61 60 Marble Mountain South 61 60 Siskiyou 40 50 Roosevelt/Tule Elk Hunts Mendocino Lower Lake 0 0 Mendocino Middle Fork 12 11 Mendocino North Coast 18 20 Mendocino South Coast 1 1 Mendocino Upper Russian 12 16 Rocky Mountain Elk Hunts Northeastern California 40 40 PLM hunts outside northeast 15 13 Tule Elk Hunts Bear Valley 8 11 Cache Creek 4 3 East Park 4 10 Lake Pillsbury 6 7 Alameda 3 2 Grizzly Island 32 70 Santa Clara 10 10 Camp Roberts 15 30 FHL Central Coast 40 70 La Panza 50 70 San Emigdio 10 24 San Luis Reservoir 15 30 Owens Valley Hunts 25 9 Total 588 744 Total Maximum Harvest 1332 ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 Elk hunting will result in the death of individual animals. The removal of individual animals from selected herds which are relatively large and healthy will not significantly reduce herd size on a long-term basis. Production and survival of young animals within each herd will replace the animals removed by hunting (Fowler 1985, Racine et al. 1988). Since public elk hunting will affect no more than 25 of the State's elk areas under the proposed project and all alternatives considered, removal of individuals will have little influence on the statewide elk population. The herds where hunting is proposed are geographically separated and widely distributed. The proposed project will result in maintaining the statewide tule elk population well above the legislative limit of 2,000 elk. Therefore, the proposed action of removing no more than approximately 1,077 elk by public hunting (general, SHARE, and Cooperative hunts) and 255 elk through the PLM Program will not have a significant adverse impact on either local or statewide elk populations (Table The Department does not anticipate issuing up to the maximum number of tags in most areas but has analyzed that potential impact under the proposed project. Appendix 20 describes the modifications from the 2015 elk hunting regulations the Department is proposing to incorporate in the 2016 elk hunting regulations. Appendix 21 describes the impacts these modifications will have on the twelve (12) factors examined in each of the prior nineteen (19) environmental documents (1988 through 2010 – Department files) certified by the Fish and Game Commission regarding elk hunting. The modifications proposed include adding two entirely new hunt boundaries, splitting four existing hunt zones into eleven (11) zones, expanding two hunt zones, modifying one hunt boundary, adding additional periods to six hunt zones, modifying season dates for one hunt zone, modifying tag ranges for ten (10) elk zones, modifying available hunt areas for one archery only elk hunt, and modifying season dates for the fund raising tags. Methodology A computer model which simulates herd performance (Smith and Updike 1987) was used to assess effects of the proposed action on elk herds where hunting is anticipated. A variety of natural and human-induced factors combine to affect the status of a wildlife population. Natural factors affecting elk populations include, but are not limited to, such things as predation, starvation, disease, and parasitism. Environmental factors precipitation) can affect food quantity and quality, thereby affecting elk populations. Theoretically, competition among members of the same species and between different species deer, elk) also can affect elk populations. Catastrophic events wildfires) can affect localized populations on a short-term basis. Human-induced factors, such as urbanization and agricultural development, also affect elk populations. ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 Hunting can affect a population in various ways, depending on the intensity and level of harvest. Modern wildlife management uses models to analyze, understand, and predict the outcomes and complex interactions of the natural environment. Like many other technical fields that affect everyday life of society, such as chemical engineering, aerospace technology, and climatology, the science of wildlife management has found that the use of models is invaluable for predicting the effects of human-induced and natural events on wildlife and their habitat. Population models can range from simple word models (the statement "elk are born, grow up, reproduce and die" is a grossly simple word model of a population process) to highly complex and sophisticated mathematical abstractions. Some models are empirical (that is, based on observed data), and others are theoretical. Many models are useful in helping to frame conceptualizations of population processes, resulting in testable predictions about the subject at hand. Nevertheless, the goal of a model is to aid in analyzing known facts and relationships that would be too cumbersome or time consuming to analyze manually. Some of these models describe specific systems in a very detailed way, and others deal with general questions in a relatively abstract fashion. All share the common purpose of helping to construct a broad framework within which to assemble an otherwise complex mass of field and laboratory observations. Though we often think of models in terms of equations and computers, they can be defined more generally as any physical or abstract concepts of the structure and function of "real systems" or natural occurrences. There are numerous software packages available to aid in the analysis of data from elk populations and their ranges. To effectively investigate the combined effects of hunting on an elk population, a population model which acts dynamically should be employed. Simulation modeling, in which the dynamics of a population are mimicked through bookkeeping of birth and death rates, is useful in wildlife management for exploring population responses to changes in management strategies, hunting; Walters 1986). This modeling will be discussed further. Key in the development and use of any model is its reliability. The models used in this document have been developed based on field observation, published literature, and/or expert opinion. They have been tested against known results and are consistent. Compensatory Response The Stock-Recruitment model (Ricker 1954, McCullough 1984) is useful for conceptualizing compensatory mechanisms and density-dependent responses that are believed to occur in wildlife populations. This model shows population responses to changes in density in terms of net recruitment the survival of calves). It has the advantage of not requiring assumptions about internal birth and death rates, and it can be empirical. ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 The fundamental assumption of the Stock-Recruitment model is that calf survival is a function of population density and decreases as density increases (the converse is also true). There is a large body of evidence indicating that this is the case among populations of elk (McCullough 1979, Clutton-Brock et al. 1982). Thus, density can be measured in either absolute or relative terms, and with net recruitment one can begin to build a model that will allow predictions of the population's response to changes in density. At a low population size, even with a high recruitment rate, few new individuals enter the population, but their survival is higher. As population size increases, so does the number of recruits, up to a certain level. The rate of recruitment decreases as a result of lower survival of young. The degree of elk harvest necessary to achieve maximum sustained yield (MSY) can be expected to result in low population densities. Objectives to maximize residual population size and MSY are necessarily mutually exclusive. This has important implications for harvest management, as harvesting to achieve MSY suppresses the total population below its maximum potential. Spring population size (after calves are born) is thus below the carrying capacity of the range (McCullough 1984). At high densities, the premortality population will temporarily exceed carrying capacity (if the area is at carrying capacity – few of California’s elk populations are believed to be at carrying capacity), resulting in possible habitat damage. When population sizes are at or near the range carrying capacity, yield will be low (proportionately), because recruitment of calves is low relative to herds at lower density. In such cases, increases in harvest result in increased net recruitment, and the population will stabilize at a new population size if the new harvest level remains fixed (McCullough 1984). Elk Pop (Smith and Updike 1987) is a microcomputer-based model which was developed by the Department for the purpose of analyzing harvest alternatives. Elk Pop was used to assess effects of the proposed project (and project alternatives) on the specific Roosevelt, Rocky Mountain, and tule elk herds where hunting is proposed. The model allows the user to vary carrying capacity to reflect real-world changes in habitat capability. Observed population age and sex ratios are primary input to the model. Elk Pop allows analysis of multiple harvest alternatives simultaneously and is easily adapted to most herd situations. Elk Pop utilizes data on age and sex composition of the herd, maximum calf survival, estimated population numbers, nonhunting mortality, and hunting mortality. Age and sex composition and maximum calf survival figures used in the model are based on actual observed rates. Population level and nonhunting mortality rates were estimated. Estimates of nonhunting mortality rates were considered valid representations of actual nonhunting mortality rates when the model predicted the observed herd composition ratios for 10 consecutive years. Effects of various harvest scenarios were then predicted on the basis of observed composition ratios and estimated nonhunting ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 mortality rates. The computer model runs for various harvest scenarios (proposed project and the alternatives) for each elk herd where hunting is proposed can be found in Appendix 4. IMPACTS OF HUNTING ON ELK POPULATIONS Elk hunting will result in the death of individual animals. The removal of individual animals from selected herds which are relatively large and healthy will not significantly reduce herd size on a long-term basis. Production and survival of young animals within each herd will replace the animals removed by hunting (Fowler 1985, Racine et al. 1988). Since public elk hunting will affect no more than 26 of the State's elk areas under the proposed project and all alternatives considered, removal of individuals will have little influence on the statewide elk population. The herds where hunting is proposed are geographically separated and widely distributed. The proposed project will result in maintaining the statewide tule elk population well above the legislative limit of 2,000 elk. Therefore, the proposed action of removing no more than 1,077 elk by public hunting and 255 elk through the PLM Program will not have a significant adverse impact on either local or statewide elk populations (Table Numbers of elk harvested in the Big Lagoon, Klamath, Marble Mountains, Northeastern, Northwestern, and Siskiyou hunts during 2014 are reported in Table 3. Table 3 includes Roosevelt and Rocky Mountain elk that were taken by hunters in the PLM, public and Cooperative Elk Hunting programs. The Big Lagoon and Klamath hunts are no longer utilized hunt zones and currently (2015) fall within the Northwestern elk hunt boundary. ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 Roosevelt and Rocky Mountain Elk Units Siskiyou Roosevelt Elk Herds There are 600-750 elk within the hunt area boundary. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 40 bulls and 50 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Bull, antlerless, and either-sex tags would be issued across three general hunt periods and one archery/muzzleloader only. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario (90 elk killed, 40 bulls and 50 antlerless) indicate the population would continue to expand in total numbers and suggest that the calf-to-cow ratio will increase as a result of the proposed project. Based on computer simulation, the bull-to-cow ratio would also increase as a result of the proposed project. The Department will continue to monitor this population and will adjust the tag quota if the bull-to-cow ratio decreases as a result of the proposed quota. TABLE 3 Roosevelt and Rocky Mountain Elk Harvest in 2014 Herd PLM General Season Cooperative Elk Hunting Total Bulls Cows Bulls Cows Bulls Cows Marble Mountains 21 5 4 0 30 Siskiyou 11 5 3 2 21 Northwestern 22 3 2 0 27 Klamath 1 0 0 0 1 Big Lagoon 5 0 0 0 5 Northeastern 11 6 1 1 19 PLM - Roosevelt 10 4 14 PLM – Rocky Mtn. 14 4 18 Total 24 8 71 19 10 3 135 Although the proposed project may result in up to 90 individual elk in the Siskiyou hunt being killed by hunters, the information provided indicates the proposed level of harvest will not have a significant negative effect on the local population (herd). In fact, available information suggests that elk population numbers within the hunt area in Siskiyou County have increased since the Commission authorized this hunt in 1986. ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 Prior to implementation of the hunt, Fischer and Kitchen (1984) observed a minimum of 51 individuals in the herd (based on 21 months of field study) and suggested that there were less than 100 elk within what is now the hunt boundary. Current estimates are over 600 elk within the hunt area. Based on computer simulation modeling of the expected harvest levels, the Department concludes that the proposed project of harvesting up to 90 elk for the Siskiyou Roosevelt elk hunt will not have a significant effect on regional or statewide Roosevelt elk populations. Population numbers have increased within the Siskiyou hunt boundary under current tag allocation levels. Marble Mountains Roosevelt Elk Herds (Marble Mountain North & Marble Mountain South) Since 1985, the Department has released 253 Roosevelt elk in western portions of the Klamath National Forest in an effort to reestablish herds within suitable portions of their historic range. This effort appears to have been successful. Kitchen and Woodard (1995) reported elk population numbers in and near the Happy Camp portion of the hunt area were approximately 300 and continuing to increase. Additional elk are distributed in the following locations: Salmon River drainage, Cecilville, Doggett Creek, Hilt, Alex Hole, Ukonom, Somes Bar, Klamath River, Weaverville, Trinity Alps Wilderness Area, and others. The proposed regulations split the zone into a north and south unit. Simulation runs for both Marble Mountain North and Marble Mountain South were run to model effects of the proposed Roosevelt elk hunts. The Department estimated population numbers at 1500 elk in the north and 1500 elk in the south. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 61 bulls and 60 antlerless elk being harvested in each the north and south zones including, General, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Bull, antlerless, and either-sex tags would be issued across three general hunt periods and one archery/muzzleloader only. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario for each the north and south indicate that population numbers would increase in both the north and south if the proposed project was continued at the same level for a ten-year period. The bull-to-cow ratio would increase. The calf-to-cow ratio would also increase under the proposed harvest scenario. The Department does not anticipate that this harvest scenario will result in adverse impacts to the Marble Mountains North or South Roosevelt elk herds. The apparent increasing trend in population numbers is suggestive that the population can withstand this level of hunting. Northwestern Roosevelt Elk Herds (Del Norte and Humboldt) ---PAGE BREAK--- 34 The proposed regulations split the zone into two distinct units (Del Norte and Humboldt elk zones). Simulation runs for Del Norte and Humboldt zones were run to model effects of the proposed Roosevelt elk hunts. The Department estimated the Del Norte population at 725 elk and the Humboldt population at 850 elk. The proposed project for the Del Norte zone would result in a maximum of 42 bulls and 62 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Bull, antlerless, and either-sex tags would be issued across five general hunt periods. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario for Del Norte indicate that population numbers would continue to increase over a ten-year period. The bull-to-cow ratio would increase, while the calf-to-cow ratio would increase and level off under the proposed harvest scenario. The proposed project for the Humboldt zone would result in a maximum of 64 bulls and 65 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Bull, antlerless, and either-sex tags would be issued across five general hunt periods. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario for Humboldt indicate that population numbers would increase over a ten-year period. The bull-to-cow ratio would decrease and stabilize to an adequate level well above 25 bull-to-cow. The calf-to-cow ratio would increase and stabilize under the proposed harvest scenario. The Department does not anticipate that this harvest scenario will result in adverse impacts to the Del Norte or Humboldt Roosevelt elk herds. The increasing trend in population numbers is suggestive that the population can sustain this level of hunting and continue to increase. Northeastern California Rocky Mountain Elk Herds Elk are endemic to northeastern California, and historically have occurred at various densities when conditions have been favorable (McCullough 1969). Their range has expanded during recent years and population numbers have increased. It is likely that elk emigrated to northeastern California from southern Oregon, and perhaps other locations in northern California. With successful reproduction, herds became established in suitable areas. Elk are not distributed uniformly throughout northeastern California. At present, elk can be found in larger numbers in four general areas: the Warner Mountains, Devils Garden, Whitehorse Reservoir and Burney/Pit River. There are 1,000-1,500 elk within the hunt area boundary. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 40 bulls and 40 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Bull, antlerless, and either-sex tags would be issued during an antlerless, bull and either-sex archery only season. ---PAGE BREAK--- 35 To model effects of the proposed Northeastern Rocky Mountain elk hunt, the Department assumed that maximum hunter success would result in a harvest of 40 bulls and 40 antlerless elk. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario indicate that total population numbers would continue to increase, and that an increase in the bull and calf ratio would occur. The Department does not anticipate that this harvest scenario will result in adverse impacts to the Northeastern Rocky Mountain elk herds. The stable to increasing trend in population numbers is suggestive that the population can withstand this level of hunting. Tejon Ranch PLM In 1966, Mr. Rex Ellsworth obtained a permit to import Rocky Mountain elk from Yellowstone National Park to a fenced compound on his ranch in Kern County approximately 10 miles southwest of Tehachapi (Thomas 1975). In 1967, 290 elk were shipped and 277 were released within the enclosure. Mortalities over the next few months were attributed to capture stress, transport and confinement. By mid-1967 elk began to escape from the enclosure due to a lack of fence maintenance. There are 170-200 elk within the hunt area boundary. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 12 bulls and 7 antlerless elk being harvested. Bull and antlerless tags would be issued during the season. To model effects of the proposed Tejon Ranch elk hunt, the Department assumed that maximum hunter success would result in a harvest of 12 bulls and 7 antlerless elk. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario indicate that total population numbers would remain stable, and that an increase in the bull and calf ratio would occur. The Department does not anticipate that this harvest scenario will result in adverse impacts to the Tejon Ranch elk herd. The stable trend in population numbers is suggestive that the population can withstand this level of hunting. Hearst Ranch PLM There are approximately 130 elk on the PLM. These are Rocky Mountain Elk outside of their historic range in Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 6 bulls and 6 antlerless elk being harvested. Bull and antlerless tags would be issued during the season. To model effects of the proposed Hearst Ranch elk hunt, the Department assumed that maximum hunter success would result in a harvest of 6 bulls and 6 antlerless elk. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario indicate that total population numbers would remain relatively stable, and that an increase in the bull and calf ratio would occur. ---PAGE BREAK--- 36 The Department does not anticipate that this harvest scenario will result in adverse impacts to the Hearst Ranch elk herd. The stable trend in population numbers is suggestive that the population can withstand this level of hunting. Tule/Roosevelt Elk Units Mendocino (North Coast, Middle Fork, Upper Russian, Little lake, and South Coast) The proposed regulation splits and expands the zone into five distinct units (North Coast, Middle Fork, Upper Russian, Little lake, and South Coast elk zones). Simulation runs for these zones were run to model effects of the proposed tule/Roosevelt elk hunts. The Department estimated populations for the North Coast at 420 elk, Middle Fork at 250 elk, Upper Russian at 200 elk, Little lake at 20 elk, and South Coast elk at 40 elk. The proposed project for the Mendocino North Coast zone would result in a maximum of 18 bulls and 20 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario for Mendocino North Coast indicate that population numbers would remain stable to a small increase if this level of harvest was maintained for a ten-year period. The bull-to-cow and calf-to- cow ratio would increase under the proposed harvest scenario. The proposed project for the Mendocino Middle Fork zone would result in a maximum of 12 bulls and 11 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario for Mendocino Middle Fork indicate that population numbers would remain stable to a small increase if this level of harvest was maintained for a ten-year period. The bull-to-cow and calf-to- cow ratio would increase under the proposed harvest scenario. The proposed project for the Mendocino Upper Russian zone would result in a maximum of 12 bulls and 16 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario for Mendocino Upper Russian indicate that population numbers would slowly decrease if this level of harvest was maintained for a ten-year period. The bull-to-cow ratio would decrease at first and then maintain close to the original level. The calf-to-cow ratio would increase under the proposed harvest scenario. The Department will continue to monitor this population and adjust tags if necessary. The proposed project for the Mendocino Little lake zone would result in a 0 elk being harvested. These regulations would establish zone boundaries. Computer simulation runs of this scenario for Mendocino Little Lake (no harvest) indicate that population numbers would slowly increase over a ten-year period. The bull-to-cow and calf-to-cow ratio would increase under this scenario. ---PAGE BREAK--- 37 The proposed project for the Mendocino South Coast zone would result in a maximum of 1 bulls and 1 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, PLM, and SHARE elk tags. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario for Mendocino South Coast indicate that population numbers would slowly increase over a ten-year period. The bull-to-cow and calf-to-cow ratio would increase under the proposed harvest scenario. Bull and antlerless tags would be issued across during the general, SHARE, and PLM hunt periods. The Department does not anticipate that this harvest scenario will result in adverse impacts to the Mendocino (North Coast, Middle Fork, Upper Russian, Little lake, and South Coast) tule/Roosevelt elk herds. The stable to increasing trend in population numbers is suggestive that the population can withstand this level of hunting. Tule Elk Units Numbers of tule elk harvested in the general elk zones and PLM during 2014 are reported in Table 4. Table 4 includes tule elk that were taken by hunters in the PLM, public and Cooperative Elk Hunting programs. TABLE 4 Tule Elk Harvest in 2014 Herd PLM General Season Cooperative Elk Hunting Total Bulls Cows Bulls Cows Bulls Cows Alameda 0 0 0 Bear Valley 1 0 1 Cache Creek 3 2 5 East Park 2 2 4 Fort Hunter Liggett 9 4 13 Grizzly Island 16 28 44 Lake Pillsbury 2 4 6 La Panza 12 11 0 1 24 Mendocino 2 1 3 Owens Valley 26 0 26 San Luis Res. 3 0 3 Santa Clara 1 0 1 PLM - Tule 58 46 104 Total 58 46 77 52 0 1 234 Alameda Tule Elk Herds There are 100-200 elk within the hunt area boundary. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 3 bulls and 2 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, ---PAGE BREAK--- 38 PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Bull and antlerless tags would be issued during the general and PLM seasons. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario indicate the population would continue to expand in total numbers and suggest that the calf-to-cow ratio will increase as a result of the proposed project. Based on computer simulation, the bull-to-cow ratio would decrease and then stabilize as a result of the proposed project. The Department will continue to monitor this population and will adjust the tag quota if the bull-to-cow ratio further decreases. Although the proposed project may result in up to 5 individual elk in the Alameda zone being killed by hunters, the information provided indicates the proposed level of harvest will not have a significant negative effect on the local or statewide population. Bear Valley Tule Elk Herds There are 225-250 elk within the hunt area boundary. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 8 bulls and 11 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Bull and antlerless tags would be issued during the general and PLM seasons. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario indicate the population would stay relatively the same in total numbers and suggest that the calf-to-cow ratio will increase as a result of the proposed project. Based on computer simulation, the bull-to-cow ratio would also increase. Although the proposed project may result in up to 19 individual elk in the Bear Valley zone being killed by hunters, the information provided indicates the proposed level of harvest will not have a significant negative effect on the local or statewide population. Cache Creek Tule Elk Herds There are 125--150 elk within the hunt area boundary. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 4 bulls and 3 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Bull and antlerless tags would be issued during the general and PLM seasons. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario indicate the population would stay relatively the same in total numbers and suggest that the calf-to-cow and bull-to-cow ratios would both increase as a result of the proposed project. Although the proposed project may result in up to 7 individual elk in the Cache Creek zone being killed by hunters, the information provided indicates the proposed level of harvest will not have a significant negative effect on the local or statewide population. ---PAGE BREAK--- 39 Camp Roberts Tule Elk Herds Tule Elk Herds Camp Roberts is a newly proposed hunt. The Camp Roberts herd was established in 1978 with 21 elk from Tupman. Thirteen more elk from Tupman were released in 1983. Several animals from each release were fitted with radio transmitters and monitored. A total of 88 elk was observed during a helicopter survey of Camp Roberts in 1988. Additionally, in 1991, the Department released 13 tule elk (from Grizzly Island) on a private ranch near San Ardo in southern Monterey County; in 1992 an additional 20 were released at the same location (Department of Fish and Game, 1995). Approximately 136 elk were counted during a January, 2014 survey and 524 elk were counted in January, 2015. Some of the elk counted in 2015 are believed to be double counts. The Department estimates there are 300-400 elk within the hunt area boundary. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 15 bulls and 30 antlerless elk being harvested including General and Military tags. Bull and antlerless tags would be issued during the general and Military seasons. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario indicate the population would slowly increase in total numbers and suggest that the calf-to-cow and bull-to-cow ratios would both increase as a result of the proposed project. Although the proposed project may result in up to 45 individual elk in the Camp Roberts zone being killed by hunters, the information provided indicates the proposed level of harvest will not have a significant negative effect on the local or statewide population. East Park Tule Elk Herds There are 120--150 elk within the hunt area boundary. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 4 bulls and 10 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Bull and antlerless tags would be issued during the general, SHARE, and PLM seasons. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario indicate the population would stay relatively the same in total numbers and suggest that the calf-to-cow and bull-to-cow ratios would both increase as a result of the proposed project. Although the proposed project may result in up to 14 individual elk in the East Park zone being killed by hunters, the information provided indicates the proposed level of harvest will not have a significant negative effect on the local or statewide population. Fort Hunter Liggett (Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast) Tule Elk Herds The proposed regulation modifies and expands the zone boundaries for Fort Hunter Liggett and changes the name to Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast. Simulation runs for ---PAGE BREAK--- 40 Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast were run to model effects of the proposed tule elk hunts. The Department estimated there are approximately 825 to 1,000 elk within the zone boundary. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 40 bulls and 70 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, Military, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Bull, antlerless, and either-sex tags would be issued during the general, military, archery, muzzleloader, SHARE, and PLM seasons. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario indicate the population would stay relatively the same with a small increase in total numbers and suggest that the calf-to- cow and bull-to-cow ratios would both increase as a result of the proposed project. Although the proposed project may result in up to 110 individual elk in the Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast zone being killed by hunters, the information provided indicates the proposed level of harvest will not have a significant negative effect on the local or statewide population. Grizzly Island Tule Elk Herds The proposed regulation modifies and expands the zone boundaries for the Grizzly Island tule elk zone. Simulation runs for Grizzly Island were run to model effects of the proposed tule elk hunts. The Department estimated there are approximately 300 elk within the zone boundary. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 32 bulls and 70 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Bull, antlerless, and spike tags would be issued during the general, SHARE, and PLM seasons (Currently there are no PLM’s in this area). Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario indicate the population would decrease in total numbers (with a future reduction in harvest) and suggest that the calf- to-cow and bull-to-cow ratios would both increase as a result of the proposed project. The current population level for this herd is above objectives and the proposed project would bring population levels within objectives. Although the proposed project may result in up to 102 individual elk in the Grizzly Island zone being killed by hunters, the proposed level of harvest would be reduced in future years once the population was back within objectives (250 elk) and at that point will not have a significant negative effect on the local or statewide population. Lake Pillsbury Tule Elk Herds There are 150--180 elk within the hunt area boundary. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 6 bulls and 7 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Bull and antlerless tags would be issued during the general, SHARE, and PLM seasons. ---PAGE BREAK--- 41 Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario indicate the population would stay relatively the same in total numbers and suggest that the calf-to-cow and bull-to-cow ratios would both increase as a result of the proposed project. Although the proposed project may result in up to 13 individual elk in the Lake Pillsbury zone being killed by hunters, the information provided indicates the proposed level of harvest will not have a significant negative effect on the local or statewide population. La Panza Tule Elk Herds The proposed regulation modifies the zone boundaries for the La Panza tule elk zone. Simulation runs for La Panza were run to model effects of the proposed tule elk hunts. The Department estimated there are approximately 700 elk within the zone boundary. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 50 bulls and 70 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Bull and antlerless tags would be issued during the general, SHARE, and PLM seasons. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario indicate the population would increase and then decline over time but still being above the initial population estimate. Simulation runs suggest that the calf-to-cow and bull-to-cow ratios would both increase as a result of the proposed project. Although the proposed project may result in up to 120 individual elk in the La Panza zone being killed by hunters, the information provided indicates the proposed level of harvest will not have a significant negative effect on the local or statewide population. Owens Valley Tule Elk Herds (Bishop, Goodale, Independence, Lone Pine, Tinemaha, Tinemaha Mountain, West Tinemaha, and Whitney) The Owens Valley tule elk hunt zones are separated into eight distinct zones (Bishop, Goodale, Independence, Lone Pine, Tinemaha, Tinemaha Mountain, West Tinemaha, and Whitney zones). Currently there are seven hunt zones with the proposed splitting of the Independence hunt zone (creating a Goodale zone). Simulation runs for these zones were run to model effects of the proposed tule elk hunts. Tule elk herds in the Owens Valley have demonstrated their ability to experience reductions in herd size without long-term adverse impacts on either local, regional, or statewide populations (Fowler 1985). Previous hunts had no long-term adverse impact to the Owens Valley tule elk population because minimum population numbers regularly exceeded 490 (the maximum level specified by Public Law 94-389 and Section 3951, FGC) during the 1970s and 1980s, based on survey results. Current population levels are below 490 and the proposed project allows for harvest levels to maintain the population below the mandated 490 elk. ---PAGE BREAK--- 42 The proposed project would result in a maximum of 25 bulls and 9 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Bull and antlerless tags would be issued during the general, SHARE, and PLM seasons (Currently there are no PLM ranches within the Owens Valley). Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario indicate the population would increase over time. Simulation runs suggest that the calf-to-cow ratio would increase and stabilize. The bull-to-cow ratios would initially decrease and then fluctuate around 30. Although the proposed project may result in up to 34 individual elk in the Owens Valley zone being killed by hunters, the information provided indicates the proposed level of harvest will not have a significant negative effect on the local or statewide population. San Emigdio Tule Elk Herds San Emigdio is a proposed new hunt. In January of 1998, five sub-adult bulls and 15 cows from San Luis Refuge were released in San Emigdio Canyon on land owned by the Wildlands Conservancy. Three translocation events occurred in October of 1999 when three bulls and 34 cows from Concord Naval Weapons Station were released to augment the initial effort. In February, 2005, two bulls and 19 cows from San Luis Refuge were released. In 2013, two adult bulls, two yearling bulls and two cows from San Luis Refuge were released. In March, 2014, an additional 15 cows and calves born in 2013) from San Luis Refuge were released. The Department estimates the population to be between 360-400 elk. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 10 bulls and 24 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Bull antlerless tags would be issued during the general, SHARE, and PLM seasons. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario indicate the population would increase in total numbers and suggest that the calf-to-cow and bull-to-cow ratios would both increase as a result of the proposed project. Although the proposed project may result in up to 34 individual elk in the San Emigdio zone being killed by hunters, the information provided indicates the proposed level of harvest will not have a significant negative effect on the local or statewide population. San Luis Reservoir Tule Elk Herds Twenty-one elk from Concord Naval Weapons Station were released on a private ranch south of the San Luis Reservoir to re-establish tule elk in the unit in 1990. Elk dispersed widely from the release site (BLM 1992). In 1992, eight more cows and one bull from Grizzly Island were added and nine more cows and one bull from Tupman were added in 1998. ---PAGE BREAK--- 43 The Department estimates the population to be 390-450 elk. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 15 bulls and 30 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Bull antlerless tags would be issued during the general, SHARE, and PLM seasons. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario indicate the population would increase in total numbers and suggest that the calf-to-cow and bull-to-cow ratios would both increase as a result of the proposed project. Although the proposed project may result in up to 45 individual elk in the San Luis Reservoir zone being killed by hunters, the information provided indicates the proposed level of harvest will not have a significant negative effect on the local or statewide population. Santa Clara Tule Elk Herds Sixty-five tule elk from the Owens Valley were released on private ranches in southern Santa Clara County near Mt. Hamilton from 1978-1981. These elk dispersed into portions of Alameda, San Joaquin, Santa Clara and Stanislaus counties. Tule elk also have been released at various locations outside the unit since 1981 (in south San Benito County, western Merced County and south Monterey County); some of which subsequently dispersed into the unit. Finally, 9 adult bulls from San Luis National Wildlife Refuge were released at the San Antonio Valley Ecological Reserve (Santa Clara County) in March, 2014. The Department estimates the population to be 160-180 elk. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 10 bulls and 10 antlerless elk being harvested including, General, PLM, SHARE, and Cooperative elk tags. Bull antlerless tags would be issued during the general, SHARE, and PLM seasons. Computer simulation runs of this harvest scenario indicate the population would increase in total numbers. The bull-to-cow ratio would decrease to an appropriate level, while the calf-to-cow ratio would increase under the proposed harvest scenario. Although the proposed project may result in up to 20 individual elk in the Santa Clara zone being killed by hunters, the information provided indicates the proposed level of harvest will not have a significant negative effect on the local or statewide population. IMPACTS ON THE GENE POOL The Department estimates there are a minimum of 5,000 Roosevelt elk distributed throughout several areas of northern California. The proposed project would allow the total public take (harvest) of no more than 603 Roosevelt elk from six areas. Assuming ---PAGE BREAK--- 44 a condition where all tagholders were successful, this would result in a short-term reduction of twelve percent of the statewide Roosevelt elk population. This does not constitute a significant impact to the statewide gene pool and is well within the population's ability to maintain or increase in size over the long term. As reported previously, the Department estimates there are a minimum of 1,500 Rocky Mountain elk in the State. The majority of Rocky Mountain elk occur in three separate areas of the State. The proposed project would allow the take of no more than 108 elk from the Northeastern California hunt zone and two PLM’s with Rocky Mountain elk outside of their historic range. It is expected that 23-28 elk will be taken from the Tejon Ranch in Kern and Los Angeles counties and the Hearst Ranch in Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties. This level of harvest is far below the population's sustained-yield level. Therefore, the expected combined (public and PLM) take of less than 110 Rocky Mountain elk from a statewide population of over 1,500 will be a short-term reduction of less than 7.5 percent of the statewide population. This does not constitute a significant impact to the statewide gene pool and is well within the population's ability to maintain or increase in size over the long term. As of August 2015, the average of the Department's statewide tule elk population estimate was at least 5,100 animals. The statewide tule elk population has been increasing since 1971, based on Department surveys and estimates (Figure The 22 tule elk herds in the State are widely distributed throughout the coastal range of California from northern Santa Barbara County to central Mendocino County. In addition, tule elk are located in the Owens Valley and the San Joaquin Valley (see Appendix 14). There are free ranging tule elk found outside of established elk zones including Point Reyes National Seashore. In addition to the free ranging tule elk there are three fenced enclosures containing tule elk within California (Point Reyes National Seashore, San Luis National Wildlife Refuge, and Tupman Tule Elk State Preserve). ---PAGE BREAK--- 45 Figure 1. California Statewide Tule Elk Population Estimate 1971-2014 Assuming a condition where the analyzed maximum harvest was reached (including general, SHARE, PLM, and Military), 621 tule elk would be removed from the statewide population (5,100 animals). This short-term reduction of approximately twelve percent of the statewide tule elk population does not constitute a significant impact to the gene pool and is well within the population's ability to maintain or increase in size over the long term. The Department does not anticipate harvesting up to the maximum level but has analyzed the potential for each zone. Computer simulation modeling of the proposed harvest levels will not have a measurable impact on regional or statewide populations. It is expected that not more than 255 elk (Rocky Mountain, Roosevelt, and tule elk combined) will be taken by hunters under the PLM Program during 2016. This constitutes just over two percent of the statewide elk population and is well within the population's ability to maintain or increase in size over the long term. Any population reduction from the PLM Program would be short term and would not constitute a significant impact to the gene pool. The ability of elk populations to experience a given level of hunting mortality without decreasing in health or viability is described by Savidge and Ziesenis (1980) as sustained-yield management. Sustained-yield management is closely related to the compensatory responses in reproduction that were discussed previously. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 1971197319751978198019821985198719891991199419971999200120042007201020122014 California Statewide Tule Elk Population Estimate 1971-2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- 46 Because the proposed project involves herds at separate locations within the State that are at or above herd management objectives and because the proposed project will not significantly reduce statewide population levels, the Department concludes that there will not be an adverse impact to the gene pool, either locally or statewide. IMPACTS ON SOCIAL STRUCTURE Elk are gregarious and tend to form groups or aggregates. Elk do not mate for life. Males do not invest time or energy in the care of young, but generally form separate bachelor groups. Except for a short breeding period, most adult males generally remain separate from cow-calf groups during the remainder of the year. Therefore, removal of bulls by hunting will have a minimal effect on the social structure of the populations, provided that minimum herd objective bull ratios are maintained. Proposed harvest levels for each herd have been established to maintain or exceed minimum herd objective bull ratios and to provide for genetic variability, fertilization of cows, and public viewing opportunities of bull elk. During the nonbreeding period, cow-calf groups generally contain few, if any, adult bulls. However, immature bulls are tolerated in cow-calf groups (Geist 1982). Newborn calves are initially completely dependent upon their dams but quickly adjust to the cow- calf group and form nursery groups within the larger group. Nursery groups briefly fixate and respond to a succession of adult females (Geist 1982). During the first 2.5 months of life, calves nurse extensively (Bubenik 1982). Nursing declines by August for most elk in California, when the proposed project would begin in some areas. There is no indication that calves orphaned at this time have been severely impacted; at Grizzly Island, tule elk calves orphaned in August remained within the social structure of the groups. Generally, the proposed project has the potential to increase the ratio and number of calves in the hunted elk populations. The increase in calf survival results in a shift of age structure of the elk population from older to prime-age individuals (five to seven years). These prime-age individuals tend to provide higher recruitment rates (calf survival) for the population (Hines et al. 1985). Historical data (Fowler 1985, Botti and Koch 1988, Racine et al. 1988), computer simulation modeling (Smith and Updike 1987), and information from the literature (Taber et al. 1982) indicate that the removal of elk from the population (due to hunting, trapping for reintroduction, or high winter mortality) in one year results in a larger number of calves recruited into the population the following year. Computer simulation modeling of the populations proposed to be hunted indicates that the removal of elk from these populations by hunting (in addition to nonhunting mortalities) will result in an increased survival of calves born the following spring for most areas (Appendix As an example, in August of 1980 the observed calf ratio for the Bishop subherd was 20 calves per 100 cows. In December of 1980, the Department relocated 75 elk from the Bishop subherd. The following August (1981), the ---PAGE BREAK--- 47 observed calf ratio was 43 calves per 100 cows. This type of increased calf survival (recruitment) has been observed numerous times in the Owens Valley (Racine et al. 1988) and at Grizzly Island (Botti and Koch 1988). Most western states establish a goal for a posthunt ratio of at least 20 bulls per 100 cows (the proportion of bulls to cows in the population). Some states have goals as low as six bulls per 100 cows, while other states have goals of 25 bulls per 100 cows in trophy hunt areas (Mohler and Toweill 1982). The Department's management objective for most hunted populations is to maintain at least 25 bulls per 100 cows. Specific management plans for most tule elk herds contain post-hunt sex ratio objectives of at least 25 bulls per 100 cows (the management plan for Grizzly Island calls for 45-70 bulls per 100 cows to allow for additional opportunities to view bull elk). Most tag quotas (Tinemaha Mountain is an exception) provide for take of both male and female elk. Achieving and/or maintaining herd objective bull-to-cow ratios is accomplished most readily by harvest of both sexes, because harvesting only male elk can skew the sex ratio towards females; and, conversely, harvesting only female elk can result in a population skewed towards males (Mohler and Toweill 1982). Based on the computer simulation analysis of expected harvest rates, for most of the proposed hunts, the post-hunt bull-to-cow ratios are expected to increase and/or remain above the Department's management objective of 25 bulls per 100 cows. Additionally, computer simulation modeling of the herds proposed for hunting indicates that the proposed take is within sustained-yield management levels. That is, under the proposed harvest levels, the population will be able to maintain itself over the long term at existing or higher population levels. As discussed earlier, female pregnancy rates and calf survival are inversely related to the density of the elk herd in relationship to the condition of the available habitat. Management that provides for frequent reductions in female and young of the year elk in areas where elk have exceeded their herd size objective encourages age structure dominated by reproductively successful females (Hines et al. 1985). Based on computer simulation modeling, the proposed project has the potential to increase calf survival rates for the hunted herds, resulting in improved general health of the hunted populations. Also, computer simulation modeling predicts minimal changes in bull-to-cow ratios as a result of the proposed project; such ratios for most hunted herds are predicted to increase or remain near the minimum objective ratio. Bull-to-cow ratios are predicted to remain significantly above corresponding ratios for other western states with hunting programs. Thus, it is unlikely that adverse impacts to the social structure of hunted herds will occur as a result of the proposed project. By increasing calf-to-cow ratios, the proposed project would improve herd condition and could thus have a positive effect on herd social structure. ---PAGE BREAK--- 48 EFFECTS ON HABITAT The removal of up to 603 Roosevelt elk, 108 Rocky Mountain elk, and 621 tule elk through public hunting and up to 255 elk through the PLM Program is not expected to significantly change elk population levels on a long term basis. If no major changes occur in the elk population levels, no major changes in elk-caused effects on habitat elk foraging pressure on plants) would be expected. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to have an impact on habitat in the hunt areas. The typical technique used to hunt elk within the proposed hunt areas involves spotting animals at a distance and/or quietly approaching them on foot to within a reasonable shooting range. Hunting from a motorized vehicle is illegal. Some hunters may use horses to cover greater distances searching for elk. In any case, the relatively low intensity of hunting effort (because of the low number of elk hunters in the field) within these areas is not expected to produce major effects on habitat. Both public and private lands occur within the hunt areas. On public lands, the Department provides input to the USFS regarding actions to improve the condition of elk herds and their habitat. Further, the USFS is mandated to incorporate wildlife needs, including elk, into their planning process, as required by the National Forest Management Act. In general, current timber harvest practices on public land benefit elk by creating a diverse mosaic of early successional and mature forest habitat types. Most of the public lands proposed to be open to elk hunting within the Siskiyou, Marble Mountains, Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, and Northeastern California hunt areas are currently open to the public on a year-round basis. These lands also are used for other outdoor recreational activities, such as fishing, photography, hiking, hunting, bird watching and general nature viewing. Due to the large size of the hunt areas (each area is several hundred square miles in size) and existing human use levels of the hunt areas, it is unlikely that the harvest of up to 711 elk will individually or cumulatively negatively impact the habitat in the hunt areas. Almost the entire Alameda hunt zone consists of private property or public land not open to hunting. Access to these properties is strictly controlled and generally not available to the public. Due to the large size of the hunt area and existing human use levels, it is unlikely that the harvest of up to 5 elk will individually or cumulatively negatively impact the habitat in the hunt area. Almost the entire Bear Valley hunt zone consists of private property or public land lacking consistent elk use. Access to these private properties is strictly controlled and generally not available to the public. Due to the large size of the hunt area and existing human use levels, it is unlikely that the harvest of up to 19 elk will individually or cumulatively negatively impact the habitat in the hunt area. Approximately half of the Cache Creek tule elk hunt area is public land used for a variety of recreational activities. Removing a maximum of four bulls and three cows ---PAGE BREAK--- 49 from this area will result in only a short-term reduction of elk numbers. Historical data and computer simulation modeling of elk herd performance indicate subsequent spring calf recruitment will compensate for this reduction. Because the population level of the Cache Creek herd will not significantly change, the proposed action will not have an impact on the habitat in the Cache Creek tule elk herd area. Camp Roberts is operated by the U.S. Army, and except during specific periods is not accessible to the public. Removing a maximum of 30 antlerless and 15 bulls from the Camp Roberts tule elk herds will result in an increase within the population over time. The proposed harvest is expected to be neutral to habitat quality. A large portion of the East Park hunt zone consists of private property. Very little public land within the hunt zone has consistent elk use. The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) does own property within the zone with consistent use by elk. A majority of the elk harvest since the hunts inception has taken place on the BOR property. The BOR land is also used for other outdoor recreational activities, such as fishing, camping, photography, hiking, bird watching and general nature viewing. Access to the private properties is strictly controlled and generally not available to the public. Due to the size of the hunt area and existing human use levels, it is unlikely that the harvest of up to 4 bull and 10 antlerless elk will individually or cumulatively negatively impact the habitat in the hunt area. Fort Hunter Liggett is operated by the U.S. Army, and except during specific periods is not accessible to the public. The proposed project includes expanding the current zone boundaries. The majority of the zone expansion includes private property and a predominance of the elk outside of Fort Hunter Liggett base reside on private property. Removing a maximum of 70 antlerless and 40 bulls from the Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast tule elk herds will result in an increase within the populations over time. The proposed harvest is expected to improve habitat quality. The entire Grizzly Island Wildlife Area is public land; however, the wildlife area will be closed to other uses during the tule elk season. The proposed expansion of the boundaries includes additional private property. Access to these properties is strictly controlled and generally not available to the public. The Department does not anticipate any individual or cumulative adverse impacts to these lands. The proposed level of hunting at Grizzly Island (102 elk) has the potential to improve the quality of the elk habitat on the Island. The proposed level of harvest should be helpful in reaching herd objective population levels for Grizzly Island, and should prevent losses as a result of elk foraging on poison hemlock due to the lack of other suitable forage items. Most of the public lands within the Lake Pillsbury hunt area are currently open to the public on a year-round basis. These lands also are used for other outdoor recreational activities, such as fishing, photography, hiking, hunting, bird watching and general nature viewing. Due to the size of the hunt areas and existing human use levels of the ---PAGE BREAK--- 50 hunt areas, it is unlikely that the harvest of up to 6 bull and 7 antlerless elk will individually or cumulatively negatively impact the habitat in the hunt area. Approximately one-fourth of the La Panza hunt area is public land. For the La Panza tule elk herd, removing a maximum of 70 antlerless and 50 bulls will result in a short- term reduction of population numbers but the ten year trend will result in an increase in the population. Spring calf recruitment will compensate for any short-term population reduction. The proposed harvest is expected to have no impact on habitat quality. The Mendocino elk hunt zones consists of private property or public land lacking consistent elk use. Access to these private properties is strictly controlled and generally not available to the public. Due to the size of the hunt areas and existing human use levels, it is unlikely that the harvest of up to 43 bull and 48 antlerless elk will individually or cumulatively negatively impact the habitat in the hunt area. The Owens Valley tule elk hunt zones are accessible to the public and used for a variety of recreational activities. The removal of up to 34 individuals from the eight elk zones will allow the populations to increase but be managed below the mandated maximum number of 490 elk. The small increase in elk numbers should not have a measurable impact on habitat in the Owens Valley. Data collected by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power since 1978 indicate that habitat conditions in the Owens Valley are primarily dependent upon the level of annual precipitation (Racine et al. 1988). Almost the entire San Emigdio hunt zone consists of private property or public land with no consistent elk use. Access to the private properties is strictly controlled and generally not available to the public. Due to the large size of the hunt area and existing human use levels, it is unlikely that the harvest of up to 10 bull and 24 antlerless elk will individually or cumulatively negatively impact the habitat in the hunt area. Most of the San Luis Reservoir hunt zone consists of private property. Very little public land within the hunt zone has consistent elk use or is open to hunting. The Department of Fish and Wildlife does own property (760 acre wildlife area) within the zone with consistent use by elk. A portion of the elk harvest since the hunts inception has taken place on the Department property. The Department land is also used for other outdoor recreational activities, such as hunting, photography, hiking, bird watching, and general nature viewing. Access to the private properties is strictly controlled and generally not available to the public. Due to the size of the hunt area and existing human use levels, it is unlikely that the harvest of up to 15 bull and 30 antlerless elk will individually or cumulatively negatively impact the habitat in the hunt area. Nearly the entire Santa Clara hunt zone consists of private property. There is very little public land within the hunt zone. The Department of Fish and Wildlife does own property (2,900 acre ecological reserve) within the zone with consistent use by elk and is open to limited use by hunters. The Department land is also used for other outdoor recreational activities, such as hunting, photography, hiking, bird watching, and general ---PAGE BREAK--- 51 nature viewing. Access to the private properties is strictly controlled and generally not available to the public. Due to the size of the hunt area and existing human use levels, it is unlikely that the harvest of up to 10 bull and 10 antlerless elk will individually or cumulatively negatively impact the habitat in the hunt area. EFFECTS ON RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES Hunting Opportunities The proposed project would authorize public hunting of Roosevelt, Rocky Mountain, and tule elk, providing opportunities to harvest up to 1,332 elk by hunters who will participate in this unique outdoor experience. The demand for elk hunting opportunities is extremely high in California. In 2015, over 35,500 individuals applied for an opportunity to hunt elk in California. In 1988, for the first time, a nonrefundable fee of $5 was charged to apply for an elk hunt. Despite the new fee, almost 10,000 licensed hunters applied for elk license tags in 1988 with the number growing almost every year to date. The proposed project benefits the hunting public by providing hunting opportunities consistent with the State’s Wildlife Conservation Policy and FGC sections 332 and 1801. Season dates for several elk hunts may coincide, at least partially, with local deer seasons. However, it is unlikely that deer hunters will be adversely impacted by the low number of elk hunters that may be in the field during the deer season. Most tule elk hunts do not coincide with deer seasons or only partially overlap. Many of the elk seasons will overlap with upland game (quail, chukar, and rabbit) and bear season. Wild pig season is open all year many of the tule elk hunts will coincide with this season. The large areas open to hunting and the relative short elk season dates indicate that elk hunters will not affect hunters of other species of wildlife in terms of hunter success or quality of experience. The Grizzly Island Wildlife Area is not open to deer hunting. Primary hunting activities occurring at Grizzly Island are waterfowl and upland game hunting. The proposed tule elk hunting periods on the Island avoid other game seasons, so there will be no overlap with people hunting other game species. Some individuals have expressed concern that the hunting regulations of other states might have adverse effects on elk hunting in California (presumably by causing an influx or exodus of hunters.) For the most part, non-resident public elk hunting opportunities on California are very limited (Only up to one elk tag per year is available for non- residents to draw, non-residents may purchase the three fund-raising elk tags, and are eligible to purchase elk tags through the PLM Program). The Department does not expect that the hunting regulations of other states will have an adverse effect on elk hunting in California. Nonhunting Opportunities ---PAGE BREAK--- 52 Nonhunting users of the elk resource (viewing, nature study, and photography) will not be significantly impacted by the take of up to 1,332 elk from statewide populations of approximately 5,000 Roosevelt elk, 1,500 Rocky Mountain elk, and 5,100 tule elk. Nor will the proposed project impair the nonconsumptive users' ability to enjoy the outdoors, the elk resource, or its habitat, because the nonconsumptive user will have the opportunity to view elk herds in an unhunted situation indefinitely. Many elk herds inhabit Federal or State Parks, where hunting does not occur. Three of the State's 22 tule elk herds are maintained in a penned situation where no hunting is contemplated. These herds provide the public an opportunity to enjoy tule elk in their native habitat. Additionally, the proposed action does not provide hunting opportunities at Point Reyes National Seashore, which has a large population of tule elk and is accessible to the public for the enjoyment of elk and other wildlife in the area. Elk hunting seasons are limited in time and harvest reports from 2014 indicate that elk hunters spend on average 4 days hunting elk. This indicates that even for those hunted herds a majority of the time can be spent viewing elk without hunters in the field. The proposed action will not impact the nonhunting public, because the number of hunters in the field at any one time (established by the quotas for each hunt), in conjunction with the areas open to hunting, will result in very low hunter density. Historically, all areas open for hunting have been open for other types of hunting (waterfowl, upland game birds, rabbit, wild pigs, black bear, etc.) during the same timeframe as the proposed elk hunts. If the nonhunter is concerned about being in the field during the proposed elk hunts, there are significantly larger areas of the same habitat type located adjacent to or near all hunt areas that can be used for nonhunting activities during the short elk hunting period. EFFECTS ON OTHER WILDLIFE SPECIES Although there is some overlap of food habits, competition between deer and elk has not been documented to be a problem in California. Nelson and Leege (1982) stated that "It would appear, therefore, that neither the elk nor the mule deer is affected seriously by the other, mainly because of differences in primary forage species and habitat choice." This also appears to be the case in California. Potential for competition between elk and deer can exist on critical winter ranges shared by the two species. But, there is no scientific evidence to indicate that removal of elk through a hunting program will adversely impact the local or statewide deer resource. In some portions of the Owens Valley (primarily the Goodale subherd area), migratory deer and elk both utilize the same area. The elk use this range in the summer and are not present during the winter, when the area is used by deer (Racine et al. 1988). As indicated by Nelson and Leege (1982) and in the Owens Valley Tule Elk Habitat Management Plan, deer and elk generally do not use the same primary forage species. In an effort to verify this assumption, the Department has funded research conducted by the University of California to investigate deer and elk interactions in the Goodale tule elk subherd area. This research has been completed, confirming that deer and elk used ---PAGE BREAK--- 53 different primary forage plants in the Goodale area and that completion was minimal (Berbach 1991). During the last few years, the potential for competition between deer and elk has received greater attention in the western states and provinces of North America. Many states and provinces have reported a decline in deer population numbers, coinciding with an increase in elk numbers. It has not been proven that elk displace deer or are a significant factor in suppressing their numbers throughout a broad geographic region. In considering the potential for competitive interaction between deer and elk, a variety of factors may be important such as predation, climate, digestive physiology, energetics, vegetation succession, livestock, and human-related factors. Lindzey et al. (1997) discussed these and other factors in reviewing the potential for competition between deer and elk throughout the west, and compiled an extensive list of references regarding this subject. They concluded that it is appropriate to question whether the growth of elk populations has contributed to apparent deer decline, but found no consistent trends in geographic areas used sympatrically to suggest a cause-and effect relationship. Due to their large body size, adult elk experience limited predation. Cases of lion predation on adult elk have been documented (Taber et al. 1982, Booth et al. 1988, Racine et al. 1988). Results of fall surveys have documented several confirmed lion- killed elk since 1988. However, there is no scientific evidence to indicate mountain lion predation is having a significant effect statewide on elk in California as demonstrated by increases in elk numbers. Coyotes, black bears, wolves, and mountain lions prey on elk and/or elk calves. It is possible that, as a result of removing adult elk from elk herds, there will be increased calf production the following spring. This could provide additional prey items for predators. Historical herd performance data collected on elk herds indicate that calf recruitment will increase after an elk removal, regardless of the existence of predators in the area (Racine et al. 1988). Based on a review of available information discussed in this document, it is reasonable to assume the proposed project will not have measurable short-term or long-term effects on other local wildlife populations, including deer, mountain lions, black bears, wolves, and coyotes. A number of endangered, threatened or locally unique animals and plants may occur within the elk hunt areas. The Department is charged with the responsibility to determine if any hunting regulations will impact threatened or endangered species. It complies with this mandate by consulting internally and with the Commission when establishing elk hunting regulations to ensure that the implementation of the proposed project and existing hunting regulations do not affect these species. It is unlikely that adverse impacts to rare, endangered, threatened, or locally unique species associated with the proposed hunt areas will occur as a result of the proposed project. Most rare, endangered, threatened, or locally unique species associated with the hunt areas either are associated with habitats where elk hunting is not likely to occur or use these areas ---PAGE BREAK--- 54 during a time (season) different from when the proposed project will occur. The proposed project will involve a minimal number of hunters using areas that for the most part, are open to the public for a variety of uses, including hunting. The Department has concluded that, based on conditions of the proposed project and existing hunting regulations, differences in size, coloration, distribution, and habitat use between the listed species and elk, the proposed project will not jeopardize these species. EFFECTS ON ECONOMICS The proposed project will not result in changes to the environment, either directly or indirectly, which would produce significant negative environmental effects. Therefore, no CEQA review of economic effects is necessary. However, the proposed project has the potential to result in minor economic effects on the communities where elk hunting is proposed, and the discussion below is provided for the Commission and the public's information. Data from the Department’s Wildlife and License and Revenue Branches in conjunction with USFWS1 data inform estimates of the total economic impact of Deer, Elk, Antelope, and Bighorn Sheep hunters throughout the state. Each year about 175,000 hunters spend about $1,161 each in hunting trip-related expenditures. These trip-related expenditures are dispersed to California businesses in the vicinity of and en route to the hunting areas. These direct expenditures generate indirect and induced effects resulting in $263,702,757 in total economic output.2 Deer, Elk, Antelope, and Bighorn Sheep hunting is associated with about $51,947,191 in labor income or a total of 1,170 jobs in the state. Economic Impact of Elk Hunting Sections 364, 364.1, 555, and 601 set dates and tag quotas for Elk hunting in the state. The approximately 415 Elk hunters alone are estimated to contribute about $269,175 per year in hunting trip-related expenditures. These trip-related expenditures generate indirect and induced effects resulting in $350,719 in total economic output. The combined economic effects of Elk hunters in these zones support as many as 1.56 jobs in the state. 1 USFW, 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation for California, Feb 2013. 2 California state-wide multipliers generated with IMPLAN were used to estimate the total economic impacts for all Big Game Hunting. Economic Impact of Big Game Hunting Trip-Related Expenditures (resident & nonresident) Output Labor Income Jobs Direct $202,390,334 $31,704,949 803 Indirect $21,568,669 $7,035,943 121 Induced $39,743,754 $13,206,299 247 Total $263,702,757 $51,947,191 1,170 ---PAGE BREAK--- 55 The effects of the Elk hunting regulations on the local economy may involve increases in economic activity near the hunt areas, as visiting hunters purchase goods and services from local merchants. This additional spending would generate additional retail sales, business spending, and income that could in turn, contribute to employment in motels, restaurants, and retail stores. Considered on a statewide basis, spending effects would be minor because of the small number of tags available. Any potential effects would be distributed between the regions where public hunting is proposed. The total economic impact of Elk hunting is estimated to not be of the magnitude to result in negative environmental effects. Fiscal effects include direct public expenditures and revenue generation associated with the proposed project. The project will be administered by the State. Additional revenues will be directly generated by the $8.13 nonrefundable application fee and the $445.35 elk license tag fee. In 2015, more than 35,000 licensed hunters applied for Roosevelt, Rocky Mountain, and tule elk tags in California. Assuming a similar demand for elk hunting opportunities in the future, revenue generated from the project would be greater than the costs to the State to administer the program. The excess revenue would be used in the Department's Big Game Programs, as required by Section 3953, FGC. EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY Since 1989, the Department has received no reports of elk hunting-related casualties in California. This does not diminish the fact that people have died or been wounded while hunting other big game animals). Based on the total number of licensed hunters in California and the annual number of accidents, there is roughly a 0.00425-0.005 percent chance of being killed or wounded while hunting deer. Additionally, Department records show that no nonhunting injuries or deaths have occurred as a result of elk hunting. As with any outdoor activity, there is always a risk of injury or death. However, the probability of being injured while hunting elk is extremely low, especially in comparison to other recreational activities. This good safety record is due, in part, to the requirement that all hunters must successfully pass a hunter safety education course prior to receiving a hunting license. It is unlikely that the proposed project will result in adverse impacts to public safety. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Elk Hunting §364 Trip-Related Expenditures (resident & nonresident) Output Labor Income Jobs Direct $269,175 $42,167 1.07 Indirect $28,686 $9,358 0.16 Induced $52,858 $17,564 0.33 Total $350,719 $69,089 1.56 ---PAGE BREAK--- 56 There are no growth-inducing impacts associated with the proposed project. As discussed in "Effects on Economics" in this chapter, there will be minor increases in retail sales, income, and possibly employment in the regions where the proposed hunt areas exist. However, the small number of public tags available is unlikely to create growth-inducing impacts in a State with a total human population of over 30 million. SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The proposed project will not affect a variety of short-term uses currently available to the public. Additionally, the proposed project will provide for public hunting opportunity without adversely affecting long-term productivity of statewide or local elk populations, based on predictions of simulation modeling. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES No significant irreversible environmental changes are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. The proposed harvest levels were selected to avoid adversely impacting hunted populations and to reach or maintain herd management objectives. The proposed project is designed to avoid significant adverse impacts to other wildlife species, their habitat, and listed or locally unique species. As discussed previously, adverse impacts to economics and public uses (including safety) are not expected. WELFARE OF THE INDIVIDUAL ANIMAL The 2004 analysis was presented on page 120 (incorporated by reference, April, 2006 Final Environmental Document, SCH#[PHONE REDACTED], available at 1812 9th street, Sacramento, CA 95811). The project has been designed to limit wounding through the specification of minimum performance requirements for archery equipment and firearms. It is expected that some wounding may nevertheless occur. The methods of take are not one hundred percent lethal. Lethality is largely a function of hunter skill and accuracy. The Department has evaluated the welfare of the individual animal and has specified minimum performance requirements for archery equipment and firearms in existing regulations. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project provides for a specific level of public elk hunting in specified areas during 2016, and it is reasonably foreseeable that, the Commission would consider and approve hunts in these areas in the future. Because of this potential, the Department modeled population performance of hunted herds for a 10-year period. Potential effects of cumulative factors identified in this section were considered with the model runs. It must be emphasized that the model runs specify the same level of harvest (expressed as a percentage of the population) each year. In those runs demonstrating an increasing population the harvest level was capped to not increase above the initial ---PAGE BREAK--- 57 level. The statutorily mandated regulation process involves review and appropriate regulation changes based on the condition of a population. Data collected by the Department during the year following the approval or denial of the proposed project would be examined, and appropriate, biologically sound recommendations would be presented by the Department to the Commission prior to approval of any future hunt. Section 207, Fish and Game Code, requires that the Commission review and consider revisions to regulations relating to mammal hunting. This law requires that the Commission receive recommendations regarding mammal hunting regulations from Commission members, its staff, the Department, other public agencies, and the public. The process is analogous to the Commission establishing specific harvest quotas for the deer and pronghorn antelope hunting seasons annually. The system has worked well over time in adjusting the hunting program annually to maintain healthy wildlife populations. Effects of Private Lands Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Management (PLM) Area Program To become licensed in the PLM Program, landowners are required to submit an application package which includes a management plan. This plan must contain, among other things, habitat enhancement goals and objectives to be accomplished over the term of the five-year license. The habitat projects outlined in the plan are directed toward improving habitat for both game and nongame species. The ultimate goal of these habitat improvement practices is to enhance or stabilize (under adverse ecological conditions) populations of various wildlife species present on the area. Once licensed, the PLM is reviewed annually by the Commission to ensure compliance with all regulations and administrative procedures. The PLM Program has been successful as an effective incentive for landowners to protect and improve wildlife habitat. Habitat improvements implemented under approved management plans on licensed areas include conducting controlled burns to improve forage conditions, reducing livestock grazing to reduce competition with wildlife, protecting wildlife fawning/nesting sites and riparian areas, developing wetland/marsh areas, constructing brush piles, improving water sources, and planting forage and cover crops for wildlife. The projects directly benefit deer, elk, bear, antelope, wild pigs, waterfowl, turkeys, quail, and a wide variety of nongame wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. Habitat improvements accomplished specifically for game species (such as riparian improvement, protection, and enhancement) directly benefit hundreds (approximately 331 species in hardwood-dominated habitats) of nongame wildlife species. The anticipated PLM harvest for existing ranches was modeled as part of the overall (public and PLM) harvest simulation model run for the corresponding hunt zone (Appendix PLM ranches outside of hunt zones were modeled separately. As discussed previously, no adverse impacts are expected, based on the simulation model ---PAGE BREAK--- 58 runs. To determine effects of harvest under the PLM Program for the Tejon Ranch and Hearst Ranch, the Department modeled the current condition and the proposed for the subject herds. Based on simulation model runs (Appendix previous harvest levels have been below the maximum sustainable yield. Because the expected harvest under the PLM Program is less than the maximum sustainable yield (harvest), the Department has determined that the PLM Program, together with the proposed project, will not have a significant adverse cumulative effect on elk populations in California. Fifty licensees participated in the PLM Program for elk in 2015 (Appendix 18). The Department does not recommend issuing more than 255 elk tags through the PLM Program for 2016 (tule, Roosevelt, and Rocky Mountain elk combined). Maximum quotas for the PLM Program were determined against the backdrop of the proposed public elk tag quotas. Previous total elk harvests under the PLM program have been below these levels (Approximately 136 elk were harvested in 2014 under the PLM program). Expected harvest under the PLM program should be below the maximum PLM quota. Thus, harvest under the PLM program either alone or combined with the proposal public harvest, will not have a significant adverse cumulative effect on statewide or local populations of elk. Effects of Drought Drought cycles are part of the ecological system in California and elk are adapted to dealing with low water years. Still, multi-year droughts can reduce elk populations on a local scale. Drought conditions can impact elk in a variety of including: degraded habitat quality (less vegetation growth) and lower food production (both natural and agricultural). California has a "Mediterranean climate," meaning that over the long-term the State receives the bulk of its precipitation during the cool fall and winter months, while warm spring and summer months are generally dry. In other words, California undergoes a "summer drought" each year. However, extreme variation in precipitation occurs in the State on an annual basis. For example, the northwest coast receives a great deal of precipitation, while southern deserts receive very little precipitation. Additionally, topographic features, such as the Sierra Nevada, influence climate by creating a rain shadow, whereby most of the precipitation falls on the west side of the range, extracting most of the moisture from clouds by the time they reach the east side of the range. The amount of precipitation falling on California is extremely variable on a geographic basis within a year and extremely variable in any one area among years. Throughout much of the State, stream courses, natural lakes, ponds, springs, and reservoirs were affected by the recent drought. As far as terrestrial wildlife are concerned, prolonged drought in areas where water was already a rare commodity, such as in the desert and south coast ranges, may affect production and survival of young of a variety of species in future years. Droughts are cyclic over the long-term, and all wildlife species and their habitats in California have evolved under conditions of periodic drought (Bakker 1972, Munz and Keck 1973, Oruduff 1974, Burcham 1975, Barbour and Majors 1977). Since the 1800s, California has been in several drought ---PAGE BREAK--- 59 cycles lasting two to five years (Department of Water Resources data). Because of this natural variation in available water, vegetation communities have evolved and adapted to deal with the associated changes in soil moisture (Barbour and Majors 1977). Many of California's plant communities desert, chaparral, grassland, oak-woodland, etc.) are drought tolerant. However, this is not to say that prolonged drought will not affect plant species. Growth and vigor of forage species may be severely reduced during a drought, because the seeds of annual plants would not germinate without adequate moisture, and shrubs and trees would have reduced growth as a water conserving strategy. Consequently, the quantity and quality of forage for herbivores would be reduced. Few specific studies of drought effects on vegetation communities have been conducted, largely because drought is unpredictable and it is a "normal" occurrence. A study measured acorn production (a primary food of many wildlife species) in five oak species occurring at a site in Monterey County from 1980-89 (Koenig et al. 1991). That study determined that acorn production was highly variable among oak species from year-to-year and that climatic variables generally did not correlate with annual variation in acorn production. That study also indicated that, while on a local geographic scale acorn crop failures may have detrimental effects on local populations, total crop failures on a community-wide basis among all species are rare, even during drought years. Similarly, acorn production data from Tehama County (Barrett, unpublished data) indicate that from 1987-90 production was approximately 60 percent, 20 percent, five percent, and 180 percent, respectively, of the mean annual crop. Alternatively, in annual vegetation communities, lack of fall germinating rains or minimal spring rains can preclude germination of annual seeds of forbs and grasses which are important sources of forage, primarily during the fall, winter, and spring. The seeds of these species would continue to lie dormant in the soil until germinating conditions were suitable. Drought may also weaken resistance of plants to disease, fungus, and insect damage. This would be considered part of the drought cycle in terms of impact on vegetation. Hence, during a drought, some plant species have responded in a way that would benefit wildlife increased acorn production), while others respond in a way that would be detrimental to wildlife lack of grass and forb growth). Native game mammals in California have evolved to withstand both drought and flood extremes within their ranges. Before human intervention, these ranges likely varied as a response to periods of prolonged drought or wet conditions. Currently, however, remaining habitats are, to a large extent, managed and affected by humans. As it relates to drought and water availability, this has produced greater stability in modern wildlife populations due, in part, to the advent of water wells, water sites developed for wildlife guzzlers), irrigation, and reservoirs that are adapted to these habitats. Currently, water is more available to wildlife, regardless of drought, than it would have been prior to large-scale human development in California. There are no documented ---PAGE BREAK--- 60 cases of wildlife being unable to obtain water due to the recent drought. Unlike humans, wildlife do not have to rely on reservoirs for their water supply. The reduced quantity of vegetative cover due to prolonged drought in some areas could affect thermal and hiding cover important to wildlife. However, that possibility has not yet been reflected in any population data, indicating a significant effect. Significant impacts due to drought are possible for some species in some areas of the State if drought conditions persist for more than several years. The impact would be expected in the form of reduced habitat quality and quantity, resulting in lowered reproductive success and survival of individuals in the population. As a result, periodic drought conditions may produce short-term effects due to less available forage but may have little, if any, long-term effects on the abundance of most species. If drought has significant effects on wildlife species, it would be reflected in poorer physical condition of individual animals, decreased survival of individuals, declining production and survival of young, and declining population size. While such trends occur annually with some populations in some areas, the large-scale effects of the current drought, if significant, could be felt statewide. Presently, there are no data to indicate that drought has significantly impacted terrestrial wildlife populations, except in localized areas of southern California. Effects of drought conditions on elk populations have been recorded in the Owens Valley and in the Cache Creek area (Fowler 1985, Booth et al. 1988, Racine et al. 1988). It should be noted that, while drought may result in increased mortality among individuals in an elk population (primarily lower calf survival), the proposed project was based on data collected on populations that can and do experience periodic drought conditions. The proposed project will not prevent local populations from remaining viable under drought conditions. There are no records of drought affecting the Grizzly Island tule elk herd (Botti and Koch 1988). Based on the above information, and population trends depicted in Figure 1, the possibility of drought impairing the statewide tule elk population is very unlikely. Evaluation of elk herd performance and habitat conditions and trends is an ongoing facet of the Department's elk management program. Information collected by the Department and other sources will be utilized to modify any future recommendations for hunting proposals or to recommend other management activities, such as habitat improvement or acquisition projects. The impacts, if any, of a catastrophic event on elk populations would be addressed in any future management activities. In addition, the Commission has the regulatory authority (Section 314, FGC) to take emergency action to cancel or suspend one or more proposed elk hunts if a catastrophic event occurred which, in conjunction with a hunting program, could significantly impact the elk population. Thus, the Department does not anticipate that an adverse impact will occur as a result of drought in combination with the proposed project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 61 Effects of Wildfire One aspect of prolonged drought that would affect wildlife habitat is an increased risk of wildfire due to extremely dry conditions. However, wildfire can be a problem in extremely wet years because of the buildup of fuel, and it is difficult to conclude that drought years predispose some vegetation communities to wildfire more so than wet years. Certainly in forested communities, prolonged drought that has affected the woody plant community in terms of increased plant mortality and decreased moisture content would make them more susceptible to wildfire. Catastrophic events, such as wildfires and drought, have been affecting the State's elk resource since their evolution in pristine times. Effects of drought and wildfires can have an impact on local populations of elk. Historical data collected by the Department (McCullough 1969, Fowler 1985, Racine et al. 1988) indicate that there is no evidence that drought, wildfires, or other catastrophic events have resulted in the extirpation of an elk population. Wildfires are a natural occurrence in elk range. Plant species in the hunt areas have evolved with fire. Many species require fire to reproduce. There is no evidence to indicate that fire has negative long-term effects on elk populations, and there is considerable information that fire can significantly improve elk habitat (Lyon and Ward 1982). Wildfires have the potential to positively impact a population of elk. The initial fire may displace elk for a very short time period (two to three months). However, elk often return to burned areas immediately following the fire. The long-term impacts can have significant positive effects on the local populations. For example, a wildfire may burn habitat used by elk, causing short-term loss of some forage and cover. However, elk move back into the burned areas quickly to utilize the young nutritious forage growing in the burned areas (Tim Burton, Department of Fish and Game, Yreka). Also, since elk are primarily grazing animals they eat mostly grasses), fires which burn brush and trees open areas to allow more grasses to grow, and thus benefit elk (Lyon and Ward 1982). Based on the above information, the possibility of wildfires impairing the statewide Roosevelt, Rocky Mountain, or tule elk populations from maintaining themselves in a healthy, viable condition is very unlikely. Evaluation of elk herd performance and habitat conditions and trends is an ongoing facet of the Department's elk management program. Information collected by the Department and other sources will be utilized to modify any future recommendations for hunting proposals or to recommend other management activities, such as habitat improvement or acquisition projects. The impacts, if any, of a catastrophic event on elk populations would be addressed in any future management activities. In addition, the Commission has the regulatory authority (Section 314, FGC) to take emergency action to cancel or suspend elk hunting if a ---PAGE BREAK--- 62 catastrophic event occurred which, in conjunction with a hunting program, could significantly impact the elk population. Effects of Disease Historical data indicate that elk are remarkably free of disease (Fowler 1985, Booth et al. 1988, Botti and Koch 1988, and Racine et al. 1988). However, Roosevelt elk tested in the Prairie Creek area of Humboldt County showed signs of heavy parasite levels and poor body condition in 1960 and 1982 (Department of Fish and Game files). The Department routinely collects blood samples from the majority of elk captured. Over the last 20 years, the Department has analyzed approximately 900 tule elk and 200 Roosevelt elk blood samples to systematically determine the prevalence of disease and assess the general health of the State's elk resource. Recent concern has grown about effects of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) on deer and elk in North America (Williams et al., 2002). CWD is a fatal, contagious transmissible spongiform encephalopathy infecting the brains of deer and elk. It has been diagnosed within numerous states and provinces of North America. The Department began a surveillance program in 1999 and has tested more than 900 samples from California deer for CWD. All results to date have been negative. California is considered a low risk state for CWD; game ranching of cervids is not allowed (except for fallow deer), and importing live cervids is severely restricted. CWD is not currently known to be naturally transmitted to humans or animals other than deer and elk. On August 30, 2002, the Fish and Game Commission adopted emergency regulations placing conditions on the importation of hunter-harvested deer and elk into California. These restrictions recently were made permanent, and the Department intends to continue its CWD surveillance program until more is known about this disease. There is no indication of a potential for the State's elk populations (either statewide or locally) to be significantly impacted by a major disease outbreak. There are no data available to indicate that disease, road kills, predation or other natural mortality factors will act as additive impacts which, along with the proposed hunting program, will have a significant adverse cumulative impact on local or statewide elk populations. Effects of Habitat Loss and Degradation The proposed project is not likely to cause habitat loss and degradation. The removal of individuals may actually improve elk habitat by decreasing grazing intensity. The elk hunting season is short, and most of the hunting areas are generally open to the public for other uses year-round. The effects on habitat loss and degradation by hunters during the elk hunting season would be negligible. On private land, there are potential changes in land ownership which may result in land- use changes. No major changes in private land-use patterns are expected in the near ---PAGE BREAK--- 63 future. The long-term outlook for elk habitat on public lands in California is stable to improving. The cumulative impacts of habitat modification plus hunting are not expected to have a significant adverse impact on elk populations. In combination with the proposed project, potential habitat modification/ degradation is unlikely to have significant adverse cumulative effects. Effects of Illegal Harvest Illegal harvest of game mammals is difficult to quantify. It is likely that elk have been taken illegally from each of the proposed hunt areas, as well as from other herds where hunting is not proposed. Department records indicate at least three citations per year involving illegal take/possession of elk were issued in 1997 and 1998. At least three citations involving elk were issued each year in 2000 and 2001. Illegal harvest of other subspecies of elk has occurred in California and other western states (Potter 1982). Illegal take of tule elk has occurred in the Owens Valley, at Grizzly Island and Fort Hunter Liggett during recent tule elk seasons. One hunter at Grizzly Island was cited for taking two and one cited for taking a spike elk while possessing an antlerless tag. Similar incidents occurred in sporadically in the past. Such incidents of unintentional illegal take have occurred with other game animals in California and other western states. The Department conducts mandatory hunter orientations for some tule elk hunt sin California and emphasizes avoiding incidents of unintentional illegal take and distributes informational material to all elk tag holders. The Department will continue this emphasis in future orientations; additionally, the Department will continue to issue citations to individuals for illegally taking elk, regardless of whether or not such take is intentional. However, despite such measures, some level of unintentional illegal take is expected to continue. Effects of Depredation Private property conflicts involving elk and agricultural crops, fences, and other personal property have occurred, and will continue to occur wherever elk and humans coexist. Section 4181, FGC, provides for the killing of elk when private "property is being damaged or is in danger of being damaged or destroyed." However, current Department policy is to attempt all reasonable and practical means of nonlethal control prior to issuing a depredation permit for elk. Issuing depredation (kill) permits is considered as the final measure to alleviate localized private property conflicts involving elk; and the Department issued no elk depredation permits from 1989 until 2002. However, as elk population numbers have increased and distribution has expanded, conflicts on private property have increased in severity. Since 2002, the Department has issued approximately fifteen elk depredation permits. ---PAGE BREAK--- 64 In response to the increasing private property conflicts involving elk, the State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1420 (AB1420, Laird; Chaptered September 4, 2003). Among other things, AB 1420 directs the Department to prepare a statewide elk management plan that identifies management activities necessary to alleviate private property damage caused by elk. Prior to issuing an elk depredation permit, AB1420 requires the Department to verify damage caused by elk, provide a written summary of corrective measure to alleviate the problem, determine the viability of the subject elk herd and the minimum population numbers needed to sustain it, and finally to ensure that the permit will not reduce the herd below the minimum population level needed. AB1420 provided some constraints on issuance of elk depredation permits and requires identification of additional management activities to alleviate private property conflicts involving elk. The Department will investigate the potential for expanding hunting opportunities as a measure to alleviate private property conflicts involving elk. Because of the constraints in AB1420, the Department does not anticipate an adverse cumulative impact to elk populations resulting from combined effects of the proposed project and issuance of depredation permits. Effects of Vehicle-Caused Mortality The number of elk killed by vehicles is not well documented. Unlike deer, very few elk in California appear to be killed by automobiles each year. Vehicle-caused elk mortalities have been reported (specifically with Roosevelt elk in Del Norte and Humboldt counties and tule elk in the Owens Valley and at Cache Creek) since 1990. Unreported incidents cannot be quantified. However, the Department believes effects of vehicle-caused mortality on statewide and localized elk populations are minimal. Conclusion The Department has examined a variety of factors that might affect Roosevelt, Rocky Mountain, and tule elk populations statewide and locally. The Department does not anticipate that adverse cumulative impacts to statewide or local elk populations will occur as a result of the proposed project in combination with any factor discussed. However, if some unforeseen event should occur that threatens the welfare of either statewide elk populations or individual hunted populations, the Commission has the authority to take appropriate action, which may include emergency closure of seasons and/or reduction of future hunting opportunities. Although hunting elk will result in the death of individual elk, specific safeguards included in the proposed action, such as limited tag quotas, short seasons, bag limits, and close monitoring of hunter activity in the field, will result in removing elk at a level that is below the individual herds' sustained-yield capabilities. Individual elk herds proposed for hunting will be maintained at or above approved management plan objectives, and the estimated statewide tule elk population will remain well above 2,000 animals. Statewide population levels for Roosevelt and Rocky Mountain elk will ---PAGE BREAK--- 65 remain stable. Therefore, significant adverse effects, individually or cumulatively, to elk populations are not expected to result from the proposed project. Additionally, no impacts from two or more separate factors have been identified where, when viewed alone would be minor, but whose combined effect would be significant. Because individual and cumulative negative impacts are not expected to occur, specific mitigation measures are unnecessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- 66 CHAPTER 3 - ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO PROJECT (NO CHANGE) Other than annual tag quota modifications proposed in response to herd productivity, implementation of the No Project alternative would result in no change from the 2015 elk hunting regulations described in the “Existing Condition” Appendix 17. ALTERNATIVE 2 – INCREASED HARVEST Alternative 2 represents management options within each hunt zone that will achieve an increased harvest (IH) from the herd(s). IH refers to a harvest strategy that maximizes the number of animals that can be harvested from a population, commensurate with the goals and objectives stated for that herd, for at least the next year. A potential problem with an IH management strategy is the risk of overharvesting. If, under an IH program, an overharvest occurred, more conservative management strategies would have to be implemented the following year to correct the situation. ALTERNATIVE 3 – REDUCED HARVEST Alternative 3 represents management options within a particular hunt zone that will produce a relatively small harvest. This reduced harvest (RH) is a harvest strategy that provides hunting opportunities at reduced levels from those proposed under either IH or the proposed project strategies. ALTERNATIVE 4 – HERD GROWTH Alternative 4 represents management options available if the number of elk increases substantially within the corresponding hunt units. The Herd Growth (HG) scenario would increase the harvest level to correspond with the increase in elk numbers. HG would provide more hunting opportunity correlated directly with elk population levels. Population growth for elk zones were estimated based on the potential for those herds to increase in time. Growth estimates ranged from 18% to 400%. The time frame to reach the herd growth level for the analyzed population under this alternative will vary by herd. This is an alternative harvest that could be utilized within the life span of this environmental document. Current and proposed harvest strategies, for most herds, allow for population growth through time. ---PAGE BREAK--- 67 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bakker, E. 1972. An island called California. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley. Barbour, M.G., and J. Majors, eds. 1977. Terrestrial vegetation of California. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Barnes, E. P. 1925a. Elk in Del Norte County. California Fish and Game 11:90. 1925b. A few Roosevelt elk still exist in Del Norte County. California Fish and Game 11:142. Berbach, M.W. 1991. Activity patterns and range relationships of tule elk and mule deer in Owens Valley. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. Calif. Berkeley. 141 pp. Booth, J. Swanson, and D. Koch. 1988. Management plan for the Cache Creek tule elk management unit. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California. Botti, F. and D. Koch. 1988. Management plan for the Grizzly Island tule elk management unit. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California. Bubenik, A.B. 1982. Physiology. Pp. 125-179 in J. W. Thomas and Dale E. Toweill eds. Elk of North America, ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA 698 pp. Burcham, L.T. 1975. Climate, structure, and history of California's annual grassland ecosystem. Pages 7-14 in R.M. Love, ed. The California annual grassland ecosystem. Univ. of California, Davis, Inst. of Ecology Publ. No. 7. Clutton-Brock, T.H., F.E. Guiness, and S.D. Albon. 1982. Red deer: behavior and ecology of two sexes. Univ. Chicago Press. 378 pp. Department of Fish and Game. 2004. Final Environmental Document, Section 364, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Regarding Elk Hunting. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 300 pp. deVos, J. Jr. And T. McKinney. 2003 Recent trends in North American mountain lion populations: a hypothesis. Pages 297-307 in C. van Riper III and D. J. Mattson, editors. The Colorado Plateau II, University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Fischer, J. and D. Kitchen. 1984. Siskiyou County elk study: final field report 1982-1984. California Department of Fish and Game, 1416 Ninth Street. Sacramento, California 95814. ---PAGE BREAK--- 68 Fowler, G.S. 1985. Tule elk in California: history, current status, and management recommendations. California Department of Fish and Game, 1416 Ninth Street. Sacramento, California 95814. Interagency Agreement #C-698. Fredrickson, K. M. Havstad, R. Estell, and P. Hyder. 1998. Perspectives on desertification: south-western United States. Journal of Arid Environments 39:191-207. Geist, V. 1982. Adaptive behavioral strategies. Pp. 219-277 in J. W. Thomas and Dale E. Toweill eds. Elk of North America, ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA 698 pp. Harper, J.A., J.H. Harn, W.W. Bentley, and C.F. Yocom. 1967. The status and ecology of the Roosevelt elk in California. Wildlife Monographs No. 16. Washington D.C. The Wildlife Society. 49 pp. Hebblewhite, M. 2005. Predation by wolves interacts with the North Pacific Oscillation (NPO) on a western North American elk population. Journal of Animal Ecology 74:226- 233. Hines, J. Lemos, and N. Hartmen. 1985. Male breeding efficiency in Roosevelt elk of southwestern Oregon. Wildlife Research Report Number 15. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, P.O. Box 3503, Portland, Oregon 97208. Hobbs, N.T., and 12 co-authors. 2006. An integrated assessment of the effects of climate change on Rocky Mountain National Park and its gateway community: interactions of multiple stressors. Final Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/epaprintonly.cgi. Kitchen, D.W. and P.M. Woodard. 1995. Seasonal habitat use and herd composition by Roosevelt elk in the Marble Mountains, Siskiyou County, California. Second Report 12 May 1994. 37 pp. Koenig, W.D., W.J. Carmen, M.T. Stanback, and R.L. Mumme. 1991. In press. Determinants of acorn productivity among five species of oaks in central coastal California. Symposium on California's Oak Woodlands and Hardwood Rangeland. Lindzey, F.G., W.G. Hepworth, T.A. Mattson and A.F. Reeves 1997. Potential for competition interactions between mule deer and elk in the Western United States and Canada: A Review Wyoming Cooperative Fisheries and Wildlife Research Unit, Laramie, WY. 84pp. Lyon, J. and L. Ward. 1982. Elk and land management. Pp. 443-477 in J. W. Thomas and Dale E. Toweill (eds.). Elk of North America, ecology and management. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, 698 pp. ---PAGE BREAK--- 69 McCullough, D.R. 1969. The Tule Elk: Its History, Behavior and Ecology. University of California Publ. in Zoology. No. 88. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. 209 pp. McCullough, D.R. 1979. The George Reserve deer herd: population ecology of a selected species. Univ. Michigan Press. Ann Arbor. 271 pp. McCullough, D.R. 1984. Lessons from the George Reserve. Pp. 211-242. in: L. K. Halls White-tailed deer: ecology and management. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, 870 pp. McCullough, D.R. 1984. Lessons from the George Reserve. Pp. 211-242. in: L. K. Halls White-tailed deer: ecology and management. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, 870 pp. Mohler, L. and D.E. Toweill. 1982. Regulated elk populations and hunter harvests. Pp. 561-598 in J. W. Thomas and Dale E. Toweill (eds.). Elk of North America, ecology and management. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, 698 pp. Munz, P.A. and D.D. Keck. 1973. A California flora with supplement. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley. Murie, O.J. 1951. The Elk of North America. Wildlife Management Institute/Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 376 pp. Nelson, J. and T.A. Leege. 1982. Nutritional requirements and food habits. Pp. 323- 368 in J. W. Thomas and Dale E. Toweill (eds.). Elk of North America, ecology and management. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, 698 pp. Oruduff, R. 1974. Introduction to California plant life. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley. Potter, D.R. 1982. Recreational use of elk. Pp. 509-559 in J.W. Thomas and D.G Toweill eds. Elk of North America, ecology and management. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, PA. 698 p. Racine, T. Blankinship, and D. Koch. 1988. Management plan for the Owens Valley tule elk management unit. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California. Ricker, W.E. 1954. Stock and Recruitment. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 11:559-623. Savidge, I.R. and J.S. Ziesenis. 1980. Sustained yield Management. Pp. 405-410 in Sanford D. Schemnitz Wildlife Management Techniques Manual. The Wildlife Society. Washington, D.C. 686 pp. ---PAGE BREAK--- 70 Smith, D. and D. Updike. 1987. Elk Pop, unpublished computer population simulation model. Department of Fish and Game, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California 95814. Taber, R.D., K. Raedeke, and D.A. McCaughran. 1982. Population characteristics. Pp. 279-300 in J. W. Thomas and Dale E. Toweill (eds.). Elk of North America, ecology and management. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, 698 pp. Thomas, R. D. 1975. The status of Rocky Mountain Elk in Kern County, 1974. California Fish and Game 61 239-241. Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. MacMillian Publishing Company, New York, NY. 300 pp. Williams, E.S., M.W. Miller, T.J. Kreeger, R.H. Kahn, and E.T. Thorne. 2002. Chronic wasting disease of deer and elk: a review with recommendations for management. Journal of Wildlife Management, 66(3): 551-563. ---PAGE BREAK--- 71 Appendix 1 – 2014 Elk Tags Issued and Harvested on PLM Ranches PLM Name Bull Tags Bulls Harvested Antlerless Tags Antlerless Harvest ALEXANDER RANCH 1 1 2 2 AVENALES RANCH 2 2 2 2 BARDIN RANCH 2 2 4 4 BLACK RANCH 1 0 1 1 CAMP 5 OUTFITTERS (MORISOLI) 3 3 3 3 CARNAZA WILDLIFE MGT AREA 3 3 3 1 CARRIZO RANCH 2 2 2 2 CHIMNEY ROCK RANCH 2 2 CLARK AND WHITE RANCH 3 3 2 0 CONNOLLY/CORRAL HOLLOW RANCH 1 0 1 0 COTTRELL RANCH 1 0 1 1 DEFRANCESCO AND EATON 2 2 1 1 EDEN VALLEY RANCH 8 2 7 2 FULTON RANCH 1 1 GABILAN RANCH 1 1 HARTNELL RANCH 1 0 2 2 HEARST RANCH 6 2 6 0 HUNTER RANCH 1 1 INDIAN VALLEY CATTLE CO. 3 3 2 2 ISABEL VALLEY RANCH 1 1 JS RANCH 1 1 LEWIS RANCH 1 1 1 1 LONE RANCH 3 2 2 0 MILLER-ERIKSEN RANCH 1 0 PBM FARMS 1 0 PEACHTREE RANCH 4 4 2 2 POTTER VALLEY WMA 2 2 10 10 RANCHO LA CUESTA 4 4 1 0 REDWOOD HOUSE RANCH 1 1 ROOSTER COMB RANCH 2 0 ROSEBERG RESOURCES PONDOSA 2 2 2 2 R-R RANCH 3 6 SHAMROCK RANCH 7 6 5 5 SLICK ROCK RANCH 1 1 SMITH RIVER 3 3 SPRING VALLEY RANCH 4 3 STOVER RANCH 4 2 2 1 SUMMER CAMP RANCH 1 0 SWEETWATER RANCH 1 1 TEJON RANCH 12 9 3 1 TEMBLOR WMA 7 7 12 7 TRINCHERO RANCH 2 0 WIGGINS RANCH 2 2 2 2 WORK RANCH 2 0 TOTALS 116 82 87 54 ---PAGE BREAK--- 72 Appendix 2 - 2016 Proposed Elk Tag General Hunt Tag Quota Ranges 2016 Proposed Elk Tag Allocation [shown in ranges] Elk Bull Antlerless Either- Sex Spike General Roosevelt Elk Hunts Siskiyou Period 1 0-40 0-40 Siskiyou Period 2 0-10 0-40 Siskiyou Period 3 0-5 0-20 Del Norte Period 1 0-15 0-25 0-10 Del Norte Period 2 0-15 0-25 0-10 Del Norte Period 3 0-15 0-25 0-10 Del Norte Period 4 0-15 0-25 0-10 Del Norte Period 5 0-15 0-25 0-10 Humboldt Period 1 0-20 0-50 0-10 Humboldt Period 2 0-20 0-50 0-10 Humboldt Period 3 0-20 0-50 0-10 Humboldt Period 4 0-20 0-50 0-10 Humboldt Period 5 0-20 0-50 0-10 Marble Mountain North Period 1 0-50 0-20 Marble Mountain North Period 2 0-10 0-40 Marble Mountain North Period 3 0-5 0-15 Marble Mountain South Period 1 0-50 0-20 Marble Mountain South period 2 0-10 0-40 Marble Mountain South Period 3 0-5 0-15 General Rocky Mountain Elk Hunts Northeastern California 0-30 0-20 General Roosevelt/Tule Elk Hunts Mendocino North Coast 0-10 0-40 Mendocino Middle Fork 0-10 0-40 Mendocino Upper Russian River 0-10 0-40 Mendocino Little Lake 0-5 0-10 Mendocino South Coast 0-5 0-10 General Tule Elk Hunts Cache Creek 0-10 0-10 La Panza Period 1 0-20 0-30 La Panza Period 2 0-20 0-30 Bishop Period 3 0-10 0-30 Bishop Period 4 0-10 0-30 Bishop Period 5 0-10 0-30 Independence Period 2 0-10 0-30 Independence Period 3 0-10 0-30 Independence Period 4 0-10 0-30 Independence Period 5 0-10 0-30 Lone Pine Period 2 0-10 0-30 Lone Pine Period 3 0-10 0-30 Lone Pine Period 4 0-10 0-30 Lone Pine Period 5 0-10 0-30 Tinemaha Period 2 0-10 0-30 Tinemaha Period 3 0-10 0-30 Tinemaha Period 4 0-10 0-30 Tinemaha Period 5 0-10 0-30 West Tinemaha Period 1 0-10 0-30 West Tinemaha Period 2 0-10 0-30 West Tinemaha Period 3 0-10 0-30 West Tinemaha Period 4 0-10 0-30 West Tinemaha Period 5 0-10 0-30 ---PAGE BREAK--- 73 2016 Proposed Elk Tag Allocation [shown in ranges] Elk Bull Antlerless Either- Sex Spike Tinemaha Mountain Period 1 0-8 Tinemaha Mountain Period 2 0-8 Tinemaha Mountain Period 3 0-8 Tinemaha Mountain Period 4 0-8 Tinemaha Mountain Period 5 0-8 Whitney Period 2 0-4 0-10 Whitney Period 3 0-4 0-10 Whitney Period 4 0-4 0-10 Whitney Period 5 0-4 0-10 Goodale Period 1 0-10 0-10 Goodale Period 2 0-10 0-10 Goodale Period 3 0-10 0-10 Goodale Period 4 0-10 0-10 Goodale Period 5 0-10 0-10 Grizzly Island Period 1 0-3 0-12 0-10 Grizzly Island Period 2 0-3 0-12 0-10 Grizzly Island Period 3 0-3 0-12 0-10 Grizzly Island Period 4 0-3 0-12 0-10 Grizzly Island Period 5 0-3 0-12 0-10 Grizzly Island Period 6 0-3 0-12 0-10 Grizzly Island Period 7 0-3 0-12 0-10 Grizzly Island Period 8 0-3 0-12 0-10 Grizzly Island Period 9 0-3 0-12 0-10 Grizzly Island Period 10 0-3 0-12 0-10 Grizzly Island Period 11 0-3 0-12 0-10 Grizzly Island Period 12 0-3 0-12 0-10 Grizzly Island Period 13 0-3 0-12 0-10 Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast Period 1 0-14 0-16 Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast Period 2 0-14 0-16 Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast Period 3 0-14 0-14 East Park Reservoir 0-6 0-20 San Luis Reservoir Period 1 0-10 0-20 0-10 San Luis Reservoir Period 2 0-10 0-20 0-10 San Luis Reservoir Period 3 0-10 0-20 0-10 Bear Valley 0-10 0-10 Lake Pillsbury Period 1 0-10 0-10 Lake Pillsbury Period 2 0-10 0-10 Lake Pillsbury Period 3 0-10 0-10 Santa Clara 0-15 0-20 Alameda 0-4 0-10 San Emigdio Mountain 0-15 0-40 Camp Roberts Period 1 0-10 0-20 Camp Roberts Period 2 0-10 0-20 Camp Roberts Period 3 0-10 0-20 Apprentice Hunts Siskiyou 0-2 Marble Mountains North 0-4 Marble Mountains South 0-4 Northeastern CA 0-4 Cache Creek 0-2 0-2 La Panza Period 1 0-2 0-2 Bishop Period 2 0-10 0-30 Grizzly Island Period 1 0-4 0-4 Grizzly Island Period 2 0-4 0-4 Grizzly Island Period 3 0-4 0-4 Grizzly Island Period 4 0-4 0-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 74 2016 Proposed Elk Tag Allocation [shown in ranges] Elk Bull Antlerless Either- Sex Spike Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast 0-2 0-8 Archery Only Hunts Northeastern California Archery Only 0-10 0-10 0-20 Owens Valley Multiple Zone Archery Only 0-10 0-10 Lone Pine Archery Only Period 1 0-10 0-30 Tinemaha Archery Only Period 1 0-10 0-30 Whitney Archery Only Period 1 0-10 0-30 Goodale Period 1 0-10 0-10 Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast Archery Only 0-10 0-10 Muzzleloader Only Hunts Bishop Muzzleloader Only Period 1 0-10 0-30 Independence Muzzleloader Only Period 1 0-10 0-10 Goodale Period 1 0-10 0-10 Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast Muzzleloader Only 0-6 0-10 Muzzleloader/Archery Only Hunts Siskiyou 0-20 Marble Mountain North 0-20 Marble Mountain South 0-20 Fund Raising Tags Multi-zone 1 Grizzly Island 1 Owens Valley 1 Military Only Elk Tags Fort Hunter Liggett Military Early Season 0-2 0-2 Fort Hunter Liggett Military Period 1 0-16 Fort Hunter Liggett Military Period 2 0-14 Fort Hunter Liggett Military Period 3 0-14 Camp Roberts Military Only Period 1 0-10 0-20 Camp Roberts Military Only Period 2 0-10 0-20 Camp Roberts Military Only Period 3 0-10 0-20 Fort Hunter Liggett Military Apprentice 0-2 0-8 Fort Hunter Liggett Military Archery Only 0-10 0-6 Fort Hunter Liggett Military Muzzleloader Only 0-6 Elk SHARE Hunts SHARE Roosevelt Elk Hunts Siskiyou 0-55 0-100 Del Norte 0-25 0-100 0-50 Humboldt 0-25 0-100 0-50 Marble Mountain North 0-20 0-25 Marble Mountain South 0-20 0-25 SHARE Rocky Mountain Elk Hunts Northeastern California 0-20 0-20 SHARE Roosevelt/Tule Elk Hunts Mendocino North Coast 0-10 0-40 Mendocino Middle Fork 0-10 0-40 Mendocino Upper Russian River 0-10 0-40 Mendocino Little Lake 0-1 0-5 Mendocino South Coast 0-5 0-10 SHARE Tule Elk Hunts Cache Creek 0-10 0-10 La Panza 0-40 0-60 Bishop 0-10 0-30 Independence 0-10 0-30 Lone Pine 0-40 0-30 Tinemaha 0-10 0-30 ---PAGE BREAK--- 75 2016 Proposed Elk Tag Allocation [shown in ranges] Elk Bull Antlerless Either- Sex Spike West Tinemaha 0-10 0-30 Tinemaha Mountain 0-8 Whitney 0-4 0-10 Goodale 0-10 0-10 Grizzly Island 0-2 0-50 0-50 Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast 0-42 0-44 East Park Reservoir 0-6 0-20 San Luis Reservoir 0-30 0-30 Bear Valley 0-10 0-10 Lake Pillsbury 0-10 0-10 Santa Clara 0-4 0-20 Alameda 0-4 0-10 San Emigdio 0-15 0-20 Camp Roberts 0-10 0-20 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix 3– Scoping Summary - Notice of Preparation Documents This section summarizes the range of scoping comments received through the scoping period. These comments raised issues that will be taken into consideration by CDFW and the Commission in preparation of the Draft ED. The summary of comments presented in this section is organized by date received. This organization does not represent the relative importance among comments or topic areas, but rather is intended to facilitate presentation of comments in an orderly manner. Scoping Meeting CDFW conducted one scoping meeting, held from 1:00 P.M. to 3:00 P.M. on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at CDFW’s Wildlife Branch located at 1812 9th Street, Sacramento CA 95811. The meeting was intended to solicit input from the public and interested public agencies regarding the nature and scope of the environmental impacts to be addressed in the Draft Environmental Document (Draft ED). At the beginning of the meeting, staff made a brief presentation in order to provide an overview of the existing program, the legal background leading to this Draft ED, the objectives and range of information to be included in the Program, and the CEQA process generally. During the scoping meeting, participants also were encouraged to submit written comments, or to submit additional comments by mail or email before close of the comment period on September 15, 2015. Approximately 6 members of the public attended the scoping meeting. Oral Comments Attendees: Topics discussed include:  Status of elk management plan;  Timing of commission process for tag quotas; Name Affiliation Email Phone Joe Hobbs CDFW [EMAIL REDACTED] (916) 445-9992 Regina Abella CDFW [EMAIL REDACTED] (916) 445-3728 Roy Griffith CDFW [EMAIL REDACTED] (916) 653-1093 Chris Howard Del Norte County [EMAIL REDACTED] Phil Martinelli RMEF [EMAIL REDACTED] (925) 708-4724 Robert Moore California Bowmen Hunters [EMAIL REDACTED] (916) 531-1281 Bill Gaines Gaines and Associates [EMAIL REDACTED] (916) 337-9031 Clark Blanchard CDFW [EMAIL REDACTED] Gary Ryueuson Green Diamond [EMAIL REDACTED] (707) 496-1941 DJ Sambucetti RMEF [EMAIL REDACTED] (530) 681-0804 Eric Loft CDFW [EMAIL REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK---  How/why hunts are created and their tag quotas/seasons developed;  Wolf predation and their impacts on elk populations;  Hunting impacts on small populations;  Hunting impacts from harvesting adult males;  Drought impacts;  Population trends;  Process and timing of document approval;  Depredation;  Landowner, PLM, SHARE tags – how allocated? Written Comments Received During 30-Day Comment Period In total, 14 written comments from 12 unique individuals were received through the scoping process. This included a total of 6 hard copy letters (from 6 unique individuals) and 8 emails (from 6 unique individuals). A single letter or email often contained more than one scoping-related comment; these have been separated out and grouped accordingly. The vast majority of comments included recommendations for increasing elk hunting opportunities. 5 of the 6 hard copy letters included recommendations for more tags, extended seasons, and the creation of new hunt areas. All 8 of the emails received included similar recommendations. 1 hard copy letter agreed with the Department’s “Less than Significant” finding regarding Biological Resource impacts. 1 hard copy letter requested completion of the statewide elk management plan before changes to the current elk hunting program were implemented. The letter also requests a more detailed explanation of quota development processes, closing hunting in certain areas for “population recovery”, non-consumptive uses, and drought relief. The letter also requests an explanation on population level effects of annually removing “primary” bulls through hunting. 1 email recommends more cooperation among state and federal agencies to manage elk according to habitat suitability and conditions. This same email suggests elk be managed as a “public safety hazard” due to increasing populations and disease they may carry. 1 email recommends creation of wildlife corridors to ensure long-term survivability of the species. Note: No comments were received that pertained directly to Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use/Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, or Utilities/Service Systems. ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment #1 Project Description The project involves elk hunting for 2016 (Section 332, Fish and Game Code). Specifically, the Department of Fish and Wildlife is proposing to adjust tag quotas On existing elk hunts, establish new hunt zones, modify season dates, modify existing hunt boundaries, add additional hunts within existing zones, and modify existing hunts. Existing law (Section 3950, Fish and Game Code) designates elk (genus Cervus) as a game mammal in California. Section 332, Fish and Game Code, provides that the Commission may fix the area or areas, seasons and hours, bag and possession limit, sex, and total number of elk that may be taken pursuant to its regulations. Section 203.1, Fish and Game Code, requires the Commission to consider populations, habitat, food supplies, the welfare of individual animals, and other pertinent facts when establishing hunting regulations for elk. State law (Section 207 of the Fish and Game Code) requires the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to review mammal hunting regulations and the Department of Fish and Game (Department) to present recommendations for changes to the mammal hunting regulations to the Commission at a public meeting. Mammal hunting regulations adopted by the Commission provide for hunting elk in specific areas of the State [Section 364 and 364.1, Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR)]. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form NOTE: The following is a sample form and may be tailored to satisfy individual agencies’ needs and project circumstances. It may be used to meet the requirements for an initial study when the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines have been met. Substantial evidence of potential impacts that are not listed on this form must also be considered. The sample questions in this form are intended to encourage thoughtful assessment of impacts, and do not necessarily represent thresholds of significance. 1. Project 2. Lead agency name and address: 3. Contact person and phone number: 4. Project location: 5. Project sponsor's name and address: 6. General plan designation: 7. Zoning: 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Elk Hunting California Fish and Game Commission 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Eric Loft, Chief, Wildlife Branch - (916) 445-3555 Statewide California Department of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Branch, 1812 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95811 N/A N/A See attachment #1 The project occurs on wildlands in California that are open to elk hunting. N/A Print Form ---PAGE BREAK--- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Signature Date ---PAGE BREAK--- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. ---PAGE BREAK--- SAMPLE QUESTION Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland ---PAGE BREAK--- Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? de) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? III. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of ---PAGE BREAK--- Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ---PAGE BREAK--- Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard ---PAGE BREAK--- Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ---PAGE BREAK--- Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XII. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ---PAGE BREAK--- Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:     Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ---PAGE BREAK--- Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which ---PAGE BREAK--- Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083, 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov. Code; Sections 21080, 21083.05, 21095, Pub. Resources Code; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656. Revised 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment #2 Elk Hunting – Initial Study Impact Significance Analysis Less Than Significant Impact 1. IV. Biological Resources. Less than significant impacts may occur for elk populations within hunting zones if harvest rates are exceedingly high in comparison to population levels, recruitment rates, other sources of mortality, and management unit objectives. The goal of California’s elk program is to sustain or increase elk populations and ensure they are managed within habitat capabilities and in consideration of other land uses. Maintain healthy and productive elk populations that contribute to ecosystem functions. Continue to provide use and enjoyment of elk by the general public while conserving and enhancing elk habitat throughout the state. 2. XVIII Mandatory Findings of Significance. Less than significant impacts may occur for elk populations within hunting zones if harvest rates are exceedingly high in comparison to population levels, recruitment rates, other sources of mortality, and management unit objectives. The goal of California’s elk program is to sustain or increase elk populations and ensure they are managed within habitat capabilities and in consideration of other land uses. Maintain healthy and productive elk populations that contribute to ecosystem functions. Continue to provide use and enjoyment of elk by the general public while conserving and enhancing elk habitat throughout the state. Harvest strategies use the best available population information as well as the previously stated goals and objectives to establish appropriate tag ranges and seasons. The elk program utilizes adaptive management as part of its overall elk management strategies. Adaptive management is a flexible decision-making process for ongoing knowledge acquisition, monitoring, and evaluation leading to continuous improvements in management planning and implementation of a project to achieve specified objectives. An adaptive management approach provides a structured process that allows for taking action under uncertain conditions based on the best available science, closely monitoring and evaluating outcomes, and re-evaluating and adjusting decisions as more information is learned. Previous, current, and future harvest rates have been and continue to be managed not to reduce populations below the ability to be self- sustaining. ---PAGE BREAK--- State of California – Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Director’s Office 1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 www.wildlife.ca.gov Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870 August 11, 2015 NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING To Whom It May Concern: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is preparing a draft environmental document to address potential impacts resulting from the implementation of elk hunting regulations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 a public scoping meeting will be held to identify potentially significant effects on the environment that may result from the proposed regulations, as well as any feasible mitigation measures that should be addressed in the draft environmental document. CDFW has prepared an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation for the proposed action. These documents can be accessed on our web page at: The scoping meeting is scheduled from 1:00 P.M. to 3:00 P.M. on Wednesday August 26, 2015 at CDFW’s Wildlife Branch located at 1812 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95811. If you are unable to attend the meeting, comments may be provided by e-mail to Joe Hobbs ([EMAIL REDACTED]) or by letter to the following address: Attn: Joe Hobbs California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1812 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95811 ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Pat Fitzmorris [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 5:34 AM To: Hobbs, Joe@Wildlife; 'Mike Ford ([EMAIL REDACTED])'; 'Bill Gaines'; Robert Moore ([EMAIL REDACTED]); [EMAIL REDACTED]; Jay Sarina ([EMAIL REDACTED]- norte.ca.us) Cc: Roman Porter; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Rich Klug ([EMAIL REDACTED]); Holly Gallagher ([EMAIL REDACTED]); [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Re: Elk Scoping Session Hi Joe, Any chance for more youth elk tags? For the state, there are 14 youth and 294 general tags (combined all; antlerless, bull, archery, muzzleloader). Seems that a lot more opportunity could be offered for youth hunters. Thank you, Pat Fitzmorris Senior Field Director Northern California Region CA Deer Association [EMAIL REDACTED] 1431 N. Market Blvd., #1 Sacramento, CA 95834 office: [PHONE REDACTED] cell: [PHONE REDACTED] http://www.caldeer.org ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Rick Copeland [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:42 PM To: Hobbs, Joe@Wildlife Cc: Stowers, Craig@Wildlife; Yparraguirre, Dan@Wildlife; Loft, Eric@Wildlife Subject: Fwd: CDFW Plans Public Meeting On Proposed Elk Hunting Regulations Joe et all This press release has me somewhat on my heels. Received today August 25 at 2pm with a notice of a meeting being held Wednesday August 26 from 1-3. Would be hard to make that one if it is today. The point is even if the meeting is tomorrow, Thursday the 26th, my assumption, that is pretty late notice. Enough whining. The point is, having read the attachments, this pretty much looks like you are just starting the process? I would like to be on the list in the future re: this topic especially RE current Mendocino hunt 327/328 Wilderness Unlimited (WU) manages about 80,000 acres of forest/ranch land in Mendocino County that have elk on them, a lot. The Mendocino tag has had a tag allotment of 2 bulls and 2 cows per year since its inception. Roosevelt’s on the coast and Tule’s in Potter Valley, that both happen to fall into the same tag zone. Maybe that is odd and up for review? I don’t feel we need to enter SHARE or PLM to manage this as we are already allowing public access now. Albeit members of WU, but still hunter opportunity. All the land owners (4 separate as of now) are willing to work with us on this. We are willing to promote the Mendo hunt and take are chances with the draw as we did this year, A WU member drawing one this year. The question for him is, does he chase the 8x Roose or the 7x Tule (As of today) Are you reviewing changes regarding this hunt zone? Thoughts? Rick Copeland Rick Copeland CEO-Editor Wilderness Unlimited [EMAIL REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Rick Copeland [[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:57 PM To: Hobbs, Joe@Wildlife Subject: Re: CDFW Plans Public Meeting On Proposed Elk Hunting Regulations Thanks Joe Just suggesting that you consider authorizing more tags for the Menodcino hunt or split the hunt on 101 east and 101 west maybe and still authorize more tags in both. They herds in Mendocino are different species and both doing well. I don’t think the solution should be to just give all additional tags to SHARE. Rick Copeland Rick Copeland CEO-Editor Wilderness Unlimited [EMAIL REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- August 26, 2015 Sent via Email Attn: Joe Hobbs California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1812 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Re: Scoping on Implementation of Elk Hunting Regulations Dear Mr. Hobbs: On behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, I submit these scoping comments on potential impacts resulting from the implementation of elk hunting regulations. The Center is a national, nonprofit organization with over 900,000 members and online activists whose mission is to protect and restore rare animals and their habitats through science, policy, education, advocacy, and environmental law. The Center is concerned about how implementation of the elk hunting regulations will affect elk recovery in California. We understand that the Department of Fish and Wildlife is proposing to adjust tag quotas on existing elk hunts, establish new hunt zones, modify season dates and existing hunt boundaries, and add additional hunts within existing zones. We ask that the Department address the following issues in the draft environmental document. To begin, we are concerned about the Department’s failure to first finalize a statewide elk management plan, as the statute has long required. Section 3952 of the Fish and Game Code provides: The department shall develop a statewide elk management plan, consistent with the state’s wildlife policy as set forth in Section 1801. The statewide elk management plan shall emphasize maintaining sufficient elk populations in perpetuity, while considering all of the following: Characteristics and geographic range of each elk subspecies within the state, including Roosevelt elk, Rocky Mountain elk, and tule elk. Habitat conditions and trends within the state. Major factors affecting elk within the state, including, but not limited to, conflicts with other land uses. Management activities necessary to achieve the goals of the plan and to alleviate property damage. Identification of high priority areas for elk management. ---PAGE BREAK--- Methods for determining population viability and the minimum population level needed to sustain local herds. Description of the necessary contents for individual herd management plans prepared for high priority areas. A statewide elk management plan would inform the Department’s elk hunting regulations. For example, the required management plan must consider “population viability and the minimum population level needed to sustain local herds.” Such information is necessary before making any upward adjustment in existing elk quotas or opening up new areas to elk hunting. Moreover, Section 3951 of the California Fish and Game Code provides that any hunting of tule elk must be “in accordance with the statewide elk management plan developed pursuant to Section 3952.” Without such a management plan, the Department should not be authorizing the killing of these rare elk. Although much progress toward recovery has been made in the last 50 years, the statewide tule elk population is still just a fraction of its historical numbers. Indeed, scientists estimate that approximately half a million tule elk once roamed California, while today the Department in 2007 estimated the population at approximately 3800 elk in 21 herds.1 Furthermore, the population has likely declined since then because of the drought; this past year 250 tule elk perished in just one herd at Point Reyes National Seashore. We are concerned that the Department is moving forward with increased hunting of small elk herds without adequate information on population status and trends. The 2015 Final Elk Quota2 allocates tags for more than 350 elk, too often from herds with small numbers, and even for some small herds with demonstrated declining populations. In its environmental analysis, the Department should explain how it determined the quota for each herd and document whether such level of hunting is consistent with the state’s goal of “maintaining sufficient elk populations in perpetuity.” It is our understanding that (during seasons open to targeting of bulls) hunters usually seek the largest elk they can shoot, preferably one of the large “primary bulls,” which are responsible for most of the breeding. The Department needs to consider the impact of shooting the largest elk on population dynamics and whether each herd has adequate numbers to support the annual killing of primary bulls. California’s elk face many threats, particularly habitat loss, extended drought, and impacts from being hemmed in by urban development. Without sound and clearly-defined management policies, cumulative impacts from hunting could impede elk recovery or even cause permanent declines in the population. As such, we ask that the Department consider closing certain existing elk hunting areas based on the following considerations: promoting elk recovery, providing opportunities for non-consumptive wildlife uses such as photography and wildlife watching, and mitigating for impacts from California’s severe drought. 1 http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/elk/tule/about/distribution.html 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- California’s elk must be considered a public resource for everyone to enjoy, not just hunters. We ask that the Department not make any increases to the number of elk that can be killed until elk population numbers can be thoroughly analyzed in conjunction with a statewide elk management plan. Our concern here is with recovering elk in California through sound wildlife management driven by science. Sincerely, Collette Adkins, Senior Attorney 8640 Coral Sea Street Northeast Minneapolis, MN 55449 [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Thanks for your concern and work, Joe. We have a terrible problem with wildlife corridors in So.Cal. As you likely know, our mountain lions are struggling. Temecula has grown rapidly as has the rest of Riverside co. and San Diego. Land acquisitions are dictated by development so since we have had a slow spell, which is good, we have not made progress on wildlife corridors. The freeway system has really taken its toll and many of the acquisitions have been postage stamps with no connection for larger animals. Pam Nelson sierraclubsmg.org From: Pam Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 10:24 AM To: Hobbs, Joe@Wildlife Subject: Re: CA elk regulations Thank you, Joe, Since grassland habitats are disappearing I guess it seems that some think that elk are imperiled. As long as we keep adding protected lands, we have more chance to save the populations and keep them more diverse. Wildlife corridors are another item to consider, as you know. Hopefully these concepts are being considered by CDFW. Pam From: Pam Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 12:02 PM To: Hobbs, Joe@Wildlife Subject: CA elk regulations Hi, Joe, I heard that there was a public meeting about elk hunting regulations last week. I'm concerned that we are not protecting yet another of our native species and hope that stricter regs can remedy this. I know that loss of habitat and over-hunting (both legal and illegal) have reduced the once great herds to small isolated herds throughout California. Can you tell me what is being proposed? Pam Nelson Chair, Santa Margarita group/Sierra Club ---PAGE BREAK--- California Bowmen Hunters/State Archery Association Date: September 4 2015 From: Robert Moore Legislative Coordinator California Bowmen Hunters State Archery Association To: Joe Hobbs California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1812 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Ref: Elk Scoping Session Dear Joe, Hearing some of the comments during the meeting held August 26th in Sacramento I would like to propose adding archery only elk tags to the North Coast (North West) Unit. For depredation purposes in urban settings, bowhunting is a valuable tool to address safety concerns. Thanks for your consideration, Robert Moore Legislative Coordinator California Bowmen Hunters State Archery Association [EMAIL REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 4:07 PM To: Hobbs, Joe@Wildlife Subject: Re: elk update Thank you for taking the time to explain things regarding the scoping process….the following are comments we are sending for your consideration: The comments are being submitted after several meetings and conversations with our Resource Conservation District members, Lake Earl Grange members, Farm Bureau members and a great number of other private property owners who are aware or have experienced the Roosevelt Elk and their conflict with our citizens. These comments are made with the fact in mind that depredation permits are next to impossible to obtain for major elk damages to our property. Elk damages have been carefully documented over the past few years----and damages the past 2 years have rapidly increased due to the explosion of the elk population. We haven’t been able to protect our health and safety, our livestock, crops, fences, gardens, orchards or any other aspects of our private property from these DISPLACED elk. 1. Public Health and Safety * the California Highway Patrol has completed a document on elk vs vehicles in Del Norte Co. The elk have become a highway HAZARD. * CHILDREN AT THE BUS STOPS through out the Bertch area and Elk Valley are within a few feet of bull elk and cows with their calves. *Elk in the yards of people in the residential areas…mainly the Bertch and Lake Earl areas are a constant danger to residents and children at play. Pets have been attacked or trampled in the backyards 2. Herd Health *Absolutely no testing for diseases has taken place regarding the elk population in Del Norte County. This type of “lack of management” poses a constant threat for diseases to be spread to all domestic livestock. This is verified by a letter from Ben Gonzales (St. Vet for Ca Fish and Wildlife). At this time, nearly all herds (dairy and beef) are subject to elk contact on a daily basis. (see previously submitted comments for a description of many of these diseases) 3. Examples of Direct Damages (documented by Dave Lancaster) Destruction of the following: Small organic vegetable crops Lilly crops Commercial and Private Greenhouses Nurseries Orchards Backyard gardens Yard decorative plants Septic mound systems ---PAGE BREAK--- Lawn sprinkler systems Yard fences Livestock fencing Backyard pets Severe damage to Horses Severe damage to livestock 4. 80-90% of Del Norte County is in State or Federal ownership. Plus there are additional Tribal Lands. * No cooperation or engaged habitat planning with the US Forest Service, National Parks, California State Parks or the California Depart of Fish and Wildlife is taking place for elk management. * The result is DISPLACED elk searching for food with great intensity to keep from starving. Their quest for food places tremendous demand on adjacent private property. The elk are in constant conflict with ag enterprises and residential housing areas. (documented by Dave Landcaster) Thank you in advance for your consideration while reading our comments. Please call if you have questions. Sincerely, Helen Ferguson Chair Lake Earl Grange #577 Environmental Policy and Procedure Committe ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- September 24, 2015 Joe Hobbs California Department of Fish and Wildlife Elk and Antelope Coordinator 1812 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Dear Joe Hobbs, The Del Norte Resource Conservation District thanks you for the opportunity to input on the framework of changes for elk hunting in Del Norte. The Del Norte Resource Conservation supports the General Hunt and Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement (SHARE). Suggestions at our last RCD meeting with many Del Norte private landowners were to give Del Norte its own boundaries. Many Del Norte private landowners are willing to enter into the SHARE program with the goals of a program in place to reduce elk population in Del Norte County and at the same time, meet your mission statement, “manage California’s diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public”. The group would like to see hunts ranging from September (General) October through January (SHARE) in Del Norte County to include increased cow tags with bulls to encourage participating hunters. We have concerns on the liability protection program offered by CA. Fish and Wildlife but through a collaboration effort we are working towards a solution. Thanks for your help in working towards a manageable elk program for Del Norte. This is essential in moving forward towards addressing public concerns on safety, damage to livestock and property, and herd populations. Sincerely, Linda Crockett-Manager The Del Norte Resource Conservation 241 1st Street Smith River, CA 95567 [PHONE REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Del norte Rcd [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 9:24 AM To: Hobbs, Joe@Wildlife Subject: Elk Management Plan Linda. Please tell Joe the boundary for the NW hunt and the share tag allocation should be separated into JUST Del Norte county. The number of Del Norte tags needs to be greatly increased with cow tags preferred and of course some bulls. The local hunters should be given some priority hopefully. The number of total tags MUST be increased greatly in this county. Rob Miller. President DNCo Farm Bureau... ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 4:12 PM To: Hobbs, Joe@Wildlife Subject: Re: elk update Attention: Joe Hobbs As a result of a small gathering of interested property owners, members of the Del Norte Co. Farm Bureau, the local Ca Fish and Wildlife Advisory Committee, Del Norte Resource Conservation District and the Lake Earl Grange the following ideas are being submitted for consideration. “Elk Hunting” Initial Study 1. Biological Resources goal of California’s Elk program is to sustain or increase elk populations and ensure they are managed within habitat capabilities and in consideration of other land uses.” TO ATTAIN THIS GOAL/MISSION STATEMENT SOME MAJOR MANAGEMENT STRATAGIES NEED TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN CERTAIN AREAS IN DEL NORTE COUNTY. AT THIS TIME OUR ELK POPULATION IS IN MAJOR CONFLICT WITH THE STATED GOAL. SUSTAIN OR INCREASE----in Del Norte County we need the population of Elk DECREASED in various parts of our County. This is going to require some very keen management. *First of all ,we request Del Norte County and Humboldt County be separated. Our concentrations and locations of elk damage seem to be different than those of Humboldt County. We need an opportunity to reduce population numbers that are destroying private property in residential areas, small nursery businesses, small fruit and vegetable producers, large flower producers, and damaging dairy and beef operations. With the elk in such close range of our local residents there is a great concern for public safety as well as for industrial damages that are occurring. There is a need to reduce populations that could occur through expanded hunting opportunities for the general public. This can only be achieved through higher tag allotments for specific areas which would require an increase in the overall tag allotments for the State. Additionally, more landowner tags could be considered for those rural areas that are having significant elk damages. We feel the required land area for such tags would be much for beneficial for damage control if the required land area was reduced to 50-100 acres to qualify for a tag. This would provide more monetary compensation to offset damages for smaller producers as opposed to having them just enrolled in the SHARE program. Our mosaic makeup of our interested landowners for the SHARE program success in Del Norte will indeed help population reduction but in the long run won’t ---PAGE BREAK--- provide significant monetary compensation as most, if not all money, is expected to purchase insurance for “third party” claims for damages. It was also suggested to run an early season for disabled hunters. *MANAGE WITHIN HABITAT CAPABILITIES---In trying to attain the proposed goal for Elk Management in California another area for consideration and intense investigation is “habitat management” (or the lack of habitat management for elk in Del Norte County by ALL State and Federal Agencies) In a letter from Merv George (USFS Regional Supervisor) nothing regarding elk management and their habitat management has occurred. (Freedom of Information Act request in June 2015) This is in contrast to a statement in the Ca Elk Management Plan which states “The Six Rivers National Forest has recently undertaken several seral habitat enhancement projects which will benefit Elk” ***The Lake Earl Wildlife Area in Del Norte County does have a handful of Elk that graze in the McLaughlin ranch area . However, it a false statement in the California Elk Management Draft plan that states, “Continue to maintain elk habitat on the Department’s LEWA.” The vegetation on several thousand acres within the complex in rank vegetation as the CA Dept of Fish and Wildlife has withdrawn the leases to allow grazing the past 3 years. As a result the Elk are going to adjacent farm lands and backyards of residential areas as they prefer shorter and sweeter grasses. This needs to be fixed!….this isn’t habitat management! ***With regards to the Ca State and National Park systems in Del Norte NO HABITAT MANAGEMENT FOR ELK IS TAKING PLACE! *In a conversation with Jeff Bomke (State Park Sup. for Del Norte)… he stated that no management for elk occurred under their management. *The Ca State Parks office in Sacramento couldn't provide any documentation for elk management in the Ca State Parks in Del Norte County. Actually they couldn’t even answer a California Public Records request for..”who has the authority and responsibility for managing wildlife in the California State Parks?”. They said they were “embarrassed to admit it.” *John Laird's office for the Committee of Natural Resources couldn’t or wouldn't provide and answer either. *After a Freedom of Information request to Steve Prokof (local National Sup) in the National Park System, I received a letter which said it would cost me $5,040.00 for them to answer the one question (I refined my original request) “who has the authority and responsibility for managing wildlife in the National Parks in Del Norte County?” So I guess it is safe to say they really don't know the answer and one would conclude “no elk management is taking place.” And this of course this is plainly evident by touring their lands that are overgrown with dense berry vines and brush. In summary of the Redwood National Park, US Forest Service, Ca State Parks and the Ca Depart of Fish and Wildlife’s ELK HABITAT MANAGEMENT on our Public Lands is “Missing in Action”. These agencies aren’t following their own codes and policies. This must change as nearly 90% of the land in Del Norte County is in State and Federal ---PAGE BREAK--- ownership. And single speci management (elk habitat) isn’t their sole purpose…….but to just walk away and manage nothing isn’t the answer. It is apparent there needs to be a united effort of our local elected officials, ag organizations, Ca Highway Patrol, Cal Trans, our local Sheriff, community organizations and concerned private citizens to get these agencies to the table and make them responsible for providing habitat for not just the Elk but for all species existing on public lands-------OR SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER POPULATIONS NUMBERS. In contrast to Karen Kovac’s statement( at the last public meeting with the BOS, the Northern Regional reps and program management authors) “We thank you for feeding the Aleutian Geese and their success.…now you have the Elk!” IT ISN’T OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO FEED WILDLIFE WHO ARE HUNGRY BECAUSE THE AGENCIES AREN'T DOING THEIR HABITAT MANAGEMENT FOR SPECIES UNDER THEIR WATCH AND CARE. In conclusion, ...…Elk in Del Norte County are not being managed in a manner that contributes to the total ecosystem functions. The Elk are receiving less than minimal habitat opportunities, at best, for foraging and browsing on public lands in Del Norte County. This ongoing lack of management “displaces” them to private lands which conflicts with Ca Fish and Wildlife's goal for elk management in California. Therefore, with depredation permits being next to impossible to obtain, the only way to meet the Ca Fish and Wildlife's Management goal is to lengthen and increase seasons, increasing tag allotments, employ landowner programs such as allowing smaller land parcels incurring elk damage to obtain landowner tags, expanding the SHARE program, and working with PLMs that INCLUDE proposed management plans regarding negative impacts to adjacent property owners in Del Norte County. Thank you have any questions please call [PHONE REDACTED] Sincerely, Helen Ferguson Chair, Lake Earl Grange Environmental Policy and Procedure Committee ---PAGE BREAK--- 115 Appendix 4 Simulated Computer Runs – Elk Harvest (Elk Pop) SISKIYOU ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL AND PLM 2016 Ratio = 20/100/27 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. CURRENT CONDITION = NO CHANGE 20 BULL AND 20 ANTLERLESS (4 PLM ) TO HARVEST APPROXIMATELY 22 BULLS AND 14 COWS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE ELK TAGS) APPROXIMATE SUCCESS RATES; 70% BULL 40% COW HERD SIZE 600 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 16 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 22 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 3.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 82 408 110 600 600 I 20 12 YEAR 1 " 98 397 [PHONE REDACTED] I 22 14 YEAR 2 " 164 442 [PHONE REDACTED] I 22 14 YEAR 3 " 216 478 [PHONE REDACTED] I 22 14 YEAR 4 " 271 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 22 14 YEAR 5 " 327 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 22 14 YEAR 6 " 384 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 22 14 YEAR 7 " 444 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 22 14 YEAR 8 " 508 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 22 14 YEAR 9 " 577 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 22 14 YEAR 10 " 652 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 22 14 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 20 27 POST HUNT YR 1 20 62 POST HUNT YR 2 33 54 POST HUNT YR 3 42 55 POST HUNT YR 4 49 55 POST HUNT YR 5 55 55 POST HUNT YR 6 60 55 POST HUNT YR 7 63 55 POST HUNT YR 8 66 55 POST HUNT YR 9 69 54 POST HUNT YR 10 71 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- 116 SISKIYOU ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 20/100/27 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED HARVEST: BULL, ANTLERLESS, & EITHER-SEX TO HARVEST UP TO 40 BULLS AND 50 COWS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE & PLM ELK TAGS) Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 70% bull and 40% antlerless HERD SIZE 600 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 16 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 10 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 40.5 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 12.2 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 82 408 110 600 600 I 20 12 YEAR 1 " 98 406 [PHONE REDACTED] I 40 50 YEAR 2 " 149 428 [PHONE REDACTED] I 40 50 YEAR 3 " 182 437 [PHONE REDACTED] I 40 50 YEAR 4 " 214 451 [PHONE REDACTED] I 40 50 YEAR 5 " 244 466 [PHONE REDACTED] I 40 50 YEAR 6 " 273 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 40 50 YEAR 7 " 301 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 40 50 YEAR 8 " 328 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 40 50 YEAR 9 " 357 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 40 50 YEAR 10 " 386 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 40 50 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 20 27 POST HUNT YR 1 16 67 POST HUNT YR 2 29 57 POST HUNT YR 3 37 59 POST HUNT YR 4 44 58 POST HUNT YR 5 49 58 POST HUNT YR 6 54 58 POST HUNT YR 7 58 57 POST HUNT YR 8 61 57 POST HUNT YR 9 63 57 POST HUNT YR 10 65 57 ---PAGE BREAK--- 117 SISKIYOU ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 20/100/27 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST:BULL, ANTLERLESS, & EITHER-SEX (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS) TO HARVEST UP TO 60 BULLS AND 75 COWS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE & PLM ELK TAGS) Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 75% bull and 50% antlerless HERD SIZE 600 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 16 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 10 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 60.7 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 18.4 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 82 408 110 600 600 I 20 12 YEAR 1 " 98 406 [PHONE REDACTED] I 60 75 YEAR 2 " 132 405 [PHONE REDACTED] I 60 75 YEAR 3 " 145 387 [PHONE REDACTED] I 60 71 YEAR 4 " 155 374 [PHONE REDACTED] I 60 69 YEAR 5 " 160 360 [PHONE REDACTED] I 60 66 YEAR 6 " 161 346 [PHONE REDACTED] I 60 64 YEAR 7 " 159 334 [PHONE REDACTED] I 60 61 YEAR 8 " 155 321 [PHONE REDACTED] I 60 59 YEAR 9 " 149 309 [PHONE REDACTED] I 60 57 YEAR 10 " 141 298 [PHONE REDACTED] I 60 55 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 20 27 POST HUNT YR 1 12 72 POST HUNT YR 2 22 60 POST HUNT YR 3 27 63 POST HUNT YR 4 31 62 POST HUNT YR 5 34 62 POST HUNT YR 6 36 62 POST HUNT YR 7 37 62 POST HUNT YR 8 36 62 POST HUNT YR 9 35 62 POST HUNT YR 10 33 62 ---PAGE BREAK--- 118 SISKIYOU ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 20/100/27 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL, ANTLERLESS, & EITHER-SEX TO HARVEST UP TO 55 BULLS AND 67 COWS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE & PLM ELK TAGS) Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 70% bull and 40% antlerless HERD SIZE 800 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 16 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 10 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 40.5 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 12.2 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 109 544 147 800 800 I 20 12 YEAR 1 " 136 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 55 67 YEAR 2 " 202 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 55 67 YEAR 3 " 244 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 55 67 YEAR 4 " 287 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 55 67 YEAR 5 " 325 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 55 67 YEAR 6 " 363 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 55 67 YEAR 7 " 399 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 55 67 YEAR 8 " 435 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 55 67 YEAR 9 " 472 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 55 67 YEAR 10 " 511 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 55 67 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 20 27 POST HUNT YR 1 17 67 POST HUNT YR 2 29 57 POST HUNT YR 3 36 59 POST HUNT YR 4 43 58 POST HUNT YR 5 48 58 POST HUNT YR 6 53 58 POST HUNT YR 7 57 57 POST HUNT YR 8 60 57 POST HUNT YR 9 62 57 POST HUNT YR 10 64 57 ---PAGE BREAK--- 119 SISKIYOU ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 20/100/27 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST: BULL, ANTLERLESS, & EITHER-SEX TO HARVEST UP TO 20 BULLS AND 25 COWS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE & PLM ELK TAGS) Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 70% bull and 40% antlerless HERD SIZE 600 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 16 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 10 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 20.2 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 6.1 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 82 408 110 600 600 I 20 12 YEAR 1 " 98 406 [PHONE REDACTED] I 20 25 YEAR 2 " 166 450 [PHONE REDACTED] I 20 25 YEAR 3 " 219 486 [PHONE REDACTED] I 20 25 YEAR 4 " 274 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 20 25 YEAR 5 " 330 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 20 25 YEAR 6 " 388 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 20 25 YEAR 7 " 449 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 20 25 YEAR 8 " 514 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 20 25 YEAR 9 " 585 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 20 25 YEAR 10 " 663 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 20 25 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 20 27 POST HUNT YR 1 21 62 POST HUNT YR 2 34 54 POST HUNT YR 3 43 55 POST HUNT YR 4 50 55 POST HUNT YR 5 56 55 POST HUNT YR 6 60 54 POST HUNT YR 7 64 54 POST HUNT YR 8 66 54 POST HUNT YR 9 68 54 POST HUNT YR 10 70 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- 120 NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION, GENERAL & PLM 2016 (Includes Proposed Del Norte and Humboldt Zones Combined) Ratio = 45/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 65% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. CURRENT CONDITION EITHER-SEX TAGS & COOPERATIVE TAGS, PLM TAGS HARVEST APPROXIMATELY 50 BULL AND 14 ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 1600 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 16.5 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 13 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 1.6 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AU G 389 [PHONE REDACTED] 1600 I 50 8 YEAR 1 " 384 [PHONE REDACTED] 4000 I 50 14 YEAR 2 " 460 [PHONE REDACTED] 4000 I 50 14 YEAR 3 " 513 1002 601 2117 4000 I 50 14 YEAR 4 " 573 1077 643 2292 4000 I 50 14 YEAR 5 " 633 1156 691 2480 4000 I 50 14 YEAR 6 " 697 1242 742 2681 4000 I 50 14 YEAR 7 " 763 1335 798 2897 4000 I 50 14 YEAR 8 " 834 1437 859 3130 4000 I 50 14 YEAR 9 " 911 1547 925 3382 4000 I 50 14 YEAR 10 " 992 1666 997 3655 4000 I 50 14 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 45 40 POST HUNT YR 1 39 66 POST HUNT YR 2 44 59 POST HUNT YR 3 47 61 POST HUNT YR 4 49 60 POST HUNT YR 5 51 60 POST HUNT YR 6 53 60 POST HUNT YR 7 54 60 POST HUNT YR 8 55 60 POST HUNT YR 9 56 60 POST HUNT YR 10 57 60 ---PAGE BREAK--- 121 DEL NORTE ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, AND PLM 2016 Ratio = 45/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED HARVEST: BULL, COW, EITHER SEX TAGS; TO HARVEST UP TO 42 BULLS AND 62 COWS (INCLUDES PLM & COOPERATIVE TAGS) Various combination of tags to achieved desired harvest,includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 75% antlerless HERD SIZE 750 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 24 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 14.7 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 182 405 162 750 750 I 32 6 YEAR 1 " 174 423 [PHONE REDACTED] I 42 62 YEAR 2 " 199 435 [PHONE REDACTED] I 42 62 YEAR 3 " 209 435 [PHONE REDACTED] I 42 62 YEAR 4 " 219 438 [PHONE REDACTED] I 42 62 YEAR 5 " 227 440 [PHONE REDACTED] I 42 62 YEAR 6 " 233 443 [PHONE REDACTED] I 42 62 YEAR 7 " 239 447 [PHONE REDACTED] I 42 62 YEAR 8 " 243 451 [PHONE REDACTED] I 42 62 YEAR 9 " 248 456 [PHONE REDACTED] I 42 62 YEAR 10 " 252 461 [PHONE REDACTED] I 42 62 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 45 40 POST HUNT YR 1 37 74 POST HUNT YR 2 42 65 POST HUNT YR 3 45 67 POST HUNT YR 4 47 66 POST HUNT YR 5 49 67 POST HUNT YR 6 50 66 POST HUNT YR 7 51 66 POST HUNT YR 8 52 66 POST HUNT YR 9 52 66 POST HUNT YR 10 53 66 ---PAGE BREAK--- 122 DEL NORTE ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, AND PLM 2016 Ratio = 45/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST: BULL, COW, EITHER SEX TAGS;INCLUDES PLM & COOPERATIVE TAGS TO HARVEST UP TO 63 BULL AND 93 COW: Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 75% antlerless HERD SIZE 750 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 36 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 22 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 182 405 162 750 750 I 32 6 YEAR 1 " 174 423 [PHONE REDACTED] I 63 93 YEAR 2 " 184 408 [PHONE REDACTED] I 66 90 YEAR 3 " 171 377 [PHONE REDACTED] I 62 83 YEAR 4 " 162 353 [PHONE REDACTED] I 58 78 YEAR 5 " 152 329 [PHONE REDACTED] I 55 72 YEAR 6 " 142 307 [PHONE REDACTED] I 51 68 YEAR 7 " 133 286 [PHONE REDACTED] I 48 63 YEAR 8 " 124 267 [PHONE REDACTED] I 45 59 YEAR 9 " 116 249 [PHONE REDACTED] I 42 55 YEAR 10 " 108 232 [PHONE REDACTED] I 39 51 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 45 40 POST HUNT YR 1 34 81 POST HUNT YR 2 37 69 POST HUNT YR 3 37 72 POST HUNT YR 4 38 72 POST HUNT YR 5 38 72 POST HUNT YR 6 38 72 POST HUNT YR 7 38 72 POST HUNT YR 8 38 72 POST HUNT YR 9 38 72 POST HUNT YR 10 38 72 ---PAGE BREAK--- 123 DEL NORTE ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, AND PLM 2016 Ratio = 45/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL, COW, EITHER SEX TAGS;INCLUDES PLM & COOPERATIVE TAGS TO HARVEST UP TO 60 BULL AND 82 COW: Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 75% antlerless HERD SIZE 1000 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 25 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 14.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 243 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 32 6 YEAR 1 " 240 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 60 82 YEAR 2 " 269 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 60 82 YEAR 3 " 278 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 60 82 YEAR 4 " 290 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 60 82 YEAR 5 " 298 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 60 82 YEAR 6 " 306 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 60 82 YEAR 7 " 313 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 60 82 YEAR 8 " 320 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 60 82 YEAR 9 " 327 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 60 82 YEAR 10 " 334 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 60 82 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 45 40 POST HUNT YR 1 37 74 POST HUNT YR 2 42 65 POST HUNT YR 3 44 67 POST HUNT YR 4 45 66 POST HUNT YR 5 47 66 POST HUNT YR 6 48 66 POST HUNT YR 7 48 66 POST HUNT YR 8 49 66 POST HUNT YR 9 49 66 POST HUNT YR 10 50 66 ---PAGE BREAK--- 124 DEL NORTE ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL AND PLM 2016 Ratio = 45/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST: BULL, COW, EITHER SEX TAGS; TO HARVEST UP TO 21 BULLS AND 31 COWS (INCLUDES PLM & COOPERATIVE TAGS) Various combination of tags to achieved desired harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 75% antlerless HERD SIZE 750 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 12.2 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 7.3 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 182 405 162 750 750 I 32 6 YEAR 1 " 174 423 [PHONE REDACTED] I 21 31 YEAR 2 " 215 463 [PHONE REDACTED] I 21 31 YEAR 3 " 244 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 21 31 YEAR 4 " 275 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 21 31 YEAR 5 " 307 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 21 31 YEAR 6 " 342 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 21 31 YEAR 7 " 379 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 21 31 YEAR 8 " 420 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 21 31 YEAR 9 " 465 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 21 31 YEAR 10 " 516 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 21 31 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 45 40 POST HUNT YR 1 39 68 POST HUNT YR 2 45 61 POST HUNT YR 3 48 62 POST HUNT YR 4 50 62 POST HUNT YR 5 52 61 POST HUNT YR 6 53 61 POST HUNT YR 7 54 61 POST HUNT YR 8 55 61 POST HUNT YR 9 55 61 POST HUNT YR 10 55 60 ---PAGE BREAK--- 125 HUMBOLDT ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 50/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED PROJECT: BULL, COW, EITHER SEX TAGS; INCLUDING COOPERATIVE & PLM TO HARVEST UP TO 64 BULLS & 65 COWS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 75% antlerless HERD SIZE 850 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 30 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 14 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 224 447 179 850 850 I 30 6 YEAR 1 " 212 467 [PHONE REDACTED] I 64 65 YEAR 2 " 222 484 [PHONE REDACTED] I 64 65 YEAR 3 " 220 486 [PHONE REDACTED] I 64 65 YEAR 4 " 222 494 [PHONE REDACTED] I 64 65 YEAR 5 " 225 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 64 65 YEAR 6 " 228 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 64 65 YEAR 7 " 233 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 64 65 YEAR 8 " 239 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 64 65 YEAR 9 " 245 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 64 65 YEAR 10 " 253 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 64 65 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 50 40 POST HUNT YR 1 37 74 POST HUNT YR 2 38 64 POST HUNT YR 3 37 67 POST HUNT YR 4 37 66 POST HUNT YR 5 37 66 POST HUNT YR 6 37 66 POST HUNT YR 7 37 66 POST HUNT YR 8 38 65 POST HUNT YR 9 38 65 POST HUNT YR 10 38 65 ---PAGE BREAK--- 126 HUMBOLDT ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL,SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 50/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST: BULL, COW, & EITHER SEX TAGS; INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS TO HARVEST UP TO 95 BULLS 95 COWS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 75% antlerless HERD SIZE 850 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 44.5 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 20.3 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 224 447 179 850 850 I 30 6 YEAR 1 " 212 467 [PHONE REDACTED] I 95 95 YEAR 2 " 199 458 [PHONE REDACTED] I 89 93 YEAR 3 " 176 431 [PHONE REDACTED] I 79 87 YEAR 4 " 165 410 [PHONE REDACTED] I 73 83 YEAR 5 " 155 389 [PHONE REDACTED] I 69 79 YEAR 6 " 147 369 [PHONE REDACTED] I 65 75 YEAR 7 " 139 350 [PHONE REDACTED] I 62 71 YEAR 8 " 132 332 [PHONE REDACTED] I 59 67 YEAR 9 " 125 315 [PHONE REDACTED] I 56 64 YEAR 10 " 118 299 [PHONE REDACTED] I 53 61 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 50 40 POST HUNT YR 1 32 79 POST HUNT YR 2 30 68 POST HUNT YR 3 29 71 POST HUNT YR 4 28 70 POST HUNT YR 5 28 71 POST HUNT YR 6 28 71 POST HUNT YR 7 28 71 POST HUNT YR 8 28 71 POST HUNT YR 9 28 71 POST HUNT YR 10 28 71 ---PAGE BREAK--- 127 HUMBOLDT ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE & PLM 2016 Ratio = 50/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL, COW, EITHER SEX TAGS; INCLUDING COOPERATIVE & PLM TO HARVEST UP TO 79 BULLS & 82 COWS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 75% antlerless HERD SIZE 1100 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 28 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 13.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 289 [PHONE REDACTED] 1100 I 30 6 YEAR 1 " 281 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 79 82 YEAR 2 " 296 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 79 82 YEAR 3 " 295 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 79 82 YEAR 4 " 300 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 79 82 YEAR 5 " 305 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 79 82 YEAR 6 " 313 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 79 82 YEAR 7 " 322 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 79 82 YEAR 8 " 332 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 79 82 YEAR 9 " 345 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 79 82 YEAR 10 " 360 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 79 82 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 50 40 POST HUNT YR 1 39 73 POST HUNT YR 2 40 64 POST HUNT YR 3 39 66 POST HUNT YR 4 39 65 POST HUNT YR 5 39 65 POST HUNT YR 6 39 65 POST HUNT YR 7 39 65 POST HUNT YR 8 40 65 POST HUNT YR 9 40 65 POST HUNT YR 10 41 64 ---PAGE BREAK--- 128 HUMBOLDT ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL,SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 50/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST: BULL, COW, EITHER SEX TAGS; INCLUDING COOPERATIVE & PLM TO HARVEST UP TO 32 BULLS & 32 COWS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 75% antlerless HERD SIZE 850 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 15.2 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 6.8 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 224 447 179 850 850 I 30 6 YEAR 1 " 212 467 [PHONE REDACTED] I 32 32 YEAR 2 " 246 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 32 32 YEAR 3 " 270 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 32 32 YEAR 4 " 299 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 32 32 YEAR 5 " 331 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 32 32 YEAR 6 " 367 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 32 32 YEAR 7 " 407 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 32 32 YEAR 8 " 452 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 32 32 YEAR 9 " 504 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 32 32 YEAR 10 " 557 1050 393 2000 2000 I 32 32 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 50 40 POST HUNT YR 1 41 68 POST HUNT YR 2 44 61 POST HUNT YR 3 46 62 POST HUNT YR 4 47 61 POST HUNT YR 5 48 61 POST HUNT YR 6 49 61 POST HUNT YR 7 50 61 POST HUNT YR 8 51 61 POST HUNT YR 9 51 59 POST HUNT YR 10 52 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- 129 MARBLE MOUNTAINS ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 60/100/41 - Maximum Calf Survival = 62% (INCLUDES BOTH PROPOSED MARBLE MOUNTAIN NORTH AND SOUTH ZONES) THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. CURRENT CONDITION = BULL, ANTLERLESS & EITHER-SEX ( COOPERATIVE TAGS) CURRENT HARVEST FOR MARBLE MTN IS APPROXIMATELY 29 BULL 7 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved desired harvest, includes Cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 60% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 3000 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 17 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 3.1 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 0.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 896 1493 612 3000 3000 I 29 7 YEAR 1 " 938 1487 921 3346 6000 I 29 7 YEAR 2 " 1096 1610 917 3623 6000 I 29 7 YEAR 3 " 1220 1711 994 3925 6000 I 29 7 YEAR 4 " 1350 1826 1056 4233 6000 I 29 7 YEAR 5 " 1479 1948 1128 4555 6000 I 29 7 YEAR 6 " 1611 2079 1203 4893 6000 I 29 7 YEAR 7 " 1747 2218 1284 5250 6000 I 29 7 YEAR 8 " 1888 2368 1371 5627 6000 I 29 7 YEAR 9 " 2036 2528 1436 6000 6000 I 29 7 YEAR 10 " 2180 2688 1132 6000 6000 I 29 7 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 60 41 POST HUNT YR 1 61 62 POST HUNT YR 2 67 57 POST HUNT YR 3 70 58 POST HUNT YR 4 73 58 POST HUNT YR 5 75 58 POST HUNT YR 6 76 58 POST HUNT YR 7 78 58 POST HUNT YR 8 79 58 POST HUNT YR 9 80 57 POST HUNT YR 10 80 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- 130 MARBLE MOUNTAINS NORTH ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 60/100/41 - Maximum Calf Survival = 62% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED HARVEST = BULL, ANTLERLESS, EITHER-SEX (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS) HARVEST up to 61 BULLS AND 60 COWS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE ELK TAGS) Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 60% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 1500 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 17 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 13 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 8.1 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 448 [PHONE REDACTED] 1500 I 15 6 YEAR 1 " 469 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 YEAR 2 " 510 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 YEAR 3 " 528 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 YEAR 4 " 546 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 YEAR 5 " 560 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 YEAR 6 " 572 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 YEAR 7 " 581 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 YEAR 8 " 588 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 YEAR 9 " 594 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 YEAR 10 " 599 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 60 41 POST HUNT YR 1 60 67 POST HUNT YR 2 64 61 POST HUNT YR 3 67 62 POST HUNT YR 4 70 62 POST HUNT YR 5 72 62 POST HUNT YR 6 73 62 POST HUNT YR 7 75 62 POST HUNT YR 8 76 62 POST HUNT YR 9 77 62 POST HUNT YR 10 77 62 ---PAGE BREAK--- 131 MARBLE MOUNTAIN NORTH ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 60/100/41 - Maximum Calf Survival = 62% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST; BULL, ANTLERLESS, EITHER-SEX (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS) TO HARVEST UP TO 90 BULLS AND 90 COWS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE ELK TAGS) Various combination of tags to achieved desired harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 60% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 1500 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 17 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 19.1 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 12.1 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 448 [PHONE REDACTED] 1500 I 15 4 YEAR 1 " 469 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 90 90 YEAR 2 " 487 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 93 89 YEAR 3 " 477 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 91 85 YEAR 4 " 469 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 90 82 YEAR 5 " 457 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 87 79 YEAR 6 " 443 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 85 76 YEAR 7 " 430 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 82 74 YEAR 8 " 416 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 79 71 YEAR 9 " 401 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 77 68 YEAR 10 " 388 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 74 66 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 60 41 POST HUNT YR 1 58 70 POST HUNT YR 2 61 63 POST HUNT YR 3 63 65 POST HUNT YR 4 64 64 POST HUNT YR 5 64 64 POST HUNT YR 6 65 64 POST HUNT YR 7 65 64 POST HUNT YR 8 65 64 POST HUNT YR 9 65 64 POST HUNT YR 10 65 64 ---PAGE BREAK--- 132 MARBLE MOUNTAINS NORTH ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 60/100/41 - Maximum Calf Survival = 62% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH = BULL, ANTLERLESS, EITHER-SEX (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS) HARVEST up to 69 BULLS AND 80 COWS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE ELK TAGS) Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 60% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 2000 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 17 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 11 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 8.1 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 597 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 15 6 YEAR 1 " 629 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 69 80 YEAR 2 " 693 1010 564 2267 3000 I 69 80 YEAR 3 " 725 1006 576 2307 3000 I 69 80 YEAR 4 " 755 1007 574 2336 3000 I 69 80 YEAR 5 " 778 1008 575 2361 3000 I 69 80 YEAR 6 " 797 1008 575 2380 3000 I 69 80 YEAR 7 " 812 1009 575 2397 3000 I 69 80 YEAR 8 " 825 1010 576 2410 3000 I 69 80 YEAR 9 " 835 1010 576 2421 3000 I 69 80 YEAR 10 " 843 1011 577 2431 3000 I 69 80 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 60 41 POST HUNT YR 1 61 67 POST HUNT YR 2 67 61 POST HUNT YR 3 71 62 POST HUNT YR 4 74 62 POST HUNT YR 5 76 62 POST HUNT YR 6 78 62 POST HUNT YR 7 80 62 POST HUNT YR 8 81 62 POST HUNT YR 9 82 62 POST HUNT YR 10 83 62 ---PAGE BREAK--- 133 MARBLE MOUNTAINS NORTH ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 60/100/41 - Maximum Calf Survival = 62% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST = BULL, ANTLERLESS, EITHER-SEX (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS) HARVEST up to 30 BULLS AND 30 COWS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE ELK TAGS) Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 60% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 1500 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 17 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 6.5 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 4 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 448 [PHONE REDACTED] 1500 I 15 6 YEAR 1 " 469 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 30 30 YEAR 2 " 534 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 30 30 YEAR 3 " 579 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 30 30 YEAR 4 " 626 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 30 30 YEAR 5 " 669 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 30 30 YEAR 6 " 711 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 30 30 YEAR 7 " 753 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 30 30 YEAR 8 " 796 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 30 30 YEAR 9 " 839 1028 592 2460 3000 I 30 30 YEAR 10 " 884 1075 619 2578 3000 I 30 30 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 60 41 POST HUNT YR 1 62 64 POST HUNT YR 2 67 59 POST HUNT YR 3 71 60 POST HUNT YR 4 74 60 POST HUNT YR 5 76 60 POST HUNT YR 6 78 59 POST HUNT YR 7 79 59 POST HUNT YR 8 80 59 POST HUNT YR 9 81 59 POST HUNT YR 10 82 59 ---PAGE BREAK--- 134 MARBLE MOUNTAINS SOUTH ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 60/100/41 - Maximum Calf Survival = 62% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED HARVEST= BULL, ANTLERLESS, EITHER-SEX (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS) TO HARVEST UP TO 61 BULLS AND 60 COWS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE ELK TAGS) Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 60% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 1500 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 17 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 13 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 8.1 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 448 [PHONE REDACTED] 1500 I 15 4 YEAR 1 " 469 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 YEAR 2 " 510 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 YEAR 3 " 529 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 YEAR 4 " 547 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 YEAR 5 " 561 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 YEAR 6 " 573 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 YEAR 7 " 582 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 YEAR 8 " 590 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 YEAR 9 " 596 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 YEAR 10 " 601 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 60 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 60 41 POST HUNT YR 1 60 67 POST HUNT YR 2 64 61 POST HUNT YR 3 67 62 POST HUNT YR 4 70 62 POST HUNT YR 5 72 62 POST HUNT YR 6 74 62 POST HUNT YR 7 75 62 POST HUNT YR 8 76 62 POST HUNT YR 9 77 62 POST HUNT YR 10 77 62 ---PAGE BREAK--- 135 MARBLE MOUNTAIN SOUTH ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 60/100/41 - Maximum Calf Survival = 62% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST; BULL, ANTLERLESS, EITHER-SEX (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS) TO HARVEST UP TO 90 BULLS AND 90 COWS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE ELK TAGS) Various combination of tags to achieved desired harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 60% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 1500 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 17 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 19.1 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 12.1 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 448 [PHONE REDACTED] 1500 I 15 4 YEAR 1 " 469 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 90 90 YEAR 2 " 487 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 93 89 YEAR 3 " 477 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 91 85 YEAR 4 " 469 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 90 82 YEAR 5 " 457 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 87 79 YEAR 6 " 443 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 85 76 YEAR 7 " 430 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 82 74 YEAR 8 " 416 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 79 71 YEAR 9 " 401 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 77 68 YEAR 10 " 388 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 74 66 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 60 41 POST HUNT YR 1 58 70 POST HUNT YR 2 61 63 POST HUNT YR 3 63 65 POST HUNT YR 4 64 64 POST HUNT YR 5 64 64 POST HUNT YR 6 65 64 POST HUNT YR 7 65 64 POST HUNT YR 8 65 64 POST HUNT YR 9 65 64 POST HUNT YR 10 65 64 ---PAGE BREAK--- 136 MARBLE MOUNTAINS SOUTH ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 60/100/41 - Maximum Calf Survival = 62% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH = BULL, ANTLERLESS, EITHER-SEX (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS) HARVEST up to 82 BULLS AND 80 COWS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE ELK TAGS) Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 60% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 2000 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 17 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 13 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 8.1 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 597 [PHONE REDACTED] 2000 I 15 6 YEAR 1 " 629 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 82 80 YEAR 2 " 683 1010 564 2257 3000 I 82 80 YEAR 3 " 707 1006 576 2289 3000 I 82 80 YEAR 4 " 730 1007 574 2312 3000 I 82 80 YEAR 5 " 748 1008 575 2331 3000 I 82 80 YEAR 6 " 763 1008 575 2347 3000 I 82 80 YEAR 7 " 775 1009 575 2360 3000 I 82 80 YEAR 8 " 785 1010 576 2370 3000 I 82 80 YEAR 9 " 793 1010 576 2380 3000 I 82 80 YEAR 10 " 799 1011 577 2387 3000 I 82 80 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 60 41 POST HUNT YR 1 60 67 POST HUNT YR 2 65 61 POST HUNT YR 3 68 62 POST HUNT YR 4 70 62 POST HUNT YR 5 72 62 POST HUNT YR 6 73 62 POST HUNT YR 7 75 62 POST HUNT YR 8 76 62 POST HUNT YR 9 76 62 POST HUNT YR 10 77 62 ---PAGE BREAK--- 137 MARBLE MOUNTAINS SOUTH ROOSEVELT ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 60/100/41 - Maximum Calf Survival = 62% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST= BULL, ANTLERLESS, EITHER-SEX (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS) TO HARVEST UP TO 30 BULLS AND 30 COWS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE ELK TAGS) Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 60% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 1500 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 17 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 6.5 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 4 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 448 [PHONE REDACTED] 1500 I 15 4 YEAR 1 " 469 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 30 30 YEAR 2 " 535 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 30 30 YEAR 3 " 580 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 30 30 YEAR 4 " 627 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 30 30 YEAR 5 " 670 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 30 30 YEAR 6 " 713 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 30 30 YEAR 7 " 755 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 30 30 YEAR 8 " 798 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 30 30 YEAR 9 " 841 1031 594 2466 3000 I 30 30 YEAR 10 " 886 1077 621 2584 3000 I 30 30 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 60 41 POST HUNT YR 1 61 65 POST HUNT YR 2 67 59 POST HUNT YR 3 71 60 POST HUNT YR 4 74 60 POST HUNT YR 5 76 60 POST HUNT YR 6 78 59 POST HUNT YR 7 79 59 POST HUNT YR 8 80 59 POST HUNT YR 9 81 59 POST HUNT YR 10 82 59 ---PAGE BREAK--- 138 NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA ELK HERD - SIMULATION GENERAL & PLM 2016 Ratio = 20/100/27 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. CURRENT CONDITION = 12 EITHER SEX TAGS, 10 ANTLERLESS, 15 BULL, 8 PLM RANCH TO HARVEST APPROX: 20 BULLS, 10 COWS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE & PLM ELK TAGS) APPROXIMATE SUCCESS RATE 60% BULLS & 60% ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 1000 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 18 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 12 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 1.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 136 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 20 10 YEAR 1 " 170 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 20 10 YEAR 2 " 288 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 20 10 YEAR 3 " 382 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 20 10 YEAR 4 " 480 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 20 10 YEAR 5 " 580 1019 547 2146 3000 I 20 10 YEAR 6 " 683 1129 606 2417 3000 I 20 10 YEAR 7 " 791 1251 671 2713 3000 I 20 10 YEAR 8 " 907 1387 705 3000 3000 I 20 10 YEAR 9 " 1016 1522 461 3000 3000 I 20 10 YEAR 10 " 1006 1534 460 3000 3000 I 20 10 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 20 27 POST HUNT YR 1 23 61 POST HUNT YR 2 36 53 POST HUNT YR 3 44 55 POST HUNT YR 4 50 54 POST HUNT YR 5 55 54 POST HUNT YR 6 59 54 POST HUNT YR 7 62 54 POST HUNT YR 8 64 51 POST HUNT YR 9 66 30 POST HUNT YR 10 65 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- 139 NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA ELK HERD - SIMULATION GENERA, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 20/100/27 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED HARVEST = EITHER SEX, ANTLERLESS, BULL, & PLM TO HARVEST UP TO: 40 BULLS, 40 COWS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE & PLM ELK TAGS) APPROXIMATE SUCCESS RATE 60% BULLS & 60% ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags HERD SIZE 1000 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 18 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 23.4 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 5.9 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 136 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 20 10 YEAR 1 " 170 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 40 40 YEAR 2 " 272 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 40 40 YEAR 3 " 346 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 40 40 YEAR 4 " 421 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 40 40 YEAR 5 " 494 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 40 40 YEAR 6 " 567 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 40 40 YEAR 7 " 642 1033 551 2226 3000 I 40 40 YEAR 8 " 719 1117 596 2433 3000 I 40 40 YEAR 9 " 802 1210 646 2659 3000 I 40 40 YEAR 10 " 890 1315 703 2907 3000 I 40 40 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 20 27 POST HUNT YR 1 21 64 POST HUNT YR 2 34 55 POST HUNT YR 3 41 56 POST HUNT YR 4 48 56 POST HUNT YR 5 53 56 POST HUNT YR 6 57 56 POST HUNT YR 7 61 55 POST HUNT YR 8 63 55 POST HUNT YR 9 65 55 POST HUNT YR 10 67 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- 140 NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA ELK HERD - SIMULATION GENERAL,SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 20/100/27 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST = EITHER SEX, ANTLERLESS, BULL TAGS TO HARVEST UP TO: 60 BULLS, 60 COWS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE & PLM ELK TAGS) APPROXIMATE SUCCESS RATE 60% BULLS & 60% ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags HERD SIZE 1000 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 18 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 35 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 8.9 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 136 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 20 10 YEAR 1 " 170 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 60 60 YEAR 2 " 256 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 60 60 YEAR 3 " 311 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 60 60 YEAR 4 " 367 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 60 60 YEAR 5 " 419 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 60 60 YEAR 6 " 469 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 60 60 YEAR 7 " 519 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 60 60 YEAR 8 " 569 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 60 60 YEAR 9 " 621 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 60 60 YEAR 10 " 675 1046 556 2276 3000 I 60 60 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 20 27 POST HUNT YR 1 18 66 POST HUNT YR 2 30 56 POST HUNT YR 3 37 58 POST HUNT YR 4 43 57 POST HUNT YR 5 48 57 POST HUNT YR 6 52 57 POST HUNT YR 7 56 57 POST HUNT YR 8 58 57 POST HUNT YR 9 61 57 POST HUNT YR 10 62 56 ---PAGE BREAK--- 141 NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA ELK HERD - SIMULATION GENERAL,SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 20/100/27 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH = EITHER SEX, ANTLERLESS, BULL TAGS TO HARVEST UP TO: 61 BULLS, 70 COWS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE & PLM ELK TAGS) APPROXIMATE SUCCESS RATE 60% BULLS & 60% ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags HERD SIZE 1300 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 18 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 27 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 8 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 177 [PHONE REDACTED] 1300 I 20 10 YEAR 1 " 227 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 70 YEAR 2 " 351 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 70 YEAR 3 " 435 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 61 70 YEAR 4 " 521 1028 544 2092 3000 I 61 70 YEAR 5 " 600 1082 575 2257 3000 I 61 70 YEAR 6 " 677 1144 607 2428 3000 I 61 70 YEAR 7 " 754 1212 644 2610 3000 I 61 70 YEAR 8 " 832 1288 685 2806 3000 I 61 70 YEAR 9 " 913 1374 713 3000 3000 I 61 70 YEAR 10 " 991 1461 548 3000 3000 I 61 70 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 20 27 POST HUNT YR 1 21 65 POST HUNT YR 2 33 56 POST HUNT YR 3 41 57 POST HUNT YR 4 48 57 POST HUNT YR 5 53 57 POST HUNT YR 6 57 57 POST HUNT YR 7 61 56 POST HUNT YR 8 63 56 POST HUNT YR 9 65 55 POST HUNT YR 10 67 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- 142 NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA ELK HERD - SIMULATION GENERAL,SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 20/100/27 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST = EITHER SEX, ANTLERLESS, BULL TAGS TO HARVEST UP TO: 20 BULLS, 20 COWS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE & PLM ELK TAGS) APPROXIMATE SUCCESS RATE 60% BULLS & 60% ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags HERD SIZE 1000 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 18 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 12 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 3 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 136 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 20 10 YEAR 1 " 170 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 20 20 YEAR 2 " 288 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 20 20 YEAR 3 " 379 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 20 20 YEAR 4 " 474 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 20 20 YEAR 5 " 567 [PHONE REDACTED] 3000 I 20 20 YEAR 6 " 662 1071 573 2306 3000 I 20 20 YEAR 7 " 761 1177 630 2568 3000 I 20 20 YEAR 8 " 866 1295 694 2855 3000 I 20 20 YEAR 9 " 978 1427 595 3000 3000 I 20 20 YEAR 10 " 1029 1500 471 3000 3000 I 20 20 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 20 27 POST HUNT YR 1 23 62 POST HUNT YR 2 37 54 POST HUNT YR 3 45 55 POST HUNT YR 4 52 55 POST HUNT YR 5 57 55 POST HUNT YR 6 61 55 POST HUNT YR 7 64 54 POST HUNT YR 8 66 54 POST HUNT YR 9 68 42 POST HUNT YR 10 68 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- 143 MENDOCINO TULE ELK MANAGEMENT UNIT (General and PLM) - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 (INCLUDES PROPOSED MENDOCINO NORTH COAST, MIDDLE FORK, UPPER RUSSIAN RIVER, LITTLE LAKE, AND SOUTH COAST ZONES) Ratio = 40/100/31, Maximum Calf Survival = 46% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. CURRENT CONDITION: BULL & ANTLERLESS TAGS HARVEST UP TO 36 BULL & 37 ANTLERLESS APPROXIMATE SUCCESS RATE: 80% BULL, 75% ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 930 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 16.8 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 7.2 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 218 544 169 930 930 I 36 37 YEAR 1 " 213 520 [PHONE REDACTED] I 36 37 YEAR 2 " 235 527 [PHONE REDACTED] I 36 37 YEAR 3 " 248 [PHONE REDACTED] 1500 I 36 37 YEAR 4 " 260 [PHONE REDACTED] 1500 I 36 37 YEAR 5 " 270 [PHONE REDACTED] 1500 I 36 37 YEAR 6 " 278 [PHONE REDACTED] 1500 I 36 37 YEAR 7 " 285 [PHONE REDACTED] 1500 I 36 37 YEAR 8 " 292 [PHONE REDACTED] 1500 I 36 37 YEAR 9 " 297 [PHONE REDACTED] 1500 I 36 37 YEAR 10 " 302 [PHONE REDACTED] 1500 I 36 37 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 40 31 POST HUNT YR 1 37 48 POST HUNT YR 2 41 45 POST HUNT YR 3 43 46 POST HUNT YR 4 45 46 POST HUNT YR 5 47 46 POST HUNT YR 6 49 46 POST HUNT YR 7 50 46 POST HUNT YR 8 51 46 POST HUNT YR 9 51 46 POST HUNT YR 10 52 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- 144 MENDOCINO NORTH COAST - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 40/100/31, Maximum Calf Survival = 46% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED HARVEST: BULL & ANTLERLESS TAGS, INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS HARVEST UP TO 18 BULL & 20 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags APPROXIMATE HARVEST SUCCESS RATES; 80 BULL, 75 ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 420 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 18 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 8.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 98 246 76 420 420 I 13 10 YEAR 1 " 99 241 [PHONE REDACTED] I 18 20 YEAR 2 " 108 242 [PHONE REDACTED] I 18 20 YEAR 3 " 113 239 [PHONE REDACTED] I 18 20 YEAR 4 " 117 237 [PHONE REDACTED] I 18 20 YEAR 5 " 119 235 [PHONE REDACTED] I 18 20 YEAR 6 " 121 234 99 454 1000 I 18 20 YEAR 7 " 122 232 98 452 1000 I 18 20 YEAR 8 " 123 230 97 450 1000 I 18 20 YEAR 9 " 123 228 97 448 1000 I 18 19 YEAR 10 " 123 226 96 445 1000 I 18 19 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 40 31 POST HUNT YR 1 37 49 POST HUNT YR 2 41 46 POST HUNT YR 3 43 46 POST HUNT YR 4 46 46 POST HUNT YR 5 47 46 POST HUNT YR 6 48 46 POST HUNT YR 7 49 46 POST HUNT YR 8 50 46 POST HUNT YR 9 51 46 POST HUNT YR 10 51 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- 145 MENDOCINO NORTH COAST - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 40/100/31, Maximum Calf Survival = 46% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST: BULL & ANTLERLESS TAGS, INCLUDES PLM, AND COOPERATIVE TAGS HARVEST UP TO 27 BULL & 30 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags APPROXIMATE HARVEST SUCCESS RATES; 80 BULL, 75 ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 420 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 27 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 12.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 98 246 76 420 420 I 13 10 YEAR 1 " 99 241 [PHONE REDACTED] I 27 30 YEAR 2 " 101 233 97 431 1000 I 27 29 YEAR 3 " 98 222 94 414 1000 I 27 28 YEAR 4 " 95 212 89 397 1000 I 27 27 YEAR 5 " 90 203 85 379 1000 I 27 25 YEAR 6 " 85 194 82 361 1000 I 27 24 YEAR 7 " 79 185 78 343 1000 I 21 23 YEAR 8 " 78 177 75 329 1000 I 21 22 YEAR 9 " 75 169 71 315 1000 I 20 21 YEAR 10 " 72 161 68 302 1000 I 20 20 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 40 31 POST HUNT YR 1 34 51 POST HUNT YR 2 36 48 POST HUNT YR 3 37 48 POST HUNT YR 4 37 48 POST HUNT YR 5 36 48 POST HUNT YR 6 34 48 POST HUNT YR 7 36 48 POST HUNT YR 8 37 48 POST HUNT YR 9 37 48 POST HUNT YR 10 37 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- 146 MENDOCINO NORTH COAST - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 40/100/31, Maximum Calf Survival = 46% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL & ANTLERLESS TAGS, INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS HARVEST UP TO 28 BULL & 24 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags APPROXIMATE HARVEST SUCCESS RATES; 80 BULL, 75 ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 550 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 21 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 7.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 129 322 100 550 550 I 13 10 YEAR 1 " 132 318 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 24 YEAR 2 " 141 322 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 24 YEAR 3 " 145 322 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 24 YEAR 4 " 148 322 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 24 YEAR 5 " 151 322 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 24 YEAR 6 " 154 323 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 24 YEAR 7 " 155 323 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 24 YEAR 8 " 157 323 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 24 YEAR 9 " 158 324 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 24 YEAR 10 " 160 324 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 24 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 40 31 POST HUNT YR 1 36 49 POST HUNT YR 2 38 45 POST HUNT YR 3 39 46 POST HUNT YR 4 40 46 POST HUNT YR 5 41 46 POST HUNT YR 6 42 46 POST HUNT YR 7 43 46 POST HUNT YR 8 43 46 POST HUNT YR 9 44 46 POST HUNT YR 10 44 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- 147 MENDOCINO NORTH COAST - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 40/100/31, Maximum Calf Survival = 46% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST: BULL & ANTLERLESS TAGS, INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS HARVEST UP TO 9 BULL & 10 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags APPROXIMATE HARVEST SUCCESS RATES; 80 BULL, 75 ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 420 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 9 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 4.2 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 98 246 76 420 420 I 13 10 YEAR 1 " 99 241 [PHONE REDACTED] I 9 10 YEAR 2 " 115 251 [PHONE REDACTED] I 9 10 YEAR 3 " 127 258 [PHONE REDACTED] I 9 10 YEAR 4 " 139 267 [PHONE REDACTED] I 9 10 YEAR 5 " 150 277 [PHONE REDACTED] I 9 10 YEAR 6 " 160 286 [PHONE REDACTED] I 9 10 YEAR 7 " 170 297 [PHONE REDACTED] I 9 10 YEAR 8 " 180 308 [PHONE REDACTED] I 9 10 YEAR 9 " 190 321 [PHONE REDACTED] I 9 10 YEAR 10 " 199 334 [PHONE REDACTED] I 9 10 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 40 31 POST HUNT YR 1 39 47 POST HUNT YR 2 44 44 POST HUNT YR 3 48 45 POST HUNT YR 4 51 44 POST HUNT YR 5 53 44 POST HUNT YR 6 55 44 POST HUNT YR 7 56 44 POST HUNT YR 8 57 44 POST HUNT YR 9 58 44 POST HUNT YR 10 59 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- 148 MENDOCINO MIDDLE FORK - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 40/100/31, Maximum Calf Survival = 46% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED HARVEST: BULL & ANTLERLESS TAGS, INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS HARVEST UP TO 12 BULL & 11 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags APPROXIMATE HARVEST SUCCESS RATES; 80 BULL, 75 ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 250 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 21 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 8 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 58 146 45 250 250 I 12 9 YEAR 1 " 55 141 63 259 500 I 12 11 YEAR 2 " 60 142 60 261 500 I 12 11 YEAR 3 " 63 141 60 264 500 I 12 11 YEAR 4 " 65 141 60 265 500 I 12 11 YEAR 5 " 66 140 59 266 500 I 12 11 YEAR 6 " 68 139 59 266 500 I 12 11 YEAR 7 " 69 139 59 266 500 I 12 11 YEAR 8 " 69 138 59 266 500 I 12 11 YEAR 9 " 69 138 58 266 500 I 12 11 YEAR 10 " 70 137 58 265 500 I 12 11 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 40 31 POST HUNT YR 1 34 49 POST HUNT YR 2 37 46 POST HUNT YR 3 39 46 POST HUNT YR 4 41 46 POST HUNT YR 5 43 46 POST HUNT YR 6 44 46 POST HUNT YR 7 45 46 POST HUNT YR 8 45 46 POST HUNT YR 9 46 46 POST HUNT YR 10 46 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- 149 MENDOCINO MIDDLE FORK - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, AND PLM 2016 Ratio = 40/100/31, Maximum Calf Survival = 46% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST: BULL & ANTLERLESS TAGS, INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS HARVEST UP TO 18 BULL & 16 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags APPROXIMATE HARVEST SUCCESS RATES; 80 BULL, 75 ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 250 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 10 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 33 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 11 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 58 146 45 250 250 I 12 9 YEAR 1 " 55 144 63 262 500 I 18 16 YEAR 2 " 55 144 59 257 500 I 18 16 YEAR 3 " 53 142 59 253 500 I 17 16 YEAR 4 " 52 140 58 250 500 I 17 15 YEAR 5 " 51 138 57 246 500 I 17 15 YEAR 6 " 50 136 57 243 500 I 17 15 YEAR 7 " 50 135 56 240 500 I 16 15 YEAR 8 " 49 133 55 237 500 I 16 15 YEAR 9 " 48 131 54 234 500 I 16 14 YEAR 10 " 48 130 54 231 500 I 16 14 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 40 31 POST HUNT YR 1 29 49 POST HUNT YR 2 29 46 POST HUNT YR 3 28 47 POST HUNT YR 4 28 47 POST HUNT YR 5 28 47 POST HUNT YR 6 28 47 POST HUNT YR 7 28 47 POST HUNT YR 8 28 47 POST HUNT YR 9 28 47 POST HUNT YR 10 28 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- 150 MENDOCINO MIDDLE FORK -SIMULATION RUNS, INCLUDES GENERAL, SHARE, AND PLM 2016 Ratio = 40/100/31, Maximum Calf Survival = 46% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL & ANTLERLESS TAGS, INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS HARVEST UP TO 12 BULL & 16 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags APPROXIMATE HARVEST SUCCESS RATES; 80 BULL, 75 ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 350 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 15 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 7.8 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 82 205 63 350 350 I 12 9 YEAR 1 " 81 200 90 371 500 I 12 16 YEAR 2 " 91 202 85 378 500 I 12 16 YEAR 3 " 97 201 86 384 500 I 12 16 YEAR 4 " 102 201 85 389 500 I 12 16 YEAR 5 " 106 201 85 393 500 I 12 16 YEAR 6 " 109 201 85 395 500 I 12 16 YEAR 7 " 112 200 85 397 500 I 12 16 YEAR 8 " 114 200 85 399 500 I 12 16 YEAR 9 " 115 200 85 400 500 I 12 16 YEAR 10 " 116 199 85 400 500 I 12 16 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 40 31 POST HUNT YR 1 37 49 POST HUNT YR 2 42 46 POST HUNT YR 3 46 46 POST HUNT YR 4 49 46 POST HUNT YR 5 51 46 POST HUNT YR 6 53 46 POST HUNT YR 7 54 46 POST HUNT YR 8 55 46 POST HUNT YR 9 56 46 POST HUNT YR 10 57 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- 151 MENDOCINO MIDDLE FORK - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 40/100/31, Maximum Calf Survival = 46% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST: BULL & ANTLERLESS TAGS, INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS HARVEST UP TO 6 BULL & 5 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags APPROXIMATE HARVEST SUCCESS RATES; 80 BULL, 75 ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 250 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 11 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 3.8 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 58 146 45 250 250 I 12 9 YEAR 1 " 55 141 63 259 500 I 6 5 YEAR 2 " 65 147 62 274 500 I 6 5 YEAR 3 " 72 152 65 289 500 I 6 5 YEAR 4 " 79 158 67 304 500 I 6 5 YEAR 5 " 85 164 70 319 500 I 6 5 YEAR 6 " 91 170 73 334 500 I 6 5 YEAR 7 " 97 177 76 350 500 I 6 5 YEAR 8 " 103 184 79 367 500 I 6 5 YEAR 9 " 109 192 82 384 500 I 6 5 YEAR 10 " 116 201 86 402 500 I 6 5 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 40 31 POST HUNT YR 1 36 47 POST HUNT YR 2 41 44 POST HUNT YR 3 45 44 POST HUNT YR 4 48 44 POST HUNT YR 5 50 44 POST HUNT YR 6 52 44 POST HUNT YR 7 53 44 POST HUNT YR 8 54 44 POST HUNT YR 9 55 44 POST HUNT YR 10 56 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- 152 MENDOCINO UPPER RUSSIAN - GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 40/100/31, Maximum Calf Survival = 46% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED HARVEST: BULL & ANTLERLESS TAGS, INCLUDES PLM & COOPERATIVE TAGS HARVEST UP TO 12 BULL & 16 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags APPROXIMATE HARVEST SUCCESS RATES; 80 BULL, 75 ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 200 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 10 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 25.8 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 15 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 47 117 36 200 200 I 9 16 YEAR 1 " 45 107 46 198 500 I 12 16 YEAR 2 " 45 103 42 190 500 I 12 15 YEAR 3 " 44 98 40 181 500 I 11 15 YEAR 4 " 42 93 38 173 500 I 11 14 YEAR 5 " 40 88 36 165 500 I 10 13 YEAR 6 " 38 84 34 157 500 I 10 13 YEAR 7 " 37 80 33 149 500 I 9 12 YEAR 8 " 35 76 31 141 500 I 9 11 YEAR 9 " 33 72 30 134 500 I 9 11 YEAR 10 " 31 68 28 127 500 I 8 11 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 40 31 POST HUNT YR 1 36 51 POST HUNT YR 2 38 48 POST HUNT YR 3 39 49 POST HUNT YR 4 39 48 POST HUNT YR 5 40 48 POST HUNT YR 6 40 48 POST HUNT YR 7 40 48 POST HUNT YR 8 40 48 POST HUNT YR 9 41 49 POST HUNT YR 10 41 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- 153 MENDOCINO UPPER RUSSIAN - GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 40/100/31, Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST: BULL & ANTLERLESS TAGS, INCLUDES PLM & COOPERATIVE TAGS HARVEST UP TO 18 BULL & 24 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags APPROXIMATE HARVEST SUCCESS RATES; 80 BULL, 75 ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 200 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 10 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 39.5 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 22.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 47 117 36 200 200 I 9 16 YEAR 1 " 45 107 61 212 1000 I 18 24 YEAR 2 " 46 102 50 198 1000 I 18 23 YEAR 3 " 42 94 47 183 1000 I 17 21 YEAR 4 " 39 87 44 170 1000 I 16 19 YEAR 5 " 36 80 40 157 1000 I 14 18 YEAR 6 " 34 74 37 145 1000 I 13 17 YEAR 7 " 31 68 34 134 1000 I 12 15 YEAR 8 " 29 63 32 124 1000 I 11 14 YEAR 9 " 27 58 29 114 1000 I 11 13 YEAR 10 " 25 54 27 106 1000 I 10 12 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 40 31 POST HUNT YR 1 33 73 POST HUNT YR 2 35 63 POST HUNT YR 3 35 65 POST HUNT YR 4 35 65 POST HUNT YR 5 36 65 POST HUNT YR 6 36 65 POST HUNT YR 7 36 65 POST HUNT YR 8 36 65 POST HUNT YR 9 36 65 POST HUNT YR 10 36 65 ---PAGE BREAK--- 154 MENDOCINO UPPER RUSSIAN - GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 40/100/31, Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL & ANTLERLESS TAGS, INCLUDES PLM & COOPERATIVE TAGS HARVEST UP TO 18 BULL & 25 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags APPROXIMATE HARVEST SUCCESS RATES; 80 BULL, 75 ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 300 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 10 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 25.8 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 15 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 70 175 54 300 300 I 12 16 YEAR 1 " 68 168 96 332 1000 I 18 25 YEAR 2 " 79 172 86 336 1000 I 18 25 YEAR 3 " 83 170 88 341 1000 I 18 25 YEAR 4 " 88 170 87 345 1000 I 18 25 YEAR 5 " 91 170 87 347 1000 I 18 25 YEAR 6 " 93 169 87 349 1000 I 18 25 YEAR 7 " 95 168 86 350 1000 I 18 25 YEAR 8 " 97 168 86 350 1000 I 18 25 YEAR 9 " 98 167 86 350 1000 I 18 25 YEAR 10 " 98 166 85 349 1000 I 18 25 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 40 31 POST HUNT YR 1 35 67 POST HUNT YR 2 42 59 POST HUNT YR 3 45 61 POST HUNT YR 4 48 60 POST HUNT YR 5 51 60 POST HUNT YR 6 53 60 POST HUNT YR 7 54 60 POST HUNT YR 8 55 60 POST HUNT YR 9 56 60 POST HUNT YR 10 57 60 ---PAGE BREAK--- 155 MENDOCINO LITTLE LAKE - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 40/100/31, Maximum Calf Survival = 46% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED HARVEST: BULL & ANTLERLESS TAGS, INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS HARVEST: 0 - NO HARVEST RECOMMONDED - ESTABLISH ZONE BOUNDARIES APPROXIMATE HARVEST SUCCESS RATES; 0 BULL, 0 ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 20 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 0 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 0 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COW S CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AU G 5 12 4 20 20 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 5 12 5 22 200 I 0 0 YEAR 2 " 6 13 5 25 200 I 0 0 YEAR 3 " 7 14 6 27 200 I 0 0 YEAR 4 " 8 15 6 29 200 I 0 0 YEAR 5 " 9 16 7 31 200 I 0 0 YEAR 6 " 10 17 7 34 200 I 0 0 YEAR 7 " 11 18 8 36 200 I 0 0 YEAR 8 " 12 19 8 39 200 I 0 0 YEAR 9 " 13 20 9 42 200 I 0 0 YEAR 10 " 14 22 9 45 200 I 0 0 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 40 31 POST HUNT YR 1 44 45 POST HUNT YR 2 49 43 POST HUNT YR 3 53 43 POST HUNT YR 4 56 43 POST HUNT YR 5 58 43 POST HUNT YR 6 59 43 POST HUNT YR 7 60 43 POST HUNT YR 8 61 43 POST HUNT YR 9 62 43 POST HUNT YR 10 62 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- 156 MENDOCINO LITTLE LAKE - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 40/100/31, Maximum Calf Survival = 46% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL & ANTLERLESS TAGS, INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS HARVEST: UP TO 5 BULL AND 5 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags APPROXIMATE HARVEST SUCCESS RATES; 80% BULL, 75% ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 100 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 17.4 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 7.7 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 23 58 18 100 100 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 26 59 27 112 200 I 5 5 YEAR 2 " 28 60 25 113 200 I 5 5 YEAR 3 " 29 60 26 114 200 I 5 5 YEAR 4 " 29 60 25 114 200 I 5 5 YEAR 5 " 29 60 25 115 200 I 5 5 YEAR 6 " 30 60 25 115 200 I 5 5 YEAR 7 " 30 60 25 115 200 I 5 5 YEAR 8 " 30 60 25 115 200 I 5 5 YEAR 9 " 30 60 25 115 200 I 5 5 YEAR 10 " 30 60 25 115 200 I 5 5 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 40 31 POST HUNT YR 1 39 49 POST HUNT YR 2 42 45 POST HUNT YR 3 43 46 POST HUNT YR 4 43 46 POST HUNT YR 5 44 46 POST HUNT YR 6 44 46 POST HUNT YR 7 45 46 POST HUNT YR 8 45 46 POST HUNT YR 9 45 46 POST HUNT YR 10 45 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- 157 MENDOCINO SOUTH COAST - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 40/100/31, Maximum Calf Survival = 46% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED HARVEST: BULL & ANTLERLESS TAGS, HARVEST UP TO 1 BULL & 1 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags APPROXIMATE HARVEST SUCCESS RATES; 80 BULL, 75 ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 40 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 6 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 2.9 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 9 23 7 40 40 I 1 1 YEAR 1 " 10 23 10 43 200 I 1 1 YEAR 2 " 11 24 10 46 200 I 1 1 YEAR 3 " 13 25 11 49 200 I 1 1 YEAR 4 " 14 26 11 51 200 I 1 1 YEAR 5 " 15 27 12 54 200 I 1 1 YEAR 6 " 16 28 12 57 200 I 1 1 YEAR 7 " 18 30 13 60 200 I 1 1 YEAR 8 " 19 31 13 63 200 I 1 1 YEAR 9 " 20 32 14 66 200 I 1 1 YEAR 10 " 21 34 14 69 200 I 1 1 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 40 31 POST HUNT YR 1 41 46 POST HUNT YR 2 46 44 POST HUNT YR 3 50 44 POST HUNT YR 4 53 44 POST HUNT YR 5 55 44 POST HUNT YR 6 57 44 POST HUNT YR 7 59 44 POST HUNT YR 8 60 44 POST HUNT YR 9 61 44 POST HUNT YR 10 62 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- 158 MENDOCINO SOUTH COAST - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 40/100/31, Maximum Calf Survival = 46% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST: BULL & ANTLERLESS TAGS, HARVEST UP TO 2 BULL & 2 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags APPROXIMATE HARVEST SUCCESS RATES; 80 BULL, 75 ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 40 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 16 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 7 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 9 23 7 40 40 I 1 1 YEAR 1 " 10 23 10 43 200 I 2 2 YEAR 2 " 11 23 10 44 200 I 2 2 YEAR 3 " 11 23 10 44 200 I 2 2 YEAR 4 " 12 23 10 45 200 I 2 2 YEAR 5 " 12 24 10 46 200 I 2 2 YEAR 6 " 12 24 10 46 200 I 2 2 YEAR 7 " 13 24 10 47 200 I 2 2 YEAR 8 " 13 24 10 47 200 I 2 2 YEAR 9 " 13 24 10 48 200 I 2 2 YEAR 10 " 14 24 10 48 200 I 2 2 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 40 31 POST HUNT YR 1 38 48 POST HUNT YR 2 42 45 POST HUNT YR 3 44 46 POST HUNT YR 4 46 46 POST HUNT YR 5 48 46 POST HUNT YR 6 50 46 POST HUNT YR 7 51 46 POST HUNT YR 8 52 46 POST HUNT YR 9 52 46 POST HUNT YR 10 53 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- 159 MENDOCINO SOUTH COAST - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 40/100/31, Maximum Calf Survival = 46% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL & ANTLERLESS TAGS, INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS HARVEST UP TO 5 BULL & 5 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags APPROXIMATE HARVEST SUCCESS RATES; 80 BULL, 75 ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 100 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 17.9 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 7.7 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 23 58 18 100 100 I 1 1 YEAR 1 " 25 59 26 110 200 I 5 5 YEAR 2 " 27 59 25 111 200 I 5 5 YEAR 3 " 28 59 25 112 200 I 5 5 YEAR 4 " 29 59 25 113 200 I 5 5 YEAR 5 " 30 59 25 114 200 I 5 5 YEAR 6 " 30 59 25 114 200 I 5 5 YEAR 7 " 30 59 25 115 200 I 5 5 YEAR 8 " 31 59 25 115 200 I 5 5 YEAR 9 " 31 59 25 115 200 I 5 5 YEAR 10 " 31 59 25 115 200 I 5 5 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 40 31 POST HUNT YR 1 38 49 POST HUNT YR 2 41 45 POST HUNT YR 3 43 46 POST HUNT YR 4 45 46 POST HUNT YR 5 46 46 POST HUNT YR 6 47 46 POST HUNT YR 7 48 46 POST HUNT YR 8 48 46 POST HUNT YR 9 49 46 POST HUNT YR 10 49 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- 160 MENDOCINO SOUTH COAST - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 40/100/31, Maximum Calf Survival = 46% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST: BULL & ANTLERLESS TAGS, HARVEST UP TO 1 BULL & 0 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags APPROXIMATE HARVEST SUCCESS RATES; 80 BULL, 75 ANTLERLESS HERD SIZE 40 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 6 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 0 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 9 23 7 40 40 I 1 1 YEAR 1 " 10 23 10 43 200 I 1 0 YEAR 2 " 11 25 11 47 200 I 1 0 YEAR 3 " 13 26 11 51 200 I 1 0 YEAR 4 " 14 28 12 55 200 I 1 0 YEAR 5 " 16 30 13 59 200 I 1 0 YEAR 6 " 17 32 14 63 200 I 1 0 YEAR 7 " 19 34 15 68 200 I 1 0 YEAR 8 " 21 37 16 73 200 I 1 0 YEAR 9 " 22 39 17 79 200 I 1 0 YEAR 10 " 24 42 18 85 200 I 1 0 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 40 31 POST HUNT YR 1 39 45 POST HUNT YR 2 44 43 POST HUNT YR 3 46 43 POST HUNT YR 4 49 43 POST HUNT YR 5 51 43 POST HUNT YR 6 52 43 POST HUNT YR 7 54 43 POST HUNT YR 8 55 43 POST HUNT YR 9 55 43 POST HUNT YR 10 56 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- 161 CACHE CREEK TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL AND SHARE 2016 Ratio = 25/100/51 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. CURRENT CONDITION: BULL, COW, TO HARVEST UP TO 4 BULLS & 3 COWS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, Assuming success rate of 90% bull and 90% antlerless HERD SIZE 125 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 40 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 18.4 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 4 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 18 71 36 125 125 I 3 2 YEAR 1 " 20 70 41 131 200 I 4 3 YEAR 2 " 22 70 40 132 200 I 4 3 YEAR 3 " 23 70 40 133 200 I 4 3 YEAR 4 " 23 70 40 133 200 I 4 3 YEAR 5 " 23 70 40 133 200 I 4 3 YEAR 6 " 24 70 40 133 200 I 4 3 YEAR 7 " 24 70 40 133 200 I 4 3 YEAR 8 " 24 69 40 133 200 I 4 3 YEAR 9 " 24 69 40 133 200 I 4 3 YEAR 10 " 24 69 40 133 200 I 4 3 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 25 51 POST HUNT YR 1 24 62 POST HUNT YR 2 27 60 POST HUNT YR 3 28 60 POST HUNT YR 4 28 60 POST HUNT YR 5 29 60 POST HUNT YR 6 29 60 POST HUNT YR 7 29 60 POST HUNT YR 8 29 60 POST HUNT YR 9 29 60 POST HUNT YR 10 29 60 ---PAGE BREAK--- 162 CACHE CREEK TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL AND SHARE 2016 Ratio = 25/100/51 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED: BULL, COW, TO HARVEST UP TO 4 BULLS & 3 COWS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, Assuming success rate of 90% bull and 90% antlerless HERD SIZE 125 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 40 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 18.4 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 18 71 36 125 125 I 3 2 YEAR 1 " 20 70 41 131 200 I 4 3 YEAR 2 " 22 70 40 131 200 I 4 3 YEAR 3 " 23 69 40 131 200 I 4 3 YEAR 4 " 23 68 39 130 200 I 4 3 YEAR 5 " 23 67 39 129 200 I 4 3 YEAR 6 " 23 67 38 128 200 I 4 3 YEAR 7 " 23 66 38 127 200 I 4 3 YEAR 8 " 23 65 38 126 200 I 4 3 YEAR 9 " 22 65 37 125 200 I 4 3 YEAR 10 " 22 64 37 123 200 I 4 3 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 25 51 POST HUNT YR 1 24 63 POST HUNT YR 2 27 60 POST HUNT YR 3 28 61 POST HUNT YR 4 29 61 POST HUNT YR 5 29 61 POST HUNT YR 6 29 61 POST HUNT YR 7 30 61 POST HUNT YR 8 30 61 POST HUNT YR 9 30 61 POST HUNT YR 10 30 61 ---PAGE BREAK--- 163 CACHE CREEK TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL AND SHARE 2016 Ratio = 25/100/51 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST: BULL, COW, TO HARVEST UP TO 8 BULLS & 6 COWS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, Assuming success rate of 90% bull and 90% antlerless HERD SIZE 125 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 40 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 39 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 8 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 18 71 36 125 125 I 3 2 YEAR 1 " 20 70 41 131 200 I 8 6 YEAR 2 " 20 68 38 126 200 I 8 5 YEAR 3 " 19 65 37 122 200 I 7 5 YEAR 4 " 18 63 36 117 200 I 7 5 YEAR 5 " 17 61 35 113 200 I 7 5 YEAR 6 " 17 59 34 109 200 I 7 5 YEAR 7 " 16 57 32 105 200 I 6 5 YEAR 8 " 16 55 31 102 200 I 6 4 YEAR 9 " 15 53 30 98 200 I 6 4 YEAR 10 " 15 51 29 95 200 I 6 4 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 25 51 POST HUNT YR 1 19 65 POST HUNT YR 2 19 62 POST HUNT YR 3 19 62 POST HUNT YR 4 19 62 POST HUNT YR 5 19 62 POST HUNT YR 6 19 62 POST HUNT YR 7 19 62 POST HUNT YR 8 19 62 POST HUNT YR 9 19 62 POST HUNT YR 10 19 62 ---PAGE BREAK--- 164 CACHE CREEK TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL AND SHARE 2016 Ratio = 25/100/51 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL, COW, TO HARVEST UP TO 5 BULLS & 6 COWS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, Assuming success rate of 90% bull and 90% antlerless HERD SIZE 175 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 40 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 16.8 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 6.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 25 99 51 175 175 I 3 2 YEAR 1 " 28 98 58 185 200 I 5 6 YEAR 2 " 32 97 55 184 200 I 5 6 YEAR 3 " 32 94 54 181 200 I 5 6 YEAR 4 " 32 92 53 178 200 I 5 6 YEAR 5 " 32 90 52 174 200 I 5 6 YEAR 6 " 32 88 51 171 200 I 5 6 YEAR 7 " 31 86 50 167 200 I 5 6 YEAR 8 " 30 84 48 163 200 I 5 5 YEAR 9 " 30 82 47 159 200 I 5 5 YEAR 10 " 29 81 46 156 200 I 5 5 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 25 51 POST HUNT YR 1 26 64 POST HUNT YR 2 29 61 POST HUNT YR 3 30 62 POST HUNT YR 4 31 61 POST HUNT YR 5 32 61 POST HUNT YR 6 32 61 POST HUNT YR 7 32 61 POST HUNT YR 8 32 61 POST HUNT YR 9 32 61 POST HUNT YR 10 32 61 ---PAGE BREAK--- 165 CACHE CREEK TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL AND SHARE 2016 Ratio = 25/100/51 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED: BULL, COW, TO HARVEST UP TO 2 BULLS & 1 COWS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, Assuming success rate of 90% bull and 90% antlerless HERD SIZE 125 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 40 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 7.7 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 1 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 18 71 36 125 125 I 3 2 YEAR 1 " 20 70 41 131 200 I 2 1 YEAR 2 " 23 72 41 137 200 I 2 1 YEAR 3 " 25 73 43 141 200 I 2 1 YEAR 4 " 27 75 44 146 200 I 2 1 YEAR 5 " 28 77 45 150 200 I 2 1 YEAR 6 " 29 79 46 153 200 I 2 1 YEAR 7 " 30 81 47 157 200 I 2 1 YEAR 8 " 31 83 48 161 200 I 2 1 YEAR 9 " 31 85 49 165 200 I 2 1 YEAR 10 " 32 87 50 169 200 I 2 1 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 25 51 POST HUNT YR 1 26 60 POST HUNT YR 2 30 58 POST HUNT YR 3 32 59 POST HUNT YR 4 33 59 POST HUNT YR 5 34 59 POST HUNT YR 6 34 59 POST HUNT YR 7 34 59 POST HUNT YR 8 34 59 POST HUNT YR 9 34 59 POST HUNT YR 10 34 59 ---PAGE BREAK--- 166 LA PANZA - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 26/100/29 - Maximum Calf Survival =67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. CURRENT CONDITION: BULL & ANTLERLESS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE) TO HARVEST UP TO 47 BULL AND 51 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 700 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 22 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 42 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 12.1 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 117 452 131 700 700 I 40 40 YEAR 1 " 111 420 [PHONE REDACTED] I 47 51 YEAR 2 " 158 446 [PHONE REDACTED] I 47 51 YEAR 3 " 183 457 [PHONE REDACTED] I 47 51 YEAR 4 " 210 474 [PHONE REDACTED] I 47 51 YEAR 5 " 233 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 47 51 YEAR 6 " 256 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 47 51 YEAR 7 " 278 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 47 51 YEAR 8 " 301 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 47 51 YEAR 9 " 325 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 47 51 YEAR 10 " 346 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 47 51 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 26 29 POST HUNT YR 1 18 75 POST HUNT YR 2 28 63 POST HUNT YR 3 34 65 POST HUNT YR 4 38 64 POST HUNT YR 5 42 64 POST HUNT YR 6 45 64 POST HUNT YR 7 48 64 POST HUNT YR 8 50 63 POST HUNT YR 9 51 61 POST HUNT YR 10 52 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- 167 LA PANZA - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 26/100/29 - Maximum Calf Survival =67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED: BULL & ANTLERLESS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE) TO HARVEST UP TO 50 BULL AND 70 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 700 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 22 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 45 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 16.6 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 117 452 131 700 700 I 40 40 YEAR 1 " 111 420 [PHONE REDACTED] I 50 70 YEAR 2 " 155 429 [PHONE REDACTED] I 50 70 YEAR 3 " 174 420 [PHONE REDACTED] I 50 70 YEAR 4 " 190 414 [PHONE REDACTED] I 50 70 YEAR 5 " 201 406 [PHONE REDACTED] I 50 70 YEAR 6 " 207 398 [PHONE REDACTED] I 50 70 YEAR 7 " 211 388 [PHONE REDACTED] I 50 70 YEAR 8 " 211 377 [PHONE REDACTED] I 50 70 YEAR 9 " 209 364 [PHONE REDACTED] I 50 70 YEAR 10 " 204 350 [PHONE REDACTED] I 50 70 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 26 29 POST HUNT YR 1 18 79 POST HUNT YR 2 29 65 POST HUNT YR 3 35 69 POST HUNT YR 4 41 68 POST HUNT YR 5 45 69 POST HUNT YR 6 48 69 POST HUNT YR 7 50 69 POST HUNT YR 8 52 69 POST HUNT YR 9 54 70 POST HUNT YR 10 55 70 ---PAGE BREAK--- 168 LA PANZA - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 26/100/29 - Maximum Calf Survival =67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST: BULL & ANTLERLESS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE) TO HARVEST UP TO 75 BULL AND 105 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 700 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 22 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 67 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 25 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 117 452 131 700 700 I 40 40 YEAR 1 " 111 420 [PHONE REDACTED] I 75 105 YEAR 2 " 136 398 [PHONE REDACTED] I 75 100 YEAR 3 " 130 356 [PHONE REDACTED] I 75 89 YEAR 4 " 121 323 [PHONE REDACTED] I 75 81 YEAR 5 " 106 292 [PHONE REDACTED] I 71 73 YEAR 6 " 91 264 [PHONE REDACTED] I 61 66 YEAR 7 " 81 239 [PHONE REDACTED] I 54 60 YEAR 8 " 72 216 [PHONE REDACTED] I 49 54 YEAR 9 " 65 195 [PHONE REDACTED] I 44 49 YEAR 10 " 59 177 98 334 1250 I 40 44 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 26 29 POST HUNT YR 1 12 88 POST HUNT YR 2 21 71 POST HUNT YR 3 21 75 POST HUNT YR 4 19 74 POST HUNT YR 5 16 74 POST HUNT YR 6 15 74 POST HUNT YR 7 15 74 POST HUNT YR 8 15 74 POST HUNT YR 9 15 74 POST HUNT YR 10 15 74 ---PAGE BREAK--- 169 LA PANZA - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 26/100/29 - Maximum Calf Survival =67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL & ANTLERLESS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE) TO HARVEST UP TO 75 BULL AND 100 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 1000 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 22 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 43.2 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 16.3 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 168 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 40 40 YEAR 1 " 173 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 75 100 YEAR 2 " 235 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 75 100 YEAR 3 " 259 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 75 100 YEAR 4 " 283 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 75 100 YEAR 5 " 298 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 75 100 YEAR 6 " 308 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 75 100 YEAR 7 " 314 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 75 100 YEAR 8 " 316 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 75 100 YEAR 9 " 315 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 75 100 YEAR 10 " 310 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 75 100 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 26 29 POST HUNT YR 1 19 79 POST HUNT YR 2 30 65 POST HUNT YR 3 36 69 POST HUNT YR 4 41 68 POST HUNT YR 5 44 68 POST HUNT YR 6 47 68 POST HUNT YR 7 50 69 POST HUNT YR 8 51 69 POST HUNT YR 9 53 69 POST HUNT YR 10 54 69 ---PAGE BREAK--- 170 LA PANZA - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 26/100/29 - Maximum Calf Survival =67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST: BULL & ANTLERLESS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE) TO HARVEST UP TO 25 BULL AND 35 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 700 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 22 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 22 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 8.3 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 117 452 131 700 700 I 40 40 YEAR 1 " 111 420 [PHONE REDACTED] I 25 35 YEAR 2 " 175 460 [PHONE REDACTED] I 25 35 YEAR 3 " 218 488 [PHONE REDACTED] I 25 35 YEAR 4 " 262 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 25 35 YEAR 5 " 304 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 25 35 YEAR 6 " 346 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 25 35 YEAR 7 " 365 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 25 35 YEAR 8 " 363 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 25 35 YEAR 9 " 361 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 25 35 YEAR 10 " 359 [PHONE REDACTED] 1250 I 25 35 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 26 29 POST HUNT YR 1 23 72 POST HUNT YR 2 35 61 POST HUNT YR 3 43 63 POST HUNT YR 4 49 62 POST HUNT YR 5 53 62 POST HUNT YR 6 56 51 POST HUNT YR 7 57 41 POST HUNT YR 8 56 41 POST HUNT YR 9 56 41 POST HUNT YR 10 55 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- 171 OWENS VALLEY - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 75/100/22 - Maximum Calf Survival = 50% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. (Bishop, Independence, Lone Pine, Tinemaha, Tinemaha. Mtn, West Tinemaha, & Whitney) CURRENT CONDITION: BULL & ANTLERLESS TO HARVEST APPROXIMATELY 16 BULL AND 9 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 282 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 18 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 9 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 17.7 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 6 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 96 131 55 282 282 I 16 0 YEAR 1 " 88 144 66 298 490 I 16 9 YEAR 2 " 86 153 68 308 490 I 15 9 YEAR 3 " 86 163 72 321 490 I 15 9 YEAR 4 " 88 173 77 338 490 I 16 9 YEAR 5 " 91 185 82 357 490 I 16 9 YEAR 6 " 95 197 88 380 490 I 17 9 YEAR 7 " 100 212 94 406 490 I 18 9 YEAR 8 " 106 228 102 436 490 I 19 9 YEAR 9 " 113 246 110 469 490 I 19 9 YEAR 10 " 122 265 102 490 490 I 19 9 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 73 42 POST HUNT YR 1 53 48 POST HUNT YR 2 49 47 POST HUNT YR 3 46 47 POST HUNT YR 4 44 47 POST HUNT YR 5 42 47 POST HUNT YR 6 41 47 POST HUNT YR 7 41 46 POST HUNT YR 8 40 46 POST HUNT YR 9 40 46 POST HUNT YR 10 40 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- 172 OWENS VALLEY - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 75/100/22 - Maximum Calf Survival = 50% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. (Bishop, Goodale, Independence, Lone Pine, Tinemaha, Tinemaha Mtn, West Tinemaha, & Whitney) PROPOSED: BULL & ANTLERLESS TO HARVEST APPROXIMATELY 25 BULL AND 9 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 282 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 18 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 9 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 28 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 6 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 96 131 55 282 282 I 16 0 YEAR 1 " 88 144 66 298 490 I 25 9 YEAR 2 " 79 153 68 300 490 I 22 9 YEAR 3 " 74 163 72 309 490 I 21 9 YEAR 4 " 74 173 77 324 490 I 21 9 YEAR 5 " 75 185 82 342 490 I 21 9 YEAR 6 " 78 197 88 363 490 I 22 9 YEAR 7 " 82 212 94 388 490 I 23 9 YEAR 8 " 87 228 102 416 490 I 24 14 YEAR 9 " 93 241 107 441 490 I 24 14 YEAR 10 " 100 255 113 468 490 I 24 15 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 73 42 POST HUNT YR 1 47 48 POST HUNT YR 2 39 47 POST HUNT YR 3 35 47 POST HUNT YR 4 32 47 POST HUNT YR 5 31 47 POST HUNT YR 6 30 47 POST HUNT YR 7 29 46 POST HUNT YR 8 29 47 POST HUNT YR 9 30 47 POST HUNT YR 10 32 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- 173 OWENS VALLEY - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 75/100/22 - Maximum Calf Survival = 50% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. (Bishop, Goodale, Independence, Lone Pine, Tinemaha, Tinemaha Mtn, West Tinemaha, & Whitney) INCREASED HARVEST: BULL & ANTLERLESS TO HARVEST APPROXIMATELY 37 BULL AND 13 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 282 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 18 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 9 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 42 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 9 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 96 131 55 282 282 I 16 0 YEAR 1 " 88 144 66 298 490 I 37 13 YEAR 2 " 69 149 66 284 490 I 29 13 YEAR 3 " 60 154 68 281 490 I 25 14 YEAR 4 " 56 158 70 284 490 I 24 14 YEAR 5 " 55 163 72 290 490 I 23 15 YEAR 6 " 56 168 74 297 490 I 23 15 YEAR 7 " 57 172 76 306 490 I 24 16 YEAR 8 " 58 177 78 314 490 I 25 16 YEAR 9 " 60 183 81 323 490 I 25 16 YEAR 10 " 62 188 83 333 490 I 26 17 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 73 42 POST HUNT YR 1 39 50 POST HUNT YR 2 29 48 POST HUNT YR 3 25 49 POST HUNT YR 4 23 49 POST HUNT YR 5 22 49 POST HUNT YR 6 21 49 POST HUNT YR 7 21 49 POST HUNT YR 8 21 49 POST HUNT YR 9 21 49 POST HUNT YR 10 21 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- 174 OWENS VALLEY - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 75/100/22 - Maximum Calf Survival = 50% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. (Bishop, Goodale, Independence, Lone Pine, Tinemaha, Tinemaha Mtn, West Tinemaha, & Whitney) HERD GROWTH: BULL & ANTLERLESS TO HARVEST APPROXIMATELY 33 BULL AND 33 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 490 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 18 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 9 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 20 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 13 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 166 228 96 490 490 I 16 0 YEAR 1 " 163 251 77 490 490 I 33 33 YEAR 2 " 138 233 109 481 490 I 28 30 YEAR 3 " 135 235 102 471 490 I 27 30 YEAR 4 " 130 232 102 464 490 I 26 30 YEAR 5 " 127 230 101 458 490 I 25 30 YEAR 6 " 125 228 100 453 490 I 25 30 YEAR 7 " 123 226 99 448 490 I 25 29 YEAR 8 " 121 224 98 444 490 I 24 29 YEAR 9 " 120 222 97 439 490 I 24 29 YEAR 10 " 118 220 97 435 490 I 24 29 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 73 42 POST HUNT YR 1 60 35 POST HUNT YR 2 54 54 POST HUNT YR 3 53 50 POST HUNT YR 4 52 51 POST HUNT YR 5 51 50 POST HUNT YR 6 50 50 POST HUNT YR 7 50 50 POST HUNT YR 8 50 50 POST HUNT YR 9 49 50 POST HUNT YR 10 49 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- 175 OWENS VALLEY - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 75/100/22 - Maximum Calf Survival = 50% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. (Bishop, Goodale, Independence, Lone Pine, Tinemaha, Tinemaha Mtn, West Tinemaha, & Whitney) REDUCED: BULL & ANTLERLESS TO HARVEST APPROXIMATELY 12 BULL AND 4 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 70% antlerless HERD SIZE 282 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 18 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 9 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 14 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 3 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 96 131 55 282 282 I 16 0 YEAR 1 " 88 144 66 298 490 I 12 4 YEAR 2 " 89 157 70 316 490 I 12 4 YEAR 3 " 91 171 76 339 490 I 13 4 YEAR 4 " 96 187 83 366 490 I 13 4 YEAR 5 " 102 204 91 397 490 I 14 4 YEAR 6 " 109 223 100 432 490 I 15 4 YEAR 7 " 118 244 109 471 490 I 16 4 YEAR 8 " 128 268 94 490 490 I 18 4 YEAR 9 " 129 283 78 490 490 I 18 4 YEAR 10 " 123 289 78 490 490 I 17 4 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 73 42 POST HUNT YR 1 54 47 POST HUNT YR 2 50 46 POST HUNT YR 3 47 46 POST HUNT YR 4 45 46 POST HUNT YR 5 44 46 POST HUNT YR 6 43 46 POST HUNT YR 7 42 46 POST HUNT YR 8 42 36 POST HUNT YR 9 40 28 POST HUNT YR 10 37 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- 176 GRIZZLY ISLAND - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 50/100/50 - Maximum Calf Survival =70% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. CURRENT CONDITION: BULL, SPIKE, & ANTLERLESS TO HARVEST UP TO 18 BULL AND 40 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 95% bull and 95% antlerless HERD SIZE 300 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 5 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 2 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 19.5 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 28 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 75 150 75 300 300 I 18 40 YEAR 1 " 90 145 77 311 400 I 18 40 YEAR 2 " 105 140 73 318 400 I 18 39 YEAR 3 " 118 134 70 323 400 I 18 38 YEAR 4 " 129 129 68 326 400 I 18 36 YEAR 5 " 138 124 65 327 400 I 18 35 YEAR 6 " 145 120 63 328 400 I 18 34 YEAR 7 " 151 115 60 327 400 I 18 32 YEAR 8 " 156 111 58 325 400 I 18 31 YEAR 9 " 159 107 56 321 400 I 18 30 YEAR 10 " 161 103 54 317 400 I 18 29 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 50 50 POST HUNT YR 1 69 74 POST HUNT YR 2 87 72 POST HUNT YR 3 104 73 POST HUNT YR 4 120 73 POST HUNT YR 5 134 73 POST HUNT YR 6 148 73 POST HUNT YR 7 161 73 POST HUNT YR 8 173 73 POST HUNT YR 9 184 73 POST HUNT YR 10 194 73 ---PAGE BREAK--- 177 GRIZZLY ISLAND - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 50/100/50 - Maximum Calf Survival =70% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED HARVEST: BULL, SPIKE, & ANTLERLESS TO HARVEST UP TO 32 BULL AND 70 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 95% bull and 95% antlerless HERD SIZE 300 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 5 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 2 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 35.5 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 48.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 75 150 75 300 300 I 18 40 YEAR 1 " 90 145 77 311 400 I 32 70 YEAR 2 " 92 111 52 254 400 I 32 54 YEAR 3 " 81 81 40 203 400 I 29 39 YEAR 4 " 69 61 29 159 400 I 24 29 YEAR 5 " 56 45 22 123 400 I 20 22 YEAR 6 " 45 33 16 94 400 I 16 16 YEAR 7 " 35 25 12 72 400 I 12 12 YEAR 8 " 27 18 9 55 400 I 10 9 YEAR 9 " 21 14 7 41 400 I 7 7 YEAR 10 " 16 10 5 31 400 I 6 5 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 50 50 POST HUNT YR 1 78 103 POST HUNT YR 2 105 91 POST HUNT YR 3 125 95 POST HUNT YR 4 142 94 POST HUNT YR 5 156 94 POST HUNT YR 6 168 94 POST HUNT YR 7 177 94 POST HUNT YR 8 185 94 POST HUNT YR 9 192 94 POST HUNT YR 10 197 94 ---PAGE BREAK--- 178 GRIZZLY ISLAND - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 50/100/50 - Maximum Calf Survival =70% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST: BULL, SPIKE, & ANTLERLESS TO HARVEST UP TO 48 BULL AND 72 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 95% bull and 95% antlerless HERD SIZE 300 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 5 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 2 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 53 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 50 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 75 150 75 300 300 I 18 40 YEAR 1 " 90 145 77 311 400 I 48 72 YEAR 2 " 77 109 51 236 400 I 41 54 YEAR 3 " 58 78 38 174 400 I 31 39 YEAR 4 " 44 57 27 128 400 I 23 28 YEAR 5 " 33 41 20 94 400 I 17 21 YEAR 6 " 24 30 14 68 400 I 13 15 YEAR 7 " 18 22 10 50 400 I 9 11 YEAR 8 " 13 16 8 36 400 I 7 8 YEAR 9 " 9 11 6 26 400 I 5 6 YEAR 10 " 7 8 4 19 400 I 4 4 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 50 50 POST HUNT YR 1 58 107 POST HUNT YR 2 66 93 POST HUNT YR 3 70 97 POST HUNT YR 4 73 96 POST HUNT YR 5 74 97 POST HUNT YR 6 75 96 POST HUNT YR 7 76 96 POST HUNT YR 8 76 96 POST HUNT YR 9 77 96 POST HUNT YR 10 77 96 ---PAGE BREAK--- 179 GRIZZLY ISLAND - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 50/100/50 - Maximum Calf Survival =70% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL, SPIKE, & ANTLERLESS TO HARVEST UP TO 50 BULL AND 113 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 95% bull and 95% antlerless HERD SIZE 450 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 5 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 2 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 35 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 48 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 113 225 113 450 450 I 18 40 YEAR 1 " 143 236 70 450 450 I 50 113 YEAR 2 " 122 155 86 363 450 I 43 74 YEAR 3 " 116 121 56 294 450 I 41 58 YEAR 4 " 98 89 44 232 450 I 34 43 YEAR 5 " 82 67 33 181 450 I 29 32 YEAR 6 " 66 50 24 141 450 I 23 24 YEAR 7 " 52 38 18 108 450 I 18 18 YEAR 8 " 41 28 14 83 450 I 14 13 YEAR 9 " 32 21 10 63 450 I 11 10 YEAR 10 " 24 16 8 48 450 I 9 8 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 50 50 POST HUNT YR 1 76 57 POST HUNT YR 2 98 107 POST HUNT YR 3 120 90 POST HUNT YR 4 138 95 POST HUNT YR 5 152 93 POST HUNT YR 6 164 94 POST HUNT YR 7 174 94 POST HUNT YR 8 182 94 POST HUNT YR 9 189 94 POST HUNT YR 10 195 94 ---PAGE BREAK--- 180 GRIZZLY ISLAND - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 50/100/50 - Maximum Calf Survival =70% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST: BULL, SPIKE, & ANTLERLESS TO HARVEST UP TO 16 BULL AND 32 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 95% bull and 95% antlerless HERD SIZE 300 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 5 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 2 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 17.5 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 24 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 75 150 75 300 300 I 18 40 YEAR 1 " 90 145 77 311 400 I 16 35 YEAR 2 " 107 145 77 329 400 I 16 35 YEAR 3 " 123 146 77 347 400 I 16 35 YEAR 4 " 139 147 78 364 400 I 16 35 YEAR 5 " 154 149 79 381 400 I 16 35 YEAR 6 " 169 150 80 399 400 I 16 35 YEAR 7 " 183 152 64 400 400 I 16 35 YEAR 8 " 190 147 63 400 400 I 16 35 YEAR 9 " 196 141 64 400 400 I 16 35 YEAR 10 " 201 135 64 400 400 I 16 35 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 50 50 POST HUNT YR 1 67 70 POST HUNT YR 2 82 69 POST HUNT YR 3 96 70 POST HUNT YR 4 109 69 POST HUNT YR 5 122 69 POST HUNT YR 6 133 69 POST HUNT YR 7 143 55 POST HUNT YR 8 155 57 POST HUNT YR 9 169 60 POST HUNT YR 10 184 63 ---PAGE BREAK--- 181 FORT HUNTER LIGGETT BASE ONLY - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 41/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. CURRENT CONDITION: UP TO 17 BULL AND 43 ANTLERLESS NO CHANGE: HARVEST UP TO 17 BULL AND 43 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 70% bull and 50% antlerless HERD SIZE 450 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 7 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 16 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 16 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 102 249 99 450 450 I 10 8 YEAR 1 " 106 270 124 500 500 I 17 43 YEAR 2 " 113 268 118 500 500 I 17 43 YEAR 3 " 117 265 119 500 500 I 17 42 YEAR 4 " 119 262 119 500 500 I 17 42 YEAR 5 " 121 260 119 500 500 I 17 42 YEAR 6 " 123 258 119 500 500 I 17 41 YEAR 7 " 124 257 119 500 500 I 17 41 YEAR 8 " 125 256 119 500 500 I 17 41 YEAR 9 " 125 255 119 500 500 I 17 41 YEAR 10 " 126 255 119 500 500 I 17 41 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 41 40 POST HUNT YR 1 39 55 POST HUNT YR 2 43 52 POST HUNT YR 3 45 53 POST HUNT YR 4 46 54 POST HUNT YR 5 48 54 POST HUNT YR 6 49 55 POST HUNT YR 7 50 55 POST HUNT YR 8 50 55 POST HUNT YR 9 51 55 POST HUNT YR 10 51 56 ---PAGE BREAK--- 182 FORT HUNTER LIGGETT CENTRAL COAST - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL AND PLM, 2016 Ratio = 41/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED: BULL, ANTLERLESS, EITHER-SEX (INCLUDING COOPERATIVE) TO HARVEST UP TO 40 BULL AND 70 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 70% bull and 50% antlerless HERD SIZE 825 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 10 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 22 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 15 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 187 456 182 825 825 I 37 27 YEAR 1 " 181 468 [PHONE REDACTED] I 40 70 YEAR 2 " 202 474 [PHONE REDACTED] I 40 70 YEAR 3 " 211 471 [PHONE REDACTED] I 40 70 YEAR 4 " 219 469 [PHONE REDACTED] I 40 70 YEAR 5 " 225 467 [PHONE REDACTED] I 40 70 YEAR 6 " 229 465 [PHONE REDACTED] I 40 70 YEAR 7 " 231 463 [PHONE REDACTED] I 40 70 YEAR 8 " 232 460 [PHONE REDACTED] I 40 70 YEAR 9 " 233 457 [PHONE REDACTED] I 40 70 YEAR 10 " 232 453 [PHONE REDACTED] I 40 70 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 41 40 POST HUNT YR 1 35 65 POST HUNT YR 2 40 59 POST HUNT YR 3 43 60 POST HUNT YR 4 45 60 POST HUNT YR 5 47 60 POST HUNT YR 6 48 60 POST HUNT YR 7 49 60 POST HUNT YR 8 49 60 POST HUNT YR 9 50 60 POST HUNT YR 10 50 61 ---PAGE BREAK--- 183 FORT HUNTER LIGGETT CENTRAL COAST - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL AND PLM, 2016 Ratio = 41/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST: BULL, ANTLERLESS, EITHER-SEX (INCLUDING COOPERATIVE) TO HARVEST UP TO 60 BULL AND 105 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 70% bull and 50% antlerless HERD SIZE 825 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 10 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 33 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 22.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 187 456 182 825 825 I 37 27 YEAR 1 " 181 468 [PHONE REDACTED] I 60 105 YEAR 2 " 187 442 [PHONE REDACTED] I 62 99 YEAR 3 " 176 406 [PHONE REDACTED] I 58 91 YEAR 4 " 165 376 [PHONE REDACTED] I 55 85 YEAR 5 " 154 347 [PHONE REDACTED] I 51 78 YEAR 6 " 143 321 [PHONE REDACTED] I 47 72 YEAR 7 " 132 296 [PHONE REDACTED] I 44 67 YEAR 8 " 122 274 [PHONE REDACTED] I 40 62 YEAR 9 " 113 253 [PHONE REDACTED] I 37 57 YEAR 10 " 105 234 [PHONE REDACTED] I 35 53 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 41 40 POST HUNT YR 1 33 71 POST HUNT YR 2 37 63 POST HUNT YR 3 37 65 POST HUNT YR 4 38 65 POST HUNT YR 5 38 65 POST HUNT YR 6 39 65 POST HUNT YR 7 39 65 POST HUNT YR 8 39 65 POST HUNT YR 9 39 65 POST HUNT YR 10 39 65 ---PAGE BREAK--- 184 FORT HUNTER LIGGETT CENTRAL COAST - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL AND PLM, 2016 Ratio = 41/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL, ANTLERLESS, EITHER-SEX (INCLUDING COOPERATIVE) TO HARVEST UP TO 50 BULL AND 86 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 70% bull and 50% antlerless HERD SIZE 1000 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 10 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 22 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 15 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 227 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 37 27 YEAR 1 " 225 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 50 86 YEAR 2 " 208 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 46 79 YEAR 3 " 220 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 48 78 YEAR 4 " 225 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 50 77 YEAR 5 " 229 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 50 77 YEAR 6 " 231 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 51 76 YEAR 7 " 233 506 [PHONE REDACTED] I 51 76 YEAR 8 " 234 504 [PHONE REDACTED] I 51 76 YEAR 9 " 233 501 [PHONE REDACTED] I 51 75 YEAR 10 " 233 499 [PHONE REDACTED] I 51 75 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 41 40 POST HUNT YR 1 36 42 POST HUNT YR 2 36 59 POST HUNT YR 3 39 58 POST HUNT YR 4 40 59 POST HUNT YR 5 41 60 POST HUNT YR 6 42 60 POST HUNT YR 7 42 60 POST HUNT YR 8 43 60 POST HUNT YR 9 43 60 POST HUNT YR 10 43 60 ---PAGE BREAK--- 185 FORT HUNTER LIGGETT CENTRAL COAST - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL AND PLM, 2016 Ratio = 41/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 60% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST: BULL, ANTLERLESS, EITHER-SEX (INCLUDING COOPERATIVE) TO HARVEST UP TO 20 BULL AND 35 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 70% bull and 50% antlerless HERD SIZE 825 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 10 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 11 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 7.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 187 456 182 825 825 I 37 27 YEAR 1 " 181 468 [PHONE REDACTED] I 20 35 YEAR 2 " 217 505 [PHONE REDACTED] I 20 35 YEAR 3 " 245 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 20 35 YEAR 4 " 250 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 20 35 YEAR 5 " 247 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 20 35 YEAR 6 " 245 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 20 35 YEAR 7 " 243 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 20 35 YEAR 8 " 242 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 20 35 YEAR 9 " 241 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 20 35 YEAR 10 " 240 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 20 35 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 41 40 POST HUNT YR 1 37 59 POST HUNT YR 2 42 55 POST HUNT YR 3 45 42 POST HUNT YR 4 45 39 POST HUNT YR 5 44 38 POST HUNT YR 6 43 38 POST HUNT YR 7 43 38 POST HUNT YR 8 42 38 POST HUNT YR 9 42 38 POST HUNT YR 10 42 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- 186 EAST PARK RESERVOIR TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 25/100/36 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. CURRENT CONDITION: BULL, COW, TO HARVEST UP TO 2 BULLS & 4 COWS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 90% bull and 75% antlerless HERD SIZE 120 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 30 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 15 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 10 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 4.8 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 19 75 27 120 120 I 2 2 YEAR 1 " 21 73 49 143 200 I 2 4 YEAR 2 " 30 80 47 157 200 I 2 4 YEAR 3 " 36 85 51 172 200 I 2 4 YEAR 4 " 42 91 54 187 200 I 2 4 YEAR 5 " 47 97 56 200 200 I 2 4 YEAR 6 " 51 103 46 200 200 I 2 4 YEAR 7 " 50 104 46 200 200 I 2 4 YEAR 8 " 50 105 45 200 200 I 2 4 YEAR 9 " 49 106 45 200 200 I 2 4 YEAR 10 " 49 106 45 200 200 I 2 4 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 25 36 POST HUNT YR 1 27 70 POST HUNT YR 2 37 61 POST HUNT YR 3 42 63 POST HUNT YR 4 45 62 POST HUNT YR 5 48 60 POST HUNT YR 6 49 46 POST HUNT YR 7 48 45 POST HUNT YR 8 47 45 POST HUNT YR 9 46 44 POST HUNT YR 10 45 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- 187 EAST PARK RESERVOIR TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 25/100/36 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED: BULL, COW, TO HARVEST UP TO 4 BULLS & 10 COWS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 90% bull and 75% antlerless HERD SIZE 120 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 30 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 15 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 20 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 13.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 19 75 27 120 120 I 2 2 YEAR 1 " 21 73 49 143 200 I 4 10 YEAR 2 " 29 74 42 145 200 I 4 10 YEAR 3 " 32 73 43 148 200 I 4 10 YEAR 4 " 35 72 42 149 200 I 4 10 YEAR 5 " 36 71 42 148 200 I 4 10 YEAR 6 " 37 69 41 147 200 I 4 10 YEAR 7 " 37 68 40 145 200 I 4 10 YEAR 8 " 37 66 39 142 200 I 4 10 YEAR 9 " 37 64 38 139 200 I 4 10 YEAR 10 " 36 62 37 135 200 I 4 10 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 25 36 POST HUNT YR 1 27 77 POST HUNT YR 2 38 66 POST HUNT YR 3 44 69 POST HUNT YR 4 49 68 POST HUNT YR 5 52 68 POST HUNT YR 6 55 68 POST HUNT YR 7 57 69 POST HUNT YR 8 58 69 POST HUNT YR 9 59 69 POST HUNT YR 10 60 70 ---PAGE BREAK--- 188 EAST PARK RESERVOIR TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 25/100/36 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST: BULL, COW, INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS TO HARVEST UP TO 6 BULLS & 15 COWS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 90% bull and 75% antlerless HERD SIZE 120 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 30 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 15 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 27 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 20 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 19 75 27 120 120 I 2 2 YEAR 1 " 21 73 49 143 200 I 6 15 YEAR 2 " 28 70 39 137 200 I 6 15 YEAR 3 " 29 64 37 131 200 I 6 15 YEAR 4 " 30 58 33 120 200 I 6 15 YEAR 5 " 28 51 29 108 200 I 6 15 YEAR 6 " 26 43 24 93 200 I 6 15 YEAR 7 " 23 35 19 76 200 I 6 15 YEAR 8 " 19 25 13 57 200 I 6 15 YEAR 9 " 14 15 7 35 200 I 6 15 YEAR 10 " 8 3 0 11 200 I 6 15 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 25 36 POST HUNT YR 1 26 83 POST HUNT YR 2 40 70 POST HUNT YR 3 48 76 POST HUNT YR 4 55 77 POST HUNT YR 5 62 80 POST HUNT YR 6 71 85 POST HUNT YR 7 85 96 POST HUNT YR 8 124 128 POST HUNT YR 9 -8983 -7821 POST HUNT YR 10 -20 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 189 EAST PARK RESERVOIR TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 25/100/36 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL, COW TAGS TO HARVEST UP TO 8 BULLS & 15 COWS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest,includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 90% bull and 75% antlerless HERD SIZE 200 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 30 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 15 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 22 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 11.9 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 31 124 45 200 200 I 2 2 YEAR 1 " 36 123 82 241 250 I 8 15 YEAR 2 " 48 127 73 248 250 I 8 15 YEAR 3 " 54 126 70 250 250 I 8 15 YEAR 4 " 57 125 69 250 250 I 8 15 YEAR 5 " 58 123 69 250 250 I 8 15 YEAR 6 " 59 121 69 250 250 I 8 15 YEAR 7 " 60 120 70 250 250 I 8 15 YEAR 8 " 61 119 70 250 250 I 8 15 YEAR 9 " 62 119 70 250 250 I 8 15 YEAR 10 " 62 118 70 250 250 I 8 15 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 25 36 POST HUNT YR 1 26 76 POST HUNT YR 2 36 65 POST HUNT YR 3 41 63 POST HUNT YR 4 44 63 POST HUNT YR 5 46 64 POST HUNT YR 6 48 65 POST HUNT YR 7 50 66 POST HUNT YR 8 51 67 POST HUNT YR 9 52 67 POST HUNT YR 10 52 67 ---PAGE BREAK--- 190 EAST PARK RESERVOIR TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 25/100/36 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST: BULL, COW, TO HARVEST UP TO 2 BULLS & 5 COWS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 90% bull and 75% antlerless HERD SIZE 120 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 30 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 15 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 10 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 7 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 19 75 27 120 120 I 2 2 YEAR 1 " 21 73 49 143 200 I 2 5 YEAR 2 " 30 78 46 154 200 I 2 5 YEAR 3 " 36 82 49 166 200 I 2 5 YEAR 4 " 41 86 51 178 200 I 2 5 YEAR 5 " 45 90 54 190 200 I 2 5 YEAR 6 " 49 96 55 200 200 I 2 5 YEAR 7 " 52 100 47 200 200 I 2 5 YEAR 8 " 52 101 47 200 200 I 2 5 YEAR 9 " 51 102 47 200 200 I 2 5 YEAR 10 " 51 102 47 200 200 I 2 5 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 25 36 POST HUNT YR 1 28 72 POST HUNT YR 2 38 62 POST HUNT YR 3 44 64 POST HUNT YR 4 48 63 POST HUNT YR 5 50 63 POST HUNT YR 6 52 61 POST HUNT YR 7 53 50 POST HUNT YR 8 52 49 POST HUNT YR 9 51 49 POST HUNT YR 10 50 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- 191 SAN LUIS RESERVOIR - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 22/100/32 - Maximum Calf Survival = 50% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. CURRENT CONDITION: EITHER-SEX TO HARVEST UP TO 5 BULL/ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 70% bull and 50% antlerless HERD SIZE 390 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 10 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 6 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 0.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 56 253 81 390 390 I 5 0 YEAR 1 " 68 264 127 459 800 I 4 1 YEAR 2 " 96 294 132 521 800 I 4 1 YEAR 3 " 118 322 146 587 800 I 4 1 YEAR 4 " 140 355 161 656 800 I 4 1 YEAR 5 " 162 390 177 729 800 I 4 1 YEAR 6 " 185 430 185 800 800 I 4 1 YEAR 7 " 205 469 126 800 800 I 4 1 YEAR 8 " 198 477 124 800 800 I 4 1 YEAR 9 " 192 485 123 800 800 I 4 1 YEAR 10 " 187 490 122 800 800 I 4 1 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 22 32 POST HUNT YR 1 24 48 POST HUNT YR 2 31 45 POST HUNT YR 3 35 46 POST HUNT YR 4 39 45 POST HUNT YR 5 41 45 POST HUNT YR 6 42 43 POST HUNT YR 7 43 27 POST HUNT YR 8 41 26 POST HUNT YR 9 39 26 POST HUNT YR 10 37 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- 192 SAN LUIS RESERVOIR - SIMULATION RUNS. General, SHARE,& PLM 2016 Ratio = 22/100/32 - Maximum Calf Survival = 50% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED: BULL, ANTLERLESS, EITHER-SEX (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS) TO HARVEST UP TO 15 BULL AND 30 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 70% bull and 50% antlerless HERD SIZE 390 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 10 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 22 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 11.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 56 253 81 390 390 I 5 0 YEAR 1 " 68 264 127 459 800 I 15 30 YEAR 2 " 88 268 117 472 800 I 15 30 YEAR 3 " 98 266 119 483 800 I 15 30 YEAR 4 " 107 265 118 490 800 I 15 30 YEAR 5 " 113 265 118 495 800 I 15 30 YEAR 6 " 118 264 117 498 800 I 15 30 YEAR 7 " 121 263 117 500 800 I 15 30 YEAR 8 " 123 261 116 501 800 I 15 30 YEAR 9 " 125 260 116 500 800 I 15 30 YEAR 10 " 125 259 115 499 800 I 15 30 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 22 32 POST HUNT YR 1 23 54 POST HUNT YR 2 31 49 POST HUNT YR 3 35 50 POST HUNT YR 4 39 50 POST HUNT YR 5 42 50 POST HUNT YR 6 44 50 POST HUNT YR 7 46 50 POST HUNT YR 8 47 50 POST HUNT YR 9 48 50 POST HUNT YR 10 48 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- 193 SAN LUIS RESERVOIR - SIMULATION RUNS, General, SHARE,& PLM 2016 2016 Ratio = 22/100/32 - Maximum Calf Survival = 50% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HAREST: BULL, ANTLERLESS, EITHER-SEX TO HARVEST UP TO 22 BULL & 45 ANTLERLESS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE) Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 70% bull and 50% antlerless HERD SIZE 390 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 10 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 32 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 17 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 56 253 81 390 390 I 5 0 YEAR 1 " 68 264 127 459 800 I 22 45 YEAR 2 " 82 254 110 447 800 I 22 43 YEAR 3 " 87 239 106 432 800 I 22 41 YEAR 4 " 88 226 99 414 800 I 22 38 YEAR 5 " 87 214 94 395 800 I 22 36 YEAR 6 " 84 202 89 375 800 I 22 34 YEAR 7 " 80 191 84 355 800 I 22 32 YEAR 8 " 75 180 79 334 800 I 22 31 YEAR 9 " 69 170 75 315 800 I 22 29 YEAR 10 " 63 161 71 295 800 I 20 27 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 22 32 POST HUNT YR 1 21 58 POST HUNT YR 2 29 52 POST HUNT YR 3 33 53 POST HUNT YR 4 35 53 POST HUNT YR 5 37 53 POST HUNT YR 6 37 53 POST HUNT YR 7 37 53 POST HUNT YR 8 35 53 POST HUNT YR 9 33 53 POST HUNT YR 10 32 53 ---PAGE BREAK--- 194 SAN LUIS RESERVOIR - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 22/100/32 - Maximum Calf Survival = 50% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL, ANTLERLESS, EITHER-SEX TO HARVEST UP TO 24 BULL & 45 ANTLERLESS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE) Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 70% bull and 50% antlerless HERD SIZE 600 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 10 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 22 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 11 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 86 390 125 600 600 I 5 0 YEAR 1 " 107 407 195 709 800 I 24 45 YEAR 2 " 136 413 181 730 800 I 24 45 YEAR 3 " 152 413 184 749 800 I 24 45 YEAR 4 " 165 413 184 762 800 I 24 45 YEAR 5 " 175 414 184 773 800 I 24 45 YEAR 6 " 183 414 184 781 800 I 24 45 YEAR 7 " 188 415 184 787 800 I 24 45 YEAR 8 " 193 415 185 793 800 I 24 45 YEAR 9 " 196 416 185 797 800 I 24 45 YEAR 10 " 199 417 185 800 800 I 24 45 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 22 32 POST HUNT YR 1 23 54 POST HUNT YR 2 30 49 POST HUNT YR 3 35 50 POST HUNT YR 4 39 50 POST HUNT YR 5 41 50 POST HUNT YR 6 43 50 POST HUNT YR 7 45 50 POST HUNT YR 8 46 50 POST HUNT YR 9 47 50 POST HUNT YR 10 47 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- 195 SAN LUIS RESERVOIR - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 22/100/32 - Maximum Calf Survival = 50% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST: BULL, ANTLERLESS, EITHER-SEX (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS) TO HARVEST UP TO 7 BULL AND 15 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 70% bull and 50% antlerless HERD SIZE 390 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 10 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 10.5 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 5.6 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 56 253 81 390 390 I 5 0 YEAR 1 " 68 264 127 459 800 I 7 15 YEAR 2 " 93 282 125 500 800 I 7 15 YEAR 3 " 111 296 133 541 800 I 7 15 YEAR 4 " 128 313 141 582 800 I 7 15 YEAR 5 " 144 332 149 625 800 I 7 15 YEAR 6 " 158 353 159 670 800 I 7 15 YEAR 7 " 173 375 169 717 800 I 7 15 YEAR 8 " 188 401 180 768 800 I 7 15 YEAR 9 " 203 428 169 800 800 I 7 15 YEAR 10 " 210 448 142 800 800 I 7 15 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 22 32 POST HUNT YR 1 25 51 POST HUNT YR 2 32 47 POST HUNT YR 3 37 47 POST HUNT YR 4 41 47 POST HUNT YR 5 43 47 POST HUNT YR 6 45 47 POST HUNT YR 7 46 47 POST HUNT YR 8 47 47 POST HUNT YR 9 47 41 POST HUNT YR 10 47 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- 196 Bear Valley TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 25/100/51 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. CURRENT CONDITION: BULL, COW, TO HARVEST UP TO 3 BULLS & 2 COWS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 225 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 30 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 8 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 1.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 32 128 65 225 225 I 3 2 YEAR 1 " 43 127 84 254 350 I 3 2 YEAR 2 " 57 134 84 275 350 I 3 2 YEAR 3 " 67 139 88 294 350 I 3 2 YEAR 4 " 75 145 92 312 350 I 3 2 YEAR 5 " 82 151 96 329 350 I 3 2 YEAR 6 " 89 158 100 346 350 I 3 2 YEAR 7 " 95 165 91 350 350 I 3 2 YEAR 8 " 96 166 88 350 350 I 3 2 YEAR 9 " 95 167 88 350 350 I 3 2 YEAR 10 " 95 167 88 350 350 I 3 2 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 25 51 POST HUNT YR 1 32 68 POST HUNT YR 2 41 64 POST HUNT YR 3 46 64 POST HUNT YR 4 50 64 POST HUNT YR 5 53 64 POST HUNT YR 6 55 64 POST HUNT YR 7 56 56 POST HUNT YR 8 56 53 POST HUNT YR 9 56 53 POST HUNT YR 10 55 53 ---PAGE BREAK--- 197 Bear Valley TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 25/100/51 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED PROJECT: BULL, COW, TO HARVEST UP TO 8 BULLS & 11 COWS, INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 225 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 30 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 18 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 8.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 32 128 65 225 225 I 3 2 YEAR 1 " 43 127 84 254 350 I 8 11 YEAR 2 " 54 127 78 258 350 I 8 11 YEAR 3 " 60 124 78 261 350 I 8 11 YEAR 4 " 64 121 76 261 350 I 8 11 YEAR 5 " 66 119 74 258 350 I 8 11 YEAR 6 " 66 116 72 255 350 I 8 11 YEAR 7 " 66 113 70 250 350 I 8 11 YEAR 8 " 66 110 69 244 350 I 8 11 YEAR 9 " 65 107 67 238 350 I 8 11 YEAR 10 " 63 103 64 231 350 I 8 11 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 25 51 POST HUNT YR 1 30 73 POST HUNT YR 2 40 67 POST HUNT YR 3 46 69 POST HUNT YR 4 50 68 POST HUNT YR 5 54 69 POST HUNT YR 6 56 69 POST HUNT YR 7 57 69 POST HUNT YR 8 58 69 POST HUNT YR 9 59 69 POST HUNT YR 10 60 69 ---PAGE BREAK--- 198 Bear Valley TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 25/100/51 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST: BULL, COW, TO HARVEST UP TO 12 BULLS & 16 COWS. INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 225 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 30 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 27 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 13 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 32 128 65 225 225 I 3 2 YEAR 1 " 43 127 84 254 350 I 12 16 YEAR 2 " 52 122 74 247 350 I 12 16 YEAR 3 " 54 114 71 238 350 I 12 16 YEAR 4 " 54 106 65 226 350 I 12 16 YEAR 5 " 53 98 60 211 350 I 12 16 YEAR 6 " 50 89 55 194 350 I 12 16 YEAR 7 " 46 80 49 175 350 I 12 16 YEAR 8 " 41 70 43 154 350 I 12 16 YEAR 9 " 35 60 36 132 350 I 12 16 YEAR 10 " 29 49 29 108 350 I 12 16 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 25 51 POST HUNT YR 1 29 76 POST HUNT YR 2 38 70 POST HUNT YR 3 43 73 POST HUNT YR 4 47 73 POST HUNT YR 5 50 74 POST HUNT YR 6 52 75 POST HUNT YR 7 54 77 POST HUNT YR 8 54 79 POST HUNT YR 9 55 83 POST HUNT YR 10 54 89 ---PAGE BREAK--- 199 Bear Valley TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 25/100/51 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL, COW, TO HARVEST UP TO 9 BULLS & 14 COWS. INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 300 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 30 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 15 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 8.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 43 170 87 300 300 I 3 2 YEAR 1 " 58 170 113 341 350 I 9 14 YEAR 2 " 74 169 104 347 350 I 9 14 YEAR 3 " 82 165 102 350 350 I 9 14 YEAR 4 " 87 162 101 350 350 I 9 14 YEAR 5 " 90 158 99 347 350 I 9 14 YEAR 6 " 92 155 96 343 350 I 9 14 YEAR 7 " 92 151 94 336 350 I 9 14 YEAR 8 " 91 147 91 329 350 I 9 14 YEAR 9 " 90 142 89 320 350 I 9 14 YEAR 10 " 88 138 86 311 350 I 9 14 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 25 51 POST HUNT YR 1 32 73 POST HUNT YR 2 42 67 POST HUNT YR 3 49 68 POST HUNT YR 4 53 69 POST HUNT YR 5 57 69 POST HUNT YR 6 59 69 POST HUNT YR 7 61 69 POST HUNT YR 8 62 69 POST HUNT YR 9 63 69 POST HUNT YR 10 64 69 ---PAGE BREAK--- 200 Bear Valley TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 25/100/51 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST: BULL, COW, TO HARVEST UP TO 4 BULLS & 5 COWS, INCLUDES COOPERATIVE TAGS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 225 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 30 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 9 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 4 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 32 128 65 225 225 I 3 2 YEAR 1 " 43 127 84 254 350 I 4 5 YEAR 2 " 57 131 82 270 350 I 4 5 YEAR 3 " 66 133 84 284 350 I 4 5 YEAR 4 " 73 136 86 295 350 I 4 5 YEAR 5 " 78 139 88 306 350 I 4 5 YEAR 6 " 83 143 90 316 350 I 4 5 YEAR 7 " 87 146 92 325 350 I 4 5 YEAR 8 " 90 150 95 335 350 I 4 5 YEAR 9 " 94 154 97 344 350 I 4 5 YEAR 10 " 97 158 96 350 350 I 4 5 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 25 51 POST HUNT YR 1 32 69 POST HUNT YR 2 42 65 POST HUNT YR 3 48 66 POST HUNT YR 4 52 65 POST HUNT YR 5 55 65 POST HUNT YR 6 57 65 POST HUNT YR 7 59 65 POST HUNT YR 8 60 65 POST HUNT YR 9 60 65 POST HUNT YR 10 61 63 ---PAGE BREAK--- 201 LAKE PILLSBURY TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 35/100/51 - Maximum Calf Survival = 53% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. CURRENT CONDITION: HARVEST UP TO 2 BULL TAG 4 ANTLERLESS NO CHANGE: HARVEST UP TO 2 BULL AND 4 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 150 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 15 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 4.1 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 4.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 28 81 41 150 150 I 2 4 YEAR 1 " 37 83 41 161 200 I 2 4 YEAR 2 " 45 84 42 171 200 I 2 4 YEAR 3 " 51 86 43 180 200 I 2 4 YEAR 4 " 57 88 44 189 200 I 2 4 YEAR 5 " 62 90 45 197 200 I 2 4 YEAR 6 " 66 92 42 200 200 I 2 4 YEAR 7 " 68 93 39 200 200 I 2 4 YEAR 8 " 69 92 39 200 200 I 2 4 YEAR 9 " 70 91 39 200 200 I 2 4 YEAR 10 " 70 91 39 200 200 I 2 4 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 35 51 POST HUNT YR 1 45 51 POST HUNT YR 2 54 52 POST HUNT YR 3 61 52 POST HUNT YR 4 66 52 POST HUNT YR 5 70 52 POST HUNT YR 6 73 48 POST HUNT YR 7 76 44 POST HUNT YR 8 77 45 POST HUNT YR 9 78 45 POST HUNT YR 10 79 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- 202 LAKE PILLSBURY TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 35/100/51 - Maximum Calf Survival = 53% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED PROJECT: BULL & ANTLERLESS TO HARVEST UP TO 6 BULL AND 7 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 90% bull and 90% antlerless HERD SIZE 150 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 15 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 15 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 9 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 28 81 41 150 150 I 2 4 YEAR 1 " 37 83 41 161 200 I 6 7 YEAR 2 " 42 81 40 163 200 I 6 7 YEAR 3 " 45 80 39 164 200 I 6 7 YEAR 4 " 47 78 38 164 200 I 6 7 YEAR 5 " 49 77 38 163 200 I 6 7 YEAR 6 " 49 76 37 162 200 I 6 7 YEAR 7 " 50 74 36 161 200 I 6 7 YEAR 8 " 50 73 36 159 200 I 6 7 YEAR 9 " 50 72 35 157 200 I 6 6 YEAR 10 " 49 70 35 154 200 I 6 6 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 35 51 POST HUNT YR 1 42 54 POST HUNT YR 2 49 54 POST HUNT YR 3 54 54 POST HUNT YR 4 58 54 POST HUNT YR 5 61 54 POST HUNT YR 6 64 54 POST HUNT YR 7 66 54 POST HUNT YR 8 67 54 POST HUNT YR 9 68 54 POST HUNT YR 10 68 54 ---PAGE BREAK--- 203 LAKE PILLSBURY TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 35/100/51 - Maximum Calf Survival = 53% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST: BULL & ANTLERLESS TO HARVEST UP TO 9 BULL AND 10 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 90% bull and 90% antlerless HERD SIZE 150 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 23 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 12.2 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 28 81 41 150 150 I 2 4 YEAR 1 " 37 86 41 164 200 I 9 10 YEAR 2 " 39 84 40 163 200 I 9 10 YEAR 3 " 40 82 39 162 200 I 9 10 YEAR 4 " 40 81 38 160 200 I 9 10 YEAR 5 " 40 79 38 157 200 I 9 10 YEAR 6 " 40 78 37 155 200 I 9 9 YEAR 7 " 39 76 36 152 200 I 9 9 YEAR 8 " 39 75 36 149 200 I 9 9 YEAR 9 " 38 74 35 147 200 I 9 9 YEAR 10 " 37 72 34 144 200 I 9 9 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 35 51 POST HUNT YR 1 38 54 POST HUNT YR 2 41 54 POST HUNT YR 3 43 54 POST HUNT YR 4 44 54 POST HUNT YR 5 44 54 POST HUNT YR 6 45 54 POST HUNT YR 7 45 54 POST HUNT YR 8 45 54 POST HUNT YR 9 45 54 POST HUNT YR 10 45 54 ---PAGE BREAK--- 204 LAKE PILLSBURY TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 35/100/51 - Maximum Calf Survival = 53% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL & ANTLERLESS TO HARVEST UP TO 8 BULL AND 10 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 90% bull and 90% antlerless HERD SIZE 200 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 15 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 15 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 9 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 38 108 55 200 200 I 2 4 YEAR 1 " 50 111 38 200 200 I 8 10 YEAR 2 " 50 102 48 200 200 I 8 9 YEAR 3 " 53 100 48 200 200 I 8 9 YEAR 4 " 55 97 48 200 200 I 8 9 YEAR 5 " 57 95 47 199 200 I 8 9 YEAR 6 " 58 94 46 198 200 I 8 8 YEAR 7 " 59 92 45 196 200 I 8 8 YEAR 8 " 59 90 44 194 200 I 8 8 YEAR 9 " 59 89 44 192 200 I 8 8 YEAR 10 " 59 87 43 189 200 I 8 8 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 35 51 POST HUNT YR 1 42 38 POST HUNT YR 2 45 52 POST HUNT YR 3 50 52 POST HUNT YR 4 54 54 POST HUNT YR 5 57 54 POST HUNT YR 6 60 54 POST HUNT YR 7 62 54 POST HUNT YR 8 63 54 POST HUNT YR 9 64 54 POST HUNT YR 10 64 54 ---PAGE BREAK--- 205 LAKE PILLSBURY TULE ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 35/100/51 - Maximum Calf Survival = 53% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST: BULL & ANTLERLESS TO HARVEST UP TO 3 BULL AND 3 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 90% bull and 90% antlerless HERD SIZE 150 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 15 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 7.5 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 3.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 28 81 41 150 150 I 2 4 YEAR 1 " 37 83 41 161 200 I 3 3 YEAR 2 " 44 85 42 171 200 I 3 3 YEAR 3 " 50 88 43 181 200 I 3 3 YEAR 4 " 55 90 45 190 200 I 3 3 YEAR 5 " 60 93 46 199 200 I 3 3 YEAR 6 " 64 96 40 200 200 I 3 3 YEAR 7 " 65 96 39 200 200 I 3 3 YEAR 8 " 65 95 39 200 200 I 3 3 YEAR 9 " 66 95 39 200 200 I 3 3 YEAR 10 " 66 95 39 200 200 I 3 3 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 35 51 POST HUNT YR 1 43 51 POST HUNT YR 2 50 51 POST HUNT YR 3 56 51 POST HUNT YR 4 60 51 POST HUNT YR 5 63 51 POST HUNT YR 6 66 43 POST HUNT YR 7 67 43 POST HUNT YR 8 68 43 POST HUNT YR 9 69 43 POST HUNT YR 10 69 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- 206 Santa Clara (PLM, SHARE, & GENERAL) - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 43/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 65% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. CURRENT CONDITION: UP TO 10 BULL AND 8 ANTLERLESS NO CHANGE: HARVEST UP TO 10 BULL AND 8 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 160 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 30 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 15 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 25 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 8.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 37 85 38 160 160 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 39 89 55 183 200 I 10 8 YEAR 2 " 40 92 53 185 200 I 10 8 YEAR 3 " 39 94 55 189 200 I 10 8 YEAR 4 " 40 97 56 193 200 I 10 8 YEAR 5 " 41 99 58 197 200 I 10 8 YEAR 6 " 42 101 57 200 200 I 10 8 YEAR 7 " 42 103 55 200 200 I 10 8 YEAR 8 " 42 104 55 200 200 I 10 8 YEAR 9 " 41 104 54 200 200 I 10 8 YEAR 10 " 41 105 54 200 200 I 10 8 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 43 45 POST HUNT YR 1 36 68 POST HUNT YR 2 35 62 POST HUNT YR 3 34 64 POST HUNT YR 4 34 63 POST HUNT YR 5 34 63 POST HUNT YR 6 34 61 POST HUNT YR 7 34 58 POST HUNT YR 8 33 57 POST HUNT YR 9 33 57 POST HUNT YR 10 32 57 ---PAGE BREAK--- 207 Santa Clara ( PLM, SHARE & GENERAL) - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 43/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 65% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED: BULL AND ANTLERLESS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE) HARVEST UP TO: 10 BULL AND 10 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 160 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 30 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 15 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 25 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 11 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 37 85 38 160 160 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 39 89 55 183 200 I 10 10 YEAR 2 " 40 91 51 182 200 I 10 10 YEAR 3 " 39 90 52 182 200 I 10 10 YEAR 4 " 39 91 52 182 200 I 10 10 YEAR 5 " 39 91 52 182 200 I 10 10 YEAR 6 " 39 91 52 182 200 I 10 10 YEAR 7 " 39 91 53 182 200 I 10 10 YEAR 8 " 39 91 53 183 200 I 10 10 YEAR 9 " 39 91 53 183 200 I 10 10 YEAR 10 " 39 92 53 183 200 I 10 10 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 43 45 POST HUNT YR 1 37 70 POST HUNT YR 2 37 64 POST HUNT YR 3 36 65 POST HUNT YR 4 36 65 POST HUNT YR 5 36 65 POST HUNT YR 6 36 65 POST HUNT YR 7 36 65 POST HUNT YR 8 36 65 POST HUNT YR 9 36 65 POST HUNT YR 10 36 65 ---PAGE BREAK--- 208 Santa Clara PLM, SHARE, & GENERAL) - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 43/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 65% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST: BULL AND ANTLERLESS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE) HARVEST UP TO: 15 BULL AND 15 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 160 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 30 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 13 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 38 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 16 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 37 85 38 160 160 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 39 91 55 185 200 I 15 15 YEAR 2 " 36 90 50 176 200 I 14 14 YEAR 3 " 33 88 49 170 200 I 13 14 YEAR 4 " 32 85 48 165 200 I 12 14 YEAR 5 " 30 83 47 160 200 I 12 13 YEAR 6 " 30 81 45 156 200 I 11 13 YEAR 7 " 29 79 44 152 200 I 11 13 YEAR 8 " 28 77 43 148 200 I 11 12 YEAR 9 " 27 75 42 144 200 I 10 12 YEAR 10 " 27 73 41 141 200 I 10 12 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 43 45 POST HUNT YR 1 32 73 POST HUNT YR 2 30 65 POST HUNT YR 3 28 67 POST HUNT YR 4 27 67 POST HUNT YR 5 27 67 POST HUNT YR 6 27 67 POST HUNT YR 7 27 67 POST HUNT YR 8 27 67 POST HUNT YR 9 27 67 POST HUNT YR 10 27 67 ---PAGE BREAK--- 209 Santa Clara ( PLM, SHARE & GENERAL) - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 43/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 65% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL AND ANTLERLESS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE) HARVEST UP TO: 11 BULL AND 13 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 200 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 30 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 15 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 23 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 12 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 46 106 48 200 200 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 49 111 65 225 225 I 11 13 YEAR 2 " 49 111 63 223 225 I 11 13 YEAR 3 " 49 110 63 222 225 I 11 13 YEAR 4 " 48 109 63 220 225 I 11 13 YEAR 5 " 48 108 62 219 225 I 11 13 YEAR 6 " 48 107 62 217 225 I 11 13 YEAR 7 " 47 107 61 215 225 I 11 13 YEAR 8 " 47 106 61 214 225 I 11 13 YEAR 9 " 47 105 61 212 225 I 11 13 YEAR 10 " 46 104 60 211 225 I 11 13 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 43 45 POST HUNT YR 1 39 67 POST HUNT YR 2 39 65 POST HUNT YR 3 39 66 POST HUNT YR 4 39 65 POST HUNT YR 5 39 65 POST HUNT YR 6 39 65 POST HUNT YR 7 39 65 POST HUNT YR 8 39 65 POST HUNT YR 9 39 65 POST HUNT YR 10 39 65 ---PAGE BREAK--- 210 Santa Clara ( PLM, SHARE, & GENERAL) - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 43/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 65% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST: BULL AND ANTLERLESS (INCLUDES COOPERATIVE) HARVEST UP TO: 5 BULL AND 5 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 160 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 30 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 15 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 12 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 5.1 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 37 85 38 160 160 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 39 89 55 183 200 I 5 5 YEAR 2 " 43 95 55 193 200 I 5 5 YEAR 3 " 46 100 54 200 200 I 5 5 YEAR 4 " 47 104 49 200 200 I 5 5 YEAR 5 " 47 104 49 200 200 I 5 5 YEAR 6 " 46 105 49 200 200 I 5 5 YEAR 7 " 46 105 49 200 200 I 5 5 YEAR 8 " 45 106 49 200 200 I 5 5 YEAR 9 " 45 106 49 200 200 I 5 5 YEAR 10 " 45 106 49 200 200 I 5 5 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 43 45 POST HUNT YR 1 41 66 POST HUNT YR 2 42 61 POST HUNT YR 3 43 57 POST HUNT YR 4 43 50 POST HUNT YR 5 42 49 POST HUNT YR 6 41 49 POST HUNT YR 7 40 49 POST HUNT YR 8 40 49 POST HUNT YR 9 39 48 POST HUNT YR 10 39 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- 211 ALAMEDA TULE ELK HERD , GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 43/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 55% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. CURRENT CONDITION: UP TO 3 BULL AND 2 ANTLERLESS NO CHANGE: HARVEST UP TO 3 BULL AND 2 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 100 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 32 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 16.6 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 11 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 2.9 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 23 55 22 100 100 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 23 55 30 108 150 I 3 2 YEAR 2 " 24 57 29 110 150 I 3 2 YEAR 3 " 25 58 30 113 150 I 3 2 YEAR 4 " 25 60 31 116 150 I 3 2 YEAR 5 " 26 61 32 119 150 I 3 2 YEAR 6 " 27 63 33 122 150 I 3 2 YEAR 7 " 27 65 34 126 150 I 3 2 YEAR 8 " 28 66 35 129 150 I 3 2 YEAR 9 " 29 68 35 132 150 I 3 2 YEAR 10 " 29 70 36 136 150 I 3 2 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 43 40 POST HUNT YR 1 39 57 POST HUNT YR 2 39 53 POST HUNT YR 3 39 54 POST HUNT YR 4 39 54 POST HUNT YR 5 39 54 POST HUNT YR 6 39 54 POST HUNT YR 7 39 54 POST HUNT YR 8 38 54 POST HUNT YR 9 38 54 POST HUNT YR 10 38 54 ---PAGE BREAK--- 212 ALAMEDA TULE ELK HERD GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 43/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 55% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED: BULL AND ANTLERLESS HARVEST UP TO 3 BULL AND 2 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 100 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 32 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 16.6 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 11 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 2.9 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 23 55 22 100 100 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 23 55 30 108 150 I 3 2 YEAR 2 " 24 57 29 110 150 I 3 2 YEAR 3 " 25 58 30 113 150 I 3 2 YEAR 4 " 25 60 31 116 150 I 3 2 YEAR 5 " 26 61 32 119 150 I 3 2 YEAR 6 " 27 63 33 122 150 I 3 2 YEAR 7 " 27 65 34 126 150 I 3 2 YEAR 8 " 28 66 35 129 150 I 3 2 YEAR 9 " 29 68 35 132 150 I 3 2 YEAR 10 " 29 70 36 136 150 I 3 2 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 43 40 POST HUNT YR 1 39 57 POST HUNT YR 2 39 53 POST HUNT YR 3 39 54 POST HUNT YR 4 39 54 POST HUNT YR 5 39 54 POST HUNT YR 6 39 54 POST HUNT YR 7 39 54 POST HUNT YR 8 38 54 POST HUNT YR 9 38 54 POST HUNT YR 10 38 54 ---PAGE BREAK--- 213 ALAMEDA TULE ELK HERD GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 43/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 55% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST: BULL AND ANTLERLESS HARVEST UP TO 6 BULL AND 4 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 100 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 32 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 24 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 6.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 23 55 22 100 100 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 23 58 30 111 150 I 6 4 YEAR 2 " 22 61 30 113 150 I 5 4 YEAR 3 " 22 63 31 116 150 I 5 4 YEAR 4 " 22 66 32 120 150 I 5 4 YEAR 5 " 22 68 34 124 150 I 5 4 YEAR 6 " 23 71 35 129 150 I 6 4 YEAR 7 " 24 74 37 134 150 I 6 4 YEAR 8 " 25 77 38 140 150 I 6 4 YEAR 9 " 26 81 40 147 150 I 6 4 YEAR 10 " 27 85 38 150 150 I 6 4 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 43 40 POST HUNT YR 1 33 56 POST HUNT YR 2 30 52 POST HUNT YR 3 28 53 POST HUNT YR 4 27 53 POST HUNT YR 5 27 53 POST HUNT YR 6 26 53 POST HUNT YR 7 26 53 POST HUNT YR 8 26 52 POST HUNT YR 9 26 52 POST HUNT YR 10 25 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- 214 ALAMEDA TULE ELK HERD GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 43/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 55% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL AND ANTLERLESS HARVEST UP TO 4 BULL AND 6 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 150 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 32 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 16.6 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 11 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 7 % 7 SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 35 82 33 150 150 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 35 82 33 150 150 I 4 6 YEAR 2 " 32 77 40 150 150 I 4 5 YEAR 3 " 33 77 40 150 150 I 4 5 YEAR 4 " 34 76 39 149 150 I 4 5 YEAR 5 " 34 75 39 148 150 I 4 5 YEAR 6 " 34 75 39 147 150 I 4 5 YEAR 7 " 33 74 38 146 150 I 4 5 YEAR 8 " 33 73 38 144 150 I 4 5 YEAR 9 " 33 73 37 143 150 I 4 5 YEAR 10 " 33 72 37 142 150 I 4 5 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 43 40 POST HUNT YR 1 41 43 POST HUNT YR 2 40 56 POST HUNT YR 3 42 55 POST HUNT YR 4 42 56 POST HUNT YR 5 43 56 POST HUNT YR 6 43 56 POST HUNT YR 7 43 56 POST HUNT YR 8 43 56 POST HUNT YR 9 43 56 POST HUNT YR 10 43 56 ---PAGE BREAK--- 215 ALAMEDA TULE ELK HERD GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 43/100/40 - Maximum Calf Survival = 55% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST: BULL AND ANTLERLESS HARVEST UP TO 2 BULL AND 1 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieve harvest, Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 100 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 32 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 16.6 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 6 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 1.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 23 55 22 100 100 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 23 55 30 108 150 I 1 1 YEAR 2 " 25 57 30 112 150 I 2 1 YEAR 3 " 26 60 31 117 150 I 2 1 YEAR 4 " 27 62 32 121 150 I 2 1 YEAR 5 " 28 64 34 126 150 I 2 1 YEAR 6 " 30 67 35 131 150 I 2 1 YEAR 7 " 31 69 36 136 150 I 2 1 YEAR 8 " 32 72 38 142 150 I 2 1 YEAR 9 " 33 75 39 147 150 I 2 1 YEAR 10 " 35 78 38 150 150 I 2 1 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 43 40 POST HUNT YR 1 41 56 POST HUNT YR 2 42 52 POST HUNT YR 3 42 53 POST HUNT YR 4 42 53 POST HUNT YR 5 42 53 POST HUNT YR 6 42 53 POST HUNT YR 7 42 53 POST HUNT YR 8 42 53 POST HUNT YR 9 42 53 POST HUNT YR 10 42 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- 216 SAN EMIGDIO ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, 2016 Ratio = 52/100/20 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. CURRENT CONDITION: NO HUNTING HERD SIZE 360 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 0 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 0 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 109 209 42 360 360 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 97 203 140 440 600 I 0 0 YEAR 2 " 126 240 136 501 600 I 0 0 YEAR 3 " 145 271 161 577 600 I 0 0 YEAR 4 " 169 309 122 600 600 I 0 0 YEAR 5 " 172 326 102 600 600 I 0 0 YEAR 6 " 168 331 101 600 600 I 0 0 YEAR 7 " 164 336 100 600 600 I 0 0 YEAR 8 " 160 340 100 600 600 I 0 0 YEAR 9 " 158 343 99 600 600 I 0 0 YEAR 10 " 155 346 99 600 600 I 0 0 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 52 20 POST HUNT YR 1 48 69 POST HUNT YR 2 52 57 POST HUNT YR 3 54 59 POST HUNT YR 4 55 39 POST HUNT YR 5 53 31 POST HUNT YR 6 51 30 POST HUNT YR 7 49 30 POST HUNT YR 8 47 29 POST HUNT YR 9 46 29 POST HUNT YR 10 45 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- 217 SAN EMIGDIO ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 52/100/20 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED PROJECT: BULL, COW, INCLUDING COOPERATIVE TAGS TO HARVEST UP TO 10 BULLS & 24 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 75% antlerless HERD SIZE 360 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 10 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 12 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 109 209 42 360 360 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 97 203 140 440 600 I 10 24 YEAR 2 " 118 219 119 456 600 I 10 24 YEAR 3 " 126 224 130 480 600 I 10 24 YEAR 4 " 136 233 133 502 600 I 10 24 YEAR 5 " 145 242 140 526 600 I 10 24 YEAR 6 " 154 253 146 553 600 I 10 24 YEAR 7 " 163 265 153 581 600 I 10 24 YEAR 8 " 172 280 148 600 600 I 10 24 YEAR 9 " 177 290 133 600 600 I 10 24 YEAR 10 " 176 292 132 600 600 I 10 24 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 52 20 POST HUNT YR 1 49 79 POST HUNT YR 2 56 61 POST HUNT YR 3 58 65 POST HUNT YR 4 61 64 POST HUNT YR 5 62 64 POST HUNT YR 6 63 64 POST HUNT YR 7 63 64 POST HUNT YR 8 64 58 POST HUNT YR 9 63 50 POST HUNT YR 10 62 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- 218 SAN EMIGDIO ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 52/100/20 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST: BULL, COW, EITHER SEX TAGS; INCLUDING COOPERATIVE TAGS TO HARVEST UP TO 15 BULLS & 36 COWS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 75% antlerless HERD SIZE 360 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 15 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 17.7 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 109 209 42 360 360 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 97 203 140 440 600 I 15 36 YEAR 2 " 115 208 112 435 600 I 15 36 YEAR 3 " 117 201 116 434 600 I 15 36 YEAR 4 " 120 196 111 427 600 I 15 36 YEAR 5 " 121 190 107 418 600 I 15 36 YEAR 6 " 120 183 103 406 600 I 15 36 YEAR 7 " 118 175 98 391 600 I 15 36 YEAR 8 " 114 165 93 373 600 I 15 36 YEAR 9 " 110 155 87 351 600 I 15 36 YEAR 10 " 104 143 80 326 600 I 15 36 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 52 20 POST HUNT YR 1 50 84 POST HUNT YR 2 58 65 POST HUNT YR 3 62 70 POST HUNT YR 4 66 69 POST HUNT YR 5 69 70 POST HUNT YR 6 72 70 POST HUNT YR 7 74 71 POST HUNT YR 8 77 72 POST HUNT YR 9 80 73 POST HUNT YR 10 83 74 ---PAGE BREAK--- 219 SAN EMIGDIO ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 52/100/20 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL, COW, EITHER SEX TAGS; INCLUDING COOPERATIVE TAGS TO HARVEST UP TO 25 BULLS & 42 COWS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 75% antlerless HERD SIZE 600 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 15.5 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 12.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 181 349 70 600 600 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 162 338 100 600 600 I 25 42 YEAR 2 " 140 304 156 600 600 I 25 42 YEAR 3 " 145 299 156 600 600 I 25 42 YEAR 4 " 148 295 157 600 600 I 25 42 YEAR 5 " 151 291 157 600 600 I 25 42 YEAR 6 " 154 288 158 600 600 I 25 42 YEAR 7 " 156 286 158 600 600 I 25 42 YEAR 8 " 157 284 159 600 600 I 25 42 YEAR 9 " 158 283 159 600 600 I 25 42 YEAR 10 " 160 282 159 600 600 I 25 42 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 52 20 POST HUNT YR 1 46 34 POST HUNT YR 2 44 59 POST HUNT YR 3 47 61 POST HUNT YR 4 49 62 POST HUNT YR 5 51 63 POST HUNT YR 6 52 64 POST HUNT YR 7 53 65 POST HUNT YR 8 55 65 POST HUNT YR 9 55 66 POST HUNT YR 10 56 66 ---PAGE BREAK--- 220 SAN EMIGDIO ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, & PLM 2016 Ratio = 52/100/20 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST: BULL, COW, INCLUDING COOPERATIVE TAGS TO HARVEST UP TO 5 BULLS & 12 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, includes cooperative tags Assuming success rate of 80% bull and 75% antlerless HERD SIZE 360 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 25 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 5 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 6 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 109 209 42 360 360 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 97 203 140 440 600 I 5 12 YEAR 2 " 122 229 128 479 600 I 5 12 YEAR 3 " 136 247 145 528 600 I 5 12 YEAR 4 " 153 271 157 581 600 I 5 12 YEAR 5 " 170 297 133 600 600 I 5 12 YEAR 6 " 174 309 117 600 600 I 5 12 YEAR 7 " 171 313 117 600 600 I 5 12 YEAR 8 " 168 316 116 600 600 I 5 12 YEAR 9 " 166 318 116 600 600 I 5 12 YEAR 10 " 164 320 115 600 600 I 5 12 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 52 20 POST HUNT YR 1 49 74 POST HUNT YR 2 54 59 POST HUNT YR 3 56 62 POST HUNT YR 4 57 61 POST HUNT YR 5 58 47 POST HUNT YR 6 57 39 POST HUNT YR 7 55 39 POST HUNT YR 8 54 38 POST HUNT YR 9 53 38 POST HUNT YR 10 52 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- 221 CAMP ROBERTS ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL AND MILITARY 2016 Ratio = 30/100/30 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. CURRENT CONDITION: NO HARVEST HERD SIZE 300 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 0 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 0 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 56 188 56 300 300 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 68 190 [PHONE REDACTED] I 0 0 YEAR 2 " 104 222 [PHONE REDACTED] I 0 0 YEAR 3 " 134 252 [PHONE REDACTED] I 0 0 YEAR 4 " 167 287 [PHONE REDACTED] I 0 0 YEAR 5 " 201 327 [PHONE REDACTED] I 0 0 YEAR 6 " 238 372 [PHONE REDACTED] I 0 0 YEAR 7 " 278 424 [PHONE REDACTED] I 0 0 YEAR 8 " 322 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 0 0 YEAR 9 " 336 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 0 0 YEAR 10 " 330 [PHONE REDACTED] 1000 I 0 0 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 30 30 POST HUNT YR 1 36 66 POST HUNT YR 2 47 57 POST HUNT YR 3 53 59 POST HUNT YR 4 58 59 POST HUNT YR 5 62 59 POST HUNT YR 6 64 59 POST HUNT YR 7 66 59 POST HUNT YR 8 67 41 POST HUNT YR 9 66 30 POST HUNT YR 10 64 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- 222 CAMP ROBERTS ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, AND MILITARY 2016 Ratio = 30/100/30 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. PROPOSED: BULL, COW, EITHER SEX TAGS; MILITARY AND GENERAL HARVEST UP TO 15 BULL & 30 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest Approximate success rate of 70% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 300 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 22 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 16 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 56 188 56 300 300 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 68 190 [PHONE REDACTED] I 15 30 YEAR 2 " 92 196 [PHONE REDACTED] I 15 30 YEAR 3 " 105 192 [PHONE REDACTED] I 15 30 YEAR 4 " 116 191 [PHONE REDACTED] I 15 30 YEAR 5 " 124 189 [PHONE REDACTED] I 15 30 YEAR 6 " 131 187 [PHONE REDACTED] I 15 30 YEAR 7 " 135 185 [PHONE REDACTED] I 15 30 YEAR 8 " 138 182 [PHONE REDACTED] I 15 30 YEAR 9 " 140 179 [PHONE REDACTED] I 15 30 YEAR 10 " 141 176 [PHONE REDACTED] I 15 30 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 30 30 POST HUNT YR 1 33 79 POST HUNT YR 2 47 65 POST HUNT YR 3 55 68 POST HUNT YR 4 63 67 POST HUNT YR 5 69 68 POST HUNT YR 6 74 68 POST HUNT YR 7 78 68 POST HUNT YR 8 81 68 POST HUNT YR 9 84 68 POST HUNT YR 10 87 69 ---PAGE BREAK--- 223 CAMP ROBERTS ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, AND MILITARY 2016 Ratio = 30/100/30 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. INCREASED HARVEST: BULL, COW, EITHER SEX TAGS; MILITARY AND GENERAL HARVEST UP TO 22 BULL & 45 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, Approximate success rate of 70% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 300 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 32 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 23.5 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 56 188 56 300 300 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 68 190 [PHONE REDACTED] I 22 45 YEAR 2 " 87 183 97 367 1000 I 22 45 YEAR 3 " 91 165 93 349 1000 I 22 45 YEAR 4 " 93 146 80 320 1000 I 22 45 YEAR 5 " 89 125 68 282 1000 I 22 45 YEAR 6 " 81 101 54 236 1000 I 22 45 YEAR 7 " 69 73 38 180 1000 I 22 45 YEAR 8 " 53 42 19 114 1000 I 22 45 YEAR 9 " 33 6 -2 37 1000 I 22 45 YEAR 10 " 8 -35 -26 -53 1000 I 22 45 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 30 30 POST HUNT YR 1 32 87 POST HUNT YR 2 47 70 POST HUNT YR 3 58 77 POST HUNT YR 4 70 79 POST HUNT YR 5 84 85 POST HUNT YR 6 106 96 POST HUNT YR 7 167 132 POST HUNT YR 8 -1087 -658 POST HUNT YR 9 -29 5 POST HUNT YR 10 17 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- 224 CAMP ROBERTS ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, AND MILITARY 2016 Ratio = 30/100/30 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. HERD GROWTH: BULL, COW, EITHER SEX TAGS; MILITARY AND GENERAL HARVEST UP TO 28 BULL & 47 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest, Approximate success rate of 70% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 500 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 25 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 15 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 94 313 94 500 500 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 113 316 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 47 YEAR 2 " 151 329 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 47 YEAR 3 " 171 327 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 47 YEAR 4 " 189 329 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 47 YEAR 5 " 204 330 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 47 YEAR 6 " 216 331 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 47 YEAR 7 " 226 333 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 47 YEAR 8 " 234 335 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 47 YEAR 9 " 242 337 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 47 YEAR 10 " 248 340 [PHONE REDACTED] I 28 47 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 30 30 POST HUNT YR 1 31 78 POST HUNT YR 2 44 64 POST HUNT YR 3 51 67 POST HUNT YR 4 57 67 POST HUNT YR 5 62 67 POST HUNT YR 6 66 67 POST HUNT YR 7 69 67 POST HUNT YR 8 72 67 POST HUNT YR 9 74 66 POST HUNT YR 10 75 66 ---PAGE BREAK--- 225 CAMP ROBERTS ELK HERD - SIMULATION RUNS, GENERAL, SHARE, AND MILITARY 2016 Ratio = 30/100/30 - Maximum Calf Survival = 67% THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES CHANGES IN HERD CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON VARIOUS HARVEST RATES. REDUCED HARVEST: BULL, COW, EITHER SEX TAGS; MILITARY AND GENERAL HARVEST UP TO 7 BULL & 15 ANTLERLESS Various combination of tags to achieved harvest Approximate success rate of 70% bull and 60% antlerless HERD SIZE 300 ELK % BULLS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 20 % % COWS LOST TO NON HUNTING CAUSES 12 % % OF BULLS KILLED BY HUNTERS 11 % % OF COWS KILLED BY HUNTERS 8 % SURV. BULLS COWS BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL K I HARVEST HARVEST START AUG 56 188 56 300 300 I 0 0 YEAR 1 " 68 190 [PHONE REDACTED] I 7 15 YEAR 2 " 98 209 [PHONE REDACTED] I 7 15 YEAR 3 " 119 222 [PHONE REDACTED] I 7 15 YEAR 4 " 142 239 [PHONE REDACTED] I 7 15 YEAR 5 " 163 258 [PHONE REDACTED] I 7 15 YEAR 6 " 184 280 [PHONE REDACTED] I 7 15 YEAR 7 " 207 304 [PHONE REDACTED] I 7 15 YEAR 8 " 230 332 [PHONE REDACTED] I 7 15 YEAR 9 " 256 364 [PHONE REDACTED] I 7 15 YEAR 10 " 284 401 [PHONE REDACTED] I 7 15 BULL CALF RATIO RATIO START 30 30 POST HUNT YR 1 34 72 POST HUNT YR 2 47 60 POST HUNT YR 3 54 63 POST HUNT YR 4 60 62 POST HUNT YR 5 64 62 POST HUNT YR 6 67 62 POST HUNT YR 7 69 61 POST HUNT YR 8 70 61 POST HUNT YR 9 71 61 POST HUNT YR 10 72 61 ---PAGE BREAK--- 226 Appendix 5. Hunt Boundary Maps for Del Norte and Humboldt Roosevelt Elk Zones ---PAGE BREAK--- 227 ---PAGE BREAK--- 228 Appendix 6. New Hunt Boundary Maps for Marble Mountain North and South ---PAGE BREAK--- 229 ---PAGE BREAK--- 230 Appendix 7. New Hunt Boundary Maps for Mendocino (Mendocino North Coast, Mendocino Middle Fork, Mendocino Upper Russian River, Mendocino Little Lake, and Mendocino South Coast elk hunts) ---PAGE BREAK--- 231 Appendix 8. New Hunt Boundary Maps for Independence and Goodale ---PAGE BREAK--- 232 ---PAGE BREAK--- 233 Appendix 9. Hunt Boundary Map for San Emigdio Mountain ---PAGE BREAK--- 234 Appendix 10. Hunt Boundary Map for Camp Roberts ---PAGE BREAK--- 235 Appendix 11. New Hunt Boundary Map for La Panza ---PAGE BREAK--- 236 Appendix 12. New Hunt Boundary Map for Grizzly Island ---PAGE BREAK--- 237 Appendix 13. New Hunt Boundary Map for Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast ---PAGE BREAK--- 238 Appendix 14. Estimated Elk Distribution and Land Ownership, 2015 ---PAGE BREAK--- 239 Appendix 15. Historic Elk Distribution within California ---PAGE BREAK--- 240 Appendix 16. Tule Elk Relocation Criteria 1. Free-roaming - Herds will be free-roaming and managed as part of the ecosystem. 2. Historical Range - Translocations are limited to historic range. 3. Habitat Quality - The site must contain suitable conditions for providing year- long elk habitat. This includes natural vegetation capable of providing forage and cover, adequate perennial water and relatively moderate climatic conditions receiving only moderate snow. 4. Hybridization with Other Elk - The site should provide no chance of contact with other subspecies of elk. 5. Potential for Public Use - Preference shall be given to sites which increase opportunities for public use of tule elk, including hunting. Preferred sites will be on or adjacent to accessible public lands. 6. Conflicts with Humans - Tule elk will not be translocated to areas with a potential for significant conflicts with humans (agriculture, highways, and subdivisions); the rights of private landowners must be respected. A site should have low potential for elk damage to private property. This includes livestock competition and damage to agricultural and silvicultural crops as well as other property such as fences and irrigation systems. Adjacent landowners should understand and support the proposed relocation of tule elk. Private landownership is dynamic, and acceptable conditions may become depredation problems with a change in land use or the sale of neighboring parcel. Written agreements with neighboring landowners are recommended. 7. Population Management - Practical means of regulating population size should be available for translocated tule elk herds. 8. Competition with Other Wildlife - The status of other native ungulates and threatened and endangered species in the area of a proposed tule elk translocation should be considered as well as the potential for adverse impacts from competition. 9. Disease - Elk should not be relocated from or to areas with a chronic disease history where disease may affect elk or other ungulates. 10. Existing Populations - Tule elk will not be relocated to sites with or immediately adjacent to existing populations, unless additional elk are needed to improve the status of a population. ---PAGE BREAK--- 241 Appendix 17. Existing Regulations §364. Elk Department Administered General Methods Roosevelt Elk Hunts: Siskiyou Roosevelt Elk Hunt: Area: In that portion of Siskiyou County beginning at the junction of Interstate Highway 5 with the California-Oregon state line; east along the state line to Hill Road at Ainsworth Corner; south along Hill Road to Lava Beds National Monument Road; south along Lava Beds National Monument Road to USDA Forest Service Road 49; south along USDA Forest Service Road 49 to USDA Forest Service Road 77; west along USDA Forest Service Road 77 to USDA Forest Service Road 15 (Harris Spring Road); south along USDA Forest Service Road 15 to USDA Forest Service Road 13 (Pilgrim Creek Road); southwest along USDA Forest Service Road 13 to Highway 89; northwest along Highway 89 to Interstate Highway 5; north along Interstate Highway 5 to the point of beginning. Season: The season shall open on the Wednesday preceding the second Saturday in September and continue for 12 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 20 bull tags and 20 antlerless tags. Big Lagoon Roosevelt Elk Hunt: Area: In that portion of Humboldt County owned or leased by the California Redwood Company and the Green Diamond Resource Company within a line beginning at the intersection of Highway 101 and Hiltons Road; south on Hiltons Road to the western boundary of Redwood National Park; south and east along the western to its southern tip; north and east along the eastern boundary of Redwood National Park to Redwood Creek; south along Redwood Creek to Highway 299; east along Highway 299 to Forest Service Road 1; south along Forest Service Road 1 to Roddiscraft Road; west along Roddiscraft Road to the intersection of Snow Camp Road and the power line road within the right-of-way of Humboldt-Trinity 115 Line and Trinity-Maple Creek 60 Line power line; west along the power line road within the right-of-way of the Humboldt- Trinity 115 Line and Trinity-Maple Creek 60 Line to Maple Creek Road; south along Maple Creek Road to Butler Valley Road; west along Butler Valley Road to Fickle Hill Road; north along Fickle Hill Road to Bayside Road; west along Bayside Road and 7th Street to Highway 101; north along Highway 101 to point of beginning. Season: The season shall open the last Wednesday in August and continue for 10 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. Special Conditions: All tagholders will be required to attend a mandatory orientation. Tagholders will be notified of the time and location of the orientation meeting after receipt of their elk license tags. Northwestern California Roosevelt Elk Hunt: Area: In those portions of Humboldt and Del Norte counties within a line beginning at the intersection of Highway 299 and Highway 96, north along Highway 96 to the Del Norte-Siskiyou county line, north along the Del Norte-Siskiyou county line to the California-Oregon state line, west along the state line to the Pacific Coastline, south along the Pacific coastline to the Humboldt-Mendocino county line, east along the Humboldt-Mendocino county line to the Humboldt-Trinity county line, north along the Humboldt-Trinity county line to Highway 299, west along Highway 299 to the point of ---PAGE BREAK--- 242 beginning, excluding those areas owned or leased by the California Redwood Company and the Green Diamond Resource Company within existing elk hunt boundaries as described in subsections 364(a)(2)(A), and Season: The season shall open on the first Wednesday in September and continue for 23 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 0 bull tags, 0 antlerless tags, and 45 either-sex tags. Klamath Roosevelt Elk Hunt: Area: Those portions of Humboldt and Del Norte counties owned or leased by the Green Diamond Resource Company within a line beginning at the intersection of Highway 101 and the Klamath River; south on Highway 101 to South Klamath Beach Road; west on South Klamath Beach Road to the Redwood National Park boundary; southwest and south along the Redwood National Park boundary to Highway 101; south on Highway 101 to the Redwood National Park boundary; southeast along the Redwood National Park boundary to the Bald Hills Road; southeast along the Bald Hills Road to the Klamath River; northwest along the Klamath River to the point of beginning. Season: The season shall open on the first Wednesday in September and continue for 10 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. Special Conditions: All tagholders will be required to attend a mandatory orientation. Tagholders will be notified of the time and location of the orientation meeting after receipt of their elk license tags. Del Norte Roosevelt Elk Hunt: Area: Those portions of Del Norte County owned or leased by the Green Diamond Resource Company within a line beginning at the intersection of Highway 101 and the California-Oregon state line; south along Highway 101 to North Bank Road; southeast along North Bank Road to High Divide Road; northeast along High Divide Road to North Fork Smith River/Wimer Road; north along North Fork Smith River/Wimer Road to the California Oregon state line; west along the California-Oregon state line to the point of beginning. Season: The season shall open on the last Wednesday in August and continue for 10 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. Special Conditions: All tagholders will be required to attend a mandatory orientation. Tagholders will be notified of the time and location of the orientation meeting upon receipt of their elk license tags. Marble Mountains Roosevelt Elk Hunt Area: In those portions of Humboldt, Tehama, Trinity, Shasta and Siskiyou counties beginning at the intersection of Interstate Highway 5 and the California-Oregon state line; west along the state line to the Del Norte County line; south along the Del Norte County line to the intersection of the Siskiyou-Humboldt county lines; east along the Siskiyou-Humboldt county lines to Highway 96; south along Highway 96 to Highway 299; south along Highway 299 to the Intersection of the Humboldt/Trinity County line; south along the Humboldt Trinity County Line to the intersection of Highway 36; east along Highway 36 to the intersection of Interstate 5;north on Interstate Highway 5 to the point of beginning. ---PAGE BREAK--- 243 Season: The season shall open on the Wednesday preceding the second Saturday in September and continue for 12 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: General Season: 35 bull tags and 10 antlerless tags. Department Administered General Methods Rocky Mountain Elk Hunts: Northeastern California Rocky Mountain Elk Hunt: Area: Those portions of Siskiyou, Modoc, Lassen, and Shasta counties within a line beginning in Siskiyou County at the junction of the California-Oregon state line and Hill Road at Ainsworth Corner; east along the California-Oregon state line to the California- Nevada state line; south along the California-Nevada state line to the Tuledad-Red Rock-Clarks Valley Road (Lassen County Roads 506, 512 and 510); west along the Tuledad-Red Rock-Clarks Valley Road to Highway 395 at Madeline; west on USDA Forest Service Road 39N08 to the intersection of Highway 139/299 in Adin; south on Highway 139 to the intersection of Highway 36 in Susanville; west on Highway 36 to the intersection of Interstate 5 in Red Bluff; north on Interstate 5 to Highway 89; southeast along Highway 89 to USDA Forest Service Road 13 (Pilgrim Creek Road); northeast along USDA Forest Service Road 13 to USDA Forest Service Road 15 (Harris Spring Road); north along USDA Forest Service Road to USDA Forest Service Road 77; east along USDA Forest Service Road 77 to USDA Forest Service Road 49; north along USDA Forest Service Road 49 to Lava Beds National Monument Road; north along Lava Beds National Monument Road to Hill Road; north along Hill Road to the point of beginning. Season: The season shall open on the Wednesday preceding the third Saturday in September and continue for 12 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 15 bull tags and 10 antlerless tags. Department Administered General Methods Roosevelt/Tule Elk Hunts: Mendocino Elk Hunt: Area: Those portions in Mendocino County within a line beginning at the Pacific Coastline and the Mendocino/Humboldt County line south of Shelter Cove; east along the Mendocino/Humboldt County line to the intersection of the Humboldt, Mendocino, and Trinity County lines; south and east along the Mendocino/Trinity County line to the intersection of the Mendocino, Trinity, and Tehama County lines; south along the Mendocino County line to the intersection of Highway 20; north and west along Highway 20 to the intersection of Highway 101 near Calpella; south along Highway 101 to the intersection of Highway 253; southwest along Highway 253 to the intersection of Highway 128; north along Highway 128 to the intersection of Mountain View Road near the town of Boonville; west along Mountain View Road to the intersection of Highway 1; south along Highway 1 to the intersection of the Garcia River; west along the Garcia River to the Pacific Coastline; north along the Pacific Coastline to the point of beginning. Season: The season shall open on the Wednesday preceding the fourth Saturday in September and continue for 12 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 2 bull tags and 2 antlerless tags. Department Administered General Methods Tule Elk Hunts: Cache Creek Tule Elk Hunt: Area: Those portions of Lake, Colusa and Yolo counties within the following line: beginning at the junction of Highway 20 and Highway 16; south on Highway 16 to Reiff- Rayhouse Road; west on Reiff-Rayhouse Road to Morgan Valley Road; west on ---PAGE BREAK--- 244 Morgan Valley Road to Highway 53; north on Highway 53 to Highway 20; east on Highway 20 to the fork of Cache Creek; north on the north fork of Cache Creek to Indian Valley Reservoir; east on the south shore of Indian Valley Reservoir to Walker Ridge- Indian Valley Reservoir Access Road; east on Walker Ridge-Indian Valley Reservoir Access Road to Walker Ridge Road; south on Walker Ridge Road to Highway 20; east on Highway 20 to the point of beginning. Season: 1. The Bull season shall open on the second Saturday in October and continue for 16 consecutive days. 2. The Antlerless season shall open on the third Saturday in October and continue for 16 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 3 bull tags and 3 antlerless tags. Special Conditions: All tagholders will be required to attend a mandatory orientation. Tagholders will be notified of the time and location of the orientation meeting after receipt of their elk license tags. La Panza Tule Elk Hunt: Area: In those portions of San Luis Obispo, Kern, Monterey, Kings, Fresno, San Benito, and Santa Barbara counties within a line beginning in San Benito County at the junction of Highway 25 and County Highway J1 near the town Pacines, south along Highway 25 to La Gloria road, west along La Gloria road, La Gloria road becomes Gloria road, west along Gloria road to Highway 101 near Gonzales, south along Highway 101 to Highway 166 in San Luis Obispo County; east along Highway 166 to Highway 33 at Maricopa in Kern County; north and west along Highway 33 to Highway 198 at Coalinga in Fresno County, north along Highway 33 to Interstate 5 in Fresno County, north along Interstate 5 to Little Panoche road/County Highway J1, southwest along Little Panoche road/County Highway J1 to the intersection of Little Panoche road/County Highway J1 and Panoche road/County Highway J1 in San Benito County, northwest along Panoche road/County Highway J1 to the point of beginning. Season: 1. Period One: The season shall open on the second Saturday in October and extend for 23 consecutive days. 2. For Period Two: the season shall open on the second Saturday in November and extend for 23 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 1. Period One: 6 bull tags and 5 antlerless tags. 2. Period Two: 6 bull tags and 6 antlerless tags. Special Conditions: All tagholders will be required to attend a mandatory orientation. Tagholders will be notified of the time and location of the orientation meeting upon receipt of their elk license tags. Bishop Tule Elk Hunt: Area: In that portion of Inyo County beginning at the junction of Highway 395 and Highway 6 in the town of Bishop; north and east along Highway 6 to the junction of Silver Canyon Road; east along Silver Canyon Road to the White Mountain Road (Forest Service Road 4S01); south along the White Mountain Road to Highway 168 at Westgard Pass; south and west along Highway 168 to the junction of Highway 395; north on Highway 395 to the point of beginning. ---PAGE BREAK--- 245 Season: 1. Period Three: The season shall open on the third Saturday in October and extend for 9 consecutive days. 2. Period Four: The season shall open on the first Saturday in November and extend for 9 consecutive days. 3. Period Five: The season shall open on the first Saturday in December and continue for 9 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 1. Period Three: 2 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. 2. Period Four: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. 3. Period Five: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. Independence Tule Elk Hunt: Area: In that portion of Inyo County beginning at the junction of Highway 395 and Aberdeen Station Road; east on Aberdeen Station Road to its terminus at the southern boundary of Section 5, Township 11S, Range 35E; east along the southern boundary of sections 5, 4, 3, and 2, Township 11S, Range 35E to the Papoose Flat Road at Papoose Flat; south and east on Papoose Flat Road to Mazourka Canyon Road; south and then west on Mazourka Canyon Road to Highway 395; west along Onion Valley Road to the intersection of the Section 25 Township 13S, Range 33E; south along the eastern boundary of Section 25 Township 13S, Range 33E to the southern boundary of Section 25 Township 13S, Range 33E; west along the southern boundary of sections 27, 26, 25 Township 13S, Range 33E to the Inyo County line; North along the Inyo County Line to Taboose Creek; east along Taboose Creek to the intersection of Highway 395; south along Highway 395 to the point of beginning. Season: 1. Period Two: The season shall open on the first Saturday in October and extend for 9 consecutive days. 2. Period Three: The season shall open on the third Saturday in October and extend for 9 consecutive days. 3. Period Four: The season shall open on the first Saturday in November and extend for 9 consecutive days. 4. Period Five: The season shall open on the first Saturday in December and continue for 9 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 1. Period Two: 2 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. 2. Period Three: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. 3. Period Four: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. 4. Period Five: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. Lone Pine Tule Elk Hunt: Area: In that portion of Inyo County beginning at the junction of Highway 395 and Mazourka Canyon Road; east and then north on Mazourka Canyon Road to the Inyo National Forest Boundary at the junction of the southern boundary of Township 12S and the northern boundary of Township 13S; east along the southern boundary of Township 12S to Saline Valley Road; south on Saline Valley Road to Highway 190; north and then southwest on Highway 190 to the junction of Highway 395 at Olancha; north on Highway 395 to the point of beginning. ---PAGE BREAK--- 246 Season: 1. Period Two: The season shall open on the first Saturday in October and extend for 9 consecutive days. 2. Period Three: The season shall open on the third Saturday in October and extend for 9 consecutive days. 3. Period Four: The season shall open on the first Saturday in November and extend for 9 consecutive days. 4. Period Five: The season shall open on the first Saturday in December and continue for 9 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 1. Period Two: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. 2. Period Three: 2 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. 3. Period Four: 2 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. 4. Period Five: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. Tinemaha Tule Elk Hunt: Area: In that portion of Inyo County beginning at the junction of Highway 395 and Highway 168 in the town of Big Pine; north and east along Highway 168 to the junction of the Death Valley Road; south and east along the Death Valley Road to the junction of the Papoose Flat Road; south along the Papoose Flat Road to the southern boundary of Section 2, Township 11S, Range 35E; west along the southern boundaries of sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 to the terminus of the Aberdeen Station Road in Section 5, Township 11S, Range 35E; south and west along the Aberdeen Station Road to Highway 395; north along Highway 395 to the point of beginning. Season: 1. Period Two: The season shall open on the first Saturday in October and extend for 9 consecutive days. 2. Period Three: The season shall open on the third Saturday in October and extend for 9 consecutive days. 3. Period Four: The season shall open on the first Saturday in November and extend for 9 consecutive days. 4. Period Five: The season shall open on the first Saturday in December and continue for 9 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 1. Period Two: 1 bull tag and 0 antlerless tags. 2. Period Three: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. 3. Period Four: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. 4. Period Five: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. West Tinemaha Tule Elk Hunt: Area: In that portion of Inyo County beginning at the junction of Highway 395 and Highway 168 in the town of Big Pine; south along Highway 395 to the north junction of Fish Springs Road; south along Fish Springs Road to the junction of Highway 395; south along Highway 395 to Taboose Creek in Section 14, Township 11S, Range 34E; west along Taboose Creek to the Inyo County line; north and west along the Inyo County line to the intersection of Tinemaha Creek; east along Tinemaha Creek to the intersection of McMurray Meadow Road; north on McMurray Meadow Road to the intersection of Glacier Lodge Road; north and east on Glacier Lodge Road to Crocker ---PAGE BREAK--- 247 Avenue; east along Crocker Avenue to Highway 395; north along Highway 395 to the point of beginning. Season: 1. Period One: The season shall open on the second Saturday in September and extend for 16 consecutive days. 2. Period Two: The season shall open on the first Saturday in October and extend for 9 consecutive days. 3. Period Three: The season shall open on the third Saturday in October and extend for 9 consecutive days. 4. Period Four: The season shall open on the first Saturday in November and extend for 9 consecutive days. 5. Period Five: The season shall open on the first Saturday in December and continue for 9 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 1. Period One: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. 2. Period Two: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. 3. Period Three: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. 4. Period Four: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. 5. Period Five: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. Tinemaha Mountain Tule Elk Hunt: Area: In that portion of Inyo County with a line beginning at the intersection of Glacier Lodge Road (9S21) and McMurray Meadow Road (9S03); south on McMurray Meadow Road to Tinemaha Creek; west along Tinemaha Creek to the Inyo County line; north and west along the Inyo County line to the southeast corner of Section 23, Township 10S, Range 32E; north along the eastern boundaries of sections 23, 14, 11, 2, Township 10S, Range 32E, and the eastern boundary of Section 36, Township 9S, Range 32E to Glacier Lodge Road; east along Glacier Lodge Road to the beginning. Season: 1. Period One: The season shall open on the second Saturday in September and extend for 16 consecutive days. 2. Period Two: The season shall open on the first Saturday in October and extend for 9 consecutive days. 3. Period Three: The season shall open on the third Saturday in October and extend for 9 consecutive days. 4. Period Four: The season shall open on the first Saturday in November and extend for 9 consecutive days. 5. Period Five: The season shall open on the first Saturday in December and continue for 9 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 1. Period One: 0 bull tags. 2. Period Two: 0 bull tags. 3. Period Three: 1 bull tag. 4. Period Four: 1 bull tag. 5. Period Five: 0 bull tags. Whitney Tule Elk Hunt: ---PAGE BREAK--- 248 Area: In that portion of Inyo County with a line beginning at the intersection of Highway 395 and Onion Valley Road; south on Highway 395 to the intersection of Whitney Portal Road; west along Whitney Portal Road to the northern boundary of Section 36, Township 15S, Range 34E; west along the northern boundary of sections 36, 35, 34 and 33 Township 15S, Range 34 E to the Inyo County Line; north along the Inyo County Line to the intersection of Section 27 Township 13S, range 33E; east along the southern boundary of sections 27, 26 and 25 Township 13S, Range 33E; north along the eastern boundary of Section 25 Township 13S, Range 33E to the intersection of Onion Valley Road; east along Onion Valley Road to the point of beginning. Season: 1. Period Two: The season shall open on the first Saturday in October and extend for 9 consecutive days. 2. Period Three: The season shall open on the third Saturday in October and extend for 9 consecutive days. 3. Period Four: The season shall open on the first Saturday in November and extend for 9 consecutive days. 4. Period Five: The season shall open on the first Saturday in December and continue for 9 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 1. Period Two: 1 bull tag and 0 antlerless tags. 2. Period Three: 1 bull tag and 0 antlerless tags. 3. Period Four: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. 4. Period Five: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. (10) Grizzly Island Tule Elk Hunt: Area: Those lands owned and managed by the Department of Fish and Game as the Grizzly Island Wildlife Area. Season: 1. Period One: The season for antlerless elk shall open on the Tuesday after the second Saturday in August and continue for 4 consecutive days, whereas the season for bulls and spike bulls shall open on the Thursday after the second Saturday in August and continue for 4 consecutive days. 2. Period Two: The season for antlerless elk shall open on the Tuesday after the third Saturday in August and continue for 4 consecutive days, whereas the season for bulls and spike bulls shall open on the Thursday after the third Saturday in August and continue for 4 consecutive days. 3. Period Three: The season for antlerless elk shall open on the Tuesday after the fourth Saturday in August and continue for 4 consecutive days, whereas the season for bulls and spike bulls shall open on the Thursday after the first Monday in September and continue for 4 consecutive days. 4. Period Four: The season for antlerless elk shall open on the second Tuesday in September and continue for 4 consecutive days, whereas the season for bulls and spike bulls shall open on Thursday following the second Tuesday in September and continue for 4 consecutive days. 5. Period Five: The season for antlerless elk shall open on the third Tuesday in September and continue for 4 consecutive days, whereas the season for bulls and spike ---PAGE BREAK--- 249 bulls shall open on the Thursday following the third Tuesday in September and continue for 4 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 1. Period One: 0 bull tags, 4 spike bull tags, and 5 antlerless tags. 2. Period Two: 0 bull tags, 3 spike bull tags, and 8 antlerless tags. 3. Period Three: 0 bull tags, 2 spike bull tags, and 8 antlerless tags. 4. Period Four: 2 bull tags, 0 spike bull tags, and 8 antlerless tags. 5. Period Five: 2 bull tags, 2 spike bull tags, and 8 antlerless tags. Special Conditions: All tagholders will be required to attend a mandatory orientation. Tagholders will be notified of the time and location of the orientation meeting after receipt of their elk license tags. (11) Fort Hunter Liggett General Public Tule Elk Hunt: Area: That portion of Monterey County lying within the exterior boundaries of Fort Hunter Liggett, except as restricted by the Commanding Officer. Season: 1. Period One: The season shall open on the first Tuesday in November and continue for 9 consecutive days. 2. Period Two: The season shall open on the Tuesday preceding the fourth Thursday in November and continue for 9 consecutive days. 3. Period Three: The season shall open on the Saturday preceding December 25 and continue for 14 consecutive days. Due to military operations, season dates are subject to further restriction, or may be rescheduled between August 1 and January 31 by the Commanding Officer. Number of License Tags: 1. Period One: 4 antlerless tags. 2. Period Two: 4 antlerless tags. 3. Period Three: 4 bull tags. Special Conditions: 1. All tagholders will be required to attend a mandatory hunter orientation. Tagholders will be notified of the time and location of the orientation meeting after receipt of their elk license tags. 2. Tagholders shall be required to purchase an annual hunting pass available from Fort Hunter Liggett. 3. All successful tagholders will be required to have their tags validated on Fort Hunter Liggett prior to leaving. All unsuccessful tag holders will be required to turn in their unfilled tags to Fort Hunter Liggett immediately upon completion of their hunt. 4. Season dates and hunt areas are subject to restriction by the Commanding Officer of Fort Hunter Liggett based on military training. (12) East Park Reservoir Tule Elk Hunt: Area: In those portions of Glenn and Colusa counties within a line beginning in Glenn County at the junction of Interstate Highway 5 and Highway 162 at Willows; west along Highway 162 (Highway 162 becomes Alder Springs Road) to the Glenn- Mendocino County line; south along the Glenn-Mendocino County line to the Glenn- Lake County line; east and then south along the Glenn-Lake County line to the Colusa- Lake County line; west, and then southeast along the Colusa-Lake County line to Goat Mountain Road; north and east along Goat Mountain Road to the Lodoga-Stonyford ---PAGE BREAK--- 250 Road; east along the Lodoga-Stonyford Road to the Sites-Lodoga Road at Lodoga; east along the Sites-Lodoga Road to the Maxwell-Sites Road at Sites; east along the Maxwell-Sites Road to Interstate Highway 5 at Maxwell; north along Interstate Highway 5 to the point of beginning. Season: The season shall open the first Saturday in September and continue for 27 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 2 bull tags and 2 antlerless tags. Special Conditions: 1. All tagholders will be required to attend a mandatory orientation. Tagholders will be notified of the time and location of the orientation meeting after receipt of their elk license tags. 2. Access to private land may be restricted or require payment of an access fee. 3. A Colusa County ordinance prohibits firearms on land administered by the USDI Bureau of Reclamation in the vicinity of East Park Reservoir. A variance has been requested to allow use of muzzleloaders (as defined in Section 353) on Bureau of Reclamation land within the hunt zone. (13) San Luis Reservoir Tule Elk Hunt: Area: In those portions of Merced, Fresno, San Benito, and Santa Clara counties within a line beginning in Merced County at the junction of Highway 152 and Interstate 5 near the town of Santa Nella, west along Highway 152 to Highway 156 in Santa Clara County, southwest along Highway 156 to Highway 25 near the town of Hollister in San Benito County, south along Highway 25 to the town of Paicine, south and east along J1 to Little Panoche Road, North and east along Little Panoche Road to Interstate 5 in Fresno County, north along Interstate 5 to the point of beginning. Season: The season shall open on the first Saturday in October and continue for 23 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 0 bull tags, 0 antlerless tags, and 5 either-sex tags. (14) Bear Valley Tule Elk Hunt: Area: in those portions of Colusa, Lake, and Yolo counties within a line beginning in Colusa County at the junction of Interstate Highway 5 and Maxwell Sites Road at Maxwell; west along Maxwell Sites Road to the Sites Lodoga Road; west along the Sites Lodoga Road to Lodoga Stonyford Road; west along Lodoga Stonyford Road to Goat Mountain Road; west and south along Goat Mountain Road to the Colusa-Lake County line; south and west along the Colusa-Lake County line to Forest Route M5; south along Forest Route M5 to Bartlett Springs Road; east along Bartlett Springs Road to Highway 20; east on Highway 20 to the fork of Cache Creek; north on the north fork of Cache Creek to Indian Valley Reservoir to Walker Ridge-Indian Valley Reservoir Access Road; east on Walker Ridge-Indian Valley Reservoir Access Road to Walker Ridge Road; south on Walker Ridge Road to Highway 20; east on Highway 20 to Highway 16; south on Highway 16 to Rayhouse Road; south and west on Rayhouse Road to the Yolo-Napa County line; east and south along the Yolo-Napa County line to Road 8053; east on Road 8053 to County Road 78A; east on County Road 78A to Highway 16; east on Highway 16 to Route E4 at Capay; north and east on Route E4 to Interstate Highway 5; north on Interstate Highway 5 to the point of beginning. Season: The season shall open on the second Saturday in October and continue for 9 consecutive days. ---PAGE BREAK--- 251 Number of License Tags: 3 bull tags and 2 antlerless tags. (15) Lake Pillsbury Tule Elk Hunt: Area: in those portions of Lake County within a line beginning at the junction of the Glenn-Lake County line and the Mendocino County line; south and west along the Mendocino-Lake County line to Highway 20; southeast on Highway 20 to the intersection of Bartlett Springs Road; north and east along Bartlett Springs Road to the intersection of Forest Route M5; northwest on Forest Route M5 to the Colusa-Lake County Line; northwest and east on the Colusa-Lake County Line to the junction of the Glenn-Colusa County Line and the Lake-Glenn County Line; north and west on the Lake-Glenn County Line to the point of beginning. Season: 1. Antlerless Season. The antlerless season shall open on the Wednesday preceding the second Saturday in September and continue for 10 consecutive days. 2. Bull Season. The bull season shall open Monday following the fourth Saturday in September and continue for 10 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 2 bull tags and 4 antlerless tags. (16) Santa Clara Tule Elk Hunt: Area: Those portions of Merced, Santa Clara, and Stanislaus Counties within the following line: beginning at the intersection of the Interstate 5 and the San Joaquin/Stanislaus County line; southeast along Interstate 5 to the intersection of Highway 152; west along Highway 152 to the intersection of Highway 101 near the town of Gilroy; north along Highway 101 to the intersection of Interstate 680 near San Jose; north along Interstate 680 to the intersection of the Alameda/Santa Clara County line; east along the Alameda/Santa Clara County line to the intersection of the San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Alameda, Santa Clara County lines; northeast along the San Joaquin/Stanislaus County line to the point of beginning. Season: The season shall open on the second Saturday in October and continue for 16 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 0 bull tags. (17) Alameda Tule Elk Hunt: Area: Those portions of Alameda and San Joaquin Counties within the following line: beginning at the intersection of the Interstate 5 and the San Joaquin/Stanislaus County line; southwest along the San Joaquin/Stanislaus County line to the intersection of the San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Alameda, Santa Clara County lines; west along the Alameda/Santa Clara County Line to the intersection of Interstate 680; north along Interstate 680 to the intersection of Interstate 580; east and south along Interstate 580 to the intersection of Interstate 5; south along Interstate 5 to the point of beginning. Season: The season shall open on the second Saturday in October and continue for 16 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 0 bull tags. Department Administered General Methods Apprentice Elk Hunts: Marble Mountains Roosevelt Apprentice Elk Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(a)(6)(A). Season: The season shall open on the Wednesday preceding the second Saturday in September and continue for 12 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 2 either-sex tags. ---PAGE BREAK--- 252 Special Conditions: Only persons possessing valid junior hunting licenses may apply for Apprentice Hunt license tags. Apprentice Hunt tagholders shall be accompanied by a nonhunting, licensed adult chaperon 18 years of age or older while hunting. Northeastern California Rocky Mountain Apprentice Elk Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(b)(1)(A). Season: The season shall open on the Wednesday preceding the third Saturday in September and continue for 12 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: Apprentice Season: 2 either-sex tags. Special Conditions: Only persons possessing valid junior hunting licenses may apply for Apprentice Hunt License tags. Apprentice Hunt tagholders shall be accompanied by a nonhunting, licensed adult chaperon 18 years of age or older while hunting. Cache Creek Tule Elk Apprentice Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(d)(1)(A). Season: The season shall open on the second Saturday in October and continue for 16 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: Apprentice Season: 1 bull tag. Special Conditions: 1. All tagholders will be required to attend a mandatory orientation. Tagholders will be notified of the time and location of the orientation meeting upon receipt of their elk license tags. 2. Only persons possessing valid junior hunting licenses may apply for Apprentice Hunt license tags. Apprentice Hunt tagholders shall be accompanied by a nonhunting, licensed adult chaperon 18 years of age or older while hunting. La Panza Tule Elk Apprentice Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(d)(2)(A). Season: Period One shall open on the second Saturday in October and extend for 23 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: Period One: 1 antlerless tag and 0 bull tags. Special Conditions: 1. All tagholders will be required to attend a mandatory orientation. Tagholders will be notified of the time and location of the orientation meeting after receipt of their elk license tags. 2. Only persons possessing valid junior hunting licenses may apply for Apprentice Hunt license tags. Apprentice Hunter tagholders shall be accompanied by a nonhunting, licensed adult chaperon 18 years of age or older while hunting. Bishop Tule Elk Apprentice Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(d)(3)(A). Season: Period Two shall open on the first Saturday in October and extend for 9 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: Period Two: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. Special Conditions: Only persons possessing valid junior hunting licenses may apply for Apprentice Hunt license tags. Apprentice Hunt tagholders shall be accompanied by a nonhunting, licensed adult chaperon 18 years of age or older while hunting. ---PAGE BREAK--- 253 Grizzly Island Tule Elk Apprentice Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(d)(10)(A). Season: 1. Period One Season for antlerless elk shall open on the Tuesday after the second Saturday in August and continue for 4 consecutive days, whereas the season for spike bulls shall open on the Thursday after the second Saturday in August and continue for 4 consecutive days. 2. Period Two Season for spike bulls shall open on the Thursday after the third Saturday in August and continue for 4 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 1. Period One: 3 antlerless tags and 1 spike bull tag. 2. Period Two: 2 spike bull tags. Special Conditions: 1. All tagholders will be required to attend a mandatory orientation. Tagholders will be notified of the time and location of the orientation meeting after receipt of their elk license tags. 2. Only persons possessing valid junior hunting licenses may apply for Apprentice Hunt license tags. Apprentice Hunt tagholders shall be accompanied by a nonhunting, licensed adult chaperon 18 years of age or older while hunting. Fort Hunter Liggett General Public Tule Elk Apprentice Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(d)(11)(A). Season: The season shall open on the Saturday preceding December 25 and continue for 14 consecutive days. Due to military operations, season dates are subject to further restriction, or may be rescheduled between August 1 and January 31 by the Commanding Officer. Number of License Tags: 1 bull tag and 1 antlerless tags. Special Conditions: 1. All tagholders will be required to attend a mandatory hunter orientation. Tagholders will be notified of the time and location of the orientation meeting after receipt of their elk license tags. 2. Tagholders shall be required to purchase an annual hunting pass available from Fort Hunter Liggett. 3. Only persons possessing valid junior hunting licenses may apply for Apprentice Hunt license tags. Apprentice Hunt tagholders shall be accompanied by a nonhunting, licensed adult chaperon 18 years of age or older while hunting. 4. All successful tagholders will be required to have their tags validated on Fort Hunter Liggett prior to leaving. All unsuccessful tag holders will be required to turn in their unfilled tags to Fort Hunter Liggett immediately upon completion of their hunt. 5. Season dates and hunt areas are subject to restriction by the Commanding Officer of Fort Hunter Liggett based on military training. Department Administered Archery Only Elk Hunts: Northeastern California Rocky Mountain Archery Only Elk Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(b)(1)(A). Season: The season shall open on the Wednesday preceding the first Saturday in September and continue for 12 consecutive days Number of License Tags: 10 either-sex tags. ---PAGE BREAK--- 254 Special Conditions: Elk may be taken with Archery Equipment only as specified in Section 354. Owens Valley Multiple Zone Tule Elk Archery Only Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in areas described in subsections 364(d)(3)(A), and Season: The season shall open on the second Saturday in August and extend for 9 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 5 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. Special Conditions: Elk may be taken with Archery Equipment only as specified in Section 354. Lone Pine Tule Elk Archery Only Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(d)(5)(A). Season: Period One Season shall open on the second Saturday in September and extend for 16 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: Period One: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. Special Conditions: Elk may be taken with Archery Equipment only as specified in Section 354. Tinemaha Tule Elk Archery Only Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(d)(6)(A). Season: Period One Season shall open on the second Saturday in September and extend for 16 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: Period One: 1 bull tag and 0 antlerless tags. Special Conditions: Elk may be taken with Archery Equipment only as specified in Section 354. Whitney Tule Elk Archery Only Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(d)(9)(A). Season: Period One Season shall open on the second Saturday in September and extend for 16 consecutive days. Bag and Possession Limit: 1 elk per season. Number of License Tags: Period One: 0 bull tags and 0 antlerless tags. Special Conditions: Elk may be taken with Archery Equipment only as specified in Section 354. Fort Hunter Liggett General Public Tule Elk Archery Only Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(d)(11)(A). Season: 1. Either-sex season shall open on the last Wednesday in July and continue for 9 consecutive days. 2. Antlerless Season shall open on the last Wednesday in September and continue for 9 consecutive days. Due to military operations, season dates are subject to further restriction, or may be rescheduled between August 1 and January 31 by the Commanding Officer. Number of License Tags: 2 either-sex tags and 4 antlerless tags. Special Conditions: 1. All tagholders will be required to attend a mandatory hunter orientation. Tagholders will be notified of the time and location of the orientation meeting after receipt of their elk license tags. ---PAGE BREAK--- 255 2. Tagholders shall be required to purchase an annual hunting pass available from Fort Hunter Liggett. 3. Elk may be taken with Archery Equipment only as specified in Section 354. 4. All successful tagholders will be required to have their tags validated on Fort Hunter Liggett prior to leaving. All unsuccessful tag holders will be required to turn in their unfilled tags to Fort Hunter Liggett immediately upon completion of their hunt. 5. Season dates and hunt areas are subject to restriction by the Commanding Officer of Fort Hunter Liggett based on military training. Department Administered Muzzleloader Only Elk Hunts: Bishop Tule Elk Hunt Muzzleloader Only Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(d)(3)(A). Season: Period One Season shall open on the second Saturday in September and extend for 16 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: Period One: 1 bull tag and 0 antlerless tags. Special Conditions: Elk may be taken with muzzleloader equipment only as specified in Section 353. Independence Tule Elk Muzzleloader Only Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(d)(4)(A). Season: Period One Season shall open on the second Saturday in September and extend for 16 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: Period One: 1 bull tag and 0 antlerless tags. Special Conditions: Elk may be taken with muzzleloader equipment only as specified in Section 353. Fort Hunter Liggett General Public Tule Elk Muzzleloader Only Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(d)(11)(A). Season: The season shall open on the Wednesday preceding the fourth Thursday in November and continue for 9 consecutive days. Due to military operations, season dates are subject to further restriction, or may be rescheduled between August 1 and January 31 by the Commanding Officer. Number of License Tags: 0 bull tags. Special Conditions: 1. All tagholders will be required to attend a mandatory hunter orientation. Tagholders will be notified of the time and location of the orientation meeting after receipt of their elk license tags. 2. Tagholders shall be required to purchase an annual hunting pass available from Fort Hunter Liggett. 3. Elk may be taken with Muzzleloader Equipment only as specified in Section 353. 4. All successful tagholders will be required to have their tags validated on Fort Hunter Liggett prior to leaving. All unsuccessful tag holders will be required to turn in their unfilled tags to Fort Hunter Liggett immediately upon completion of their hunt. 5. Season dates and hunt areas are subject to restriction by the Commanding Officer of Fort Hunter Liggett based on military training. Department Administered Muzzleloader/Archery Only Elk Hunts: Marble Mountains Roosevelt Elk Muzzleloader/Archery Only Elk Hunt. Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(a)(6)(A). ---PAGE BREAK--- 256 Season: The Season shall open on the last Saturday in October and extend for 9 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 5 either-sex tags. Special Conditions: Elk may be taken with archery or muzzleloader equipment only as specified in Sections 353 and 354. Fund Raising Elk Tags: Multi-zone Fund Raising License Tag. Area: The tag shall be valid in the areas described in subsections 364(a)(1)(A), and Season: The tag shall be valid during the following seasons. 1. Siskiyou and Marble Mountains Roosevelt Elk Season shall open on the Wednesday preceding the first Saturday in September and continue for 19 consecutive days. 2. Northwestern Roosevelt Elk Season shall open on last Wednesday in August and continue for 30 consecutive days. 3. Northeastern Rocky Mountain Elk Season shall open on the Wednesday preceding the last Saturday in August and continue for 33 consecutive days. 4. La Panza Tule Elk Season shall open on the first Saturday in October and extend for 65 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 1 bull tag. Grizzly Island Fund Raising License Tag. Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(d)(10)(A). Season: The Season shall open on the first Saturday in August and continue for 30 consecutive days, with advance reservations required by contacting the Grizzly Island Wildlife Area by telephone at (707) 425-3828. Number of License Tags: 1 bull tag. Owens Valley Fund Raising License Tag. Area: The tag shall be valid in areas described in subsections 364(d)(3)(A), and Season: The Season shall open on the last Saturday in July and extend for 30 consecutive days. Number of License Tags: 1 bull tag. Military Only Elk Tags. These hunts are sponsored and tag quotas are set by the Department. The tags are assigned and the hunts are administered by the Department of Defense. Fort Hunter Liggett Military General Methods Tule Elk Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(d)(11)(A). Season: 1. The Early Season shall open on the third Monday in August and continue for 5 consecutive days and reopen on the fourth Monday in August and continue for 5 consecutive days. 2. Period One: The season shall open on the first Tuesday in November and continue for 9 consecutive days. 3. Period Two: The season shall open on the Tuesday preceding the fourth Thursday in November and continue for 9 consecutive days. 4. Period Three: The season shall open on the Saturday preceding December 25 and continue for 14 consecutive days. ---PAGE BREAK--- 257 Due to military operations, season dates are subject to further restriction, or may be rescheduled between August 1 and January 31 by the Commanding Officer. Number of License Tags: 1. Early Season: 2 bull tags and 1 antlerless tag. 2. Period One: 4 antlerless tags. 3. Period Two: 4 antlerless tags. 4. Period Three: 4 bull tags. Special Conditions: 1. All tagholders will be required to attend a mandatory hunter orientation. Tagholders will be notified of the time and location of the orientation meeting after receipt of their elk license tags. 2. Tagholders shall be required to purchase an annual hunting pass available from Fort Hunter Liggett. 3. All successful tagholders will be required to have their tags validated on Fort Hunter Liggett prior to leaving. All unsuccessful tag holders will be required to turn in their unfilled tags to Fort Hunter Liggett immediately upon completion of their hunt. 4. Season dates and hunt areas are subject to restriction by the Commanding Officer of Fort Hunter Liggett based on military training. Fort Hunter Liggett Military Apprentice Tule Elk Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(d)(11)(A). Season: The season shall open on the Saturday preceding December 25 and continue for 14 consecutive days. Due to military operations, season dates are subject to further restriction, or may be rescheduled between August 1 and January 31 by the Commanding Officer. Number of License Tags: 1 bull tag and 1 antlerless tags. Special Conditions: 1. All tagholders will be required to attend a mandatory hunter orientation. Tagholders will be notified of the time and location of the orientation meeting after receipt of their elk license tags. 2. Tagholders shall be required to purchase an annual hunting pass available from Fort Hunter Liggett. 3. Season dates and hunt areas are subject to restriction by the Commanding Officer of Fort Hunter Liggett based on military training. 4. All successful tagholders will be required to have their tags validated on Fort Hunter Liggett prior to leaving. All unsuccessful tag holders will be required to turn in their unfilled tags to Fort Hunter Liggett immediately upon completion of their hunt. 5. Only persons possessing valid junior hunting licenses may apply for Apprentice Hunt license tags. Apprentice Hunt tagholders shall be accompanied by a nonhunting, licensed adult chaperon 18 years of age or older while hunting. Fort Hunter Liggett Military Archery Only Tule Elk Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(d)(11)(A). Season: 1. Either-sex season shall open on the last Wednesday in July and continue for 9 consecutive days. 2. Antlerless Season shall open on the last Wednesday in September and continue for 9 consecutive days. ---PAGE BREAK--- 258 Due to military operations, season dates are subject to further restriction, or may be rescheduled between August 1 and January 31 by the Commanding Officer. Number of License Tags: 2 either-sex tags and 4 antlerless tags. Special Conditions: 1. Elk may be taken with Archery Equipment only as specified in Section 354. 2. All tagholders will be required to attend a mandatory hunter orientation. Tagholders will be notified of the time and location of the orientation meeting upon receipt of their elk license tags. 3. Tagholders shall be required to purchase an annual hunting pass available from Fort Hunter Liggett. 4. All successful tagholders will be required to have their tags validated on Fort Hunter Liggett prior to leaving. All unsuccessful tag holders will be required to turn in their unfilled tags to Fort Hunter Liggett immediately upon completion of their hunt. 5. Season dates and hunt areas are subject to restriction by the Commanding Officer of Fort Hunter Liggett based on military training. Fort Hunter Liggett Military Muzzleloader Only Tule Elk Hunt: Area: The tag shall be valid in the area described in subsection 364(d)(11)(A). Season: The season shall open on the Wednesday preceding the fourth Thursday in November and continue for 9 consecutive days. Due to military operations, season dates are subject to further restriction, or may be rescheduled between August 1 and January 31 by the Commanding Officer. Number of License Tags: 0 bull tags. Special Conditions: 1. Elk may be taken with Muzzleloader Equipment only as specified in Section 353. 2. All tagholders will be required to attend a mandatory hunter orientation. Tagholders will be notified of the time and location of the orientation meeting upon receipt of their elk license tags. 3. Tagholders shall be required to purchase an annual hunting pass available from Fort Hunter Liggett. 4. All successful tagholders will be required to have their tags validated on Fort Hunter Liggett prior to leaving. All unsuccessful tag holders will be required to turn in their unfilled tags to Fort Hunter Liggett immediately upon completion of their hunt. 5. Season dates and hunt areas are subject to restriction by the Commanding Officer of Fort Hunter Liggett based on military training. Bag and Possession Limit: Each elk tag is valid only for one elk per season and only in the hunt area drawn. Hunt areas are described in subsections 364(a), and and persons shall only be eligible for one elk tag per season. Definitions: Bull elk: Any elk having an antler or antlers at least four inches in length as measured from the top of the skull. Spike bull: A bull elk having no more than one point on each antler. An antler point is a projection of the antler at least one inch long and longer than the width of its base. Antlerless elk: Any elk, with the exception of spotted calves, with antlers less than four inches in length as measured from the top of the skull. ---PAGE BREAK--- 259 Either-sex elk: For the purposes of these regulations, either-sex is defined as bull elk, as described in subsection 364(l)(1), or antlerless elk as, described in subsection 364(l)(3). Method of Take: Only methods for taking elk as defined in Sections 353 and 354 may be used. General Method of take are those methods defined in Sections 353 and 354. Tagholder Responsibilities: No tagholder shall take or possess any elk or parts thereof governed by the regulations except herein provided. The department reserves the right to use any part of the tagholder's elk for biological analysis as long as the amount of edible meat is not appreciably decreased. Any person taking an elk which has a collar or other marking device attached to it shall provide the department with such marking device within 10 days of taking the elk. The use of dogs to take or attempt to take elk is prohibited. Note: Authority cited: Sections 200, 202, 203, 332 and 1050, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 203, 203.1, 332, 713 and 1050, Fish and Game Code. § 364.1. SHARE Elk Hunts. Department Administered Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Elk Hunts: Siskiyou Roosevelt Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(a)(1)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. Big Lagoon Roosevelt Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(a)(2)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. Northwestern California Roosevelt Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(a)(3)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. Klamath Roosevelt Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(a)(4)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. Del Norte Roosevelt Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(a)(5)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. Marble Mountains Roosevelt Elk SHARE Hunt Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(a)(6)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. Northeastern California Rocky Mountain Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(b)(1)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. Mendocino Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(c)(1)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. Cache Creek Tule Elk SHARE Hunt: ---PAGE BREAK--- 260 Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(d)(1)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. (10) La Panza Tule Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(d)(2)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. (11) Bishop Tule Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(d)(3)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. (12) Independence Tule Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(d)(4)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. (13) Lone Pine Tule Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(d)(5)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. (14) Tinemaha Tule Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(d)(6)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. (15) West Tinemaha Tule Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(d)(7)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. (16) Tinemaha Mountain Tule Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(d)(8)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. (17) Whitney Tule Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(d)(9)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. (18) Grizzly Island Tule Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(d)(10)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. (19) Fort Hunter Liggett General Public Tule Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(d)(11)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. (20) East Park Reservoir Tule Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(d)(12)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. (21) San Luis Reservoir Tule Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(d)(13)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. (22) Bear Valley Tule Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(d)(14)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. (23) Lake Pillsbury Tule Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(d)(15)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. (24) Santa Clara Tule Elk SHARE Hunt: ---PAGE BREAK--- 261 Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(d)(16)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. (25) Alameda Tule Elk SHARE Hunt: Area: Within the boundaries identified in 364(d)(17)(A). Individual property boundaries will be identified in the SHARE application package. Season: The overall season shall open on the August 15 through January 31. Individual SHARE properties will be assigned seasons corresponding with management goals. Number of SHARE Elk License Tags 364.1 2015 SHARE Elk Tag Allocation § Hunt Name Bull Antlerless Either-sex Spike Siskiyou 10 10 Big Lagoon 0 0 Northwestern California 0 0 0 Klamath 0 0 Del Norte 0 0 Marble Mountains 5 10 Northeastern California 0 0 Mendocino 2 2 Cache Creek 1 1 (10) La Panza 12 11 (11) Bishop 0 0 (12) Independence 0 0 (13) Lone Pine 0 0 (14) Tinemaha 0 0 (15) West Tinemaha 0 0 (16) Tinemaha Mountain 0 (17) Whitney 0 0 (18) Grizzly Island 0 0 0 (19) Fort Hunter Liggett 0 0 0 (20) East Park Reservoir 2 4 (21) San Luis Reservoir 0 0 5 (22) Bear Valley 1 0 (23) Lake Pillsbury 0 0 (24) Santa Clara 0 (25) Alameda 0 Bag and Possession Limit: Each elk tag is valid only for one elk per season and only in the SHARE hunt area drawn, and persons shall only be eligible for one elk tag per season. Definitions: ---PAGE BREAK--- 262 Bull elk: Any elk having an antler or antlers at least four inches in length as measured from the top of the skull. Spike bull: A bull elk having no more than one point on each antler. An antler point is a projection of the antler at least one inch long and longer than the width of its base. Antlerless elk: Any elk, with the exception of spotted calves, with antlers less than four inches in length as measured from the top of the skull. Either-sex elk: For the purposes of these regulations, either-sex is defined as bull elk or antlerless elk. Method of Take: Only methods for taking elk as defined in Sections 353 and 354 may be used. Tagholder Responsibilities: No tagholder shall take or possess any elk or parts thereof governed by the regulations except herein provided. The department reserves the right to use any part of the tagholder's elk for biological analysis as long as the amount of edible meat is not appreciably decreased. Any person taking an elk which has a collar or other marking device attached to it shall provide the department with such marking device within 10 days of taking the elk. The use of dogs to take or attempt to take elk is prohibited. Applicants shall apply for a SHARE Access Permit, and pay a nonrefundable application fee as specified in Section 602, through the department’s Automated License Data System terminals at any department license agent, department license sales office or online. Upon receipt of winner notification successful applicants shall submit the appropriate tag fee as specified in Section 702 through any department license sales office or online through the department’s Automated License Data System. Note: Authority Cited: Sections 332 and 1050, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 332, 1050 and 1574, Fish and Game Code. ---PAGE BREAK--- 263 Appendix 18. 2015 PLM List and Authorized Harvest PLM Name Authorized Bull Harvest Authorized Antlerless Harvest ALEXANDER RANCH 1 2 ALEXANDER DAIRY 2 2 AMANN RANCH 1 AVENALES RANCH 3 BARDIN RANCH 2 4 BIG LAGOON 3 BLACK RANCH 1 1 CAMP 5 OUTFITTERS (MORISOLI) 3 3 CAPISTRAN RANCH 2 2 CARNAZA WILDLIFE MGT AREA 3 3 CARRIZO RANCH 3 4 CHIMNEY ROCK RANCH 2 2 CLARK AND WHITE RANCH 3 2 D-RAFTER L RANCH 1 1 CONNOLLY/CORRAL HOLLOW RANCH 1 1 COTTRELL RANCH 1 1 DEFRANCESCO AND EATON 2 1 EDEN VALLEY RANCH 8 7 FULTON RANCH 1 GABILAN RANCH 3 1 HARTNELL RANCH 1 2 HEARST RANCH 6 6 HUNTER RANCH 1 INDIAN VALLEY CATTLE CO. 3 2 ISABEL VALLEY RANCH 1 JS RANCH 1 KLAMATH RANCH 2 LEWIS RANCH 1 1 LONE RANCH 3 2 MILLER-ERIKSEN RANCH 1 PBM FARMS 1 PEACHTREE RANCH 4 2 POTTER VALLEY WMA 6 10 RANCHO LA CUESTA 3 1 REDWOOD HOUSE RANCH 1 ROOSTER COMB RANCH 1 ROSEBERG RESOURCES PONDOSA 2 2 R-R RANCH 3 6 SHAMROCK RANCH 8 10 SLICK ROCK RANCH 1 SMITH RIVER 3 6 SPRING VALLEY RANCH 4 STOVER RANCH 4 2 SUMMER CAMP RANCH 1 SWEETWATER RANCH 1 TEJON RANCH 12 3 TEMBLOR WMA 7 12 TRINCHERO RANCH 2 WIGGINS RANCH 2 2 WORK RANCH 2 4 TOTALS 134 110 ---PAGE BREAK--- 264 Appendix 19. Section 555, Title 14, CCR § 555. Cooperative Elk Hunting Areas. To encourage protection and enhancement of elk habitat and provide eligible landowners an opportunity for limited elk hunting on their lands, the department may establish cooperative elk hunting areas and issue license tags to allow the take of elk as specified in Section 364, and subject to the following conditions: Definition and Scope. A cooperative elk hunting area is an area of private land located within the boundary of an area open to public elk hunting (as identified in Section 364). Minimum size of a cooperative elk hunting area shall be 5,000 acres, except that contiguous parcels of at least 640 acres in size may be combined to comprise a cooperative elk hunting area. Within an area open to public elk hunting, the number of cooperative elk hunting license tags issued shall not exceed 20 percent of the number of public license tags for the corresponding public hunt and shall be of the same designation antlerless, spike bull, bull or either-sex) as the public license tags. Application Process. Application forms are available from the department's headquarters and regional offices. A person (as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 67) owning at least 640 acres within a cooperative elk hunting area shall be eligible to apply for a cooperative elk hunting area permit. Applicants shall designate one individual eligible to receive one elk license tag by the date indicated under subsection below. Such individuals shall be at least 12 years of age and possess a valid California hunting license. A person may annually submit a cooperative elk hunting area application where they own sufficient habitat as described in subsection above, for each public hunt area in which their property occurs. Applications shall be submitted to the department's regional office nearest the proposed cooperative elk hunting area. Department of Fish and Game regional offices are located as follows: Northern California and North Coast Region, 601 Locust Street, Redding 96001 (530) 225-2300 Sacramento Valley and Central Sierra Region, 1701 Nimbus Road, Rancho Cordova 95670 (916) 358-2900 Central Coast Region, 7329 Silverado Trail, Box 47, Yountville 94599 (707) 944-5500 San Joaquin Valley and Southern Sierra Region, 1234 East Shaw Avenue, Fresno 93710 (559) 243-4005 South Coast Region, 4949 View Crest Avenue, San Diego 92123 (858) 467-4201 Eastern Sierra and Inland Deserts Region, 4775 Bird Farm Road, Chino Hills 91709 (909) 597-9823 Completed applications must be received by the first business day following July 1. Only those applications that are filled out completely will be accepted. The Department will evaluate applications to determine if the specified parcels are of sufficient size within the boundary of a public elk hunt area, and contain important elk habitat. Rejected applications and those that are incomplete will be returned within 15 days of receipt by the department. If the number of accepted applications exceeds the license tags available, the department will determine successful applicants and a list of alternates by conducting a random drawing from the pool of qualified applicants as soon as possible after the application deadline. For any license year that the demand for cooperative elk hunting license tags within an area open to public hunting (as identified in Section 364) exceeds the number of tags available, tags will be first issued to applicants that did not ---PAGE BREAK--- 265 receive a tag the previous year. If the quota is not filled, tags will be issued to the remaining applicants by random drawing. Successful applicants will be notified by the department as soon as possible after the application deadline. Applicants shall submit the name, address, and valid California hunting license number of designated elk license tag recipients and payment of elk license tag fees by check, money order, or credit card authorization in the amount specified by subsection 702(b)(1)(L)(M), to the department's regional office nearest the proposed cooperative elk hunting area, by the first business day following August 1. An elk license tag issued pursuant to the provisions of this section is valid only during the general elk season in which the cooperative elk hunting area occurs and shall only be used on land specified in the landowner's application. License tags are not transferable. All provisions of the Fish and Game Code and Title 14, CCR, relating to the take of birds and mammals shall be conditions of all license tags issued pursuant to this section. Any permit issued pursuant to Section 555 may be canceled or suspended at any time by the commission for cause after notice and opportunity to be heard, or without a hearing upon conviction of a violation of this regulation by a court of competent jurisdiction. Note: Authority cited: Section 1575, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 67 and 1575, Fish and Game Code. ---PAGE BREAK--- 266 Appendix 20. Modification to Existing Regulations Change Proposed Tag Range 2015 Tag Quota Proposed Season 2015 Season Dates Change in # of days Establish new San Emigdio Mountain tule elk hunt 0-15 bull 0-40 antlerless N/A Oct. 8 - 21 N/A N/A Establish new Camp Roberts tule elk hunt 0-10 bull 0-20 antlerless in 3 periods N/A Period 1 Sept 17 - Oct 3 Period 2 Nov. 12 - 27 Period 3 Dec. 17- Jan 1 N/A N/A Split Mendocino tule elk hunt - establish 5 zones (North Coast) 0-10 bull 0-40 antlerless 4 bull 4 antlerless in total for all Mendocino bull Aug. 10-19 Antlerless Nov. 5-14 Sept. 23 - Oct. 4 -2 Middle Fork 0-10 bull 0-40 antlerless N/A bull Aug. 10-19 Antlerless Nov. 5-14 Sept. 23 - Oct. 4 -2 Upper Russian 0-10 bull 0-40 antlerless N/A bull Aug. 10-19 Antlerless Nov. 5-14 Sept. 23 - Oct. 4 -2 Little Lake 0-5 bull 0-10 antlerless N/A bull Aug. 10-19 Antlerless Nov. 5-14 Sept. 23 - Oct. 4 -2 South Coast 0-5 bull 0-10 antlerless N/A bull Aug. 10-19 Antlerless Nov. 5-14 Sept. 23 - Oct. 4 -2 Split Independence tule elk hunt- establish Goodale tule elk hunt 0-10 bull 0-10 antlerless in five periods 5 bull No change N/A N/A Split Northwestern Roosevelt elk hunt -establish Del Norte and Humboldt County Roosevelt elk hunts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Modify tag ranges and season dates for Northwestern (Proposed Del Norte and Humboldt) Roosevelt elk hunt Del Norte 0-15 bull 0-25 antlerless 0-10 either- sex in 5 periods 45 either-sex Sept. 1-20 Oct. 1-20 Nov. 1-20 Dec. 1-20 Jan. 1-20 Sept 2. - 24 78 Humboldt 0-20 bull 0-50 antlerless 0-10 either- sex in 5 periods Sept. 1-20 Oct. 1-20 Nov. 1-20 Dec. 1-20 Jan. 1-20 Split Marble Mountain Roosevelt elk hunt - establish Marble Mountain South and Marble Mountain North Roosevelt elk hunts. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 267 Modify tag ranges and season dates for the Marble Mountain (proposed Marble Mountain North and South) Roosevelt elk hunt. Archery/ Muzzle loader 0-20 either- sex Period 1 0-50 bull 0-20 antlerless Period 2 0-10 bull 0-40 antlerless Period 3 0-5 bull 0-15 antlerless 5 Arch/Muzzleloader either-sex General Season 35 bull 10 antlerless Arch/Muzz Aug. 31 - Sept. 8 Period 1 Sept 10-21 Period 2 Sept. 24 -Oct. 5 Period 3 Nov. 2-17 for both Marble Mountain North and South Arch/Muzz Oct. 31-Nov. 8 General Season Sept. 9-20 19 for both Marble Mountain North and South Modify tag ranges and season dates for Northeastern Rocky Mountain elk hunts Archery 0-10 bull, 0-10 antlerless, & 0-20 either- sex Archery 10 either-sex. General Method 15 bull 10 antlerless Archery Aug. 31-Sept. 11 General Method bull Sept. 19-30 antlerless Nov. 12-23 Archery Sept. 2-13 General Methods Sept. 16-27 12 Gen. Method 0-30 bull 0-20 antlerless Modify Fort Hunter Liggett tule elk hunt boundaries - Change name to Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Modify season tag ranges and season dates for Fort Hunter Liggett tule elk hunts. Public and Military Apprentice 0-4 bull 0-16 antlerless Archery 0-20 either- sex 0- 20 antlerless Muzzleloader 0-12 bull 0-20 antlerless Public and Military Apprentice 2 bull 2 antlerless Archery 4 either-sex 8 antlerless Muzzleloader 0 bull 0 antlerless Public and Military Apprentice Dec. 17-Jan. 1 Archery either-sex July 27 Aug. 4 antlerless Sept. 28-Oct. 6 Muzzleloader Oct. 8-19 Public and Military Apprentice Dec. 19-Jan. 1 Archery either-sex July 29 Aug. 6 antlerless Sept. 30-Oct. 8 Muzzleloader Oct. 10-21 0 General Method Per. 1 0-14 bull 0-32 antlerless Per. 2 0-16 bull 0-30 antlerless Per. 3 0-28 bull 0-14 antlerless General Method Per. 1 0 bull 8 antlerless Per. 2 0 bull 8 antlerless Per. 3 8 bull 0 antlerless General Method Per. 1 Nov. 3-11 Per. 2 Nov. 22- 30 Per. 3 Dec. 17-Jan. 1 General Method Per. 1 Nov. 3-11 Per. 2 Nov. 22- 30 Per. 3 Dec. 19-Jan. 1 2 Military Only early season 0-2 bull 0-2 antlerless Military Only early season 2 bull 1 antlerless Military Only early season Aug 17-21 & Aug 24-28 Military Only early season Aug 8-12 & Aug 22-26 0 Modify Grizzly Island tule elk hunt boundaries N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 268 Modify tag ranges and season dates for Grizzly Island tule elk hunts. 13 General Periods 0-3 bull 0-12 antlerless 0-10 spike in each period Apprentice 0-4 antlerless 0-4 spike in first four periods General Method Per 1. 5 antlerless 4 spike Per. 2 8 antlerless 3 spike Per. 3 8 antlerless 2 spike Per. 4 2 bull 8 antlerless Per. 5 2 bull 8 antlerless 2 spike General Method Per. 1 Aug. 16-19 Per. 2 Aug. 18- 21 Per. 3 Aug. 23- 26 Per. 4 Aug 25- 28 Per. 5 Aug. 30- Sept. 3 Per. 6 Sept. 1-4 Per. 7 Sept. 6-9 Per. 8 Sept. 8-11 Per. 9 Sept. 13- 16 General Method Per. 1 antlerless Aug. 11-14 spike Aug. 13-16 Per. 2 antlerless Aug. 18-21 spike Aug. 20-23 Per. 3 antlerless Aug. 25-28 spike Sept. 10- 13 8 Apprentice Per 1. 3 antlerless 1 spike Per. 2 2 spike Per. 10 Sept. 15-18 Per. 11 Sept. 20-23 Per. 12 Sept. 22-25 Per. 13 Sept. 27-30 Per. 4 antlerless Sept. 8-11 bull Sept. 10-13 Per. 5 antlerless Sept. 15-18 bull Sept. 17-20 spike Sept. 17- 20 Apprentice Per. 1 Aug. 16- 19 Per. 2 Aug. 18- 21 Per. 3 Aug. 23- 26 Per. 4 Aug 25- 28 Apprentice Per 1. Antlerless Aug. 11-14 spike Aug. 13-16 Per. 2 spike Aug. 20-23 Modify La Panza tule elk zone boundaries N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Modify tag ranges for La Panza tule elk hunts. Period 1 0-20 bull 0-30 antlerless Period 2 0-20 bull 0-30 antlerless Apprentice 0-2 bull 0-2 antlerless Period 1 6 bull 5 antlerless Period 2 6 bull 6 antlerless Apprentice Per. 1 1 antlerless N/A N/A N/A Modify tag ranges and season dates for Lake Pillsbury tule elk hunt. 0-10 bull 0-10 antlerless for 3 periods 2 bull 4 antlerless Per. 1 Sept. 26-Oct. 5 Per. 2 Oct. 12- 21 Per. 3 Oct. 26-Nov 4 antlerless Sept. 9-18 bull Sept. 28- Oct. 7 10 Modify San Luis Reservoir tule elk hunt tag ranges and season dates 0-10 bull 0-20 antlerless 0-10 either- sex 5 either-sex Period 1 Oct. 1-23 Period 2 Nov. 12-23 Period 3 Dec. 17-28 Oct. 3-25 24 Modify Bear Valley tule elk hunt tag ranges 0-10 antlerless 0-10 bull 2 antlerless 3 bull No change Oct. 10-18 N/A Modify Santa Clara tule elk tag ranges 0-15 bull 0-20 antlerless 0 No change Oct. 10-25 N/A Modify Alameda tule elk tag ranges 0-4 bull 0-10 antlerless 0 No Change Oct. 10-25 N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 269 Modify season dates for the Multi-zone fund raising elk tag 1 bull 1 bull Aug. 13-Nov. 10 Varied by hunt area. Opened 7 days prior to earliest season for each zone Varies from 25 to 71 Modify Siskiyou tag ranges and season dates Period 1 0-40 bull 0-40 antlerless Period 2 0-10 bull 0-40 antlerless Period 3 0-5 bull 0-20 antlerless Archery/ Muzzleloader 0-20 either- sex 20 bull 20 antlerless Period 1 Sept. 12-21 Period 2 Sept. 24 - Oct. 5 Period 3 Nov. 2-17 Archery/ Muzzleloader Aug. 31-Sept. 8 Sept. 9-20 37 SHARE Elk Correspond to tag ranges in identified zones Correspond to tag ranges in identified zones. 3 bull 3 antlerless issued No change Between Aug. 15-Jan 31. Seasons are assigned to properties 0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 270 Appendix 21. Impacts of Proposed Regulation Modification Impacts of Hunting Elk Impacts on the gene pool Impacts on social structure Effects on habitat Effects on Recreational Opportunities Effects on other wildlife species Effects on economics Effects on public safety Establish new San Emigdio Mountain tule elk hunt Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Establish new Camp Roberts tule elk hunt Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Split Mendocino tule elk hunt - establish 5 zones Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Split Independence tule elk hunt- establish Goodale tule elk hunt Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Split Northwestern Roosevelt elk hunt - establish Del Norte and Humboldt County Roosevelt elk hunts Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify tag ranges and season dates for Northwestern (Proposed Del Norte and Humboldt) Roosevelt elk hunt Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Split Marble Mountain Roosevelt elk hunt - establish Marble Mountain South and Marble Mountain North Roosevelt elk hunts. Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify tag ranges and season dates for the Marble Mountain (proposed Marble Mountain North and South) Roosevelt elk hunt. Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify tag ranges and season dates for Northeastern Rocky Mountain elk hunts Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify Fort Hunter Liggett tule elk hunt boundaries - Change name to Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify season tag ranges and season dates for Fort Hunter Liggett tule elk hunts. Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify Grizzly Island tule elk hunt boundaries Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 271 Modify tag ranges and season dates for Grizzly Island tule elk hunts. Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify La Panza tule elk zone boundaries Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify tag ranges for La Panza tule elk hunts. Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify tag ranges and season dates for Lake Pillsbury tule elk hunt. Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify San Luis Reservoir tule elk hunt tag ranges and season dates Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify Bear Valley tule elk hunt tag ranges Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify Santa Clara tule elk tag ranges Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify Alameda tule elk tag ranges Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify season dates for the Multi-zone fund raising elk tag Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify Siskiyou tag ranges and season dates Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant SHARE Elk Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 272 Impacts of Hunting Elk Growth- Inducing impacts Short-term uses and long term productivity Significant irreversible environmental changes Welfare of Individual animal Cumulative Impacts Establish new San Emigdio Mountain tule elk hunt Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Establish new Camp Roberts tule elk hunt Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Split Mendocino tule elk hunt - establish 5 zones Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Split Independence tule elk hunt- establish Goodale tule elk hunt Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Split Northwestern Roosevelt elk hunt - establish Del Norte and Humboldt County Roosevelt elk hunts Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify tag ranges and season dates for Northwestern (Proposed Del Norte and Humboldt) Roosevelt elk hunt Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Split Marble Mountain Roosevelt elk hunt - establish Marble Mountain South and Marble Mountain North Roosevelt elk hunts. Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify tag ranges and season dates for the Marble Mountain (proposed Marble Mountain North and South) Roosevelt elk hunt. Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify tag ranges and season dates for Northeastern Rocky Mountain elk hunts Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify Fort Hunter Liggett tule elk hunt boundaries - Change name to Fort Hunter Liggett Central Coast Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify season tag ranges and season dates for Fort Hunter Liggett tule elk hunts. Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify Grizzly Island tule elk hunt boundaries Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify tag ranges and season dates for Grizzly Island tule elk hunts. Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify La Panza tule elk zone boundaries Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify tag ranges for La Panza tule elk hunts. Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify tag ranges and season dates for Lake Pillsbury tule elk hunt. Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify San Luis Reservoir tule elk hunt tag ranges and season dates Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify Bear Valley tule elk hunt tag ranges Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify Santa Clara tule elk tag ranges Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify Alameda tule elk tag ranges Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify season dates for the Multi-zone fund raising elk tag Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Modify Siskiyou tag ranges and season dates Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant SHARE Elk Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 273