Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
84-6 DEER HERD COMMITTEE 10 OF 33
Although there have been different opinions expressed as routes within Yuba and adjoining counties, variations by individual deer or small the differences to exact migratory Game has been capturing deer, grou,Ps of ,them, The Anhwoar to be due to their location with receivers in aircraft overfxiradio thtssm'tter collars Po rtm es of Fish and outside of Yuba County, but there is at least one record for mous n does, and tracing within a migratory corridor in the southeast® r g ord„t of this work has been done local residents confirmed the validity of this corridor, meet of a single dee been Portion of the county, Statements from Pieced toe A second migratory g ther with information iroin throe local residents,3 corridor has tibSePVati0n3 made by Eco -Analysts, DFG Warden The importance of establishing these corridors is to irsure the reach their winter grounds and not be cut off b t deer can still DEG is continuing their studies and m Y barriers created b during the Public hearing Process, The two k able lecorr�dors are indica development., The Produce additional information In general, migratory ted on Figure 3, lust below the: ri � 1'y deer seem to move downhill along ridges, with most trails dgel ne, Many use the Oper ridge areas of south -favi their way back to the summer grounds, while others seem to concentrr near the bottoms of ca n ,slopes on difficulty crossing French any ns Adult deer in in valleys or rY Creek and branches poof theconYubaSeem to have littl i flow periods, but pregant does, fawns, and weak River between their attempts to reach the o yearlings are not always successful in in have not been accumulated, but Opposite have ebeen a, number of and drowned deer to substantiate losses ofthis ,Mortality figures on losses of this type forced into Poor road crossings also add to cuhmlat vers. Motorsivehicle kills Of struggling deerr adverse effects, 27- t 1 The Department of Fish and Game has been recommending of �40 acres in critical winter range and 20 recommendations are based 'w acres: for other wintminimum parcel sizes Herat in holy or mainly, on the 1982-84 studioseof rtheeD - These applicability loc, Lassen, and eastern Shasta Counties, oc apph.cability Qi' this work to at„her co �' Deer unties, some DFG staff felt othats equiringut the minitI rger parcel sizes would tnerease resistance to their recommendations bioloigists, however, feel that lai^ger parcel sizes are necessary , in more open areas, The D,�Y Der Herd report. Biola€tist who did most of the work,as more with Dave Smith, the DFG surveys which used pellet plod to determine discussed Also deer ase doer' the results Wildlife rather than relying on day sighti:rigs alone, of the lgaq for the deer herd studied and dial not feel that r�,th fel that day and night hours, Mr, Smith felt that his vrork was specific blanket recommendations for all deer Mr, Smith, and have a the Cascades and Sierrasn that study were Pplied pol t.tons of his study We agree with County which were similar to the ones he studied. The techniques ds' °h�' to those habitats in Yuba Eco -Analysts, when first used by Smith. The County's o needt to clear I ergo numberstu goes considered se maps required madtfical;ion of thest� ,'' Were similar to those EIR: methods, as indicated n an earlier section s of Parcel and b of this Minimum Parcel siize needs, ftryspecific conditions and c�orabinatioararofcondtions,to sustain grato deer ns,ed high deer should be based on each other, g quality `f19ed, sheltktsr, and access to In order to survive and Availability of food amid water varies seasonally and it prosper, food. available in the wipiter Proximity to one or tH=o of these 'bj,.nrric necessifitiesbis the most is the amount of considered include the Ming factor, Provisifacto on of only Prr Bence a£ .sl�y'srral barriers and highriskhrizardsthat Migratory e corridors and overwinteNUIr areas attrl the presence of free 'roaming domestic dogs, ?'lie. amount of l��nc� necessa;r With existing conditions, Shelter becomes an Y to support one deer in Yuba Count y will vary when food and water are l important determinant of der behavior available to conceal th (!,,r, available. Deer are more secure when dense vegetation is greater treparation distant mavements. In open grasslands of the lower foothills a e from occupied dwellings is needed for the successful survival of deer than illi dense brush or recommendations that are !too forest for Migratory deer in all llGreas, general do not areas. Obviously, parcel size The amount andrdistribut distribution cover should determine minimum parcel sizes, rat�lter than esired level of Protection winter range, generalized use by deer as critical or non=crib al The availability anis quality of food plants is also high dense, old chaparral s eels.; Young sprouting p 'support few deer, $ecent �' variable, Areas with bushes and growin lY burned or cleared areas requiring less acreage to sU g forbs support much higher densities of with development to aocur is to PPart each animal, An obvious deer, plants in Undeveloped areas, Provide for improvement in availability way to allow more Measures to provide for habitat imp ovement are included in the mitigation portion of this EIR,.Of food Migratory deer do list heed open Water racan in Puddles as their main ;§ounce, Ih other seasons, the need f wintertime, and . use snow and or .ater varies with -28,- 1 v e t the temperature and more critical in the amount Of exertion a few major streams summertime. required to sustaizi life. access and impound, Yuba County, scmmer gator sources beconlr to water sources at all times Ovate areas, It is r 4ources are Iimited to Of the important that deer have Provision Year, fresh between. the various corridors alto created b arious components of wig �Srato Y rows their habitat Migratory deer and other interfokle ering with deer houses, deer- is critical for k'ildlife to migratory movement in proof fences, or heir survil{al. Barin crg Oregon Houserr dors, Particularh, inu heCounty, Housing'isebe reservoirs all Play a part Ore on Althou h M in Of the lots g most lots are area around Loma gifiling to develop not sf available will eliminateunoccupied, the construGEJnnCaIuns P amass gnificant when critical Lake, atld Yuba County where such fences e a homear a and/or Boor. range areas, nclose garden, but Proof fe,cing is Parcels of 20 to a ie hundred there are hu►tdred areas in Large reservoirs acres within in both the. llowneville have. played enlarged the a and Mooreto a to role in the Yuba existing reservoir Herds, 'The new blocking movements 13iver, and upper reach o f tin wider, deeper �,BulIards Er. p . of deer Deer Herd. portions of"=�JIow C •rossin s am substantially Orovilie, the A1ooretot n reek for g °f the North Drownings became Herd c°mponanb of the Fork of reservoir. Some deer learned torequent as were affected b Hawnieville movement requires that go $round t migrating deer erection of Lake. a11ou* adequate he reservoir, failed to negotiate the Passage of deer. undeveloped areas be leftt this chancegrator around in mi Similar each reservoir to sheltered passe corridors sho►lld be common g f deer left along major creeks and roads pattern of Other ser wildli#e into feeding rivers to Of the risk of between g and water source allow the a collision botw encreek and a road f areas, The The deer and vehicles; forces deer to cross Presence of Important in deter the de gr dogs and Migratory deer g the Tee of control deer. appear to be far essary separation of by thea Resident dee learn Which less tolerant homesites In deeowners is also. one parcel examined Inch dogs present of the Presence of do winter range, thicket less than 200 during the Yuba problems and dogs than resident adjoiningP feet from County survey, two which can be Property was m a -house with a deer were ignored. In counties generally result i ng surveyed, dog that barked continuous disco in a If the dogs are in the at acre parcels lv while the establish hi allowed to Presence of two to four dogsevery Yuba and surrounding gh hazard ream freeasely, as they are G g eve ending recomfien ed ordinance for far one-half b some o r3' 1,000.1 2q0 I for stricter do t0 one miler wners, then they f c xr°m their owners' regidehces, A A seldom g control measures is in°luded further subdivisiojicon shred factor as Appendix S, Yuba Count + Particularly by in arriving at County as in adjoiningparcel s minimum lot size is t or after construction: of areas Puts, ?'went he ease of different construction standardsst are high y and forty acre highly t us°eptibie to Parcels in home, Since hese later par elture lot incurs a greater liabilit r for roads and oche aPlits splits, before subdividers Ire J for infrastructu"re im offsite l are subject to anticipated not reallzih Provements, 'In, the market needs g the full Potential o f r Nie would also County Of splitting a and created a mixture their land bac point out that tunity to Preset arcel into lots of lot nese they Of the same e ,similar sizeseseldomadditior� have not ve wildlife values, resulting, the an significant provi pattern adverse °umulat ve any r°PPor. ,ts, —29,,, r It is cxizr recommendation that the County review thuir and subdivisions in winter and critical winter range, criteria for lot splits recognize the Heads for varying and develop criteria which o parcel sizes, while minimizing further damage to the migratory deer herds, The mechanisms should also encourage clustered development through density bonuses or other mechanisms damage in thedesign plans, which reward developers who avoid environmental ir r LAND. USE, GENERAL PLAN, AND ZONING' The last Open Space and Conservation Element (OSCE) was adopted in 1973. The more recent. Land Use Element (1981) does not appear to consider most of the policies and goals of the earlier Open Space and Conservation Element, particularly with respect to protection of natural resources,: Specific areas overlooked or eliminated are the need for ;protection, of riparian habitat (OSCE, pp. 12,13) and Winter Dear Range (p. 10). The problems associated with development anal tiodring of riparian areas were specifically mentioned, as were the effects of loss of dear winter range due to reservoir and residential development.-,, and to barriers created by development and new roads. Policies to protect these resources were included in the OSCE section dealing with watersheds (p, 20). The need to respect property rights was also recognized, stating that "private activities should be regulated only to the extent necessary to serve the public interest in realizing open space goals,"(p, 60) This was followed by 'recommendations to provide minimum streamside setbacks to pratoct riparian wildlife habitat and water quality (p, 61), continue to evaluate proposutl developments as to their potential impacts on fish and wildlife habitats, rare and endangered plant species, water resources, and other features of the natural environment as provided for through the County's Environmental Impact Assessment process (p, 62). The 1981 Land Use Element emphasizes property rights and omits consideration of protection for wildlife, wildlife habitat, and water quality. While there is a brief listing of policias under Environmental Resources addressing the need to limit tree removal, prevent encroachment upon rare and and.angered species, and protect high quality plant areas and critical wildlife (p, 6), these measures are not incorporated into the remainder of the document, The I;,and Use Element also states that the dominant land uses i6 the foothill areas are nonurban (Le, agricultural or forest lands), while the predominate pattern observed in the field surveys for this EIR was rural :residentU4 land divisions and a small amount of Increased recreational facilities. This sh`Ft in land use provides for elimination of land available for winter grazing anis is apparently based on a letter from Yuba County's Agricultural Commissioner, Earnie Vickrey (29 November 1981), which stated that he felt that the foothill areas between 200 and 1500 feet in elevation could only support limited numbers of livestock for one to four ;months each year. His opinion was based on the statement that "Soil type, depth and annual 'rainfall basically eliminate any other type of agriculture on a large scale,' It may be more accurate to state that_subdiv ,Sion of land for residential and recreational uses produces more income for landowners than livestock grazing, and that continuation of livestock prouuction is not as acceptable or viable in these times of low agricultural pry atict prices. The classic patterh of grazing cattle in the foothills during winter and . i, - .,g months to avoid flooding in the valley and snow in the mountains, will be elimin. The primary protection for the mountain region of the county is the amount of land held by the U,S, Forest 8ervice, 13ureau of Land Management and commercial timber companies. The use of a long term management strategy by those groups recognizes the longer time frames necessary for timber production and the need to protect this resource for the future, _3,1 1 0 The overall impression made by the 1981 Land Use Element in that the foothill areas, are valuable for residential development, and that other uses, agriculture; recreation, and wildlife protection, are unimportant or of minimal Importance: The pattern of development that has occurred is one that severely restricts potential use for seasonal livestock grazing and has reduced. wildlife habitat for all but those species adaptable to the presence of hum&ns. Since land use policies are based cn input from the public, the Land Use Element undoubtedly reflects the opinions of those making presentations to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. A problem arises when there are for inconsistencies within and between General Plan Elements. The disregard policies the rand recommendations of the Open 'Space and Conservation Element and Environmental Resources section within the Land Use Element itself, represent areas of increased liability for legal action against the County. Elimjre��tion of the development standards in the Land Use Element removed much of the environmental protection that had originally been incorporated. The zone covering most of the foothill area of Yuba County is "A/RR" Figure 4,) This allows development of lots with Agricultural/Rural Residential. (See minimum parcelsizes of five acres for projects outside of Communities, Community L Core areas or "other areas" as defined in the and Use Element. Presumably the latter are areas such as the lands surrounding Collins Lake, which have previously been proposed for higher density development. The standards in the Land Use Element regarding slope an4 proof of water supply were removed in 1983, allowing for smaller parcels than would have been possible with the standards. Although we agree with staff that development standards are more appropriate in the zoning ordinance, their complete elimination from the Land Use Element and lack of incorporation into the zoning ordinance 'allows for more residential development and concurrent reductions of wildlife habitat, If the County wants to provide for wildlife, and true rural residential i, development, they the A/RR zone should be modified to include development standards to a which encourage higher quality development. The County may want enact Resource Conservation zone to protect the most sensitive wildlife areas, as was, recommended by The Sacramento Area Council of Governments in their review of the draft Land Use Element, Staff disagreed withtheir recommendations at the time because of the development standards in the Land Use Element, Since these have been eliminated, their suggestions should be reconsidered, 1 0 OTICE OVERSIZE DRAWING HAS BEEN REMOVED AND FILMED ON 3-5MM w F] r I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IMPACTS QE_DEVELOPMENT ON 'WILDLIFE Man's impacts upon wildlife habitat and populations began with use of, the foothill areas £her seasonal grazing of livestock and in the higher elevations with timber harvests, Initially these activities produced improved habitat conditions for doer and .other species by creating clearings and increasing the available food plants. In some areas, the short term benefits were soon eliminated by overgrazing and growth of dense chaparral which could not support the increased deer p activities affected normal cycles of population increases and decreasesby texagge Mting their magnitude. More recently, with the increase in reservoir development and home construction in the foothills, the downward cycles In deer population have not been followed by a recovery to previous levels, The impact, of residential developments are cumulative, and are both direct and indirect. SigWficant amounts of habitat are lost because of development, This results in a reduction of wildlife carrying capacity as forage and cover plants are removed during road, utility, and home construction. Increased levels of traffic, noise, and disturbance by dogs causes displacement of deer into adjacent areas, If hese land Use changes occur in the critical winter range, an entire deer herd can a tadversely affected, Obviously, the building relatively minor impacts upon deer sof a few houses in the foothill areascreates nd other W=idiife, The County's policy, however, allows for large amounts of land to be subdivided, and subsequently doveloped for homesites, The 1981 Land Use Element of Yuba County indicates that there were privately owned parcels of 1 to 40 2'323 acres in the foothill region, f contained five or .fewer acres, and not all of these e were in the area's rural 9rual communities, Privately owned parcels of less than 40 acres in the mountain the county number 2,560, again, many of these area of not within designated community developmtentative been _were mapsCethat areerpe ding completioncount of further land divisions, but the Parcels, most of them (72%) IR �VThereould over 200 new containing ten or fewer ares, how many of the approved timate of gis no es parcels have bet;i Community developed for residential uses, Development staff have tried to get thio information from Assessor's office but have not been successful, the County Although subdivision of land into smaller impacts directly, it does provide an entitlement to Parcels Soccupynot rhomes eate environmental build and create adverse impacts upon deer and other wildlife, does 5,200 homes on There is the approved potential for over parcels in the foothill and mountain regions of the The past history of subdivision county, and home building in the foothill areas indicates that not all of these parcels of California will be occupied by Domes and res' Recent census data indicates that people are moving into foothill and In greater numbers to mountain) areas get away from urban problems, The 2,7% increase predicted for Population similar to neighboringhe counties. Even Even period go' mom' be low.` if growth..: in Yuba County is rate households critical Winteth per year in areas designated as r anresult160 naigratorJ deer. lwinte a range new for It is the cumulative effect of building relatively small numbers of residential units each year that creates the adverse effects, New development cannot be -34- considered on a project-by-project basis when the combination of impacts is greater for the accumulated total. The number of approved potential homesites s is already enough. to produce significant effects as these are built upon and occupied. The current pattern of further dividing existing parcels into smaller increases 'severity ' ones the and extent of impacts upon the migratory deer herds, The direct effect of man's occupation of land in migratory deer winter range is elimination of food plants and development of barriers for movement into and out of their winter range, as well as separating food and water source areas from shelter sites. Resident deer soon learn to tolerate man and domestic animals, while enjoying introduced food plants (planted as gardens and landscaping), Migratory deer do not tolerate man and dogs in the same manner and require a greater separation from occupied units than do local deer. Predation by domestic dogs and increased ;poaching activity also acccompany increased residential development in rural areas. Although most deer can defend. themselves • against a single dog, unless that dog is' very large and aggressive, they can easily be overcome by packs of dogs. Our surveys in Yuba County have indicated that residents, especially new ones, have two or more large _dogs. New residents also seem to exert less control over their dogs; allowing them i to roam without supervision. Older residents, in both time of residence in the county and chronological age, tended to have -small to medium sized ,dogs that were confined or trained to stay in the :immediate vicinity the of house and owners, Several long-term residents indicated that poaching might be the .reason for an absence of resident deer in certain am as, DFG Warden Ron Perrault said he was aware of poaching in those same areas, During our surveys, we found evidence of two recent kills of immature deer, one on the South H;oncut Ranch property and the other on a parcel at the periphery of Beale Air Force. Both had straight cuts on bones, which do not occur when deer are killed and eaten by their normal ' Predators. Regular Poaching may also explain why areas which seem ideal habitat showed no signs of use by resident deer. Another factor which can have a significant effect on deer and wildlife are natural and man-made barriers. Barriers to deer movement can include lakes, reservoirs, major streams or rivers, highways, and areas with housing densities greater than one dwelling unit per twenty acres, All lakes in Yuba County are man-made reservoirs. Of these the , only 13 Bullard's Bar Reservoir appears to have s had a significant effect upon deer, blocking movement of the Downieville Herd into and from their wintering grounds in Yuba County, The general consensus obtained from long term residents in the Camptonville and Challenge areas is that filling of this reservoir dramatically altered deer movement patterns and densities during the winter months, The Middle and Forth Yuba `Rivers are barriers for part of the year, Deer crossings are successful in the eastern part of the county except where restricted by the Bullards Bar Reservoir, French Dry Creek, in the center of the county, and portions of the Browns Valley Irrigation District's conveyance system provide barriers during periods of high rainfall, but are traversible by deer during most of the year, The South Fork of Roncut Creek may also serve as a temporary barrier during periods of very high runoff, separating portions of the Moorotown Herd, , The only state highway in the study area is a small number of county roads, however, allow traffic speeds high enough A' lems for deer. The old. M Portion of SR 99, Marysville Road, which connects the central Portlo,nscofsthe rcounty to those in the eastern extent, is a roadway on which deer kills are a regular occurrence. Other roads with deer strike ;problems incWillow Glen, Los Verieles LaPorte, and Frenchtown; lude Dense concentrations of occupied houses can also serve as a barrier to migratory deer, These deer are less tolerant of man and domestic animals, and not to come within 1,000 or more feet of an occupied dwelling Prefer m of housing is that arranged in linear corriudo Wal ngogoadsrhe rnost troublesome far the migratory pathways, Deer are forced to through development and may not be able to find the ir way ba4k t 1 heir the sno rmi},ous;,,g route, The additional stress of locating a hew route b fin;iing thole usual route have an adverse effect upon prenatal development of fawnsr and on alae general of does, can g henith Certain fence designs also serve as barriers;, pa'ticularly to does an Hog -wire fences along several state highways in northern California have been a source of mortality for yonng deer, Some residents build unusually high fences d fawns, large acreages to purpos©fully exclude deer and nces around Yuba County we observed eight foot high fences surrorxnding parcols of 40 In Prevent damage to their crops, acres. or more 36�- r IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS Analysis of the thirty parcels that are pending completion of this study has indicated that at least three parcels could have been cleared with a review of Assessor's Parcel Maps and site reviewby County planning staff. Each of the map parcel into two five proposals, 83-02, 83.31, and 84.373, involved splitting a ten acre acre lots. The lots all had ',occupied homes on them, and other homes on one or more sides, In each case, a site review would have allowed processing, of the maps with by a qualified general mitigations on fence design, without the need for sueveys in a site visit, by DFG personnel would also biologist. There are other cases which have allowed processing of the maps. Unfortunately, the State of California has not. r assigned protectionf a very priority, and DFG has neither the level of transportation personnel; tion to provide the necessary data files, not attention to development projects. individual The following is a summary of the effects of development on the projects surveyed. A brief' description of the wildlife value of each site is given, with an indication of the impacts uponmigratory deer, resident deer, and other wildlife most of the impacts are included ;,r„ . he species, Mitigations to reduce or eliminate following section. Many of the impacts for projects are minor if considered aloi*,a, but become significant as part of the land use trends in Yuba County, 83.336 Snanger: This site contains excellent wildlife habitat, with a Year-round water supply and mixture of suitable deer food plants. It is adjacent to existing There is development which limits the long term value of this site for migratory deer. scare use by resident deer and the site is accessible to migratory deer. The impacts the site by of development of this site are minor because of the current use of neighbors and the intensity of use on adjacent parcels, 83-334 South Iioncut Creek Ranch: This was the largest parcel surveyed for this ETR. It contains excellent habitat for a wide'+ variety of wildlife species, including dear and turkey, The most critical habitats are the riparian areas along Honcut and in Tennessee Creeks. Major migratory paths and a feeding ;area exist the area 5; 6. The feeding -shelter area also extends r encompassed by lots 36, 37, 38, 4, ar,d tic eastern edges of lots 32 to 35. Evidence of both rcaident and migratory along deer u, a of the site was found during the surveys and confirmed by owners of for grazing of castle and adjoining properties, This property is also used seasonal horses; IDevelopment of the property as proposed by the current map would result in. the Interruption of migratory pathways and significant adverse effects because of elimination of significant feeding and shelter areas. Both deer and turkeys would be affected, 83.01 ,Armstrong, This property did show limited evidence of use by resident it impossible to judge migratory deer deer, but the absence of shrubs on the site made A wildlife trail crosses Marysville Road south of the property. Development of use. the nine units will have little effect beyond that caused by construction of a proposed single home on this parcel, Free-roalning house eats and dogs could create a significant effect because of the wildlife crossing south of this parcel, -37- 84-06 Sanford, of al: This property includes, and is surrounded by, excellent; wildlife habitat. It is distant from any occupied homesites. There is evidence of recol, and intensive use by resident deer and other wildlife. The impacts of this prolhot+. would be significant because they represent a new focus of development in till otherwise undeveloped area used by migratory and resident deer. 83.47 Enemas: This parcel contains good habitat, but only limited signs of ease by deer and other animals. The deer -proof fence Tong the eastern boundary pled Marysville Road on -the northern boundary, serve as effective barriers to wildlife movement. Development of this parcel would have insignificant impacts because of the presence of, barriers and free-roamingdogs. 83-367 Wright: This site contains excellent wildlife habitat, which will be improved by the recent burn; A limited riparian zone with good food, and shelter areas for a variety of wildlife species exists along Willow Glen Creek (Lots 1, 2, 3, 5. & 7} and the irrigaiton ditch. There is : ume evidence of deer use and cattle have been grazed on the site. Significant adverse effects could result if buildings were constructed too close to the "riparian area or to the deer crossing at the north end of the property. These impacts would be in addition to those resulting from development in and around. Collins lUake. 84-03 Butcher., This site has excellent habitat and there is evidence of use by migratory ,and resident; deer, as well as other wildlife. The property lies in an area . , that indicates extensive 'subdivision activity an past years. The presence of roads and. dusty vegetation indicates considerable "traffic in the area. Development of this parcel Would contribute to the cumulative adverse effects already occurring in and around Collins Lake and French Dry Creek, both of which are migratory pal,hways, 83-31iS Kane, et.al; This large parcel adjoins one owned by the same landowner. It contain!; all the necessary components for excellent habitat and there are signs of extensive use by resident and migratory deer and other wildlife, The best habitat occurs in lol:s 2 through 14. Development of this area would produce significant adverse effects as well as ci,Atributtng to the cumulative impacts of development in the area and county. home is by 83-02, Biladeau; This parcel already contains one and surrounded several offior residances. Although "there is evidence of use by resident deer, the impacts cawtmed by development of a second homesite are not sio eificant, 82.330 Bunt, et.al: This project is one of a series in the loop formed by Dolan Harding Road, The primary value of this land is that it serves as a feeding area for resident, deer, and possibly for any migratory deer that can penetrate the general area, Whip. the impacts of developing this site would be minor, they would be part of a curmulati�n loss of several thousand agues of prime wildlife habitat in a tr4;id al portion of the winter range of the Mooretown Herd, The DFG maps list the area as winter range only, presumably because of the problems already created by past development, 82,3.32 King: This project adjoins the preceding one, but is closer to Dolan 116rding Road and a cluster of very small lots. Although the area contains excellent habitat, heavy grazing by cattle makes it impossible to determine the extent of any use by deer. Because of this use pattern, any impacts from development would be consideredminor since the land has already lost much of its potential value as wildlife habitat, 82-329 L eCara This is one of a series of adjoining lot split proposals,along Sandy Lane. The site is an excellentfeeding area for both resident and migratory deer, Development of this site alone would Produce insiicantcontribute to the cumulative loss of habitat within the but c ntraall portion ofaYus, ba County. y 83-27 Zans: While this site provides excellent habitat for many small mammals and birds, there was l no evidence of use by deer. Development create no direct impacts of any significance but ould wildif,fe habitat in the area. would add to the cvmulatve loss of 82.331 King: This site contains excel migratory resident and m' .font habitat and evidence of use by deer and a wide variety of wildlife. Parcel 1s used as a 0urce of food, �dl9helter ontains the highest • wildlife values es because of the presence of water and shelter. Brush rabbits` during the and u survey. Development of a homesite on quail were observed impact, The real significance, however, adverse eof would be their umulative effects loss of high quality habitat. continued 82-333 King: This site is used by both resident and migratory deer as a. shelter, feeding; and water source area. The presence of the tibia of a fawn indicates that it may be part , F a resident deer fawning area. Deer had been browsing on the site on the day of the survey, This site provides excellent 1 residential sof co ve to Uses would add to the major cumulative impacts adevelopmnt rt, vicinity, vicinity. 83-52 Berney. A mobile ihoine pad has already been developed on this and there is an occupied house immediately to the north. A new road just south of this parcel contained tracks of many wildlife species, including deer, bobcat Although occupation • of the current building site would not add a and foxpacts. ny development on the second I,ot could. If the new homesite was located near thicalltle south edge of parcel 2 or dogs were not confined to thevicini access to French :Dry Creek could be blocked, ty of the homes, Wildlife t83-42 Moore: This parcel is used by resident deer asbedding seasonal feeding` .Excellent habitat a area, and for The building sites indicated on the $n exists on site,,construction parcel map would reduce: the possible impacts of of confined, The impacts of development would be minor, but mes, if ttowtile cumulative would contribute impacts of development in the central portions of the county. 83.48 �tilligoss: An occupied home already exists on contains excellent wildlife habitat and Parcel 2. Parcel Y still Provides Yearling, The combination of food, water, and shelter or at lissimoneportanteto oilparcel I area Wildlife, Habitat value increases towards the northeast corner of the Elimination of this habitat Would add heremenproposed parcel, in the area, tally to the loss of wildlife and habitat An 83.352 Lavalle: This rite shops signs of extensive modification in Past years, house exists on parcel 7, The eastern excellent- wldlife habitat and supports both reside Portion of the site contains of this ' resident and migratory deer. Development site, if ba"sod on the current map, would Produce significant adverse impacts upon local wildlife, as Well as adding to the cumulative impacts ountywide basis:, 84-373 Wilson: There is an existing house on lot 1 and another on the parcel to the west, Although the manzanita and tan oak are older shrubs; with lower nutrient value, there is evidence of recent deer movement through the site. Rine the residents seem to confine their dogs in this area, this parcel and surrounding} lan46 may provide shelter to resident deer, Development of another house would r rrte 4. minor impact and contribute to cumulative impacts, 83.345 Ingersoll: The area contains occupied homes, bvi. this site exceptionally high wildlife habitat the on east side of lots 1 and 2 which continues down to Dobbins Creek and the Yuba River. There is evidegyce of recent use by resident deer and prabable use by migratory deer. Development, of homes on this property would expand the developed area and add to cumulative impacts upon wildlife in the county. 84380 Cowden: This property shows signs of ,extensive :resident and migratory deer use. It is prime habitat, is and part of the range of at least one mountain lion. Development has already begun to occur in the area, and construction of hott-,.-fl on this site would add significantly to existing impacts. 83-46 Isaacson: Timber harvest an this and adjoining properties has itnPraved the area as wildlife habitat, An occupied 1 acre house site exists in the northern corner of this property. There was extensive evidence of ase by resident deer, ut none for migratory deer. A doe and fawn were observed in a thicket the near existing house. Development of this site would add to the habitat losses and redaction Lf wildlife that have already oco�tarred, 84.374 Plant: This site contains excellent wildlife habitat, especially the riparian zone along French Dry Creek. Resident deer are using the northern portions of the site as bedding and feeding areas, Lots 5through 10 contain evidence of deer movement and browsing, and there is a wildlife crossing from lot 2 to log:. b 7, and There is an occupied home on lot 4. Further development of this site would add to the significant adverse impacts already occurring to wildlife on a basis. local ak,d regional 84-382 Johnson: The site contains at least two occupied dwelling units and there are homes on adjoining parcels. The site contains excellent habitat and supports a wide variety of 'wildlife. There are he obvious signs of intensive resident deer use, but there are deer trails and signs of past browsing which indicate use b; migratory deer. Additional houses this on site would create significantadverse impacts on 'both a local and regional basis, The absence of local deer maybe due to poaching and free-roaming dogs. 84-175 Green, et, at.: The long absence of .fire from this: area has created large ar .:i of over-age brush with limited value as habitat for deer, homesitet, Ind fuel reduction to reduce wildfire hazards might actually crleaten somearig e habitat for resident deer, 83 3-4 Ingersoll: While this site contains excellent habitat, and supports some current rt,4i dept deer use, the amount of development in the vicinity limits the longterm , . sae to wildlife. Conversion to residential uses will add to the incremental loss of wl `afe habitat in this portion of the county., "40` r 83-31 Demas: An occupied house exists on parcel 'is 1. with additional development to the west. There evidence of use by resident doer, but none for migratory deer, Impacts from -�;acement of another house on the existing parcel are very, minor. 83-54 Barber, West: Although this area appears to be excellent deer habitat and supports There would a variety of small mammals and birds, there were no signs of deer use. appear to be no impacts deer from development on of the site, although there would be anincremental loss of habitat for other wildlife, Proper planning of a parcel or subdivision map to minimize impacts to wildlife cannot totally substitute for individual parcel review. Factors which should be considered when reviewing future parcel map applications include the following, 1. Location and Current size of parcel proposed for division, 2, Presence of occupied homes on or adjacent to a parcel of ten or fewer acres, 3. Average size of parcels surrounding the proposed project, 4 Location bf the parcel next to a major road, ' �42- MITIGATIONS MITIGATION MEASURES impacts The mitigation measures recommended to eliminate or reduce adverse include both direct measures to be applied to individual projects and measurea which involve amendments to the County's General Plan and Zoning 1*,,/,M1nance. The former are measures to provide, or provide for, habitat improvements to maintain tho same number of deer in a smaller total area, compensating for the area lost t.0 by largs homesite development. This can sometimes be accomplished directly parcel landowners. Those who cannot make direct improvements, or landowners of small parcels, should be required to contribute to a habitat improvement fund. More careful attention to subdivision design, particularly fence design and setbacks from shelter and food areas in critical winter and winter areas, can also reduce adverse impacts. is to reduce Stricter control of domestic dogs in foothill and mountain areas essential this source of predation.. Educating new, residents of the need to control dogs is preferable to strict implementation of a dog control ordinance, although 'measures in the latter are already enforced by livestock producers in most counties. (Appendix 5 contains a model dog control ordinance). It is important for Yuba County to establish criteria for protection of migratory deer and other wildlife as implementation measures in the Land Use and Open Space and Cons6rvation elements of the General Plan, This reaffirms the policies in both elements and provides clearer direction to landowners who wish to develop development that is sensitive to their lands in the future. Mechanisms which reward environmental conditions would provide for a "carrot" approach softening the effects of added conditions and fees. The alternative to fees or some sort of habitat replacement or improvement program is denial of any projectwhich impacts deer and other wildlife. The followin€, mitigation measures are recommended for projects within the 'may or two migratory deer areas of Yuba County. Some projects require only one mitigations, while others will require more, depending upon the site, location and type of subdivision proposed. Parcel divisions which incorporate environmentally sensitive design may be exempted from the review process for wildlife concerns if they meet. the following criteria for parcel review. ' Criteria for Parcel Review Proper planning of a parcel or subdivision map to minimize impacts to wildlife cannot totally substitute for individual parcel review. Factors which should be considered when reviewing future parcel map applications include the following, 1. Location and Current size of parcel proposed for division, 2, Presence of occupied homes on or adjacent to a parcel of ten or fewer acres, 3. Average size of parcels surrounding the proposed project, 4 Location bf the parcel next to a major road, ' �42- El The first factor, location and current size of the Parcel Proposed for division, is the primary one used by the DFG at present. If a parcel is already below the DFG recommended 20 acre minimum in winter range or 40 acre minimum in critical winter range, then it should be assumed to be already lost as migratory habitat. Parcels located within a developed community should be exempted from the need for further wildlife studies, even if in unincorporated ones such as Browns Valley, Camptonville, Loma Rica, etc. Parcel divisions at the edge of these communities, however, should still be subject to review. A list of these communities is given in Appendix 3. Existing parcel sizes of ten acres or less should be assumed to be of no long term value as habitat for migratory deer. The second factor is existence of occupied dwellinc units: on- and acliacent to a parcel of ten or fewer acres. Continuous human use of a site, and the very probable presence of dogs, reduces the value of a site for any wildlife not tolerant of man and dogs, According to DFG criteria, the presence of two or more dwelling units within 500 feet of a parcel, by DFG criteria, can also be assumed to decrease the value of a site, The third factor is the 6veraO size of parcels surround the proposed land division, If these are already below the minimum sizes recommended by DFG, then they are probably already lost as migratory deer habitat but should still be reviewed for assessment of mitigation fees. The fourth factor is location adjacent to a road carrvina more than 1,000 motor vehicles Per day, In the rural portions of Yuba County, these roadways constitute major transportation corridors, providing access to developed areas, and serving as partial barriers to deer movement. Although wildlife crossings should be protected, development should be encouraged along major roads leaving any larger n''erior parcels between roads undeveloped. These factors must be used together to evaluate parcels for further field. stumes or exemption from them. No single factor, other than further subdivision of a lot within an already developed community, would be enough to exclude subdivision or lot split proposals from further review. Projects which do not qualify for Oxemption, using the criteria listed above, will be subject to one or more mitigation measures in the following categories. 1, Subdivision and Parcel Map Design 2. Barrier Design and Modifications 3. Habitat Improvement 4: Mitigation Fees V 44- Subdivision and. Parcel Map Design If development is to take place, one way to minimize its effect on wildlife is of 1,000 foot 6001 through subdivision and parcel map design, Minimum setbacks as migratory corridors and fawning areas are nece"00, critical habitat areas such except in more densely vegetated sites, In large parcel proiects, 100 acres or more, 1L is possible to develop building sites and envelopes which reduce impacts upon wildlife on smallor pareold while still retaining densities of one unit per five or ten acres. through the parool to food, some mitigation is possible by provision of adequate access water, or shelter areas, Our surveys indicate that there is still adequate access to water supplies It, to encroach too close to perennial most areas, although some homes have been allowed access. We recommend a minimum 250 foot building streams, cutting .off wildlife envelope setback for any year-round stream. For French Dry Crook allows wildlife well as one t and portions fe Creek at least, this is a safety measure as Tennessee also Shelter areas can al o be protected Witt' access to water during the summer months, of 200 feet as well as sating buildings to avoid critical shelter wareas. minimum setbacks Subdivisions can be designed to minimize their impacts upon Natural resources, be if the resources are considered at the design stage. Building envelopes can allowable densities, while designated which allow development of homes at maximum and retaining shelter areas. Another design providing corridors for wildlife passage mitigation is clustering 'homestes on the least environmentally sensitive portion of the site. The potential for clustering development would have to be determined on a use by wildlife. In 111811Y project -by -project basis, based on parcel characteristics and also for lower development costs and reduced costs for cases clustering provides county services. It is more efficient to serve large numbers of people who live individual housesi widely -separated i els arty, clustered houses can more to each other than to serve tem and easily provide for a central water sysres, adequate water storage :for fighting fiCluster development, however, requires more planned project than design skills to produce an economical and aesthetically many developers are not willing to pay for the expertise conventional subdivisions and there is little market information on the need for planned required, Moreover) developments, although some of those noted in 'Yuba and Nevada counties seem to be `initial site sold out or nearly sold out. The increased cost of surveys and detailed density achievable in many cluster and planned design is usually offset by the greater ' unit developments, Conditions, Covenants and Deed Restrictions (CC&Rs) should be required of all that the mitigations new subdivisions in areas used by migratory deer to ensure below a level of significance are maintained, The most required to reduce impacts form of dog control in rural areas is neighbor enforcement of CC&Rs, It is effective impossible for animal. control officers to police rural areas and the recommended when tuts extensioh of laws allowing shooting of dogs harassing wildlife is not possible are 40 acres or smaller, 44- r Z, Barrier Des' and lfications reservoirs, roads, deer -Proof fences and rows of houses he Barriers include There are standard measures for reducing the small lots along roadways and streams. impacts of most barriers,except rese��voirs. dO ot become to serve subdivision and parcel occupied splits and sadditi naln txaf cs Roads necessary are built and a pAXIy CRO$sING" or"DEER significant barriers until homes ple mi igation of 'posh on Public roads can reduce generated. The relative] heavily used crossing points CROssING" sib and DF`G deer•vehiole accidents: Location of these signs would mbanb®e�cfl nof£iceras of the would be Placed at known deer crossings and areas in which Count�t's Public .Worker Department, the local Caltrans Warden Perrault. They significant numbers of deer -vehicle c°1lisions occur- s is somewhat more difficult, ence Establishing criteria for exterior fence arise a that their right to the recommendation is more acceptable when people reco large noroages and across immediate area around their un ere is a noparate issue. The off their gardens and the - roof fences aro s aro of five or fewer area of concern is the use of deer -proof strands should average at loast 16 inches above the critical 'deer migration corn Bottom strands Recommended fence des inches hove mound level. Some. strands of barbed• got This type of fence ground, and the top strand should be no more in most livestock, and does not vart.ata on must be allowed to accouna for c,vwilltlkeepin topography' sheep or hogs then serves as an .adequate boundary m eater than seriously impar mage movement of deer. If new residents keep ed els hogwire fences be allowed, but should be dens animal penes ndchomes'ites would allowed by County Ordinance. ten acres. The design of fences around include anything currently . s on the ,northern edge of the county, eshaccurate th�e31 the. The migratory route should ensure that no The County are based on a numbs on thesouthernboundarnes considered ° atony corridor. single series of traces based on s f or deer are assumed to be 108 Inge lots, smaller prod acts with lots of less than. 40acresare Pieced aC��rosfi �� migr Minimum widths of migratory con There area few areas where information provided by i the • corridor, No new sub pond aper ved smallevisions should be r parcels than 40 acres lie in a migratory homes as Yet, it may be adjacent lands, This will allow the deer to detour ar nce'the ,projects lying in the corridors do net contain many St deer to 'develop an alternate route in the vicinity of the old possible for migratory route, if open space is available. g, Habitat Improvement deer by neer deer P°Pulati"ns. This is done by It is possible to reduce the impacts of lost habitat for migratory improving other areas to support larger, de imp rovemnti areas is food supplies a�uring tt►sa dense and nter and deter mining those factors that currently limit deer numbers and mc, lwn when possible, A critical factor in many areas in the hove gr Sierra fonthiands the $normal g�ti fir covering Of spring months, In many ends, The normal sequence of fire reg high that .the deer cannot reach sproutingov�de the necessary ford supply= grasses and f oOccurs too615 is lihfee4ilentlY to p interrupted or X45 1 Use of controlled burns or mechanical crushing of brush can open up dense, overaged brush fields, providing a supply of more suitable feed for five or more years. It is desirable to burn areas as completely as possible to eliminate fuel for future wildfires and to ensure germination of dormant seeds, The, ideal Otuation is to provide clearings of ten to fifty acres, with shelter areas at the edio of each. clearing. Burning too large an area, however, can adversely affect deer by greatly separating their shelter and feeding areas. Burning in strips produces nn ideal situation for continuous management of an area for wildlife habitat, but requiras 'Treater control to achieve, and is therefore more expensive. Improvements to habitat can be conducted on site or on another parcel owned or controlled by the persons or group proposing a parcel map or subdivision. Habitat improvement within the boundaries of a parcel proposed for division is limited to those landowners with large parcels. It is not practical or effective for projects involving. 100 acres or less, Parcels of 160 acres or larger are more suitable for onbsite habitat Improvements as a mitigation measure. 4. Mitigation Nees The practice of off -setting environmental damage by Improving areas not. connected to a project site is used at both state and federal levels. These offsite improvements are used for many different kinds of impacts, including loss of wetlands,. increased traffic congestion, air quality dc.—rad.-tion, and increased demands for school classrooms or recreation space. Mitigation may be accomplished by physical. construction or providing land or money for these offsite improvements. Since most development proposals in Yuba County involve relatively small parcels or utilize most of the area involved, it is impractical to provide for mitigation measures on site or on other property owned by project proponents. There are a few subdividers in Yuba County, however, who do own large parcels or multiple parcels and can provide for mitigations on site or on a similar parcel elsewhere in the county. These subdividers should be considered independently and allowed to provide for habitat improvements directly, subject to review and approval by the County and DFG For most subdividers or builders; however, there is no practical way to provide habitat improvements directly, and collection of a 'fee for habitat improvement elsewhere can serve to mitigate ,impacts from development of their lands. The proposed fee schedule is based upon location of the proposed land division within winter or critical winter range, size of parcels proposed, and estimated effects of development patterns upon migratory, deer. Fees increase with requests for smaller parcel sizes and the resulting increase in intensity of impacts. Every subd;vision of a larger parcelinto smaller ones would incur an impact fee. 5ihce construction and occupation of a house inc=-)axes impacts significantly more than just the subdivision of land, fees have been divided into one impdaed at the parcel map 'stage and a second at the building permit stage. This provides for _a distribution of mitigation measures according to the benefit received, In conformance with Proposition 13, these fees are not related to the value of a new parcel or building, but to the impacts created and the need to mitigate them. (See Table 2,) 46 TABLE 2 SCHEDULE OE RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES w Existing Parcel Size Proposed Lott Parcel Map Size*. *. Stage Bu "d ng Permit Stage fr' , Critical Winter Winter 40+ 40+ acres 40 scree .. ,rrw 20 acres$ 10 $150 7 5 $250 $150 $175 r� acres $300$250 $ acres $250 $350 $300 5350 $350' acres 20 acres 10 acres $250 5120. 5 at -rot $300' $200 S250 $350 $240 $350 $350 10-19.9' acres 10 acres 5 $ $ 65 acres $ 9(i S 75 5265. $255 Pees WoU1d be assessed againet each new lot Proposed. 4 7.� s No fees would be acres at the time of the asBessed for subdivision of lots the minimum size forProposed additional split, which 'woro five or fewej� are considered alrea lsta.supporting migrato �°� cf this siza pro already below dy last as deer, and indeed for most Oro alr deer, to deer habitat, ki No :fees should. be a ten acres, unless such °assessed for division of e not within a parcels are outside of xised parcels that ore less than charged. Communityataeaso eco end d a designated communit Appendix 3, then the building Y area, D ould are for exemption Permit fee should be, from fees are included in . It is - cognized that es disbursement %: funds incurs employee tmeet of s fee schedule and The County m time and othep expenses the collection and compensation for may to collect. 15.20 of se added costs, the habita.tnot currently required, improvinent fee as All ironies collected in this fund by the County Program would be . With the County for habitat imps Would a dispersed and >o Placed in a special enterprise dispersed to landowners Who The landowners would conduct aintenance for signed an California De a brush Depart of clearing program ora minimum of 5 Years, from the impact iee fundFwoul ben their brush participate upon improvements had been Paid to management (burn) with the overate made, Participating lar. Wners Program' Monies eed brush would have to be Parcels ac after the agreed Participatingproposed for enhancement by burning of parcels aggregatin a minimum of 200 because of the higher g 200 or res, or adSacent to other per acre costs of b burning small This minimum is recommended If the Board of Supervisorsg !Haller parcels, Part of this L'IR, a adopts the cones t the amount of landowner that contributed to this should be c fees 'already impactfee schedule as landowners have i paid, against the redited with their contribution should bea recogn the 1111at,e costsparcel split Impact the fees, These Landowners M, Problem; and large (100+ acres ho use cluster development concepts space should ) Parcels, leaving 60% or get a discount of u more of theiras Part of their planning for Protection included in theirP to 50 depending upon the Party it undivided open should get a discou^It u f 40% plan, Subdividers with degree of environmental Property and avail ccnstructon the parites cels betwei.n Q0 and 100 Within riparian and de r sheltern � acres 5% or less of their The consultants recognize that thea areas, impact fees from Count y staff as will be Objections to the establishment of sOJne mitigation well as the It trust be eco of Parcels below 40'�sure is not Public, used to offset the impacts of gnized that if lotas Within acres, the only to is dental of f f -'Ohs winter range areas, Since mitigation fees �ontinued land division funds; received for habitat P producing smaller produce significant management (for range would be in addition mitigation for lands lost to develo or fire su n to the state PPressionj, they could development, 48- - General Plain and Zoning Amendments to the General flan and additions or revisions to the Zoning Ordinance are not mitigations, but actions which reduce the 'need for mitigat.ionp, Revision of the Land Use. Element aad updating of the Conservation and Open Spaoo Element are necessary to make the Luba County General flan consistent within itself, Recognition of the extend of the lost; of wildlife habitat, recognition of lands already lost because of prior approvals and development, and policies and implementation. measures to insure no further losses of prime and essential wildlife habitat should, be incorporated as of part the revisions. The County should develop an overlay zone fo areas used migratory deer as winter range. This zone would include standard prose r riparian, shelter, fawning, and feeding; areas prnmigratvisions for protection of Protection requirements for b � of migratory corridors, and perimeter fencing, Planned 'unit developments would be required for all new residential uses in winter range areas outside of designated communities The requirements of this overlay zone would serve as a standards .for design professionals, and ensure that County standardsuwere ide met bdiviniota Summary of Mitigation Measures Minimum setbacks of 1,000 feet from critical habitat areas such as migratory corridors; and areas ,fawning are necessary, except in more densely vegetated sites, s Adequate access Through parcels to food, water, or shelter areas should be provided, e A minimum '250 focit building envelope setback should be established for any year-round ' stream. Shelter areas shoWd be protected with minimum setbae;, , of 200 feet as well as siting buildings to avoid critical shelter areas, • Homesites should be clustered on the least environmentally sensitive Portion of the site, "ANIMAL s CROSSIriI'," or "DEER CROSSING" signs should be posted at heavily used crossing. pnints on public roads, . r • Fence design recommendations; five or fewer strands of barbed wire, With bottom isteands at least 16 inches above the ground and top strands no moat; than 40 inches above the ground, 0 No prolects with 1,01ts of 'less than 40 acres should placed across any migratory corridor: e Habitat • improvtemEsnts should be conducted on site or on another parcel owned or controlled by the applicant(s) proposing a map or subdivision, Parcel 6 Collectgon of ,a fee for offsite; habitat improvements, —�19W r t 0 :MITIGATION. MEASURES..FOR RROP OSED PROJRCTS The following mitigations are recommended for the survey. The mitigations are specific for migratory deer, but have applications wildlife and implement the pro)eots included in this general mitigations policies of the Open Space and Conservation Element. The peviously Iisted also apP13,. This first group of four projects are those with minimal impacts four would have been excluded from surveys if used the criteria for Y County staff and D G reviewers e of had require parcel review recommended in this EIR. These Payment of a fee at the building stage, or in the ;`ase of the 40 rachet prewould lacy: fees at parcel division and building stages, 83.02 Biladeau: Mitigation fee required when building permits are issued. 83-31 Demes; Mitigation fee required when building permits are i. $3-47 Encinas: Mitigation fee re issued, Permits are issued, required at map approval stage and when building 84.373 Wilson; Mitigation fee required when building permits are 'issued, This next group consists of basis, but whose approval would add p incrementally rojects to the cumulative impact, minimal impacts an an individual migratory .deer and oth �r wildlife, Mitigation fees would 'be required, buthere is pno need for design changes in the maps. 82.329 LeCara: Mitigation fee "required at map approval stage and w Permits are issued, when building 82.330 Hunt, et.ah Mitigation fee building permits are issued, required at map approval stage and when 82.332 King: Mitigation fee required at map approval stage Permits are .issued. g and when building Pani Armstrong; Mitigation fee required at. map approval stage Permits are issued, age and when building 83.27 Zaps; :Mitigation fes required at map approval stage.. and who permits are issued, n building 83-42 Moore: Mitigation fee requiCed. at map approval stage Permits are issued, and vyhen building 83.46 Isaacson: Mitigation fee required at map approval stage Permits are issued, and when building 83.54 Barber, West., Mitigation fee required at map e building permits are issued, approval stage and when so- i 7 n n r 7 83.344 INAM0,,11: Mitigation fee required at map approval stago and when building permits ate k: ued. 83-366 'uaenger: Mitigation fee required at map approval and building permit stages. 84-03 Dutch:.r: Mitigation fee required at map approval stage and when building permjl are `I�asued, 84-37; Greer:,et.ai: Mitigation fee required at map approval stage and when buile ng permits are issued. The third group of projects are those with evidence of significant deer use. Proper placement of homesites is necessary to reduce potential adverse impacts. Maps showing the critical habitat areas are on file with the County Planning Dopartment, 81•;;,8 Hilligoss Mitigation fee required at reap approval stage and when building permits are issued. The new building site is to be as close to the Frowns Valley Irrgation District ditch as practical, 8 ., 52 Bern jy: Mitigation fee required at map approval stage and when building permits are. issued. The new homesite envelope should be as close as possible to the north odge of the parcel and the existing mobile home pad. 8'? -345 Ingersoll; Mitigation fee required at map approval stage and when building permits are issued. Building sites for lots I and 2 should be as close to their western lot lies as feasible, 33-367 Wright: Mitigation fee required at map approval stage and when building permits are issted, Building setbacks of at least 250 feet from Willow Glen Creek__ should be included in site designs, Homesites should be located near Marysville. and Willow Glen Roads. This fourth group of projects- have the greatest potential to create adverse impantts because of their site and/or location. 'These projects require redesign of the para+,:l or subdivsion map to reduce adverse impacts. On an individual basis, these projects could create significant impacts as well - as contribute to cumulative impacts upon, migratory deer, Maps identifying the most sensitive areas are on file with the County Planning Department, 82.331 King: Mitigation .fee required at map approval stage and when building permits are issued. The building site on lot 1 should be as close as possible to the property line of lot 2, or the subdivision map should be redesigned to increase the size of lot 1. This would increase the distance between the areas of better habitat and the :future homesite. Building setbacks from the adjoining creek should be at least 250 feet, 8243.3 King: Mitigation fee required at map approval stage and when building permits are issued, The Subdivision map should be redesigned to avoid the prime: habitat areas on lots 2 and 4, -13,1- subdivision map should be redesigned to Greek Ranch: The subdi Mitigation fee, required Ot South 'Honcut Cre 5, 6, 3f), 37, and 38• If the Proponents can 83.334 sites on lots 4, permits are issued, that exclude building and whell building P and shelter areas °n site, guilding map approval stage at both Minim stages. building develop Plans to Protect credits ageinsaemitigat o f ees 30, Minimum given Par the for lots 32 through • should be � near the roadTennessee Creeks should be 250 feot. envelopes should be r South Honcut and envelope setbacks from approval stage and when building ed at map pP ed to produce greater 83.352 l„avalles Mitigation fee required should be redesigned the proporty, The subdivision map the eastern edge permits are issued, from clustering of residential units away approval ,stage and when wired at map ed to provide et.als Mitigation fee req should be redesigned 2 through 83.365 Kane, The subdivision ma es scally those in building permits are issued. P Tera Crook' If clustering away of 250 feet from T ..from the critical habitat areas, development -free wildlife a minimum as a buildings should be setback in, parcel then a reduction in 14, will maintain his a Ou' b p this landowneron a signed agreement with the County, habitat area, based d allowed. building mitigation fees should be approval stage and when being on the largest parcel site orris tion fee required at map PP 84.06 SaJnf Mitigation are to 1)e based issued. Fees permits are should be redesigned to incorporate cluster development. affected. The Parcel map approval stage and when building t least Mitigation f ee required at map PP Creek should be s sites on 84-374 Plant: Building setbacks fromrenched to exclude binding permits are issued. should be redesign 250 feet: The subdivision map lot 2 and lots 5 through 16. when building fee required at map approval stage and 84 380 Cowdens 'Mitigationsion map should be redesigned to enhance clustering permits envelopes b'iivi of building issued, The su approval stake and when us`eaing 4.382 Johnsons should be redesigned to ,promote of 8 Mitigatipn fb� Tequlred at map PP permits are issued: She division map of development area r 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 Implementation of the recommended mitigatj0,ns on barrier design, setbacks from sensitive areas, and improvement of winter habitat areas used b Yuba County, can mitigate some of the impacts of increasing residentialmigm Y migratory deur within foothill and mountain areas of the county, Since it is liking that some a all use within the measures may not be implemented, the following adverse impacts can be expected, of these v Numbers of doer in the Mooretown and Downieville deer herds will continue to decline in proportion t to the amount of blocked by development the wintor feeding area eliminated or County, winter and critical winter areas within Yuba • There will be a decline in local e of man and domes adaptable to the presenctic animals, ionswilife ldspecies not a The rural lifestyle of residents in the foothill and mountain " county will be impacted by increased numbers of areas of reducing the qualities that attracted those residents in °the first automobiles, HiEnough subdivision of land has no direct irreversible impacts, the construction and occupation of houses tends to create migratory deer herds through elimination of the,, mane t e f ec ng are irreversible, since resident deer have aIrea v Elimination of the the species wo as is essentially d been eliminated from mdny local areas, uld be eliminated from the .county,. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The primary impact of the current development pattern is a cumulative Of loss of built and occupied, there is less land available 11s uncomm,tted open space Presence, As more homes are preservat,un of natural resources, loll development in the foothill and mountain. are of the county hag had an incrementally significant effect that has bead P for the adverse for wildlife and the rural lifstyle of existing residents, as me cumulatively CROWTii :INDUCING IMPACTS The current patterns of land division in Yuba County are , direct and indirect bests, Parcels mtsy be developed by the original porches be further subdivided to allow for „;owth inducing on a may possible, if lands were maintained as 1 large numbers of homes than would haveer been parcels, makes them more .affordable to a wider number of The creation of smaller their parcels until they reach the minimum allowed by the Oounty, As t parcels small people, who may he number of parcels increases, to does the potential for construction and occupation of permanent homes. Year-round 53� 1 1 1 1 1 1 COST BENEFITS OF RESIDENTIAL 'DEVELOPMENT AND WILDLIFE PROTECTION In discussions regarding preservation of wildlifehabitat versus residential development, the concept of increased county revenues from new construction is often brought up. Proponents of this concept ignore the costs of ;providing public services to new developments and residents. If funds are not available for providing additional services, a common post -Proposition 13 Problem, then existing residents suffer a further reduction in the levels and availability of existing services, particularly, those of school districts, the Sheriff's Department, Department of ,Health, and Department of Public Warks maintenance and reconstruction activities. Even conversion of grazing lands to large lot subdivisions, with elimination of grazing on most lots, creates a significant increase in the potential for wildfires; This is not to say that a properly designed Provide a not revenue gain to the Bounty, but e u ual manner of land ubd vision constructed suivision in the county, particularly parcel map divisions of previously approved lots, can result in significant deficits once a small house is built or a mobile herno emplaced. In most rural counties, it takes an increase in assessed valuation to over $120,000 to cover county service costs for a new home. The value must be higher still if the homes are dispersed, rather than concentrated, because of increased travel time by county employees, especially the Fire and Sheriff's departmen Public Health, ts, Public Warks, Planning, and Any delays in sales and full buildout of lots in foothill subdivisions can Produce a significant increase in fire hazards, Typically, as saun as the subdivision is approved and the :first lot(s) sold, any grazing or timber harvest activitiRs cease; Grass and brush grow at a rapid rate, Producing thick stands of grass over five feet high in one or two years and dense undergrowth in open or second growth woodlands, These Produce an excellent source of fuel for wildfires. As soon as a single house is built in the area, fire fighting must focus on control rather than containment to Potential loss of .lives .andere Prevent the currently ma houses and mobile homes in Yuba County that are Property. adjacent to or are surrounded by dense, overage brush and/or high grass, This creates a I need for very rapid response and control of wildfires, which is both expenpive and more conducive to subsequent, more dangerous fires. Scattnred development, with access roads; also provides more opportunities for undetectable poaching of deer and other wildlife, as well as burglary of homes, both of which are serious problems in foothill areas, There is only limited information on th spent by he value of migratory deer and monies wildlife has. been in Yuba County, Most of the economic information produced on been focused on waterfowl and pheasant hunters, however, circulates through the community retail sector, Any money spec, without a significant cost to. the county, George Goldman, a University of California Cooperative Extension Economist analyzed state-wide hunter survey information the Cooperative Extension at IT,G. Davis, provided by Lee Fitzhugh of approximately $300,000 annually in increased dollar flows, It one that odds quail rand�turkey e hunt,nr generated dollars,, the total is almost $650,000 in Yuba County, Thus; 2,500 to 3,000 hunters provide income to support the eggivaleht of nineteen full -bine Gobs annually, There are, of. course, costs associated with vandalism and trespass by .. careless, unthinking huylters, but relatively few of these costs are incurred by the c aunty, 54- construction The real comparable is the income from monies undoubtedly �m torat n►� ved from subdivision and development. of land, While these income to the County's economy es s for The cgood onstruction, they lso of more establish e pensivethe ounits,�which increased demands for public is occurring in some areas, tdhowevarand oWidespreacc antly eeven paroolo iwithonefexp�ensivo development. This trend iso homes are being Proposed for subdivision into smaller lots. 4 e ALTERNATIVES The alternatives_ avialable for this project are limited by the nature and scope of the project. Adoption of the No Project alternative would leave the County open to legal challenges on the projects considered in this EIR, as well within the as future projects areas considered by the Department of Fish and Game to be winter range Of' migratory deer. Many of the mitigation measures necessary to eliminate or reduce impacts be subdivide low a level of significance will be `unpopular with landowners }heir land. To avoid further delays in who wish to processing land division proposals, to have inc;,,, ded an alternative of interim measures, to be carried out basis, if on an emergency enactment of county ordinances is necessary. Alternative I. No Project_ The: No Project alternative is the only one whose consideration required by Is I , CL�QA. With this alternative, the County's actions would be confined ' denying all. projects which impact migratory deer populations or other wildlife. Most of the projects included in this study Would be denied. Projects which did not impact deer and wildlife, including those with design project modifications and those which provided for habitat improvements on land adjoining or in the approved. vicinity of the project could be Adva—.ntages: No revisions of zoning requirements or amendments to the General Plan would be enacted, The County would establish no new measures for protection of wildlife, particularly migratory deer, leaving the establishment of conditions Department deer o other f Fish andto the diiGame, Landowners whose projects did not produce impacts would go through .the current processing procedures. 104isr,r1vntages: The County would have to establish that the Departmant of Fish and Game was in error, from late 1983 to date, in denying mitigations for the land divisions held ;ufor this reo�ild study, Cor The be vulnerable to legal action on the basis of inconsistencies withinand between elements of the Yuba County General Plan, which contain policies requiring protection of the county's natural resources, The Department of Fish . and Game would begin to regulate land dtvelopment in the' foothill and. tnauntain areas, at the expense of local controls, This alternative would hmt the greatest potential adverse impacts, . Adoption Of Alternative 2 Interim Measures ivisiQns, Followed Proposed Land D To Allow Conditional. Approval Of 13Y Amendm _ And Zoning Ordinances eht Of The General Plan The County would begin Processing the Projectsconsidered in this. Elia ad the applicable recommended mitigation ' ding mr measures, New projects world be essed in the same way. County staff would begin to revise the Land Use Conser'vatation and Open space and elements, as well as the zoning ordinance, This revisedbe to include measures ruseaean for 'wildlife protection, possibly through ofovlerlkv zone requiring specific conditions for Projects Within this r; designated 'winter and critical winter migratory deer range areas, The County should require that all ' Pro,lects within. 1 this area of concern be filed as Planned Unit Developments significant impacts upon wildlife that, no 1 now are created; includingcumulative) linpacts A significant part of the process is definition of those Opoas impacte alrea by prior approvals and which can no longer be considered longi term wildlife habitat These are areas in which subdivision of land below 20 and 40 acres has already been approved and in which issuance of building permits are ministerial. actions. The should also designate County as permanent wildlife resource areas any large land holdings outside of the currently impacted areas as well as those designated Timber Preserve, An overlay zone would prevent further subdivision of these lands development. for residential Lands adjoining the existing communities might have residential reserve areas created, through revisions 1 in the General Plan Land Use Element, to allow for future growth if building lots the foothills and mountains ever become scarce, Advant—ages, si .. This alternative would allow processing of the suspended projects, as well as new projects, in the foothill and mountain areas of the county. Increased consideration would be given, on -a systematic basis, to particularly migratory deer, Projects sensitive to the environment wouldobeoall wledl to proceed on a more rapid basis, accordui the number of mitigated. t Permanent protection would be �o conditions met and 8 van to those, survival of the migratory deer herds to the that use the county as winters rannecessary e. residential development reserves would allow future development echof current supply of lots became too low, opportunities if e Disadvantages; Many landowners seeking to subdivide land object 'to any new conditions, es;iecially those which require payment of fees. Some landowners would no longer be allowed to subdivide at will. Prices would increase for existing lots and those allowed to develop, reducing the availability of rural building sites to those unable to afford the higher le there disadvantages to this riCounty decsi alternative, n makers would be ub'ect tonstro al local political Pressures. ng APPENDIX 1 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED County of Yuba Community Services Department Larry Brooks, Director (Juno 1984 -present) Richard Floch, Director (ppovloos) Craig Hall, Senior 'Planner Nick Pascoe, Planner State of California Department of Fish and Came Paul Jensen, Regional N,lnager Jerry Mensch, Environmoiltal Services Robert Mapes, Biologist Ron Perrault, Warden Walt Kammerer, Biologist (retired) University of California E. Lee Fitzhugh, Wildlife Specialist Extension George Goldman, Economist id U.S. Department of Aarlculture Soil Conservation Service Ernest D, Paschke, 'District Conservationist Forest Service Art Rohrbacher, Biologist Local Residents (providing specific information Sue Bennett on migratory routes) Mrs. Gerber Roy Landerman -Max Donor 4 APPENDIX 2 BIBLIOGRAPHY' California Department of Food and Agriculture, 1977. Baseline Information Draft EIIR on The Use of Restricted Pesticides Yu_'t,& Count t1On Seotion tai by Eco -Analysts: v i;omnonent, preparod California Department of Water Resources. Ear-_ th-q—W' a Investi ations, Bulletin 208.78, 1 79' The Aust 7, J97S Orovill � California Division of Mines and Geology. ,5afet of th�liurn�site, `Special Publc ation 5479. rhnical Review. of the Seism"C California Native Plant Society.: 1980. Invent°rvRare and E Plattts of California. a" c. ed ._Vascular Eberhardt; Lester E., E -E, Hanson, and L.L. Cadwell, 1984. Patterns jof Mule Deer in the Sagebrush•Steppe Region", Journal of Mammalo "Movement and Activity 65(3);404.9 Q9, Fitzhugh, H, Lee. 1983, "Feeding Strategy of Deer", U.C. Extension Handout, 10 , Fitzhugh, E. Lee and E.R, Doman," Pp Managed," U.C. Extension HandoutN6 pp What is Deer Habitat and low Can it be Keyes, Dale 1., 1976, Land Develoa` $ind the Natural. Im+_ acts. Environment; Esti►natin Longhurst, William M., A:S. Leopold, and. R.F, !^ Deer Herds Their Range Dasmann. 1952, A 'Barye and Management Problems, Department of Fish and Game Bulletin lNo 6. Miller, Frank L. 1970, ";Distribution OfBlac k-tald Deer °ala --nus) in Relation to Environment," Journal ofl Mammalo " (Odochem, Tonus pileus 51(2), 248.249, Handout, ", pp, Savage, Robert E, and E.L. Fitzhugh,. ND, "Life and Death of Deer," U.C. Extension Smith, David', ND, "The. Day :Deer Hard, LaIld Use Problem;, and Re Habitat Protection Through ?ening," unpublished rosearch commendations for Department of Fish and Game. paper, Region I, SO') Conservation Service, California", U,B, Departments of''Agri Agriculture, unpubli hedand areport aSOO nd p, Yuba County, r Storer, Tracy I, and R,Y,,. Usiniler, 1966, Sierra_ Nevada Natural Hfs alp" ■ of California Press, University University of California, Davis, 1969, Soi`1s o_f_the Yuba. Area Califon Urban hand Institute, 1918..Residential Develo ment Handbook, nia" r =59- Verner Jared and A.S.gas, (Technical Coordinators); 1980, their Habitats; Western Sierra Vevada, Geheral Technical Report PSW-37, 439 ornia Wildlife a,.� rA Wallma, Olaf C„ Editor. Pp. Universityof 1981• Mu---1e ---And Black. ailed Nebraska Press.. Dear Of HortAmerl.� Yuba County, 1973. 0 en S ace and Conservation >rlemen Yuba Count t. y. 1981 La_n., d _Use E_ t� ement Yuba. County, 1984. Zonir.� . 11:1.�0rd�ee. -5n- APP ENDI:X 3 MNCORPO.RATED COMMMTIES ;IN YUBA COUNTY The unincorporated communities of Yuba County are listed development arta boundaries are indicated bOIOW� County Community on maps on established boundar boundaries. Department, Projects Their file. w` file vd th the Yulra ofDevelopment recommendations of this EIRy of these communities are wildlife habitat, ; as they are excludedWf oim tthe he considered to be already ,lost as Browns Valley Brownsville CamptonviIle Challenge Dobbins Loma Rica Oregon House 1 Rackerby Strawberry Valley woodleaf 1 RV APPENDIX 5 MODgL DOGCONTROL ORDINANCE FOR 12007f'IIILL AREAS z+ The Provisions of undeveloPed, or very this ordinance mountains of Yuba County, w shall apply to the unincorporated, density residential areas in II; In an foothills and �' instance in which a do Pursuing deer, except g °r dogs are observed mom' 'kill the P as noted in Section III;. the killing, wounding or Person killing such do person observing g or do shall be g this action dog, No •3ation, civil or criminal maintained , IIT, The provisions 4F d against n Sections I and IY shall not appy to arq, of the f s' Any area. within the ollowing.. corporat residential area e "'nits of with let sizes of less than $�' city Ar or b, an three i3? acres. Within any Prescribed Any dogs bning used for the purpose hunting seasons. of lawful : deer hunting during C. Dogs in the immediate presence The dog must be in clolr and under direct control of the owner, demonstrate effective contt�ol of the dog, ProxiadtY to the owner and IT, The the owner must Provisions of this trespass, Of do Sact do not Provide legal Permission to g mom' be shot g reason for unauthori he 'on the property, only by Persons zed with s right. or All shooting incidents - offending do s s occurring under this including dog( 1 are slot, should' be Provision Departtrtenf of Fish and Game whethor or not the reported to local law enforcement officials .Personnel, �63. rt ir' ��� •' o f Y R� � F aIITI, I I � Irl Idrr r r� roti l+fr a I '� `u� �i r � ' I• '. irk l; r I I 4fi '1 1 err 1 ti'r li s r i a 1` 1r � r,"" .• ���� r r I r� 1 I � 11 1 �� fi :a I � I I r; r v r, 11 1 v r �+ 1 i uilry MII F h r . I I I �'•,},� 11 r I I I I if rJ t y y I V'.il I rrt f 1 11a U} •.1 I o'� dl t �°�' 1� I � 1C 1 I �'P 11 � t I�I � � ,�5 I 1 ,• i ; y� f sr 1.r r I ,I l iia 1 r I y � I L 1 Iy{ lid i �r I II ti p I'�, y i I I I- 1 r 11 I 1 .1 ' � r �II r! � I r I q r + r � II � .` fat '' it i1 I � r! s. I +1 1 I r y • I r r I 1 r • 1 y _ - r i I I ,r� s °'� ! �- 4 1.• .a f I '� i r is It � I I r Pr r � r 4 F� �9 I f �1� I 1,111 Yat I �.. •� 4 I 1 I i ,. �,I 1 I. t y rr 1,� 1 r � X,<F 1.7. rl� u I •�` I I1.4 a 14 r I �I Ir i }I I I r 1 - 4 II t•. � r �a 1 1r n I 1 •? 1 '� _ I l� iyl � a _ lrrr ll•�1 11 I 1 a y 1 n I��Jr I -,) II it I I 41 I I I 1' I r I t� I»* . r 111 1j1,$ r I" ' tt'r 7 I t ry 1 I i rIIf,r y r. 1. 1 } [ ri 'fl I � u I,�I '. I� I I 11p ��' •1 I, ,1 r I 1 1 1 �� 111 410 1 i I li 1 1 1 h 1 S I I al r 4 I 1 T I; Ir Id I i r r r 1 ! tr r: IIry1 4�. I •'1 • IIr 1r rr �,i 111 41 v. 11 1 I i ?; r A - It 1 1 I I 1 1 n r J r I4 . : 1 rt 1 I 11 ill ) 11 1 J 1 I I I • I � I 4 1a r.. I s ; t c i ", it1 �I I I I I � 1 1 f I � r 1 , y1• 1 r r, C 1 �t� I rII 1 ll 4 i, � 1 1 l I r r r �.{ 1 �: I L I I r :p �' 1 I I r I I' I�. r I 1 1 rid I 11 U r. I � 1 , I i I 1 rr 1I,� I I d •'Wi I 11' . I II .I 11 l r 11 I 1'II I i rit 11 r,F 9�. �� I � I 1 Ir d r1 1 1 I I r: • 1 1 u r r 11 1 I I r, 1 _i I r t II 1 q Lr r7 t I 4 I t;y�� D Y r 1 r V Y i 1 r I r I •,� r li I P �` �i .gip 1�F�1 1 `. J 7 , � 1 1 ..VI 1n11 � ,4 r _ fk t ti I Y \4 4 l 11 1 r �. a"r rr I 17 ! ti ti 1{.i1 a ,. „ .. ,r ....i STATE OF CALIFORNIA—MSAIJRCES AGENCY }FORGE DEUIth1E)1!:N, Gawemor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ry a 1416 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 (b916) 445--3531 April, 1"41 Mx. Martin J. Nichols %no cowl chief Administrative Officer County of ,00 25 County center drive Oroville, CA 95965-3380 to Tear Mr, Nichols; tb have received your letter requesting infortnaticn on deer in `Butte Countyand will attempt to answer your questions to the g.reat:est, extent: iX)ssible. The accepted and documented factor limiting deer herds in Butte county, in California and in fact, wherever deer are found is the quantity and quality of habitat, This includes; foots -producing areas (bath summer and winter) t water, thermal cover (protection from extremes of heat or cold), fawning areas ('protection.frcm predation during critical times, usually the .first few days), and freedan of movement. We can see examples of what :happens if only one of the factors is missir>g and the extreme case can be observed during the winter of 1983-84 wiVn tl-OusarAs of dor died in Wyccting, Colorado, and Utah and to a lesser extent ir, Northam California. resp snc*i8 and prolonged cold, weather conditions made normal feeding) areas unavailable and without these areas deer starved„ Deer can also be prevented from using normal feeding areas through other means. - Large reservoirs can block movements to normal feeding areas or the areas can be lost through inundation ill the reservoir site. Other :human activities can also interfere with use, such as roads and bight-mys, or cf special concern, in Butte County, subdivision development. requirements are the h► his for the science of wildlife management. for such 5t es have documented he need for adequate habitat and r so much £oii, the general biology, Ws, rec ni 2e you are specifically interested in Butte County: However, the sme principles apply there. All of the elenionts of y adequate habitat)must be present or deer populations will not survive, In response to your specific questions we submit the following. I1 E lilt' Y Tf#E tMI T NG twACfiORa ON, HERL7 POPUUNTION AND DATA 1'Q SUPPopT a. Natural Predators. Natural predators affectinq deer in Butte County are primarily mountain lions, coyotes, and dogs. Eagles Are known to occasionally prey on fawns but are not considered, sitgWicant predators duo to low numbers, Mr. Martin J. Nichols TiYe mountain bion has been p ,tected by state legislativb mvoate since extremely effective = redators r and tx t 1h71« Mountain kions are seven to t��n days. The taFarl�nt own experts agree they kill a deer everys has of Fish and Lazne calculated that tile nuriber uimposed in 1971 r from 2#400 in substantially since the moratorium wades in the State has been. 1971 to a x800 in 1983. The deer Pip alation is certainly a shrinking and the increased mountain lion pep' contributing factor- ielliarly on winter. ra09e0 coyotes are also knownpredators on deer, pmt' Due to their size they are not as efficient as lionstes killing are not animals. Even dough they take r.La►ibers cit deem eaYp elation six:. considered to be sgnificanttt lunitingp Lin ;.trb' on Dogs have been docuan nhabi tat lossested as vand strict or► to movement m dogs areas. Cc�znbined w�. � ' populations in ares surroundit�t play a large Pam in limxt�.t' deer subdivisions. We have enclosed a copy of a report on deer -da! conflicts. b, Harvesting. Deer kill in Butte County for the past six.y'ears is as follows, 1982 198 2_984 1979 1980 lp 272 3'22 752 547. ars and it es in hunting 7,011 and seasons in the tieze have been significant Chang ata har`iest `last couple of yeis extremely difficult to e� under these variables. on antlerless hunts have been holed in uttedCountynaticoPt could be � No of harvest. wildlife Area) si�:ce 1963 and tti..re of either positive or negative effects from this t irn rhe harvest of forked horn bucks only within the seasons 'established Site* California should have little Or no effect on total ppp111�tiori which can affect populations i,s illegal. harvest Of type, of harvestof a doe on the winter range The t all, ages and sexes ► The illegal in that heti next year`s, ha also s an effect an next years production al take of deem is calculate to .fawn is also lost. In California illeg equal or excCed the leg c 'Variable vWeathor Conditions. sitive Vqeathe�r conditions affect deer in a n►r of ways both negative • � f Mr. [Martin J. Nichols -3— Forage production is a highly variable weather controlled .tactor. Acorns, for exampler which are a staple food itenduring fall and winter months, may be almost non-existent in some years while .i n a��r yew far more acorns may be produced than are used by deer. 1r�,a Vht conditions may tend to concentrate deer at a few water sources, making them more susceptible to diseaser whale above average rainfall can make additional range available` As previously indicated, extended cold and increased snowfall may cause severe problems. V --is generally acknowledged that above average precipitation increases torage production for wildlife while periods of ought cause significant reductions i1it .;�ildlifo populatiotls. mese range limitations are usually food -oriented as more food plants are produced and bra4se plants have increased growth during wet periods. d. Om'relation Between Resident Deer Herd mange Uand Migratory herd. ' Range Use. Radio telemetry studies have documented an overlap in ranges between. migratory and resident deer, In the Railroad Flat Deer Herd in Calaveras County, of ten deer trapped within a two -square MUO area, one animal was resident and moved less than i/'2 -mile during the entire year while the remaining animals made movements of up to 40 miles. Wa,know that some overlap occurs in Butte County but cannot identify any exact percentages or areas., e• physical Barriers to Herd Migration, Man-made physical barriers include such projects as oroville Reservoir Miners Ranch Canal, the ilamil.ton Branch Canal (Rlumas County), various highlaays (partial. barriers) , and residential. developments, Due to its size and location, Ctoville Reservoir is a major obstacle to deer movement. (However, an even greater impact is the actual, Loss of critical winter range through inundation. g � ) Areas Of winter range mast of the reservoir are now unavailable to deer. Current mitigation policies of the Department require the project sponsor to compensate for losses of wildlife habitat: resulting front canter dsvelorment, through: acquisition and improvement of lands specifically for deer, I : I Mr. Martin J. Nichols -4— A, copy of our agreement on the South Flork American River Project in El Dorado county is enclosed for your information. As you can see, Sections IV and V speak specifically to the7e Consilerations. Canals. Canals can be and are often significant barriers #""D SVOCOSsful deer movement. Deer losses in the Hamilton Branch Canal in Plums county (East Tehama Deer Herd of which a part winters in Butte county) have been documented at 20 deer/year. Most of this mortality occurs in approximately a three-mile reach of canal. The Department has been working with PG&E for a nwb�r of years to reduce or ellminate, these losses through crr-ssings and ultimately fencing, if necessary. The Miners Ranch canal, in B"tte County also has a ccmbinatiOn of fencing and crossings which are reducing mortalities and crossir prrbleMS significantly. On the Butte HeMricks and Centerville Canals (p(4&E De Sabla Centerville Pro; ect) agreements with PG&E require a large ntrber of crossiAgs as well as escape devices to reduce deer mortP'itigs and provide for movement. Hi2hways.. Highways and roads are not as much of an actual barrier as they are a source of increased mortality. In Butte 0ounty Caltrans figurcs indicate the road kill may be as much as 34% of the reported buck kill. in, other areas road kills are one of the highest sJOurce! A mortality, Ubrk with CAItrahs includes fencing of critical crossing areas with provisions for deer undercro,-,sings, warning signs for driver$,,,-, and Various &Acas have been tested to att(�mpt to scare deer away frcm traffic. 04 these, the 01'UY 'truly successful method is fencing with crossings. Approximately three and one—half acres of winter ranges is usurped by one mile o.0 road. In certain instances highways# or more specificallyt freeways '-,-kve been barriers to movement'and portions of some herds have been eliminated by fteewa,.' fencing and Median barriers, Rosidential development may also be a barrier to movemenL. In addition to actual building construction and fencing, a serious problem e-xists with domestic dogs. In rural areas most people have dogs which in many cases are alloWed, to tun free. Dogs can be a barrier to movement as; well as a predator* Studies have dooLmented dogs to be very effective predators on deer, especially in suburban areas. Mr. Martin J. Nichols n to defining corridors thxaug1t subdivisions, a n+ rof In relation corridors. factors affect the l -dation and width of necessary s aa�ount + �ver,r inc ude allouazt of use, , of of �� v,,ge nt. ative t� r steepness of terraint errs C neral]y with steed.. t in and denser cover., less width would be necessary i' parcel sues. the I r lent on the I)ay Bench area ref T agaen Studies conducted by c;ifio areas surrountiir residential. County have shown that there are spe deer. P, nmber of f;actam covelc��t v which are avoid 'bY Uligraton influence this area of avoidance# 'these i�,tclu�io terrain, �iensty and disturbance at the doveloptertrt and type oiE Vegetation, ti -,e amount of di, rE,aence o?a` Abse of +�c�,�s.M °�u the p arcel si,=o rcccn�5 t n.ft1 acres�in deter t�se i c ayes as . c. move away fpm cevolr� 1,.: �--= a1i for Baur SO arreg to o °� his i the basa1a� y acres in critical ra e,r .s rear an �p I.ic"� _�ire3. I at nano of the 1at.q if alternative ive of clu:�tered d:velottnah s copy ref then £ eSe sixes aro antendea tO �rO: r tonsustaintdeerfier in order that n part of the habitat. will. be available your ttfo�nation. bay Bench stVdy is also enclosed to: yo oncl the �1� ute County Lines. g Conditions Adj aexnt its and £3ey axnilax cotrdxtia�`.s exist thraughottt. the foothill eltva icne of northern S car encrtacl�rients have unci are Occurring in anti. central. Califox7n a. :� deer whiter ranges. t ,f Fish anti r. re is vnrlcjag with all of tY,e counties in Thepartmealtection for doer habitat. this region to obtain p in Yuba County a major effort is underway thrc��h �,r�,,��ration of a atic ', for a large nLzbar of 8ubd isiO ar�1to hose `itr ns program 8IR contains maty sions ,e Yuba County t. in the Butte Gatinty Mer ` cam t e�� (VIINMI To yi current door t4ngc and cnigra�tion maps t Provided to fur pn tlF ring "011e Y ,�=�.>t the ranges �.n 1«�utte Cour�l�y`« Ipgartmer►t, are onsidered to actaurato y r � � y will be re r as additional No n tjoy., k� yT11os avr�il.at�l e,, Mr. Martin J. Nichols --6- 3. PROVIDE INFORMATION ON PR4rsA; MANAGEMENT AND II�iPR�'N7` i OR PROPOSED LEGISLATION '%ND OR REGULATIONS. Several deer range enhancement programs or opportunities are available. on both public and private lands suchh as. a. AB -3735, the so-called "Hill Bill", vmuld authorize an ;Increase in deer tag Fees to pay for implementation of specified deer )lord management. plans. These funds will be initially, expended on the investigative and habitat segments of herd plans. Deer hc;rd and sub equo nt,- "action" or implementation plans have been prepared for the East lbhmnar Moor}etownr ant' Bucks Mountain deer herds (portions of all three ar,,� in Butte 0ounty) o In fiscal year 1:985'86 $20r000 of Idle region 2 gill sill budget will be expended in the mooretown-Bucks MDuntain deer herd area. Wenty radio -telemetry collars will be placed on deer: in various locations within the herd and their movements monitored to more precisely define winter range, summer range, migratory corridors, and fawning areae. it is proposed in riscal Year 1986;/87 that several thousand dollars will be used to fund habitat manipulation projects on summer ranges of the mooretmi-Bucks Mountain deer. b SB -1704, called the '*Vega tative Management urogram" allows a cooperative agv€ement between a rangeland owner and the State Department of Forestry (Cry?) to do prescribed burning on private lands to improve fire prctection and provide increased forage for wildlife and livestock,. c. Thd California Forest Improvement Act of 1978 (CFIP) authorizes the. Dir,-ector of the State Department of Forestry to undertake a program of public wid private investment in ,forest resource management through a cooperative cost-sharing program to improve timber resources on private lands. d. AB -530 (1983) encourages wildlife management on px*ivato :rods. A landmmer submits a wildlife management plan that actively encourages the propagation, conservations and wise use of the fish a,rel, wildlife resourced. Based on the effectiveness of the plan, the landowner is granted hunting opportunity beyond that available under +sk a general, regulations. This provides an economic incentive to retal,� land in a "wild state" e. Cooperative programs gramlAts �rv a available such as 'Coordinated Resource Plans" with DFG� Soil Conclorvation Service, and private landow ,rs where cast sharing and Mutual benefits ,'are shared# mr. martin J Nichols -7- 4 The Bucks Mountain/MOOtetawn, Aownieville, and .East Tehama, near herd sumer ranges are not yet se';iously impacted. Winter range losson in the Bucks Mountain/Mooretcwn herds have, been impacted much more than deer herds to the north or south, the East Tehccria heal being to the north and the Downieville herd to the south. Thee was a 20000 acre loss of winter range when. oroVille Mservoir was 'guilt. the East Teh=a winter ratuie has large public (CDpG 're ama Wildlife ire) and private holdings with li.ttl¢ residential development or access. The svie is true of the DomAevillo, herd area. D 'IA 7C7 ( PQR'I` l~ EAB IBILTTY Off' "7��E MANAGEMENT Pel" IN BU7Lt COUNTY - 5. Gna of the basic purposes Of the Ducks to ur,^.air /VMMtcrwn deer herd management plan is to provide guidance to l,.nd management; agencies, governments, and landowners in land use decisions which will affect deer. viability of the plan will depend on the a r ive support of these perl,ir Y makero. 'etre statewide goals for cali,fttnia deer herds are to restore and main'cain healthy populations and to provide for high quality, diversified use of the herds. WhereBible 1955 population levels were considered as the � restoration level, to be attained.Neither the Bucks Mountain or moretovm herds can be expected to attain 1965 population levels. The huge amounts of winter` range habitat Lost (over 40% and most of it since 1965) precludes that possibility, and it is anticipated that further large scale habitat losses will occur within 20 years, Even where land is kept open, other activities, such as reforestationp prazincg, etc. may be given Priority over Wildlife concerns. To maintain present population levels will be difficult considering present land use: prioritiev and tMilds. `tile follcx�rat are. the goals for t t� a u�'-;,°3 K�iuntait7 androreao; r doer hely. A Bucks YX",intain Hord C al,s. 1. Maintain a herd population uver<jge t)t at least 4,000 deer* This mould be an inoreasq of &0trt 15% over curnt, o0tial0tes. Should current estimates PL aW da to be tilt) desired avorage shall be raised tri Maintain a minim= fall buck t') d f 20tl"' 3. Manage habitat arid tJre herr jxopulaat.°i �:n for a apt; irtg fawn ratio of 45 to 55 per, 100 does. Air. Martin J. Nichols -8- 4. 8- 4. Have either sex deer himts on a quota basis to improve herd conditions as needed when: a. it can be determined that the carrying capacity or the range, or portions thereof, is exceeded. As poor fawn survival may be the only basis for that determination, favm ratios less than 35tlOQ does occurring in tw�D successive years would be used as an above carrying capacity indicab.)r. b. The buck to doe ratio is leas than 10:100 for two successive years« c. 'The herd population Ax eeds 4,gg4 deer, and there is a public denand for such hurts. 5. Avoid serious depletion oh deer frtm any portion of the range. 6. Maximize public utilization of the herd to the extent it does not interfere with the herds well. beinct. B. Mooretorm Herd Goals. - Excepting the population level, the goals are the same as above. The population goal is 7,6OO deer, an increase of 7% above present estimates. This goal, would be adjusted upward if current population estimates prove to be law. C. Habitat Odals. 1. Preserve the acreage nooessary, thmughout the winter cange, to maintain population goals, or hit 1hc populations if feasible 2. Increase forage quality and quoohtity + .ghout herd ranges. 3. Obtain mitigation necessary, to ctopensate for project impacts caus.Lx habitat loss or degradation, 4« Avoid practices which would eliminate habitat components from herd ranges 5w R0100atO or alter structural. infringomen.ts VtUch adversely impact. halitst or deer behavior« it is apparent to tis, as it must be to your that the Department cannot unilaterally achieve the objectives of the deer managebont plans. Since the legislature had directed that such plans be developed and impl.emefttedr we must seek the interest and support of all land management entities, rederall State, and local. -g_ Mr. Martin J» Nichols not or will the plans fall by lho lyside, but Without that support. X the substantial loss of der turnand he t situair �on�around in Butte Ca�tJ(» rens to work with you to 6. The Department of Pish And Gine wa.11man rulationtprojects ongoing initheBi ." funding, investigative, and habitat p county with an annual update on Project resultse our kion 2 people have diLIt:uss ed this pa:oblem at: length with your planning to da so with the Ccmnissian or the Board of department and will be happy Tonal t�anagere Region 2, 1,74 1 �uoervsors, Please cc�ntaet path T. Jensenr I3eg Nimbus Roadr Rancho Cordova 56704 telGphtine (91 6) 355-, z• 5incerelyt Jac c. Parnell, 4. for geport Dog Dapredation On Wildlife and Livestock in Cz�19:fornia Attachments: Agreement an 5. � • Pzneri scan toyer project, El. Dorado County (SOVAR.) Day Dench Study Bill Bill - AB -3735 Vegetation Management rprogram -8B-1704 C PIP private Iands Managements - AB 580 Eastern Tehama Deer Herd summary Bucks I40un4ainjMooretovtn Deer Nerd flan k ,4M 5,LA-rUA'L j r x x 4 DOG DEPREDATION ON WILDLIFE AND Lj, VE8`?`OCK IN CALIFORNIA December 1977 Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game by jonee; & gtoke Assaciates In:c. 232'1 p Street 5acramentor CA 95816 M er ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS l We wi.ash to exPress sincere aprreciatxon to Fish and Ga Wardens and Biologists and County Animal Control officers Who responded to thw questionnaires which facilitated this stud Thanks are extended to the various local, state and federal agencies that provided insight. on the diversity of the Special thanks are given to Ar. Dale A. prahlemo Extension Wildlife Specialist, University of jppczat.ve Davis), Ron Thompson (tt, S S. Fish and Wildlife yService ifornjanxrha, Damage Control), Richard Dana (California Department i�ar ma culture), Howard Leach and Alan -Craig Of -Fish arch Game) for assisting in compiling o data and rnia �� rovidi a critical review of the report. ng j x TABLE OF CONTENTS Pie EXECUTIVE SUMMARY l INTRODUCTION 7 The Problem 7 8 Legislative Action 10 Project objectives ASSESSi&SENT OF THE PROBLEI, 11 Approacb and Procedure 11 k► RESULI S Jk !A,,UATkiv : introduction Description and < cum entation oZ Dog Depredation 3 1.5 ADEQUACY OF EXISTING LAWS AND CONTROL PROGRA14S 33 33 State Laws Depredation on 14ildlife by Days 33 34 Dors Filling or 'Worrying Livestock 39 Civil, Liability 40 t,icensing f Sparing and Impoundment 42 County Ordinances 45 DISCUSSION F`INnI1VGa 55 RECOMMENDATIONS 59 61 B IBLIflORAPHY, a