The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About84-6 DEER HERD COMMITTEE 19 OF 33Inter-DepartMe161,, error andum To: County Counsel p FROM: Steve Streeter, Planning SUBJECT: DOG CONTROL AND FENCING COVENANT IN MIGRATORY DEER RANGES DATC: May 29, 1987 Bettye asked that I send the draft attachment to you. Mike Evans prepared the document .based on a covenant used ,,n Yuba County. As part of the Department of Fish & Game presenta- tion to the Board of Supervisors on April 281 I believe your office was asked to prepare an ordinance for public hearings on both sub;ects 8ASrss Enclosu--;,a _y tirJNINC Wl'TI IC'�zL_ ANU NT, LA_ ND Cy SA1 ,�--- we the undersigned :- -----~ real ProertY described in Exhibit " ++ are the owners of the r ched hereto and made a part thereof. the at�-a unincorporated axes of Sal property lies within. the of Butte and is also within the County.mow range of the in the office l map recorded The parcel of Ka�,�ts at of the Butte County Recorder 'in Bookwhich will create patcels the development of which Page ' ect the migratory deer herd' referred to above. Owners of said real a2f it is the. desire of the Whereas, migratory deer by to minimize potential impacts to the nog y property r intended to be a the following declaration which is making the land: restrictive covenant to run with shall be allowed by their. No dog ar dogr ro erty described on or within the p p s are in r;xhibit "A" unless the e dog cl rse proximity to the owner and under effective control of the owner• in perimeter fence design shall Co nta five or fewer strands of barbed faire, with the bottom ser the groundand at sand �the en inches Cls) above ei ht top s'tt;ards nc more thanYound .. Wildlife inches (8") above the limited to those proof fences shall be ether building around the homesitesarcelany or gardens on each p t This restrictive covenant is expressly declared to be binding upon and to be observed by the undersigned property owners as well as by his/her/their heirs, oXecutors, administrators, and assigns and is to run with the land and be binding upon all future owners of said property. The restrictive covenant referred to above may be enforced by any owner or by the County of Butte or by the state of California and may be enforced by proceedings at law or in equity either to restrain violations 1 or to recover damages. STATB OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF __ ) ss 198, before mer the undersigned, a 1 Notary nPublic in and for said State, personally appeared known to me to be the person whose name (s) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that executed the same. WITNES8 my hand and official. seal. NOTARY PUBLIC IN ANO pox SARA 8TATE 1 .......:. ...... t t yY�`5,, Si ATEOF CALIFORNIA --THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME REGION Z SUITE A 1701 NIMBUS ROAD, RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 45670 (916) 355-7020 APR 15 1987 U�iU�ill_L, OALIF�F,tllA BOARD OF 0U'P,1j4vi!,O;1G GEORGE t)EUKWIIAI�I ('for -(110t ,, 1j�2: s, R Mr. Ed McLaughlin, Chairman Butte County Board of Supervisors Administration Centex 25 County Center- Drive orovill.e, CA 95965-3380 Dear Mr. McLaughlin: n December 2, 1986r representatives of the Department of Fish and 0 protection of Game presented to your Board, information regarding migratory deer habitat in Butte County. At that time,our we agreed to provide the Board with specificva tailseon developmentinaa�ions and to identify areas of low dooproceed. We further agreed to refine our maps to delete such areas from designation as deer range. process We have now completed this P- s and have attached our final report on measures necessary to protect deer. It is our understanding the Board will take expedited action to implement these recommendations. Department representatives will be attending your Board's meeting on April 28th to explain our material an detail.. 1f you have any further questions pleas) call Jerry Mensch; Environmental Services Supervs , Sincerely; dames D. ,1E csersmith Regional Manage Enclosures Measures for Protection of Migratory Deer Habitat in Butte County April 15, 1987 This report Completes the land use analysis portion of the deer report presented to the Butte County Board of SupoCvisors on December 2, 1986 and identifies: impacted deer winter range whore development may continue with mitigation measures. V Deer winter range in need of protection, Mitigation measures to offset loss of habitat resulting from subdivision 'and development. * General Plan revisions. Implementation of the following criteria will 1) provide guidelines for development in migratory deer ranges, 2) create a fund to be used on projects to improve the quality of the habitat within the remaining doer ranges in the county, 3) Control. free roaming dogs on deer ranges, 4) allow free movement of deer through remaining deer ranges, and 5) provide long term protection to migratory deer in the county. several criteria were used to determine lands where deer use has been or will be adversely affected by present parcel size. such lands which are identified as "DesLgnated Development Zones", may be further developed with mitigation measures (see Appendices A - I). implementation of these criteria also determined winter range where development mast be carefully controlled in order to provide basic habitat needs (i.e,, food, watero and cover) and corridors of travel for migratory doer. The following criteria were used to determine impacted deer ranges and to delineate "Designated Development Zones". Parcels are currently less than 20 acres, Deer movement (migratory movement or movement to feeding areas, thermal cover,. etc.) is blocked by parcels o4 5 acres or lets forming a barrier 1/4 mile or greater in width. Prom a planning perspective, it was assumed that all parcels less than 20 acres will, eventually be 5 across or less in size. Habitat within the parcol is not Suitable Eot- migratory door, -2 - Lands that border identified "transportation cor,: �(jro Panel teport) (as snthePa County �that are not with�fir Herd Studydesignated migration nwindow", in a s ecinically Critical or Des' gnaced Deer less, that is bordered on three tar more rangesidcs off: 160 acres or less than 20 acres is allowed to " met:till°-in" Following conditions are if theparcels : Development will not block deer move p Development of the menu; Property will o minimum impact upon deer use result in a areas. of surrounding Appendices A -I delineate " winter range as identified though Designated Development aforementioned criteria, n Zones" in deer Impl.ementationaofothe5ethe recommendt subdivision the County Board of ;supervisors will allow add' subdivision within the " w ions al minimal impact on critical�doer traned gavelopment Zone' wit with RECOMMENDATIONS Lands within the "Designated identified in Appendices A- Development zones" Provided they are subject to tM� that are r' m��Y be Further subdivided,... Following mitigation measures. l• The county adopt and.imploment the stricture contained n A Appendix mitigation Fee J 2• A 40 acre minimum placed on cr.iticalparcel WinterWandiifo su►�tnConstraint be migration corridors and Fawning ares anges the on Development Zones", ��that are outside Element Of the General Plan should beiamenciho nd use provide this constraint, ed to 3• A 20 acre .minimum placed on deli parcel size wildlife intermediate ranges winter and summer ranConsesaint be and Develo s that are ou t,a ide li pment zones" The Land Use Des,gnated Gonora;l Plan should be 810ment of tho constraint, amended to provide. this ^3- Placed on parcels currently constraint'be0pto 3,.g acres that are q, A wildlife from 20. to prevent ranging in size ent Zones" Elemoni outside „Designated Development The Land tae this further subdivisiar� aE the land.. Provide of the General flan should be amended t° constraint. control ordinance adapt and enfot S similar to that contained 5, The Count atony deer rang deer ranges outside within mig ratory in Appendix K for mig „ Hated pevelopment Zones". 'Desig er.-meter. fencing p and implement. a p endix 1, for 6. The County ado.t that contained in ,App es outside"Designated Development ordinance similar migratory deer rangto zones". s be estabIlisheId al Orig 100 foot and 50 foot buffer zone tii.tau 7' side of perrjanent n is ntaintcr� ti.ctal lab each in order anded to reSpecti idly► lotion where it "lay elements. Theses distances should t e should ass all riparian Wetland vel o build ?ng ncomp $ the designated zones N exist(,outsid be allowed wi' . `.,n tilese areas: conditions of be designateds Building "n�Jel°pes � identif ied g, vol of parcel or subdivision. mans within approval areascfor orri.dorsloptaent along 11transpaC"1"st�.on GENERAL pLAN Mate ort the need to regulate needs oSUP rder to provide f The C onservatiOn Clement shoed 1 0 �, General plan development within deer rang s eci do polices: af: mi.gi`atory ti The sand tise Clement of t '- , should incorporate the following p deer through of migratory acres 1•egure protection arcel sizes of �l0 and 20 ?,equtonancc of minimum p.. el winter ranges► an Critical and Designated -tUl.ly (recommend numbers 2 and 3)•. respect es be 2, Require that develop ment in idonti.firid deers tory Auer. �o facilitate tlje survival nL mi.g :tory de�'r regulated, protect mjgra mains to improv. and 3, provide utre County (r ocomm�:ndatic�t number li habitzlt in q -4- 4. Place wildlife constraint 3n deer4)anges (recommendation numbers 5. Require control of free roaming and feral dQgS (recommendation number 5)• erimeter fences comply with LIXe 6. Require 'that nevi.PL (recomendatton number fencing ordinance in App m 6) Attachments APPENDIX J Doer Mitigation Fee 11 Yuba County has adopted a mitigation fee for impacLtj within migratory deer ranges. The following descriptive their April 5, 1985 Final Environmental impact R011lnqUage from POI -t and t'�.eii- fea schedule has been modified to comply With 0c, ' recommendations in this report and the needs Of 111tQt-aLory deer in Butte County. 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 U00(l for m,ny different kinds of impacts0 including loss of wetlands, increased traftitraffic;collgo stion, air quality degradation.f and increased demands for school classrooms or recreation spacoi Mitigation may be accomplished by physically improving deer habitat or assessing a fee that is used to further study, or improve migratory deer habitat elsewhere in Butte County. since most development Proposals in Butte 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 Butte County who do own large multiple parcels and may wi8h, to improve deer habitat on their Property elsewhere in the county. These subdividers Should be considered independently and be allowed to Provide for habitat improvement mprovemen . t directly, subject to review and approval by the Department of Fish and Game (opG). Pot most subdividers or builders who do not own extensive lands elsewhere; there is no practical way to provide sufficient habitat improvements on their propert For the8et assessment of a Mitigation foe for habitat improvement e180WIlore can serve to mitigate impacts froth their lands. development of The Proposed fee schedule is based upon location of tie Proposed land division within designated winter or critical iwi , site of parcels nter tango, PtOPO80d and estimated offocts of development patterns upon migratory deer, t'008 increase With requests for smaller parcel Sizes and the resultant increaso, in intensity of impaott, Every Subdivision of a parcel into smaller ones wIould incur all impact foe. Since construction and OCCUPation of r73 house iftcrea8OS irP&Cts significantly more then just the subdivision of land;- fees have boon divided into two catogoeio8! The, first imposed at the Parcel Map stage and a second at the building permit stage, This Provides for 4 di tribution of ne mitigatioh mcasutos according to the befit s Table 1) 1:00eived. (see s -2- a No fees would be assessed for subdivision of Jots which were five or fewer acres at the time of the proposed additional split. bots of this size are already below the minimum Size for supporting roig ratory door, and indeed for most resident deer, and are considered already lost as deer habitati it is recognized that establishment of a fee schedule and the collection and disbursement of funds incur- employee time and other expenses not currently required. The county may want to collect 15--20% of the habitat improvement fee as compensation for thone added costs. All monies collected in this program would be placed in a special. enterprise fund by the countyi it would be dispersed to further study deer, improve deer habitat, or to landowners who signed an agreement with the county for specific habitat improvement projects (approved by DFG) and agree to maintain them for a minimum of 10 years. The p landowners could either implement the habitat improvement project themselves or participate with 'DVG �;oncurrence with the California Department of Forestry in their Vegetation, Management Program or outer similar State or Federal habitat improvemet programs. Monies from the impact fee fund Would be paid to participating landowners after the agreed upon improvements had been made. TABLE I SCHEDULE OF RECOMMENDlD IMPACT FEES Existing Parcel Size Proposed Lot Size* Parcel Map (luildin noVillit Stage Sgagn Critical, Critical Winter Winter Winter Winter Ra:n e_ Range- Range Range 40+ acres 40.0+ acres $- $ $ $°- 20-39.9 acres $250 $- $250 $- 10-19.9 acres $300 $250 $350 $350 .1-99 acres $350 $300 $350 $350 20.0-39.9 acres 20.0-39e9 acres $250 $- $250 $- 104-19-9 acres 0.'!--9.9 acres $300 $200 $350 $350 $350 $240 $350 $350 5.1-19.9 aL" 10-19.9 acres $ 75 $ 65 $265 $265 0.1-9.9 acres $ 90 $ 75 $265 $265 Fees woule 0 assessed against g each necv lot proposed. 113. APPENDIX K REVISED BUTTE COUNTY DOG ORDINANCE The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to migratory deer ranges that are outside of lands identified as' "Designated Development Zone" in Appendicea A -I (see Exhibit available at Butte County Planning DeparLjjjoht, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, for specific locations where ordinance applies). in any instance in which a dog or dogs Ware observed killing, wounding, or pursuing deer, except as noted in Section 114, the person observing this aotj.,jn may take action into and including terminating the dogs) if it is on their own property, has the permission of downer, or is on pub",-, lands (e6g., U S. Forest Ser wreau of Land Man nto etc.) . The provisions of Sections 112 and 113 sha, it ...pply to any of the following: a,, Any area within the corporate lit of any city, at within any developed rural or teSiLontial area with lot sizes of less than three acres. b. Any dogs being used for the purpose of lawful training or hunting during prescribod dog training or hunting seasons. C4 Dogs in the immediate presence and under direct control of the owner. The dog must be in close proximity to the owner and the owner must demonstrate effective control of the dog; The provisions of this act do not Provide a legal reason for unauthorized trespass. Offending dogs may be shot only by persons with a right or permission to be on the property, All incidents occurring Under this Ptovisiono whether or not the offending dog or dogs are shot, must be reported to local law enforcement officials including Department of Fish and Game personnel, M 0 • APPENDIX L perimeter Fenci ig ordinance 116. The provisions of this ordinance shall ;apply to migratory deer ranges that are outside lands identitied as "Designated Development Zone" in Appendices A -I (see exhibit available De eloButpm County Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville for specific locations where ordinance app 1X7. Within the areas identified above,(unless perimeter fencing e cinal gsshall be limited to smooth or barbed wire perm, is acquired).. To allow passage of deer, the fence shall be constructed .of five strands or, less of barbed wire. The bottom and top wire shall be a minimum of 16 inches and a maximum of 48 inches above the ground. 118. The provisions of Sections 116 and 117 shall not apply to any of the following: a. Any area within the corporate limits of any city, Or within any developed rural or residential area with lot sizes of five acres or lessi b. proposed fencing of garden areas, dwellifsg-, or immediate barn structurese c* proposed fencing to eliminate deerdepredationlosses to vineyards, alfalfa, etc., where a special use permit has been obtained. d.- Any existing perimeter fencing. pedal use permit may be obtained foe a variance to the 119. provisions of Sections 1.16 and 117 for agriculture purposes (i.e., sheep grazing, deer enclosure perimeter fences to prevent deer depredation losses to agriculture crops) . C.I IIL� A .:) COUNITY 01. mr.rrl NOUTTFo 25 COUNTY CrNTE-R 0r' �p3C)Vll.l t . GALWOHNIA 95065'31 00 (f110} 5l4 -463i ° C o MEMBERS OF THE 6OAQU o y; a - � HASKEL A. Mc1NTUnF °COUN�o JANE DOLAN HILDA WHEELER MARTIN) NICHOLS ED McLAUGHLIN civEr, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER LEN FULTON March 23, 1987 James D, Messersmith Regional Manager; Region 2 Department of Fish and Game 1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A Rancho Cordova, Ca. 95670 Re Presentation at the Board of Supervisors Dear Mr. Messersmith: The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors set your presentation on April 28, 1987 at 10:00 a.m; of SUPOrvisorsi Room, County The meeting will be held in the enter Drive, Orovillt, California. Administration -Center, 25 County C Should You have y y an questionsm regarding this atter; please contact the. Planting Department at 538-7601 between 10:00 a,m. and 3;d0 p.m, Very truly yours. Martin J; Nichols ,.hief Administrative Officer ttJN ; lr MIGRATORY DEER IN BUTTE COUNTY This report is presented to the Butte County Board of Supervisors to: 1) provide updated information on migratory dear in Butte County, 2) describe impacts of subdivision encroachmOnt on migratory deer ranges, and 3) recommend mitigation measures for protection of migratory deer habitat affected by subdivision development. Three different deer herds are found in Butte County. These herds are identified as the East Tehama, Bucks Mountain, and Mooretown deer herds. Although some summer range occurs within the County, Butte County principally provides winter range for Lhese deer herds. Summer range is primarily located in PluM40 County. Annual migration patterns are typically triggered by seasonal climatic changes. In the fall, at the onset of a Otorm, migration begins. Most deer migrate along ridges directly to their winter range, 01 -.hers linger in holding areas or on their summer range until fo:,ced to their winter range by a major storm. They then remain on these ranges throughout the winter months. As the snow pack recedes in spring, deer initiate movement to their summer` ranges. The spring migration, generally occurs through the lower elevations often on south slopes, following major stream courses. For many years, this cycle repeated itself rel,Lively undisturbed. Recently, disruption resulting from conflicting land use along the western slope of the Sierra Nevada .Mountain Range has occurred. This disruption is in the form, of land subdivisions and residential development which are steadily encroaching into migratory deer ranges, particularly winter ranges. The same conditions that make these areas of value.to deer (mild temperatures) also make them desirable for human'uso� Eventually, development of currently subdivided parcels will reduce ekisting habitat still suitable for migratory deer and ultimately reduce deer populations. In Butte County current subdivision will adversely affect approximately 40 percent of the deer winter range. Butte CountV:Deer Herds East Tehama Herd The East Tehama deer herd is the largest deer herd in California and occupies a range considered to be the most extensive in the state. It includes the area east of the Sacramento River in Tehama County, northern Plumas County, portions of western Lassen County, southern Shasta County, and northeastern Butte County (see figure I), Currently, the, population is estimated about 56,000 animals: ApproXimately okte-third of the East Tehata deer hei:d` s range occurs within Butte County; Prepared ;for Butte County Board of Supervisors Meeting 12%2/86 -2- a'�r limiting factors for this herd are: 1) adv tOO foves'. The m J reforests :ion, practices on the summer range (gression) and 2) residential timber management, and fire sePP In the Butte County portion of. encroachment intusei�t+aboutg40 percent of the critical. winter m acted due to residential encroachmentthis • rangeahar herd,severely P been .- problems facing the herd. include vehicle -deer collisions, other p poaching and uncontrolled dogs. Bucks Moun�.ai,_n Herr�l t by the The range of thia herd is bounded to the nurtl1wes • f i re. 2) . Dpe'r from this southeast border of the East Tehama herd, and to the tY�sutheast y sou Feather River (see 9 the Middle F'e,r},► from about 8()0 feet 'nerd largely winter within Butte County, e is mostly above 4,800 elevation to about 3,500 feet summer rang �ahith nearly all being located in PluraSedCounty. feet elevation, Primarily in Butte county. Winter range is located P o ulati.on is estimated to be about deer kill figures; the herd p p 3,.400 animals. f winter The major limiting factor for hstoeresidential,d is lb�s oencroachment gis a A 28 percilnt loss of winter rangeo population decrca�;e of about 60 eak in the e �% LY 1g60's. to a P P major face'. )r cont.`Pbu ip percent f�°am the. he population ��undat on of 14,000 e loss was the Another .. ',.4nif i.cant winter rang ox uacher:., r r Lake Oroville. marijuana garden0 ,Zlision wit'i veh�.j�ler) acres tt uncontrolled dogs, -ind road kills (l.e•r are other problems facing the herd. Mooretowri Deer Hera f this p', rd is immediately to he5��toandhPl.BmasS The range o Yuba, Mountain herd and extends into Butte, Counties (see figure 3i ran e is the limiting factor for this herd. About 50 Winter g s in Butte County has been lost to percent of the Winter rangy;. Lake .tial. encroachment, and similar losses have occured in Tuba rest a was inundated by .county.; Nearly 6,000 antes o£ wihter rang otovi,lle Deer.8abitats anutsCalif`ornia are ` _ y ar►a r_hroug Deer habitats in Butte County winter areas, holding areas; at follows critical classified winter and summer ranges, fawning migration corridors and intermediate (transition) ranges• -3 - on Critical Deer Hlzoldang areas) aretical th oserwhgch,provideioptimum corridors, and P a vital role in sustaining support habitat conditions for deer and Y ort the highest concentration the deer herd. These areas also pp of deer. Desi hated Deer Habitats are those winter,ary intermtatediate and s summer rang e which provide allthantthosecident identified as Critical somewhat: 1.esser quality Habitat; Deer use is generally less on designated habitats although the intensity of use may vary from year to year. Fawning Areas are those portions of summer range in which does s les ect sitesto deliver and maintain fawns. Although some important fawning areas are on eastern Butte County, most occur in Plumas County. intermediate (transition) ra adeexodurngltheesrrnigthe andsummer and winter ranges and are used Y migratlon. Much of the use in these areas is of a short-term natures n ration Corridors are the routes used by deer moving betweeen. summer and Winter ranges. These routes are intensively used travel lanes 'within intermediate (transition) range. Holdinc_Areas are defined as s te�oalong advantage on coratirridorspefered where: deer delay for several days forage and cover conditions. Such areas may be of critical nature in maintenance of the herd• Spatial needs of deer vary according thabitat type. tear currently p deer densities in Butte County vary from one per 47 acres. Most of the critical ranges support from approximately one deer per 25 vary acres. Although use may year to y 'ties generally are found in the ear, lower deer densa higher (elevation) densely vegetated winter Portinrang ofPthenwinterhrange• Lower elevation), sparsely g Critical ranges ptovid.e optimum habitat conditions for deer and therb.fore supports the highest concentration of deer. In Butte County, deer winter range extends from range to nearly 4x000 feet in el.evat*o generally extends from 11000-31000 feet in elevation: Factors adversely influencing deer Use of ion, predationefrom feral r ranges ndogs, physicaldbarriersctoand movement;�cand disturbance from human physical activities. Most of `the deer development conflicts in Butte County occur on winter ranges and along migration corridors. -4% Radio Telemetry Studies To aid in identification of deer movement and habitat USO, data from radio telemetry, aletag andccompared tospaeviouslyand fil��knowns have been compiled, an yzed► information on migratory deer. Using theMigdataromotheDeer fletdMaps developed in 1983 as a base reference, ent studies were compiled. The trap site location, movem (si.raight-line) ► analyzedforf'orrtherange presencecofrmdigQat�onacorr�dorswand plotted, then ana ye holding areas using the following definitions: 1) Migration Corridor - The merging of travel routers Of two or more study animals. 2) Holding Areas - Area of migrational delays by onO or more study animals: Interpretation of travel route data fo nsome studnt animalsofas incomplete due to "gaps" caused y a telemetry data points. Although straight-line connections between data points tends to oversimplify movement, sufficient data was obtained to identify additional wasmincluded inrtheo1983ne nbaseliholing areas. This new information deer maps, copies of which were transmitted to the Butte County Planning Department. Subdivisiot, Deer Relationships Deer Habitat Re J rem in the absence of human disturbance, deeuseVaries accordinhigrto food, cover, water, and weather conditions.Tp es such as slope stegsne'rovideoan interspersiontheir of forageaccompanying varied vegetative patter p cover patterns (escape cover, thermal. cove etc.) In Butte County► the ability of the seasonal rangesrsely t me ed by habitat needs of migratory deer 3.s being , of land subdivisions and development-. Constrnd covernaffectingskeyads hnabldwa]lings remove essential This impact is typically components of the range. followed by further loss of habitat due to Subsequent changes in surrounding land use � (conversion sof brush i fields toi a8tands) • These changes, plus increased levels of disturbance by dogswi�hcdeervingtheaserroundingehabitatfor efor the must compete -5 - available forage and living space. The carrying capacity of the range "is lowered as too many deer compete for tla limited food. Excessive crowding invariably leads to unnatural high ;levels of predation and disease. o reduce these impacts and to prnihasfor determinedmaintenance basic a viable deer habitat, the Departme minimum parcel sizes must be maintained on the deer mitigation measures are also necessary to p protection and should be incorporated into project petnuits. Summer range areas generally follow the same pattern ot use intensity as winter range h apd,��,ho�ghlmuchconsideration summmergiven range such factors as fawning areas. is within public lands, the GdrtionsofXthessummerrrangeeonprivate are also applicable to that p lands. Lan d UseAnalysis prs ective, it was assumed that parcels will be From a planning p_, p con developed (e.g., a dwelling be Base drontthis aevaluation lthe into parcels of less thanbe already lost due to Department is evaluating ranges which may in such approved parcel maps of subdivision maps and is mapping areas. The proposed criteria used for deletion of lands from identification as deer range are as follows: 1, parcels are currently less than 20 acres. less than 160 acres that are bordered on three or 2. parcels of more sides by parcels. of less than. 20 acres may be deleted. dependingupon deer use and values. 39 Migratory movement to and from the parcel has been blocked by parcels of less than 20 acres. ,Iabitat within the parcel is notsuitable itions,for migratory deer use under current or projected cond Using information from the 19A6 Assessor parcel maps, parcel sizes Us guprimp within migratory deer rangers eemre a s�ltheaimpact5r�feexis>ringg this information on .1988 deer r g p =division was anal zed. From this info oftthe►wintercranye has evident y, dent that deer use on a�)out 40 p use by lanna been adversely affected or rendered unsuitable for ngperspectives migratory deer.It is also evident► from a p that not only will important range lands be adversely affected but 6 - surrounding lands may also be affected by creation ot barriers to movement. Itis critical to the welfare of the .herds that measures to mitigate future impacts be implemented.. In an effort to find a balance between deer habitat protection and development, we have attempted to identify areas designated as Agriculture -Residential (AR) in the General Plan where development could continue to occur on private Lands where it would have minimal impact upon migratory deer. Considerable additional effort is needed to refine these areas and to revise habitat ...aps accordingly. The Department will be requesting asistance from Butte County in this effort. Except for specifically identified deer migration "windows", lands that are designated AR in the General Plan, that are located along specific transportation corridors could be developed within 660 feet from the road. However, residential dwellings should be clustered along roads. Specifically identified deer migration "windows" must remain in minimum parcel sizes of 40 acres. To allow free movement of migratory deer, a one -fourth -mile migration window is considered necessary. in existing developed areas, windows less than one- fourth -mile should be maintained. The Department identified areas using the above standards where future development may occur with minimum impact upon migratory deer. Combined with the loss of deer range due to existing development, substantial acreage of deer range will be lost. (Those areas are shown in red on the acetate overlay superimposed' over migratory deer ranges). This places a greater burden on the remaining lands to provide for the needs of migratory deer. SUMMARY The impact of land subdivision upon migratory deer has resulted in a significant loss of valuable deer range. As previously indicated 40 percent of Butte County ranges have been adversely impacted or rendered unsuitable for migration deer use. However, much of the development - migratory deer issue can be resolved through implementation of mitigation measures to assure future' Protection. These actions involve only minimum change to the General Plana Since these measures allow controlled development to occur in certain areas, deer use of a portion of their range will be elimiriatodi This places greater emphasis upon the remaining habitat to support deer use. Implementation of the recommended actions will: 1) lin;it development to lands already impacted by subdivision or to lands 0 -7- along identified transportation corridors designated Onz AR in the General Plan, and 2) create a fund to be used for projacts on the remaining deer ranges o improve the quality of habiW. for deer• Sites be y the D'epar'tmentcofdFish and for rGame eworking nt lcloselclosely with the Outte Countyy Department Fish and Game Commission. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. on deer ranges where existing parcel sizes have adversely affected deer use or where development may be permissible (using the aforementioned criteria), further subdivision may be approved, provided a mitigation fee is asscsoed to further study, protect, and/or improve migratory deer or their 'habitat elsewhere in Butte County. 2. Adoption of the mitigation fee structure similar to that proposed by the Deer study Panel or as adopted by Yuba County (see Appendices A and B). 3. Except where modified by number #1 above, a 40 acre minimum parcel size wildlife constraint be placed on critical winter and summer ranges, migration corridors and fawning areas. The Land Use Element of the General Plan should be amended to provide this designation. 4. Except where modified by number 1, a 20 acre minimum parcel size wildlife constraint be placed on Designated Winter and Summer ranges and Intermediate ranges. The Land Use Element of the General Phan should be amended to provide this designation. 5. Adopt and enforce a County dog control ordinance within migratory deer ranges as depicted in Appendix C.. 6. Establish perimeter fence design criteria. On parcels greater than five- acres in migratory deer range, the perimeter fence should be limited to barbed wire unless a special use permit is obtained. To allow passage of deer, the fence shouof four strands or less of barbed wirer with �the bottom be constructed wirea m-inimum of 16 inches and the top wire a maximum of 48 inches above the ground. 7. On lands within migratory deer ranges other than those designated as AR :in the General plan, maintain existing General plan designations and existing minimum parcel sizes with an additional overlay of the wildlife constraints described in 2 and 8 above. -8- 8. A 100-foot and 50-foot no building buffer znnestxeWOZ oatab fished along each side of permanent and n n order to maintain critical habitat elements.; 9. tuilding envelopes sho', d be deeignrans ortted as ati�nocorridors. oof ' parcel and subdivision maps along t A GENERAL PLAN POLICY The following policies should be incorporated into the �.-nd use " element of the General Plan. . provide for the protection, of siLJestatY,')^1Q4 '?t40gacreshon maintenance of minimum par designated and critical" ranges and other m , .�,j, t 'k �t'i measures as identified in this report. Z. Recognize the need to regulate development in identified deer �Mn te the survival of the deer herd. ranges to fac lit;a s. J APPENDIX A BUTTE COUNY DEER HERD STUDY PANEL REPORT Create a deer habitat improvement; fund by establishing a one time fee for allowing development or Fess than 40 acres minimum parcel size in critical summer and winter range and 20 acre minimum parcel site, in noncritical summer and winter range. The fee (;45/acre in critical summer and winter range and $25/acre in noncritical summer i and winter range) would be pai I by the landowners when they apply for a building permit. The iUnd would be to improve deer habitat elsewhere in the County as mitigation ,a for development impacts along designated transportation corridors. Alternative to fee structure; Acres Fe -/Acre 0-1a X45 10.0 - 20 1-25 20.01 — 39.90 15 40+ No fee APPENDIX,H YUBA COUNTY SCHEDULE OF ADOPTED 'IMPACT FEES Proposed Parcel HAP Building PeS"�it Existing Existing Lot Lot 5ixa!: Stas Sta-o ` Parcel Critical minter . Winter R�1-11ie .. ` h0+ acres$250 Y:0 S 75 $130 S175 20 acres5i2.0 S300$230 $35.0 10 *C762 S,3 0 S300 $350 5 ac ^as 20-3.9.9 Acres 20 acres S„50 S300` $120 $20A 5250 $350 10 aerea 5350 $240 $3S0 ac;es L0-1.9.9 acre 10 acres .40 rS S 65 $ 75 $265 $265 5 Acres 1 90 would bo aarmaascei agait�sti Bach how 7,oC proposed s peas APPENDIX G r A PROPOSED REVISED BUTTE COUNTY DOG ORDINANCE 112<. The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to the unincorporated, undeveloped, or very low density residential areas in the foothills and mountains east of Highway 99 (see Exhibit available at Butto County Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, for specific locations where ordinance applies). 113. In any instance in which a dog or dogs is/are observed killing, wounding, or pursuing deer, except as noted in Section 114, the person observing this action may kill the dog(s), if they are on their own property, have the permission of the landowner;, or are on public lands (e.g. U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management etc.). The provisions of Sections 1-:2 and 113shall not apply to any of the following`. I a. Any area within the corporate limits of any city, or within any developed rural or residential area with lot sizes of less' than three acres. b. Any dogs being used for the purpose of lawful training or huntin during prescribed dog training or 'hunting seasons c. Dogs in the immediate presence and under direct control of the owner. The dog must be in close proximity co the owner and the owner must demonstrate effective control of the dog. 11,5, The provisions of this act do not provide a legal 'reason for un - Authorized trespass. Offmiding dogs may be shot only by persons wit g '. be on the property► a right ht or permission to A11 incidents occurring under this'prov sion whether or riot t1- offending jog or dogs are shot, must be repdrted to local; law enfordement officials including Department of Fish and Game .y y personnel. p EASTERN *' M A FIOUIO paaar hi nal Bor'�r ' DBUT T QAIi ' EAGLE ASSEN �01cAea� �—"�'' sums '" �'ff, ndA1N. L v! I 44 0 VIOLA °" L A5S N I a I ASIA%4 VOLNe NIC 01`a 4 � re P�• •--; `` ! HINGLETOWtd , ._-..:..... �. C1JATIONAL cjcvn F SUSANVILI �.-i..i—•+iG0�,`._ ` TENAMh CO, �9 t5 ,. r••--..: ' PARK IM 3 36 WESTW00 'Ay" �CHESTER {P'i ,. ,C�ISI: 1' W.A 'S s„ �' •' °' :(A ANO Wtt tat 0 rtt r �eeMe 4TI NIANAIIIA STAYS ,, , GMAS n � •"`''' 89 GRCEN MLLE RED ,• ASI'Ut}k' P BLUFFiyL 4 : ,✓ I' • • A SEN PAXTO t: 70 89 LOS MOLINOS rn01►noNl01tty a F01041h . •-- m r ��Ci��t QUINCYa 70 CORWING HAMA """`• BUTTE Co. co spAAAMSE / CHICO .......... . Alm nar LASS � _ eenvill�a s~ C __ Bulla' es vRas! Croacent Mills t A �p EST A Sh Keaalo 6alaon o gCAL� IN MILES r Bald L 016 gU1N Y t � In mks cos ONA1. E RAST 70 Q9 PLUMS � AT _� (Trixzly Mfi, at White Gap a alis � �o 'Tam ®1.�N m rn tr PAR D!5 -r1 N C i ---�_ 0 rn ti 4bC ;u Q_ N ��'�a 0 Y f9GUR8 "' 3 MOORETOWN H*D (The.bounda ry an this map is generalized) r _ Inter -Departmental Memorandum TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Planning Director sueJECT: DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME PRESENTATION OATk: November 26, ]. 9 8 G Staff has prepared a report regarding divisions of property withi:i-the areas identified as "Areas of Special Biological Importancet1(ASBI for Deer) for your Boards hearing Dece-n.1er 2, 1986 in an attempt to demonstrate the percentages of parcel traps or subdivisions that have been considered by the Advisory Agency and your Board, unfortunately the project tracking system has only been in existence for approximately two years and research prior to January, 1985, will require a considerable amount of staff time. As your Board knows the California Environmental Quality Act provides and requires that any descretionary project, that has been identified as having an 'impact on the environment, must address the impact either by the applicant modifying the project so that the identified impacts become insignificant or preparing an Bnv ronmentai Impact Report. Mitigations are offered by applicants in response to identi- fieri impacts on Deer Herds, for example, limit fenced areas, limit types of fencing; and cluster development; etc. These miatigations are also recommended in the Deer Herd Study. The beer Herd Study of 1984 recommended that transportation corridors be designated, criteria be adopted for perimeter fencing, mitigation fees be adopted, transfer of development rights, maintain existing General. Plan designations other than those designated A -R (Agricultural-Residential)and F -R (Foothill"Recreational), maintain existing.parcel size or 40 acre minimum within A --R and F -R in cri.ti.cal ranges with a 20 acre minimum for non-critical ranges and enforce the County Dog Control Ordinance. Staff has included a copy of the Deer Herd Study, 1.954 for your Boards convenience. Your Board has also been informed that Yuba County has prepared and certified an Environmental. Impact Report on the cumulative. impacts' of rural residential development on migr°ato;y deer. As a result of this report, Yuba County is now 'collecting miqraHerd impacts, with the fees beingthel dfi.nsaftrusi.or tb add the in to fund a program In spring of 1987 to purchase monitoring equipment and employee one person to track and, plot movement for the fall and spring migrations. enter-DepartMentd6 Memorandum TOi FROM. David R. Hironimus, Associate Planner LAND DIVISIONS WITHIN AREAS OF SPECIAL:, BIOLOGICAL SUaJECT. IMPORTANCE (DEER) 0ATC: November 24, 1986 Since the Planning Department h&s had computerized project tracking (approximately two years), 89 land division projects have been processed within the deer herd areas. Of the 89 projects, 60 were processed with no objections or comments from.the California Department of Fish and Game. An addi- tional 12 projects were supported by DF&G with mitigation measures regarding homesite locations, fencing, etc. This is 80.90 oL the total (see attached table) During this time, three projects were withdrawn prior to a decision. Of the remaining 14 project-, wo were denied for reasons other than wildlife concerns a, ' projects were denied at the Advisory Agency for Genera.L :.lan non -conformity and impacts to wildlife, and subsequently appealed to the Board of Supervisors. Of the 12 appeals of Advisory Agency denials, six were overturned by the Board of supervisors and six were upheld. Five of the upheld denials were based solely on non -conformity with the General Plan, and one was based on non -conformity with the General Plan and unavoidable impacts to wildlife. One addlLional appeal was an appeal of an Advisory Agency approval. Currently there are 23 land division projects in process within the deer herd areas. Of these, 11 have no comments or objections from the Department of Fish and Came, two are supported by Fish and Game with mitigation measures, and four are recommended for denial by Fish and Game4 it should be noted that recommendations for denial may yet be received for some of the 17, and that mitigation measures or d0stgn changes may be developed for the four projects currently recommended for denial, resulting in more projects supported by Fish and Game. Overall, it appears that the projects currently in process possess much the same characte.ristids of the 89 projects discussed above. DAHrsj8 Attachment APPROVED With no objections or comments from DFG With mitigation measures supported by DFG Subtotal DFG recommended denial: Subtotal DENIED With no objections of comments fLom DFG With mitigation measures supported by DFG Subtotal DFG recommended denial Subtotal _ Total Piers Appeals 1.12 # % of o of 2 # Appeals Total 6`0 67:42 1 7.69 1.12 12 13.48 1 7.69 1.12 72 80.90 2 15.38 2.25 6a 6.74 5 38.46 5.62 78 7 53.85 7.87 0 1 1..12 1 7.69 1.12 1.12 1 7.69 1.12 2 2 15-:38 2.25 _6C 6.74 .44 30.77 4:49b 8 8.89 6 46.15 6.74b 1 WITHDRAWN With no objections or comments from DFG 1 1,12 0 0.00 0.00 DFG recommended denial 2.25 _0_ 0.00 0.00 Subtotal 3 3.37 0 0.000.00 TOTAL a 8'9 100-00 �. 3 100.00 14.61 erie project (Ritchey) approved b1► denied by AA and appealed. AA With mitigations, not appealed. The other five were bAll denials based on General Plan non -conformity. cTWO denials at AA did not appeal: Leonard, AP 71-01-91 and Runge, g r AP 58-17-33. 10 COMMISSIONERS' Brian J. I{ahn, Prvddeat Santa Rasa Abet C. Galletti, Vice President Rancho Palos Verdes Albert C. Taucher Long Brach Robert A. Bryant Yuba City John A. Murdy, III. Newport Beach October 11, 1986 GEORGE DEUIM1EJIAY Governor STATE OF CALiFORMA Fish and Game Commission Mr. Ed McLaughlin, Chairman Butte County Board of Supervisors 7 County Center Drive nrovii1e, CA 95965-3397 Dear Mr, McLaughlin: HAROLD C: CRIBUS GYECUrIVE SECM- ARY 1416 Ninth Street Sacromcnto, California 95814 (916) 445.5708 As you are aware, in April of this year, the Department of Fish and Game wrote you expressing its concern regarding the continued loss of critical deer habitat in Butte County. S ince that time, they have completed additional work which further documents the detrimental impacts of land subdivision on deer ranges. The department has provided the County with substantial data regarding deer ranges as well as the most up-to-date information on deer biology. They have also provided site specific informationcommentson the impacts of individual projects as well as suggested mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to acceptable levels, in spite of these efforts, Butte County has approved projects which have caused additional and avoidable losses of critical doer habitat absent any compensatory measures. These project approvals are inconsistent With requirements of state law pertaining to County General Plans and elements ereof, the subdivision Map Act`and its specific requirements, and the California Environmental Quality Att. Discussions including your Board and counsel and the Department and a representative of the Attorney General's office, have failed to produce a resolution. You should be aware that the Commission has independent legal standing and regards this matter with upmost seriousness and concern. Before the Commission takes action it has been waiting for Butte County Board of Supervisors to respond to the 'Department 's "suggested alternatives which were outlined in its letter to you dated September 17, 1986, The Commission Will be meeting in Executive Session on November 6, 1986 th s Mr. Fd McLaughlin, Chairman october 17, 198 Page 2 Sacramento to fully discuss the options available to it to insure'Outte County's compliance with state law regarding General Plans, subdivisions and environmental quality. if you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me Sincer ly, arold C. Cribbs' Executive Secretary ccs All Commissioners Denis Smaage, Deputy Attorney General Director Region 2 � I a PrW STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGED DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 1416 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95014 (916) 41.5-3531 GEORGE I)CLIK OIAN, Govemor Septeril:aor 1. J, 1986 Mr, Ed McLaughlin, Chairman Butte County Board of Supervisors 7 County Center'Drive Orovill:e , CA 95965-3397 Dear Mr. McLaughlin., In april of this year, I wrote to you expressing tko Department's Butte County. Since that time we have completed additional �� or concern regarding the continued loss of critical til�.c whichfurther p toork �,urther docuTrants the detrimental impacts of land subdivision on deer ranges. The Dopartment has provided the County—with substantial data regarding deer ranges well as the most up-to-date information on deer biology We tiave also provided site specific information and comments on the impacts of individual projects as well as suggested mitigation mea^uses to reduce these impacts to acceptable .levels. In spite of t'neze efforts, Butte County has aPProved projects which have caused additional and avoidable losses or deer habitat absent any compensatory measures, We believe these project approvals are. inconsistent with requirements of stats: law pertaining to County General Plans and elements tilel-eor, the Subdivision dap Act and its specific requirements, and the California environmental Quality Acta Discussions including Your Board and counsel and the Department and L representative Of the Attorney General 's Office, have. failed to Produce. a resolution. At this point we seem to 1+�-4e exhausted other alternatives, and l therefore re~queat that the: County immediately tame one of tuao actionsit Adopt a mitigation Plan similar to that: proposed over t rc� years ago by the± iyutte County Deer herd Study Panel, or impose a Moratorium on addst: anal; subdivision of lands in identified deer ranges until such tai.t'►o as a mitigation plan is adopted, Should the. County choose not to mean tl-,is request, T am prepared to refer this matter to the o fico of t ha �'�ttoy rn General for appropriate action, with particular attention to pvO'Visions of la%11 regarding General. Plans, subdivisions, and environmental quality, f'!tber 17, 1986 1�1r. Rd M�;1,,aughlin s our intention to contact your Board at the enol of SeVt`llh(('r 'to leaxn It you have questions cl- vwi.rh to discus;; of your response to this request. if this issue further, T urge you at your earliest convenience Lo contact ja�nes D. Messersm th, Reqs-onal jAwlagcr, Region 2, x.701 N irj)u.; Road, WcbO Cordova, cA 95670, telephone (916) 355-0922. Sincerely, Zjac�kt�C" .. Parnell for c.�.: Mossersmith-Region 2 OrOv,ille, California API-il 30, 1?86 Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive OrOville, CA 95Y63 Dear Comnli�31ioners; uffa Co. Flannin MAY Orovillo # ne(zently I reviewed the new Zoning map frrr fLhe fozothitl area where we live?. Half 0+ 3Ur jqas land" with a forty acj"o Minimum +or each s-:ingir'? residence. The Planner said thiA3 was becatt�t� ,11(2 Pal't of a rOUt E? for migratory door, This: i!�, to notify th4t I pht; to thioi Zoning on tWO grounds t (1) biologicoYOUl and (2) political. In the first place, there hoo not been a oign of a recent studv of Migratory deur in our geri�iral �IrQa. The California DepartmPrit of Fish a1w Game %.hUL(l(j MM -e their reCommedatit_nns btised upon w(*jl_dO_=jqnetj gur� flC?ld Studies of cent, conditions not on odLICAted ()UOV'ses. When I w, never saw migrator,,= cjr,�oj_, ' 5aYQ tho-v areWt seen. Maybo Bo, bUt th05e and GAmL 0 1 a the Planner "'form 0 mL th.,t Fish n deer" 10ave trao ' s and droppings, if Lhoy TI-IL,Planning Planning Departmont should insist upon current studies which ro'f"'Ct t1_10 actLtal PattOt''n-i OF deur mo\,(-Mc?nt, and thev should ma�".e these studies availabl- to COncornod residents. You should sot a tiMO limit on tho cr-implotion of studies. Gov'Orn"nent agenIci es, in Ovmerajo havo a penchant for delaying tactics as a WaY Of Achieving their ends, From the �tandpoint of AM Small 1�'.Andcv1nor thit� discri YrjjMatCr�,,, The tjia__jto pgS,,c. Zonis is .cj tht�� Williamz( Act. to Pro'LLzC_.t _1Vt"1CQ1tUt'0j find timoor' a ilrld frnm duNrUlorlmont. T h LIS, liandcu,niors 10 OLW al'(1s;'A 1611 rt1a"El OF timber �afl got trunk by 19rooing Mot to develop, In 0-r'f(-_1ct, the rtate -Ind COQr1tv is subsidi;ting fai'fninci iind timber on. ;c)r landownOrs. Mntf', of t,hL- I,- Orowlno� but our ar�l are t1mbC3r aoq Arf�jt,'� OWnOrsihipt, in doer, ar)d uther vjjjf;j),j+r, Z Of, I f) q Tho dL 10'-An'Qq ArP 1"Ot by tho 1'3tatt:4 bLft 'Lliq doonn,t kqatli- t-AY'P Owned bw tho Thov e�,pect C_Mt'jjj . "0 P4AY for' 4,hexr st,poortj their landlalldownor7, inthO fouthills to dv.dicatrl all �11 �.r M rl UP -Or hunters ;And wildlife ontfli- '� q t �t( + ro ride. -A , t -, Cote The f Par:'S a law which permits Fish and same t� pay for deer migration rights much like a scenic easement. The revenue could COMO from increased hunting foes* iocrensed state par 10= and/or a bond iszue for statewide wildlife improvomont, Since most counties have th", problem they cowld t,,hrow their influence behind Such a bond issue. The second suggestion has to do with control Q free roaming do 95- We have a ra5ident door fami ly which grazes up ,to the house (imcluding thQ rose ge Jon), Our dOq does not chase deer and only barks art them when thou enter Lhe immediate vicinity Of the hQuy" thecae doer havu been around the area for at least +Our voars- Wv have rel pati, vee in the densely residential Serl•oley Mills. Thf.y h8v'�2 �'A PEN'Sistont- problem with deer eating their garden. I do not believe thOt housing, per yaq has m-0ch effect unon doer populations, unless the OcaUPInt is a POAChOr' L)ugs are a throat., however. In our area a dog packs chases doer t;avof-al UMOG a year. The state and county could enact and enforce dog control ordinances during the period of door migration (VF they VOKIV knew whore the migration routov wurv). The least tho state and county can do tQ prevent a discriminatory taking of Joni use righIG is to provide relief. Why Ghoul tho 01*0 landowner in fdoth l'110 kir, expected to boar the whole burden? We onjoy seeing deer too, and awe willing to d0y" half of our acreage to thoir t5upport, but not as a gift! Gincaroly., ?") Robert I,%). cermaV "I Redbird cnr .krt, 3 croville, Cm WON-, I '49 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AG CY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 1416 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 ( 916 ) 445-3531 Mr. Ed McLaughlin# Chairman Butte co-qnty Board of supervitors 7 county Center t)rive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 0 April 231, 1906 OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA APR 3 0 1986 BOARD OF SUPCRVISORS Dear Mr. MCLaughlint artmont of rich and Game has been Working of The California Dep t of years regarding protection with Your Board for a nu The Department has critical deer I habitat Ln Butte County. y ed on the Butte County Deer Herd stud Panel and in paCticiPat study Panel Report. We have also preparation of the May 1984 Lon available I regarding provided the most up-to-date informat! able range biology of deer in Butte County and all avail information- more than three years, Butte rove deY During this time per!Lod, extending, elopments in deer ranges s continued to app, s of critical habitat and county ha or no Mitigation for los with little Drtmontis objections and with little regard fOt,e epa recommendations, -edinthe eventual vie now find ourselves Nt a crossroads re County and it appega,'a s thag t our fate of doer in Butte rely limited. A continuation of the alternatives are being seve 1 of lots of deer range cannot be considered rate and magnitude the cooperation of your table alternative, and We ask this an acceptable J,y acceptable solution to Board in finding a mutual problem. Committee Report -ontained in the Deer The Mitigation Measures c sonable and feasible andwe tan see no entirely rea, le appear to be en I if there are gal or reason they cannot be implemented. such meaqurets then we ask policy reasons for not implementing su I of development I s in deet app that a moratorium be placed on apt into place. protective measures can be put range until to be required under Subdivision Map Mitigation measures appear regulations Act and California Environmental Quality Act "I assist your countv. we have 11i red 'a person who in an effort '�ment for two monthsi He to will work with your Planning Depat size8 of lands Within will identify and tltai 1) existing parcel lb k- Lj t -i 6- auTwxa ap o fiuTxaa ' buTuaz put 40T -Cod aa.tTadoaddE u xo_ gas og pTnohz uxaouOO 3o seaxs a euzT�TGaT Osogq 'ssaooxd IOTgeuTWTTa 944 GuTMOTT04 'gtLt4 poax5u OsTP SPM 41 •TonOT xOu95V �xosznpV lagq qt suoTgooCgo auta� put? LIsT,l go _�ragttmu V a.uaaaxd ma Ptn '4tOsgT uT ' STU • uxaouoO go aq xabuoT au pTnohi uOTuM seaxe asoL aq.�uTwTTO dTOLI 04 DOT190 buTuueTa alAq Oqut ou oo 04 sem uapmou' s WTf,% J -e TRau xO3 OTgegTnsun ac{ xptOxTt? Al: -)m sTGOxt?d buTpunox;zns PUP F�uT�sTxa sasea awos UT uaLih� 'sdtaul Owe pue LIsT3 UO PDT�uapr st 061IVa TL�OTgTxO p04O0s 1 T 0J -UT s zoT t OTTddt xan4UGPT J.uatudoTar,ap Put' s4TTds 100and 04 5uTJ trOorgo xTTaxa4eTTun sPh1 GU Pe) put") LIST,I Teq-4 seM snsuOsuoo at{s a} cgec{ s BT.tapTsuoO ti:} TOM TTT:}s axv gotgtM spoaP aso st TTOM, st 'uaTJ*PZapTsuoo tuox uV uo snood uaa q x fax � ant � �t��gau aTgt?nTVA st iso p T g qo-cttM seo" 04VUTtuTTO 0-4 sant STt;s (TZ zagwano o owa� aaS) 'gOTT;uOO go slaaxe asogq deur pue 43TI,uOpT pTnort J.uatagxtdad xno gt'uq paoxBu gena 41 "T 04epdn off. pue ' oaoq uoT. Ot go • apt=tu ssoaGoxd 044 uo nox asxnoo 4P44 OuTTI-nO 04 aw MoTT i4UOWJ-xtdOG xno Ag ogep 04 'L[4Tej p006 ux 'pL' oTTo ua r{ st?ti pus btxTaOwaLt qv ttddLt paax�e sel%j uoTOta asxnoa •uoTssTwrtlo� �uTuutTd xno go xa4TeM TxVO pug ;Tasxtu PUP i uoul -Jxedaa iuruueT ,to go xa4aaxgS ana S pug uh�o g xt S ,a as 'quautqxtdga atlox go alTpdn 500a pus uasuay� rCzzar 'sadt?Iq god a pai ua� �e SC'M CIOTt(hl xatiOxTx DA440a ' ao4ogaTO GuTuueTd 'no 90 O-IT;9O c04-4 UT S86T 19 xagwatloN pTaq SLA% 6uTqagw • AqunoD 044nff UT spxOtt zaap uo BuTAeq sT juawdoTanop 40taulT 044 0J.t~Tn.OTTs 04 but ew sT J.uattt�.xedoCj 5uTuueTa xno s xo;-Z Otis nogr. Gutpuu sxapunsTw atuos q o:} swoas axotil £ t;oxeW o t(OstIOW xxxaf g4TtA UOTIesxar UOO aotld xw xad st Put? '986T ' i 4a*axgoa ,;o :ragqoT anoA 04 asuOUsax UT ST spj uOSUOP • xt,1 ztwa OL956 eTUao;tTto �tAOpxO3 ottoUt�j a�T 'psoa sngwTN TQLT Xo5tuew Teuo r6oa uasuo,p Tnea 'X! lU4V°IsF5 •,vlolw tSC �!s%t 6 VINNO.111N� '„11"tlAO2q O - :laymm m i i 596T 'LT ttoxet otuC=ass ' TTaM. ss uoT oas COTTOd auk 94TaM ' 4uassa anoR ggTM 'pTnoM Z ' a?,qqt=oO paell aeatz a suoi t puautiu000-1 RozTod au4 4uFjw9TdwT xo Tdopv qou scop �qunoo au4 11 •gp;DC ns atIq rsaxpps 4TTn; off, papaau satoTTod Tsuo-r4`rpps Aum Aq pa uatuaTddns aa�� run�a� pxaH asoo qq4 go stxo rqxaq rTap auk go gTnsax v ss Aqunoo aq4 Aq pa4dopa AOTTod auq 4xasux 04 uox4ua4uT Atu ssM 4'r ' UOT40as AaTTod auk. go Sulam. ux 9ZT8 pzoq x99p off. szo:}ot4g 6UT4-FmttI squomeaTnboz q. vgTgvl4 aap go anTVn oTutouoorl 895UVI Tvuossas put uo-rj,2a -rm pa"'SH (tzor�.�Tndod Paotl p04stuTgS9 6tzTpnTouT) SUoT4dYxosap pxatj X800 t4t-p 4aQ4uanuT pus do Xotq 30 sadXq 6UTAOTTo 0144 buzpnTOUT tut I ' AiT' bTmeq :5UTAoTTo atT xag o pTnoM T 14ttaIU9M UOT4ua.xoag Acts sao:-cn.ot�og Tlexn4VR auk. UT passoxpps aqTT M uo`r��utxa�u' �a:�atX aap Moil fit cp,xVba�t UdT4sonb tno C o.4 osuodsa.x ttT 9$GY ' �T tjox�t� IIILva �.ti�ticaT� txo-r�.�axoa Put saoanbsov TV:EngtK at[4 uT spxaj4 xaaQ butssaxppv I.Lbariams ��"f xL�. r►Vad '/'V, 555 ao�o auascl war 'ATaaaasuTS 'MO -85E (9T6) aurgdaTOI 'OL956VD 'anopaoD ogoua '-vaol sngwTN ` OLT 'Z uoT69�j '306MM14 Tauot60�1 'uosuar ',L tnsa 4ot;uoo aspaTd 'aouejsTssp joggan ;o aq use juaw;asdaQ au} 41 'aouatuanuoo anoA qa ansst sTq-4 uo noA 41TA gaaw oa raassaTd aq PTnaM aM 'uoTInTos s 4s 66tnT23s ut p.zsoH anoA woa3 aouOstsss Pup uoT40s awns paau op ad, 'aanOAO� igovoadda sTgj anuTquoo of juajuT ano pup aaj4Lw stgj UT uolgtijos atgvITnba Up 6ujgosa.l uT noA gjjA ATanTviod000 xxoM oq aitsap qsa-4vax6 :ono sT 4x 4pavoq jnoA oq pa4tatput Ajsnotnaad GAtg aM s"d 4060vi, aajutel oa 96usz aajujA tsoTIFao w634 "oil 10a6us4n aq Alew sa6usa agjo ;o suoT-tu6Ts9c '0010tap aq TTtM a6us3 aOap away 'p940ag4h Atasaanpa uaaq sQ4 saBut;z aT044 ;o asn eop aaatIA antloodsaod 6utuusTd s Moil autuiaalop TtTM oM 'paIaTdwoo sT BUTddvu azTs Taoaad 6uTIstxa sv 6110de�l 6011TuWOO XaaQ ag! UT apsw . ,soTIVpuawuooax s salatdwoo 16410r aqr, u.ta Tsaauaf) ztIOX uTiITVT -uOPTsoV-TsanjtnoTa6%I Ov? p subTsap spust UT411A sabusa asap AAojs36Tw 40 .aco s !uao041 ft pus 'A unoo 041 UT sabusa aaap Aao4s�6Tut u t w AV 1 0 Paul Jensen Page Two March 17, 1986 2. 11 Our Planning Department has haO to roly on t -ho help of interns to provide the necessary staff timo LQ �1-,Complish the mapping process. This was made clear Lo 1,hose from your Department at the time of the mOOU-ngi OW1 subso- quently, Jer,tY Mcv sch had offered to aLtoi-npt Lo 0j)j-aij, resources and personnel for Planning to sl)(' Irl 11r) the mapping process; two months of funding for "I .int urn tr, preparo maps waa confirmed on March 13, 1986We expect Jim Snowden to come by the Planning Dopart1iit-I'll.- frequently to check the proqross of the now mLjps.- Other efforts the Planning Commission has and is Pursuing include: Butte County Land Trust: It was mentioned to those pr,.sent from your Department tliat the concclyt of I ljon�profit organization for roceiviftgdevOlOPMLnt ricJbUl on land to be held in open space was being (liscusoso ,d. Since then, that organization has been formed (indepc,.,ldent of county government), This mechanism is a valuable tool for encouraging appropriate clustering of development, and allowing V, luablo ConSKrvation easemolits. we had omo. discuss*in about how land that was privately owned could be held"'.tn perpetuity" for the PurPOses of resourco C011-90rVation. The Land Trust is one way of acIlicivi1jr, that,, and had been an accePtaillo idca to miany (alLhour-111 certainly not all) property owners. Foothill 1olicV: The Commission has recormnended on a unanimous vote that SP00ific FOOthill 'Policy be adopted into the General Plan. This 1?01cY specifically addresses wildlife habitat. Further, the DOPtIrM.�nt is curr(,rltiy writing a Resource Conservation rl(_,m0,nt to Our General Plan 'something, we have: not had in tfic, �vh'I 0, cll is ;b1corporat'o language applicable to door herds usill,cjilnformati2 in the Door Herd Report, qn(I at on obtainud public 110"i r4ngs, This, too, w,�S explained to those from your Dapartme at the meeting, nt W110 Were present Aosource Conservation Zone! Our Commission is currently holding workshops' -- 0 accomplish a massive revision of our county Zoning code. Ono of the nuv proposed (Re801ileo Conservation,) a .14 (1 %ones is Rr, that -11(l Wi-11 include SPOCIfic standards All address Migratory 1 would hope thatthis "PlanX `lt-'I 011 Of 0111' 4%ctiVities demonstratesL that but commia8lon is acting ill .100(l fait"Alt t1jilej j.rj diligently PUtguilIq a rOSOlut-ion to t1lV Wfl,Allifu 141biLatI frankly thought that tb0SC Of YOU)- DLI�Jdj:t m(Int SCU W110 C11 �&�. with me anS'ad others �qur(! C�d the matter �i-sriod wiLh Our ole -going effort" El Paul Jensen Page Three March 17, 1986 You ask the question "If you are not certain abr)ut impacts approved development is having on d-er herds, should you not wait for more information before granting approvc1,',t*p!1 I Would submit to you that: 1. The Commission does not review or vote on. Mar) 017 subdivision applications. We canwrite poli(. ,y and set criteria for those applications, howevor, and that is what we are in the prooess of doing. 2. Since there seems' to be substantial evidenco that many of Fish and Game's objections are unsubstant:L,11(,�(1, 1: believe that issue needs to be clarified before UuilaLeral denial of applications can be justified. 3. The information provided by your Department in response to a letter: from the Butte County Board of SUPervisors dated April 19, 1985 is not specific to Butte County (with the exception of dear hill numbers) and does not provide specific data. I was hoping the information would be more useful. Whatever actual field data is available for Butte County would help the planning process greatly, I hope this letter answers some of your concerns, Sincerely, Xaren Vercruse Carl P. Walter Chair of Deer Her'd Committee Dour 11ord Committee Butte County Planning Commission Butte County Planning Commission hV Jmc cc Butte county Board of Suporvisors Butte County Planning con-vi8sionars 0 State Fish and Game Commissioners GEORGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME REGION 2 170: 1.4Ihi6US ROAD, SUITE A RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 95670 (916) 355-7020 February 21 1986 go Mrs. Karen VeY.cruz, Chairperson Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mrs. Vercruz: Th._ Department o;E Fish and Game has been working with Butte County for the past three years to provide protection to valuable and rapidly diminishing doer rangesi in this process we have provided Butte County and the Ct.)mmi.ssion with all currently available information on doer range locations, habitatll eneedsemigratiODepartmnt ted' corridors and a number )f other factors. the Board of Supwrvisorz in establishing the Deer Advisory Committee and participated in the deliberations of that committee which complete an anlysis of deer problems in Butte County And submitted a report in May 1984. We have also reviewed and provided biologically based comments on General Plan Amendments, Tentative Parcel Maps, and Subdivision maps. outing this same period a continued and significant erosion of deer habitat has occurred. In some Butte county deerhed,the total loss of winter range habitat has app percent. The planning Commission has on several Occasions requested additional information from the Department and we appreciate your desire to have adequate information on nrohichval L�vtosbaseyour of deer decisions. However, the continued app ranges raises questions about the informational base on which such approvals are granted, ssion and the Board have inadequate information on if the Commi which to bast~ General Plan and Environmental Impact Report decisions, then should not All. land use decisions which potentially impact deer be held in abeyance until the necessary information is available The Department is anxious to assist Butte Courcy and intends to provide all additional irifotmation as it i.s developed by Our ongoing research programs. 8('wevor, existing intormatiLn demonstrates that doer are being adversely affected, and it is impossible to catty y out our legal mandates under the current system which appears to ignore that evidence. 3 y a M+ -s. Xaren Vercruz -2- February 21 906 - , this time we would appreciate knowing when you L?��:I ieve Ow Planning Commission will be in a position to Submit the Dear Committee Report to the Board. Any suggestions you xnay havo as to a mutually satisfactory resolution to the deer habitat protection problem would be appreciated. While this process iKt underway, its appears appropriate that any additional projects in doer rango be field in abeyance. If you have any further questions; plea�ie contzant Jorry Mensch, Environmental Services Supervisor, teleJahone (916) 3.55-7030. Sincerely, Paul T. Jensen Regional Manager Inter -Dept rtfiti"t101, Memorandum To; planning Commission i°ROIA planning SUBitcT: peer Herd DATE: November 21, 1985 it was decided at the last committee meeting, which was also attended by Bob Map -5a Jerry Menscli and Doug Updike from the Department of Fish and Game, that both the County and Stato would continue to identify those areas of conflict betweell the wildlife concerns An the ereasathatnhadfadevelopment, it was also agreed that ec1 at'C1t1 experienced development Mould be identified and mapp 1 of greater than 15% scope would also be trapped. The planning Department utiliz ne the °gnter progtely three ram" will prepare the maps, The project will take app' to four months to complete. Fish and Game will work with staff to determine those areas Which should be considered for more intense development considering existing parcel sizes' delineating the areas of Agricultural Staff has prepared a map eneraJ� plan, overlain with Deer. Residential designation on the g from to 10 winter range corridors, parcel sites rallging acres and lC to `?U acatlth�ecommission meetiitge.ndelineated r and should. be available W tjmc 1�5141 AAZZ - cla-e- NOTES DEER HERD COMMITTEE November 6, 1985 Present: Karen Vercruse, Carl Walter, Steve Streeter, Star Brown Wildlife Management for Private lands - We discussed approaching large property owners in the Foothill and Mountainous areas, owners would receive money for hunting privileges as the Sugarloaf Ranch in, Yuba County; Land Trusts are anotherwjth upLl to Consider along with wildlife management plans, ion Karen V. thought that $20j000.00 has been appropriatod ror telemetry tracking of deer in Butte County. The committee is interested to know how the Deer Hord issues are being handled in adjoining counties - Plumast Yuba and Tehama. What Parcels are built on in less than 10 acre areas? We reviewed copies of the February 1983 memorandum with number of parcels by Planning Area. What relation is there between number of Parcels and census data/population Projections? Population numbers Of migratory versus resident deery what are reasonable numbers for both? A Mother Lode Resident 'Deer Hord Management Plan was cited as a reference. The committee decided to request DFG to Provide information about resident deer in the What are the deer herd figures before the cOnstruCti011 of the OtOville Dam and after construction of the Oroville Dam? What percentage dif-feret4ces have Occurred, in the deer herd numbers? The three areas where deer occur in the COuntY are the timber lands, gra2ing lands and lands de.ignated agricultural residential by the general plal. The committee .LhoAcfh1.,twould be holders and see what cooporat valuable, to contact major timber ion there wO1,11d be migratory deer herds, (No -Let The empfor basis to date hasManag bing the areas of the County designated for Agricultural on ral Re8idettial Use- the timber Mountain and gra2ing/open lan,d categories have 40 acre minimum Parcel sizes Which Coincide tdi h DVG recommendations migratory deer - t I herds.) The committee wished to mo -et with DDG about private land managemont/f utding sources and ether issues prior to the November 21, 1985 Plantipg Commission meeting, Range Mahagezeht is Currently handled by CDV. Whet Will DFG be in, the range management business? Number six on page nine OE the April 1985 letter. We are also interested in an Update on all the legislation listed it the April 1.985 letter onpage 5. ,l 5 Continued ri Pa 'n T, g VY %J A dog control ordii,ance, fencing requirements homesite loc��tions clustex;he�/ F"v are subjects addressed in the deer herd studya Parcel size and trans ortaton r;orL�.r�o;�>'�t Of these items, the doq control ordinance and fen. requirements could. be Panel report." further review agreed on fencing but the other items require prior to adoption of Aal.icies by the County. The deer �tigr:ata,.ons window- identified by DFG are reflected on four separate Ma. Land in the `+'icinity of deer migration windows should be checked on the AP pas sizes proh:.bit the effectiveness of theewindows. if the parcel. xlie .RC (Resc.;!?-ce Conservation to include s ) zone was Proposed for dror, Ae�i i0 standards that would address revision �� g�;atory zde1atifi.cation of target areas for plans"was a task private wildlife management Proposed for completion. sAs;jme NOTES ON FISH AND GAME RESPONSE TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORSLETTER 1. Except for the specific text of previously mentior:ed legislation and the agreement text for the American River project, carne of the documentation is new information. 2. Nobe of the documentation, except for Deer Kill, is specific to Butte County, and most information t -in the two Butte County herds was conducted on public 'ander.. Ninety percent of lands affected in Butte Count= are privately owned. No information specific to those lands is available. With regard to response to specific questions: 1. It is apparent from the discussion that there are many factors affecting herd populations beside parcel sizes. All these factors combine in a situation that is dynamic -- not static - from year to year. No prioritizing of factors was mentioned. Also not mentioned was the fac, that for the Eastern Tehama Herd, the single most limiting factor was the summer Lange - a point made during the hearing process. The summer range .for this herd is outside Butte County boundary line, much of, it publicly owned. b. Harvesting - Although Deer Kill numbers are available for )Butte. County, the Department admits that they are not accurate indicators of population trends since changes in hunting zones and season make the harvests difficult to equate. Illegal harvest seems to be a major factor in limiting herd ;populations, but no indication is given for this factor, No figures exist for illegal harvesting although the Departmen'r. admits that it is otle of the single most limiting factors of h lri population. d. No specific information exists for resident deer herds in Butte County, Resident deer are the same species as migratory deer, The Department admits that resident dee- compete for the same winter range as migratory deer. No information exists as to the interaction betwaen resident and migratory deer in Butte Countyi Population levels of resident deer are not known. Harvesting numbers do not distinguish between resident and migratory deer, Resident deer appear to have a great potential for affecting migratory deer populations, Information about resident deer should figure prominently in establishing herd managements priorities on private lands. Any policy ostablished for Butte County without resident deer herd information 'would appear to be 3ntompl.ete and, therefore) ineffective, C R NOTES,• Continued e. Physical harriers - Oroville Reservoir is identified as a major obstacle in Butte County to deer movement, and more importantly as the largest single factor to loss of winter rangL The Department admits to requiring project sponsors to compensate for losses of habitat, and gives as an example the agreement for the American River. No such compensation was required of DWR When the Oroville Dam was built. Although it may not be practical to rectify this situation now, it should be noted that land owners in Butte County cannot be expected to makeup for losses caused by DWR,