Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-6 DEER HERD COMMITTEE 3 OF 33fl t .Al • P t N OTICE ON RSIZE DRAWING HAS BEEN REMOVED AND FILMED ON 35MM ()-vv-ERSIZE DRAWIN 1 HAS BEEN REMT OVED AND FILMED ON 35MM NOTICE r O ,VERSIZE IJAS BEEN REMOVED ,kND FILMED ON 35MM p 30VER . VAX NOTICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY I DEPA'RTMENT OF FISH. AND GAME REGION 2 1701 NIMBUS ROAD, SUITE A RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 95670 February 25, 1986 t1r. Leonard V. Fulton, (101rd of Supervisor; H(JUL, County 25 County Center Drive-� Orc)ville, CA 95965-3380 Dear 'Nr- rulton- f1khbhu "'Co. Planning ComM, MAR 1 1986 OrOV1,11a, ulforau (MOV11.1 L. CA1 lr()I'1NIA r, F f3 ,,, 6 1986 80AH(i r)r 'IAN, Governor As requited by state law arid Fish and Game commi, Sion Dep4rtment has Completed management plans for dee— her POlicyr the ds throughout the state. These Plans Provide basic tj�-,idn e habitat protection and improvorlju,�,I- management programs, I C: hunting regulations. Many local gOverni as well as governments Partie,-ij,a,4ted ill developing the subject plans and are aware of tho ncid Lot plan an In the event that you or other appropriate individuais are not aware of the subject plans, this is to inform you Of their L. availability for review. Since these documents are technical in nature and subject to annual review and update, it is impracticaj, to make copies available to all interested individuals, As an alternative; Alar Arc, available listed on attachmk.,t, for rev*I ew at the locations If you or Y'I-tlr organization require copies of these plans, please infOrtft mq of that fact. Arrangoments�Can be made documonts where necessary; Any questions ' to Provide the regarding this mat�er may no directed to me or at Perkins at 1701 Nimbus Roade Rancho Ct'IdOvap CA 95670, (916) 555-70106 YOU Will be tUture activities related to, Ian updates, informed of Ile loo},% forward to Your cooperation in managing Our duer resources* Sincerely, Paul T4 Regional Manager Attachment 0 THE BUCKS MOUNTAINJMOORETOWN DEER HERDS MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepare at 1983 d J .ca .Q- vden, gildlife 'Biologist r the Supervision of J&Mes k; Sower, Associate Wildlife Biologist and Patricia Perkins, V.ildlife Management Sup-rvi,"r California Department of Fish and Game In Cooperation with the Plumas National Forest TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES -iv LIST OF FIGURES iv I. INTRODUCTION 1 I. DESCRIPTION OF DEER MANAGEMENT UNIT B A. Herd Description and History 3- 1. Herd Definition 3 2. Herd Migration and Seasonal Ranges 3 3. Estimated Herd Population 5 4. Reported Deer flake 9 5. Herd Composition and Age Structure 9 6. Reproduction and Recruitment 9 7. Mortality 12 g. Economic Value of Deer 19 S. Herd Range Description and History" 21 1. Topography 21 2_. Soils 21 3. Climate 21 4. Land Use and OWnership 22 5, Vegetation 23 6• Forage 24 7. Plater 25 8. Fire History 25 9. Livestock 28 moi„ TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 10. Logging 32 11. Reforestation 33 12. Water Impoundments 33 C. Factors. Limiting the Deer Herds 34 1. Rural Sprawl 34 2. Reforestation ;and Brush Management 35 3. Loss of Oaks 35 4, Roads 36 5. Fire Suppression 37 6. Water Impoundments 37 7. Grazing 37 S'. Poaching 38 9. Predation 38 J.O. Hunting 39 Ili Weather 39 III. MANAGEMENT UNIT GOALS 40 A. Bucks Mountain Herd Goals 40 B. Mooretown Herd Goals 41 C. Habitat ,Goals 41 IV, MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS 42 A Herd Biology Investigative Needs 43 B. Habitat 43 C. Utilization 44 D. Communication 44 E. Law Enforcement 45 -ii,_ TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 'V. MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSAND PRESCRIPTIONS 40 46 A. Inventory' and Investigation 47 B. Mortality Control 48 ' C. Habitat 51. D. Utilization. 53 E. Communication of Information 54 F. Lasa Enforcement 55 G. Review ;and Update . 56 VI. ALTERNATIVES 57 VII. REFERENCES VIII. ApptdixEl MooretICS own Deer Telemetry Study + 58 tHerd progress por endx 2 - Herd Composition of County Comparison 1157 - Appendix Herds - 63` Present Blue Canyon and Pacific Deer appendix 3 - Plant Communities of the Bucks Mountain and 64 MooretoOu beer Herd Management Units Appendix 4 - Migratory neer Study 'Panel Report, 67 Butte County o? Appendix 5 °- Hardwood Retention Ptdscription -iiia t L TABLES P` age Table 1 - Estimate'; Population For Five Year Periods 1958-821 6 Bucks Mouutain Deer Herd Table 2 - Estimated Population For Five Year Periods 1958-82, 7 Mooretown Deer Herd Table 8 - Reported Buck Kill, Bucks Mountain Herd 10 r Table 4 - Reported Buck Kill, Mooretown Herd 11. Table 5 - State �Jigl'xaar 70 Reported Deer Kill; Bucks Mountain 14 Herd Table 6 - Major Fires on the Bucks Mountain Deer Herd Ranges 27 (40+Acres;), Plumas National Forest 1911.1980 Table 7 - Mayor Fires on the Mooretowu Deer Herd Range 1950>1979 27 (20+Acres), Plumas National Forest Table 8 - Present Livestock Use on Summer Range, Plumas 29 National sorest, Bucks Mountain Herd Table 9 - Present Ltvoitock use on Intermediate Range, 30 Plumas Natt:-I :1 For-st, Bucks Mountain Herd Range Table 10 - present Livestock U*i on Plumas National Forest 31 - in tb- Moore,town Hex. Rantb'" ' F IGT'kR5 Figure l - Location Map, Bucks Mountain Deer Herd 3.a Figure 2 - Location Kap,-Mooretowu Deer Herd 3b I. INTRODUCTION The deer herds of California are a resource of great economic and esthetic value to the people of the state. California was among the pioneer states in recognizing these values when it afforded deer some legal protection as early as 1852. The mandate to manage this resource has been the responsibility of the California Department of Fish and Game since the inception; of the agency. At the turn of this jcentury# deer populations were at extremely low levels '00. most ranges, primarily due to unrestricted market hunting anti habitat alterao- Cion (Lonbhurst et al. 1952). The programs and regulations established at that time were highly successful in rebuilding the state's deer populations to a ttiigh point during the 1950's y Beginning in the 1960's, most California deer herds began to eAhibit serious long-term population declines '(Longhurst et al. 1976). In 1976, Department ' personnel, with considerable public input, formulated a statewide strategic plan for deer management to address the problem. Emphasis was added to the program by legislative mandate (AB -1521, September 1971). The mandate was translated into a new policy by the Department and the .Fish and Game Commission requiring that: 1) pl.anning for deer management be on A herd basis, 2) specific program elements be included in each plan, and 1) herd plans generally conform to the statewide "strategic plan, This document conforms to the general legislative mandate and Department policy commitment as a management plan for the Sudkt Mountain And hooretown deer herds. The plan includes! 1) a description of the deer herds and the physical ativironiaatit which constitutes their range and habitat; 2) management unit Goals; 3) spacific management problems; 4) management solutions and Prescrip- tions tot those problems; 5) alternatives to proposed programs a •.1 prescriptions'; 6) selected references; and r) appendices containing supporting, information. Since a herd management plan mtl.st be dynamic to bu successful, periodic review and updating are integral parts of the planning process. As additional information is obtained, the piaci will be revised as is appropriate. The basic intent of this plan is to ,provitle guidance to land .management agen- cies~ local government, and landowners in land use decisions which will affect the deer herds. The viability of the pian will depend on the active support of these policy makers. Two adjacznt migratory deer herds, g,icks Mountain and Mooretowni will be covered by this plan. This is app'topria to because both herds share the following; 1. Nearly all of the publicly owxted, summer range i' administered by Plumas National Forest, `lost of the winter and intermediate ranges are privately owned, and are subject to similar political and land use considerations. 3; overall rahge conditions and problems are similar - 4. interested publics are essentially the same. 5, Management strategies and goals are largely p arallel 1:, 1 0' 0 0 e II. DESCRIPTION OF THE DEER HERD MANAGEMENT UNIT A. Kerd `Definition and Histo,.y i, Hera Definition --- us -- Migratory Columbian blank -tailed` deer (Odocoileus hemionus Colum- bianus) comprise the Bucks Mountain and Mooretown herds. A consider- able number of resident deer share the winter ranges of the herds. The Bucks Mountain herd is located in western Plumas and eastern Butte counties (Figure I)a this boundary is substantiaLLy different from the one defined in 1952 (Longhurst et ai). A boundary change was justified on the basis of observed deer habits', buck, take pat- terns, radio telemetry studies, and topography. Range area is approximately 728 square miles. ' The Mooretown deer herd borders the south boundary of the Bucks Moun- tain herd,. and extends into northwestern Sierra and northeastern Yuba counties. Its boundary (Figure 2) has been revised for the same reasons as for the Bucks Mountain herd. Range area is approximately 703 square miles. 2i. lietd Migration and Seasonal Ranges a. Bucks Mountain Herd Seasonal rangest holding and fawning areaso and migration routes are partially known. A limited amount of radio telemetry and tagging study has 'occurred in this he'd: HoWtvero since such ' studies in other Herds have mostly confirmed the validity of field observations,, significant range boundary changes are not anticipated when further telemetry work is accomplished. A -3- 0 FIGURE 2 MOORETOWN HERD (The boundary on this map is generalized) better definition of ;holding areasis expected froin telemetry s tudy. The winter range contains about 200,600 acres with an a l ti tud- final range of 500 to -3,800 feet; the bulk of range use is genet- ally froO 1,000 to ;1,300 feet. Summer range contains 180,500 acres, and extends from 4,600 through 7,000 feet elevation. Most of the deer are found between 5,500 to 6,800 feet. inter- mediate range contains about 85,100 acres. Some deer do summer to small numbers,as suitable feed is united;. This range is mt u., o d dt:xing the migration periods, With greatest use in the 'fall when the &ao°"n crop falls and weatllier is mild. Migration routes generally follow ridge tops. Thoet deer wintering deep in the Middle and North Fork canyons of the t probably g ed Feather River, a fre- quently associated with stands of black oak and deerbrush.. The location of fawning areas needs further refining. Meadows may be locally important for fawning, but they are 'quite limited. in number. Brushy places With Ceannothtis and P=u nus species, particuk4ly near riparian areas, appear to be good for fawning. b Moore town Herd Seasonal ranges, holding and fawning areas, and 'migration routes arebetter known than in the Btdks Mountain herd. Some telemetry and tagging swdies have been accomplished (see. Appen- dix x). These studies tend to confirm field observations and .4a 0 a spot 'kill map evidence regarding, migration. Winter range con- tains 231,000 acres with essentially the same elevation bounds of the Bucks Mountain. herd. Summet range contains 145,300 acres with elevation bounds similar to the Bucks Mountain herd Intermediate range contains 72,6±50 acres, occurring between. summer and winter range, Radio telemetry ,studies have confirmed observed migration routes. These routes usually follow a major O,dge system, but a feu deer cross major drainagee (Appendix Y). Aspects of holding and fawning areas differ 'little from the Bucka Mountain herd. 3. Estimated Herd Population Size Knowledge of the population historyof the deer herds is 'rather limited, The topography of the herd range does not lend itself well. to the gathering of traditional herd r • rformance data such as herd composition and age class structure. Limited information has been gathered since the work of tonghurst et al,. (1952). The primary information available is the annual buck harvest. Age class data were gathered from hunter killed bucks during the early 1960'x, and pellet group transects were read during the late 1960's and early 19'.',''s. Rowever, this information is limited in value due to its lack of continuity, it is difficult to make accurate population site estimates based on buck kill alone. Any such estimates must be based ontassumed harvest rates, and must be viewed with Caution, because harvest rates vary annually and the proportion of reported vets:s non -reported kill probably also varies annuaL y. Tables l and 1 depict the estimated range of population sizes based on assumed 45- Table 1 Estimated Population For Five Year Periods '1958-82 Bucks Mountain Deer Herd Period Reported Kill Estimated Kill a E., timated Population Avera" e 1958-62 2320 3271 8241 1963-67 2382 3359 8467 1968-72 1888 2562 6703 19'73-77 1150 1622 4083. 1973-82 991 1397 3516 " a E3timated population average is the mean of the assumed 6 to 9.5% harvest rate which includes a 41% Correction factor for unreported legal buck take. Table 2` Estimated Population For Five Year Periods 1958-82 HooretoWn Deer Herd Period Reported i:i11 Estimated Kill i Estimated Population Average 1958-62 2630 3708 9386 1963-67 2651 3738 9463 1963-72 2550 3596 9095 1973-77 1902 2682 6761 1978-82 1949 1.748 6958 -: a Estimated average population is the mean 'actor of the assumed 6 to 9.57. harvest for legal buck take. rate''ahich includes s 417. correction unreported harvest rates of 67. and 9..`X4 These harvest rates are believed to be the most reasonable extrFiws., Statewide hunter surveys have shown that 50% of succesoCul deer hunters fail to report .,tieir take. Locker checks in tilt, Blue. Canyon herd indicate :a 32% i'a.ilure to report (Fowler and Wagnur 1981) 'hls plan will use the mean of the two averages (41%) ars a correction factor to arrive at herd population estimates. To raduca annual variations due to wetther, migratory movement, hunter pressure, etc., five year averages ure used. because the boundaries described in this plan differ from _previous descriptions of 'these herds, population estimates in other pub ica- clans are not: appl.cable. Estimates used herein are. based on buck- tate for the two bards since 1957. A lack of spot kill maps for yearn prior to l0t8 are the reason Why earlier estimates are unavailable. a- The Bucks Houn.tain herd population peaked with about 8467 in, 1963.67, and the low occurred in 1978-82 with about 3516. It should be noted that peak populations occui ed following the 1956 doe Wirt A significant population decline began after 1966; and became severe after 1972. b, Hooretown herd population poaked with about 9463 during 1963-674 and the low occurred during 1973-77 with about 6781. Again, the peak population occurred after 1956. U though a downward papa- lation trend became apparent after 1972) this herd has been more stable than most other adjacent deer populations, _g- fly. 9. .... 4. Reported Deer Take Except for the 1956 either sex hunt, both herds have been subjected to hunting for forked antler (or better) bucks only. Annual harves to for bucks of the Bucks Mountain and Mooretowu herds are shown in Tables 3 and 4 respectively. Since spot kill maps are not available for all counties prior to 1958, the number of antlerless deer taken in 1956 is unknown. However, as county wide autlerleas harvests were about equal to the buck harvest, it is estimated (based on Butte County kill) that 280 antlerless deer were taken in the Bucks Moun- tain herd and 510 in the Mooretown herd. 5. Herd Composition and Age Structure Only a few attempts at composition counting (in the 1960's) have been made fo the. herds, and the tally was too small to be reliable. Heavy vegetation, poor access, and limited manpower have been the main reasons for the (lack of effort. it is believed that the herd composition is similar to those of the Dlue Canyon and Pacific herds since hunting pressure, terrain, weather, etc. are similar. (see Appendix 2). Age structure information is lacking. Past attempt.4 at check station and locker counts have had poor results as deer carcass numbers were low. 6. Reproduction and Recruitmen Little is known for either herd. Fawn survival is probably similar to that of the Blue Canyon herd because of similar physical and. social factors.. (Appendix 2) Table 3 Reported Buck Kill, Bucks Mountain Herd 1958a-1982 Year Bucks 1958 402 1959 387 1960 503 1961 578 1962 450 196`3 451 1964 543 1965 480 1966 566 1967 254* 1968 373** 1969 375 1970 393 1971 363 1972' 383 1973 293 1974 166 1975 163 1976 192 1977 336 1978 203 1979 320' 1980 169 1981 189 1982 110 Self validation should have been of tags. Assuming a 33% decrease in tag returns, the kill approximatelt' 342. Self validation 1969-12, it is of tags. Based on ad listed 1967 kill and t kill for assumed that hunter tag return was near normal�rted -10- s x Table 4 Reported Buck 'Kill, Mooretown'Herd 1958-1982 Year Bucks 1958 407 1959, 494 1963 460 1964 595 1965 464 1966 681 1967 338* 1968 465** 1969 497' 1970 530 1.971 501 1972 557 1973 450 1974 292 1975 388 1976 298 1977 474 1978 294 1979 486 1;980 372 1981 487 1982 3.10 * Self validation of tags. Assuming a 33e,.* decrease in tag returns the kill s'hoold. have been approximately 450 * Self validation of tags. Based on adjusted 1967 kill ;and repotted kill for 1969-12, it 3s assumed that hunter tag return Was near normal. r Fauning peaks in early July, but some are dropped from about Juna 10 , to early August. This indicates that breeding begins in the first half of November', and lasts to late December. 7 Mortality a, illegal Kill and Crippling Loss In Season it was estimated in 1952.(Longhurst) that the average crippling loss Was 30% of the legal buck take in California herds-. No field Work has been accomplished for the subject herds to deter- mine whether a 36% loss is a reasonable estimate. Since the -herds are not hunted as heavily as many others, and dense vege- tation limits Long range shooting, a 209 crippling loss may be closer to reality. A few hunters take advantage of deer season to kill deer ;other than legal bucks, and soca deer asp killed by mistake. Although no data is available, reports from hunters and gaWe'4ardens suggest that the illegal kill is not, negligible. Illegal kill and crippling loss combined may be 30% of the reported buck take. b. Poaching poaching, as referred to in this pian, is the out of season deer kill. No detailed data on the problem is available for these herds, t1' local field personnel feel that the poaching loss at least equals the reported take. While much of this loss is to individuals for personal, use, some poachers have been ariested for local. mark.,ting of deer meat. X12- PWr t Of fifteen does radio collared in Butte County, two were 'known poaching victims, two others d+'sappeared and are thought to be poaching victims, another tagged deer was reported to be a known poaching loss; these losses all occurred within two years of the deeiz' capture. Field personnel detect: at least 10 poaching losses in Butte County a year within the boundaries of the herds. If this represented a 2% detection rate as indicated by studies in California and Idaho, about 500 deer are poached in the Butte County portion of the °herd ranges, c-. Road Kill Past studies in California have shown that the known statewide road kill may equal the reported statewide hunter take. it is reasonable to assume that there is at least one unreported road' kill for each deer reported road kill since many injured deer are able to leave the road area before dying. A proliferation of 'roads, along with improvements in existing roads, poses a real hazard to both herds. The road kill on Highway 70, from Jarbo Gap to the Greenville Y, is given in Table 5; this represents a loss equal to 17% of the 'reported take. Since this is a reported kill for only one segment of the rang.!, it is assumed that the actual toad 'kill is snore than double the Highway 70 kill. For both herds; a road kill exceed ing 3'4% of the reported buck take is estimated. �,.1B Table 5 STATE HIGHWAY 70 REPORTED DEER KILL BUMS MOUNTAIN HERD Year Deer 1967 96 1968 76 - 1969 69 1970 56 1971 52 1972 63 L973 34 1975 41_- 1976 31 1977 32 1918. 28 40 1979 1"980 31 « t !mother possible weather related impact is a C601 spring and early summer. 'the East 'Tehama herd has had some years of poor .-15,. d. Weather , Indirectly, weather may be one of the main factors regulating deer herds. Relative to the herd population and general conal— tion of the ='leer, many factors determine Heather impacts: Atotin frequency and duration, temperature, forage condi Cion and 4v4llM ability, etc. Given enough unfavorable factors, fawn loss cs,n, occur from respiratory and other diseases brought: by 'aea on Cher stress (Wallmo, 1981). Fawn survival from fall to spring was nearly 1007 for the East Tehama herd during the 1975-76 and 1976-77 drought years. The herd was at a population low, 1975 and 1976 wore, excellent oak masa years, and the winters were extremely mild. An increase in the state buck take occurred from 1977 to 1979 which reflects the high fawn survival. By contrast, the 1978-79 winter season had significant fawn winter mortality. Oak mast was not good, green feed was unavailable until February because of littlefallrain, and herd Populations were Up. Rain came in heavy amounts in January and February, and temperatures were lows Landowners reported numet- ous dead -deer in February. It is not known whether the Bucks Mountain and Mooretown herds experienced the above responses to weather. Reported buck take " for the herds suggests ggests that there is some correlation. !mother possible weather related impact is a C601 spring and early summer. 'the East 'Tehama herd has had some years of poor .-15,. fawn survival, from drop time to fall composition counts. This has occurred when good summer range feed conditions have been late because of lower than usual May and June temperatures. In years like 1983, some high elevation areas are not free of snow until July or August. This Condition may result in poor fawn condition at birth as does may be malnourished, and predation may be ;greater if crowding occurs on available fawning areas because of snow covered range. e Drownings Canals and reservoirs form barriers to neer movement, and ('eer crossing these bairiers sometimes drown. When Lake Oroville first filled, both herds faced a new barrier on their path to winter range Reports of deer swimming the lake Were widespread. in 1967-68. Deer still cross some arms of the lake, and a few have allegedly been run down by boaters and drowned. No doubt, a few old, wt,ak, or young deer drown during lake crossings. The hiner's Manch Canal in the Mooretown winter range has had about 1.5 deer drownings reported annually since '1975; half of these deer may be resident. Aitch tenders claim that many of the drowned deer entered the canals while trying to escape dogs. Potential for 'canal losses also exists in the Bucks hountain range. There have been no significant, take of deer under depredation permit for either herd. In most year's, the few depredation permits issued probably pertain to resident deer on the winter range. -16- 0 4) { It is known that marijuana growers often booby trap their patches, and may shoot or poison wildlife attracted to marijuana plants. There is no way to determine the extent of this cause of wildlife loss. Since a large number of marijuana ,growers ,•tratein Butte County, they may be responsible for consider- able local .deer losses. g. Natural predators are frequently identified by some public ele- ments and some wildlife managers as the main, if not sole, cause of deer population declines. However, deer did manage to exist in numbers despite the presence of predators prior to settlement. of the land by European humans: Numerous studies have been conducted in regard to the impact of predation on big game (Vallmo, 1981). In some cases it was concluded that predators had a significant impact on big game populations, and in other cases 'there 'was little or no impact. Note research is needed since many studies have not been thorough: experimental control groups were often lacking) or sample sizes were small, or other factors such as basic food conditions and availability of other prey spec,tes were not considered, Radio telemetry studies in California have found High mortality rates from predation (Neal, 1981 and Ei`pereki 19Ut ), in both instances, rather small sample sizes were used) and uo other comparative (e.g., control group) aspects were ex;atttined. 7. Some of the above refereaces indicate that predctors may take over half of all fawns and many adults. Lossed of this magni- tude could well cause population declines. It is rare that any one factor is wholly responsible for the decline of a prey popu- lation, So predation must be considered in the cbntext of all ` mortality ,factors. Natural predators of these deer are mainly cougarr coyotes, bobcat, and black bear. Cougar ,populations are expandingcon- siderably based on reported sightings and increased depredation complaints. Coyotes and bobcats seem to be doing well despite being subj;zcted to furbearer and depredation trapping. Black bear populations are probably low to moderate as they appear to be subjected to heavy hunting and poaching. Many livestock ownersand field ;people consider free roaming dogs to be a serious problem for deer in Butte and Yuba counties. Free roaming dogs are ,a common sight. A man living An Easter- Tehama Herd winter range has complained of losing seven dogs to traps in one year; these, dnas Were trapped on rangeland two is five miles from the man's residence, While the dit ct loss (e.g., killed by dogs) of deer may not be great, the indirect loss by drownings; stress, etc, must be considerable on the winter range of both herds as this range has suffered heavily from rural residential sprawl. h, Disease Direct studies of disease incidence and parasitism are lacking for either deer herd; Kanager�nt personnel in the area feel -18- -19- that disease is na4 a major source of mortality. Browning et al. (1473) found a heavy incidence of lungworms in the ;Ra11 Road Flat herd (a west slope Sierra Nevada herd) approximate -1y 100 miles south of the Mooretown Herd. They found that the infection lowered the overall condition of individuals;, partieu 4 larly during late winter -early spring (during gestation). Lung- worms may be a factor in lowering zawn survival by lowering the condition of does prior to parturition, and by direct infection of fawns thereby increasingstress and energy domands. These parasites are a perennial problem for resident door to many parts of the Sacramento Valley. As previously mentioned in Section d. weather, respiratory diseases may cause some loss. Pneumonia has occasionally been identified as the cause of death in resident deer in Butte and ' Yuba counties; the disease is often a secondary infection brought on by parasit`9s, weather stress, etc. 84 Economic Value of beer Placing a dollar value on 'wildlife species must be done cautiously as .methods used to arrive at monetary worth geed refining. In addition, individuals who are only concerned with large profits from short' -term speculation may well Ibe willing to "buy" wildlife to realize those profits. Under a management plan for game use which should be coord- inated with other natural 'resource uses such as grazing; Long-term profits from natural resources should outweigh the short term profits of land speculation. -19- Deer hunting produces income in a number of ways including access fees for landowners, manufacture and sale of hunting equipment, travel expenses, etc. In the plan for the Eastern Ordhama herd, Ramsey (1983) estimated ar, expenditure of $50 per hunter -day. Fish and Game hunter surveys in 1981 indicate that each hunter spent about six days in each of the Bucks Mountain and Mo,oretown herd;,. With 189 Bucks Mountain and 487 Mooretown deer taken, ;the cost per deer taken Would be $397 and $411 respectively. Plumas National Forest wildlife biologist Art Rohrbacher arrived at a consumptive value of $380 per deer (using Forest Service cost analysis) for the Oroville and La Porte ranger districts: He felt this estimate to be reasonable When compared to the nye creek Preserve fee of $400 per deer hunter which does riot include other hunter. expenditures. However, the true value of deer must consider non -consumptive deer use Which added to consumptive deer use which greatly increases the dollar value of a deer. A wildlife economics study on the caribou National Forest (Spillett 1984) derived a value of $2,5$8 for each deer on the Forest �4hen capital value of unharvested deer (those needed to sustaitt productive capacity) was added to consumptive and non-sconsumptive values. Further, the value of the breeding stock remaining after hunting take was placed, at $3;200 pe'r deer. -20 m 0 0 0 B. Herd Range Description and History, 1. Topography Both herds occupy quite similar terrain. Altitudes rahge from approximately 750 to 7,500 feet. Deep canyons of the Feather and Yuba river systems form a generally steep, rugged topography. Ridge systems run generally from southwest to northeast. Only in the Mooretown Winter rant-- does the topography moderate into fairly low foothills. i 2. Sails Soils of the Sierra Nevada are shallow to moderately deep (10-40 inches) and generally have a sandy -loam texture with, rock content ranging from 0-35% dost soils are largely of igneous origin (granite, basalt, etc.) with occasional metamorphic or sedimentary base soils in certain areas. Good quality soil occurs through much of the range, with some small. 'bands of serpentine soils (generally poor for plants) found especially in tho, Bucks Nth, range. 3. Climate Characteristic weather patterns are cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. Substantial precipitation may occur as early as September or as late as January, but usually occurs by November. Annual, precis pitation averages from 28 inches (750 foot elevation level) to about 65 inches at 3,000 feet, and extremes range from about 13 inches to 100+ inches. Snowfall is frequent above 4,000 feet. Summer temperature highs range from 110"-1-1! at 750 feet to 90040 at 7000 feet with normal, highs averaging about 95°l and 808' ,.21.. respectively. Winter temperatures range from 160F (750 feet) to subzero at high elevation. On the ,average, winter lows range about 25oF to 400F. From 4. Land Use and Ownership a• Sucks Mountain Herd Summer Range About 907 of the range is administered by Plumas Nati Forest, one l Most of the remaining land is owned Eby timber companies. A small percentage is privat,el Y owned land and used for grazing (especially meadows) minim• ► F�, residential, or recreational purposes. b. Bucks Mountain Herd Intermediate range The Plumas a -ad Lassen National Forests contain about 607. of the: rang:. Timber companies own p the bulk of the remaining acreage. Other private uses include mi:� --4ng, grazing, residential, or recreational, c• Bucks Mountai°n. Herd Winter Range r Less than 10 of the range is publicly owned! Natio Bureau of Land Mana p nal Forest, gement; or California parks and Recreation. Timber companies control a similar amount The remainder of the Winter vange is privately owned. Major Uses are residential and grazing. Residential concentration areas are.. Paradise, Cot .ccow, Big Bend, Yankee !li 11, Cherokee, Brush Creeks Berry Creek, and Bald Rock; Of 200 610 .this ran e ► acres of g ►' 2$� {5�,50b acres) have been last to rural residen- tial encroachment. 22 d. Mooretown Herd Summer Range- Plumas National Forest contains about 707. of thea range, and timber companies most of the remairaar. Other title and ownership is for grazing, mining, residential, or recreational. e. Moo :etown Herd Intermediate Range Plumas Forest and timber companies own over 90% of the range in roughly equal proportions. Remaining lands ara twatly in resi- dential use, with mining, and grazing as other 0.0table activities. f. Mooretown Rerd Winter Range Around 10% of the range is publicly owned by the Forest. Service, BLM, or Parks and Recreation. Another l0% is owned by timber companies. , Residential and grazing uses are dominant on mtch of the; range Rural sprawl has enc*I-ached upon 34% (49,500 acr0s) of 114 000 acres of range in Butte County, Residential concentra- tion areas include Oruville, Craig-Feather Fnlis, Forbestown-, Challenge, Brownsvillei Rackerby, Bangor, and bobbins. 3 Vegetation Ten major vegetation types A YP (Appendix 3) occur in the herd ranges. Winter range is predominantely oak woodland with chaparral inter- inixed. Intermediate range is mostly mixed bt'oadl,eaf-cou,ifer forest. Summer range is mainly 'coniferous forest with some brushy areas scattered about, -G3r r 4 5. Forage a. Winter Range �' Forage conditions have been relatively static since Longhurst (1952) considered range conditions to be fain to poor with a downward trend. There have been no significant wildfire or range improvement projects. Shrubs tend to be in, the mature to old age class. Forage availability has decreased aiguificantly from habitat losses to rural sprawl, fuelwood cutting, etc. Favored forage species (see Appendix 3 for generic names) are oaks and acorns_, buckbrus.h, poison oak, mahogany, nilktassel, deer.brush, forbs (especially grodium� sem) and grasses. Usage varies seasonally; grasses and forbs are most heavily utilized in late Winter and spring, while browse and acorns predominate in late summer and fall. b. Intermediate Range Logging and reforestation has caused extensive alterations of this range t particularly in the last ten years on private lands) With a trend toward monotypic habitat providing" little browse. Some short-term forage benefits may be gained when intensive; eradication of -on-coniferous specie's does not follow reforestation. beerbrush) Ldmmon ceanothud, and oaks are the more commonly utilized browse; Availability of grasses and forbs is generally low. Acorns are important in the fall". -246- 0 c. Summer Range This range has essentially the same impacts from logging and reforestation as in the intermediate range. ReforNstati.on of brushfields will cause a Long-term decline in browse. availability. Browse condition following logging or reforesta- tion is good when shrubs are permitted to grow. Mountain whitethorn and deer -brush are the most important browse species, and Prunus �2 are a favored food when available. Fortis are heavily utilized, and grasses and willows are used around meadow and riparian areas. Browse quality and avilability on the Mooretrown range is signifi..s.Wotly higher compared to Bucks tiountain range. Mountain whitethorn shows rather light utilization on many parts of the dooretrown range. Bucks Mountain range has less favorable successional changes for browse species. 7 mater The whole range is generally well watered 'during the periods of Use by the migratory herds. Few azeas occur where water isnot available Within one half mile. Low rainfall during fall and early winter can restxict winter range water supplies, especially where rural sprawl occurs near streams and springs. 84 Fire History The occurrence of fires greater than 20 acres has greatly diminished since 1960 (Tables b and 1) because of improved fire fighting -25- capability, a proliferation of roads-, and fireprevdhtion campaigns Prior to 1960, many large fires occurred which created early successional stages of vegetation which was productive deer h/ibitat. The benefits these, fi, es provided for deer have long since been lost through plant succession and increasing old age decadence of browse p lants . Between 1911 and 1980, over 114,400 acres of the Bucks Mountain deer herd, ,range in the Plumas National Forest zone of influence: were burned by fires 40 acres or larger. From 1960 to 1980, only 11,375 acres were burned in large wildfires; this is about 10% of the total burned area since 1911, and represents about 27 of the Bucks Mountain deer range. Fires on the aooretown .range portion of the Plumas National Forest have burned only .59; of the forest zone total acreage since 1950. Since the largest fire was 161 acres, fire has had an insignificant affect on the range. Some favorable fire benefits have Occurred (since 1978) on a small scale where fire has beet used to clean up Arens following logging or reforestation. About 1000 acres of winter range prescribed burning by Plumas 'N.V4 has occurred on Mooretown 'range; and 1500 acres of Bucks Mounta;:;t winter range were burned on Plumas N.f land. 0 TABLE 6 FIRES GREATER DEER HERD RANGE THAN 40 ACRES ON TEfr", BUCKS MOUNTAXN IN THE PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST Period Fires;Acres Burned 1911-19 14 9,839 1920-29 27 49,126 1930-39 12 9,748 1940.49 2 978 1950-59 9 33,500 r 1960-69 4 8,771 1970-79 2 - 940 1980 6 1,465 TOTALS 76 114,437 TABLE 7 FIRES GREATER THAN 20 ACRES ON THE HOORETOWN DEER HERD R.ANGI TN THE PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST Period -Period Fires Icres Burned 1950-59 10 u 478 1960-69 7 358 1970-79 —55 262 TOTALS 22 1e1S9 Early explorers and settlers in California noted that Mldtive Americans set fixe to the winter range as a means to Improve habitat conditions. Cattle and sheep ranchers burned deer range from the 'late 1800's into the 1920's. 'Wildfires occurred occasi.onall and are relieved to Y: have been important in the evolution of chaparral. Records of fire outside of National Forest lands are not available so no acre -age comparisons can be made. p Fewfires over 20 acres in extent have occurred since 1960. 9= Livestock W'thin the P lumas National Forest zone of influence, there are tions of 13 por- grazing allotments on Bucks Mountain deer herd range. Livestock use prior to 1920 is poorly documented. During more than 18.,.0raze 00 sheep and 2,500 cattle were the 1920r g, grazed within the bound- at"es of the Rucks Mountain deer herd. Substantial reductions in both sheep and cattle numbers were made by 1940. Livestock n continued to decline to less than 850 humbers head of cattle in 1981 (Table 7 and Table 8), No sheep have; grazed the area since 1974 when 1,400 head Round valley allotment. were o' For all practical purposes, sheeph � 'the had .ceased to be a major component of total livestock use much earlier, The last: sheep Were run on 13erry Creek, Be4r Creek, and Granite basin allotments in the mica. 1920'x, Spanish Peak,'in the 193013; Bear Gulch in 1987, and. French Creek, in 1946. Livestock use patterns on the Moo":etown Targe have been similar to those on the Sucks Mountain range. "resent use (Table 10) does not •28.. *0 t 11 0 F 11 TABLE 8* PRESENT LIVESTOCK USE ON THE BUCKS MOUNTAIN DEER HERD SUMMER RANGE IN THE PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST Allotment Number v, Cattle Season Permitted AVM S Estimated CaP�CAty S) Bear Creek 60 6-1 to 9-30 317 396 Bucks Creek 333 6-1 to 9-3U 1,758' lr$49 Bufferfly Valley Vacant 0' 180 Cherry Peak Vacant 0' 180 Granite Basin Vacant 0 4/5 Gravel Vacant 0 565 Mosquito Vacant 0 553 Round Valley Vacant 0 L,994 TOTALS 2,075 6,192 *Includes private land within the allotments. 2g. TABLE 9* PRESENT I,,IVESTOCK USE ON THE SUCKS MOUNTAIN HERD INTERMEDIATE RANGE PLUMAS.HATIONAL FOREST Estimated Allotment Number of Cattle Season Permitted RUM'S Capacity (AUM'S) Bear Gulch 30 6-,1 to 10-15 178 1,010 Berry Creek 17 6-1 to 9-30 90 198 Flew Valley 2100 6-1 to 10-15 1,188' 1,279 French Creek 50 5=16 to 10-15 330 1,135' Mill Creek 152. 5-.16 to 10-15 1,003. 1,333 TOTALS 449 2,789 y 4,555 *Includes private laud within the allotments. a TABLE 10 PRESENT LIVESTOCX USE ON THE MOORETOWN HERD :tANGE IN THE PLUMAS H&TIONAL FOREST Estimated Allotment Number of Cattle Season permitted AUHOS Capacity (AUWS) Fall River 356 5-2,1 to 9-28 1,721 1,721 Kount Fillmore 120 6-117 to 11-25 480 480 Little Grass Valley Vacant Onion Valley Vacant Strawberry Valley 250 6=-6 to; 10-10 400 1,000 occupy all allotment areas. This may reflect the ecot'ior►ic difficul- ties facing livstock owners, some of which Alive gone out of business or have reduced operations. The majority of livestock forage below 5,500 feet elevation is browse, principally Ceanothus integerrimus. There is considerable. fnrage overlap between deer and cattle; a 'cow; consumes 4 to 5 times as vich browse as deer. Public land agencies have beim ordered to increa.%e red meat production by 25% under the Reagan Administration. Outside the Plumas National Forest the livestock use history has not been well documented. Livestock use on the, winter range is princi- pal rinci- pally below 2,000 feet elevation. Based. on rough estimates 'provided by county agricultural commis- sioners, about 12,000 cattle use the Kooretown winter range, and 3,000 use the Bucks Mountain winter range; this use is mostly from November into April. Sbaep use is low and probably insignificant. Goats are popular with foothill residents, but are not numerous. Perhaps 1;bOO horses art+ grazed on winter range in both 'herd ranges.. l0. Logging Logging within the herd ranges began in the 1830�s. Since then, essentially all virgin stands of timber have been crit, and little truly old growth timber remains. Moat logging las been for conifers) however, 'there has been a growing demand for hardwood sawlogs during the pas+; 20 years; particularly for black oak. -i32" Most 'timber cuts have been selective for .large sawlog,., but as mill iug techniques have improved and large trees are scarce, trees as Young as 60 years are being taken, Foresters expect to be able to cut on 80 year cycles or less in high quality sails, and clear cull- utting ' tingis becoming more commOn. Thinning and salvage cuts are two other logging practices used. ll Reforestation Most reforestation has occurred on simmer and intatm dlate ranges,, and has resulted in. significant acreage conversions of brushland since 1965, On summer range, brUshfield conversions have been wide- spread. 'Intermediate range reforestation has mostly involved hard- wood eradication, especially tanoak stands. Further conversions can be expected to occur until nearly all class 1 to 3 soils are support- ing conifers. 12. Aster Impoundments a. Bucks Mountain Range Butt Valley, Round Va1,1ey, Bucks Lake, and Lower Bucks Lake 4, reservoirs have inundated about 4,400 acres of summer range. Bucks Lake (about 1000 acres 1080 impacted a particulaty good fawning and feeding area. including meadows, Laky broville inundated over ;14;000 acres (7% of the total') of Vinter t+anger most of this was critical winter range. Another 700+ acres have beau, lostto small rerservoirs. .33,. b. Mooretown'Range. Little Grass Valley Reservoir inundated about 2,000 acres of summer range. This was a good fawning area of meadows and feed. Sly Crea;, Lost Creek, and Bullard's Bar reservoirs inundated 1,400+ acres of intermediate range. Lake Oroviile inundated about 6,000 acres of winter range; most of it was critical winter range. Bullard's Bur caused another 1,500+ acre loss of winter range. C. Herd Population Limiting Factors 1. Rural Sprawl This is considered to be the major li aiting factor, for both the Bucks Mountain and Mooretown herds. Residential enc oachment has caused a significant Loss of deer range in Butte County. Considering present trends, another 257 of the remaining winter range may be lost in Butte County within 20 years. The situation on winter range in 'Yuba County is not much better, and is 'potentially worse. While residential encroachment has been less extensive than in Butte County, essentially all of the winter range is toned for five acre parcels. While the Mooretown herd has had a 267 population decline, some Bute County portions of the range where rural sprawl has been significant have had sharper declknadi The Craig and Porbistown areas have had a 659 decrease in buck take, Most of this decrease in otcess of Overall herd population decline is a'ttri'buted to hnb; tat loss;- dog »�4 predation, poaching, etc. associated with the rapid increase of the area's human population since 1967. 2. Reforestation and Brush Management y Lona -term impacts of reforestation have the potential of being a serious limiting factnr,, particularly if winter range trends stabi- lize or improve. Large acreages of summer range brujh fields are being or have been converted to conifer plantations, and large ac,,re„ ages of intermediate range have been cleared of hardwoods so that conifers could be planted. Intensive follow-up management, and conifer growth, could virtually preclude the presence of deer browse growth. 3: Loss of Oaks One loss cause is through logging. A growing demand for 'hardwoods has brought about heavy inroads on black oaks. As an example, the Plumas National_ Forest is planning on the removal of nearly all - merchantab);e black oaks over several hundred acres of intermediate range in the French Creek area o� the Bucks Mountain herd. Louisiana Pacific has cleare,4 oaks from hundreds of acres of Moore - town iatermed U to range in the Feather Falls area, mostly for conifer plantations, The preponderance of oak removed was tan Oak, but other oak and hardwood ,species mere taken: There has been some removal of blue and live oaks from both winter ranges as an alleged means of improving grazing for cattle. This practice may become serious on both herd ranges because of the value x.35 Of the oaks for firewood rather benefi is than alleged range 4 "Provement Part of the concern for oaks ,. .3 the reduced acorn winter fawn survival has o availability. Poo3 flea occurred when. In addition deacok'u crops were deer tyre known to utilize Poor. Sprouting oaks full. fallen black, oak leaves in ,' especisll 'tlte y blacks, provide good forage • Oak loss Co fuelwood cutting is antic ous if Pripated to be co�ae oarbreineesent trends continue. l y seri- commercially, a While some woodcutters ire worki growing: human. population � Increase Perlocally has anon a In fuelwood cutting for great well controlled Personal use. lndiv idual and s si use is not "g to thehcpnrtment gniFit'at wood �'heYt problem exists accord- . Of Forestry and timber companies. company Plans tc+ remove all. black oaks on a portion of Bucks One timboL range to preclude the moneta Mo'Inta3n ry loss caused by wood thieves. 4. goads From 1.5 to 6+ acres of habitat are destroyed for 50+ feet wide) of road coneach mile (12 to construction. Although the road mileage Che range is unknown, ft is great enough tog of thousand acres of land.account for several. . Vehicular habita g eadisturbance Further reduces utilziltion. Roads significantly compound Problem by "'usin p"und the poaching sy and Widespread. access._ cause a considerable tO dears Road kill can loss (see A•lsc. above); The past 20 years has seen a pt-oliferatio Improvement: Sun of road construction mmer ranges in and particular have been s'ubJected to 0 0 increased road impacts; the bulk of the road activity is for logging purposes. All too frequently these roads etre, or have b ien, con- structed through meadows, or immediately adjacent to them, thus reducing or eliminating the meadow as a feeding or fawning area This meadow degradation is mostly caused by private logging roads, and public highways and roads. 5 Fire Suppression The efficiency of firefighting techniques has brought about a virtual disappearance of wildfires of sufficient size and frequency to be a uatuvai means of r•aaoe improvement. Consequently, advancing plant succession and age has caused a loss of browse quantity and quality in brushfields. This problem is especially bad on winter range private land where there is 'little or no mechanical. activity (e.g., hogging) to rause browse regeneration. 6. Water Impoundments A 'permanent loss of range occurs from reservoir inundation, and these may cause sizeable losses e,s mentioned. Additional impacts from water projects will occur as more reservoirs are 'planned. Since water is considered to be the controlling factor for human population growth in the West, pressure for additional water projects will occur. drazing } Overgrazing on winter range may be severe if year long use is f'nvolved. Some -lamd in the Bangor portion of the hToore.town rango is nearly devoid of grasses Arid £orbs where horses are grazed; these -37,„