HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-6 DEER HERD COMMITTEE 4 OF 33same lands also suffer from erosion 'caused by overgrazing. MosL of
this problem occurs in the summer and fall when there is no grass
growth to replace the grazing loss.
8. Poaching
Poaching may be a major limiting factor on portions of the herd
ranges. It is widespread on winter range, and at its worst near some
well populated areas. It may well be the main unnatural mortality
factor. Areas of the Mooretown range which once had high reported
deer kill have had almost no reported kill in recent years. As pre
vioasly mentioned, this loss may conceivably be as many as 500 deer
on Winter 'range,
9. Predation
Most modern biologists btlieve that prey species abundance regulate
predator populations, not vice versa, natural predation may be some-
what of a limiting factor for the subject herds; but when considered`
in context with other mortality factors, most of Which are human
cau8ed, predation: is not believed to be serious;
Cincontrolled dogs are a significant factor. Their impact may be
largely indirect by causing stress, spatial reduction, drownings',
etc. The dog problem it considerable on winter range where many
people let their dogs run free, little if any of the winter range is
free of uncontrolled dogs. People living in deer winter range
frequently complain of pet dog losses to trapa, In one instance; a
foothill resident lost seven dogs lu, a year, all of which word caught
0
-38
in traps several ,miles away where the local landowner had problems
with dogs running 'cattle and deer:
Punting
Bucks only hunting is not known to be a regulating factor for deer
herds. Severely depleted buck ratios may have the potential., to limit
deer numbers, but regulations seem to have avoided this problem, it
is possible that herd vigor, is affected by the bandettcy of hunters to
take the big bunks; however, this may not occur excOPt where buck
ratios are extremely lou. Also, hunting pressure during the season
causes disturbance to all deer.
Crippling losses and in,season illegal kill may be somewhat suPP req -
sive for deer populations when overall mortality is considered-. it
may not be a notable factor in herds subjected to low tunter
pressured
11: kea then
Sieather can produce flucuatioas in herd populations. This natural-
- factor has always been present, and should not cause long-term influ-
ences in itself unless a majors long, -term climatic change occurs.
-30-
III. MANAGEMENT UNIT GOALS
The 'statewide goals for California deer herds are to restore and maintain
healthy populations and to provide for high quality, diversified use of the
herds. Where possible, 1965 populations levels were considered as the restora-
tion level to be attained. Neither the Bucks Mountain or Moorestown herds can
be expected to attain 1965 population levels, The huge amounts of winter ran -e
habitat lost (over 40% and most of it since 1565) precludes that possibility,
and it is anticipated that further large s;aale habitat losses will occur within
20 yiars. Even where land is kept open other activities such as reforestation,
grazing, etc. will be given priority over wildlife, concerns.
To maintain present population levels will be difficult considering present
land use priorities and trends. Federal (e.g. Sykes Act) and State 'programs
for wildlife have not been funded, or funded monies have, been diverted
elsewhere. Both State and Federal agencies have had personnel cutbacks that
have rendered impossible any intensive wildlife management, increasing___
workloads and further personnel cuts will aggravate the situation.
The following are the goals for the Bucks Mountain and Mooretown deer herds:
A. Bucks Mountain Herd Goals
1. Maintain a herd population average of at least 4,000 deer. This
would be an increase of about 157.. over current estimates. Should
current estimates prove to be low, the desired average shall be
raised.
2. Maintain a minimum fall buck to doe ratio of 20,100.
3. Manage habitat and the herd population for a spring fawn ratio of 45'
to 55per 100 does.
4. Have either sex deer hunts on a quota basin to impro?re herd
conditions as needed when: n
�40-
v
a. it can be determIned that the carrying capacity of the range, or
portions thereof, is exceeded. As poor fawn surviv,11 may be the
..only basis for that determination, fawn ratios leas than 35/100
does occur in two successive years would be used: as an above
carrying capacity indicator.
b. The buck to doe ratio is less than 14:100 for two successive
years.
c. The herd population exceeds 4,000 deer, and there is a public
demand for such hunts.
5. Avoid serious depletion of deer from any portion, of, the range.
6. Maximize public utilization of the herd to the extant it does not
interfere with the herds wellbeing.
B. Mooretown Herd Goal
Exceptingthepop ulation level, the goals are the sante as above. The
: .
population goal is 7,600 deer, an increase of 7% above present estimates.
This goal would be adjusted upward if current population estimates prove
to be low,.
G. Habitat Goals
1. preserve the acreage necessary, throughout the winter range, to main-
tain population goals, or higher populations if, feasible.
26 Increase forage quality and quantity throughout herd ranges.
3. Obtain mitigation necessary to compensate for project impacts causing
habitat loss or degradation.
4. Avoid practices which would eliminate habitat components from herd
:ranges.
5-. Relocate or alter structural infringements `which adversely impact
habitat or deer behavior.
-41-
TV. MANGEMENT PROBLEMS
Three significant problems face any attempt to manage a wildlife species:
1) lack of land use control by wildlife management agencies; 2) political con-
trols, outside the agency, which may be based on emotions and 'bias rather then
logic; 3) a lack of monetary, support.
Virtually all land within the range of the herds is privately owned, or cou--
trolled by public agencies which usually give wildlife considerations low
priority. Private landowners seldom havaany 'incentives to encov age them 'Lo
maintain their land for wildlife resource benefits. Public agencies frequently
are mandated through legislative or administrative action to place an emphasis
on activities unfavorable for wildlife.
Frequently, management decisions by wildlife management agencies are influenced
by outside political controls which may result in biologically ;unsound regula-
tions and policies. For example, the Board of Supervisors 'of many counties
have a veto power over proposed autlerless deer'seasons in their counties It
is a rare supervisor which has any 'biological expertise; their decisions are
usually made on the basis of input from the public which is oftem emotional and
biased rather than logical.
Budget and personnel cuts, usually Only at the field and i;esearch level:, have
greatly reduced the ability of Fish and Game 0:6 'espond to existing ""workloads.
intensive deer management needed to restore &,'oe'r hdrds is not possible with
these Cuts, and less so because of other increasing commitments. The same
problem is faced by other 'federal and state agencied which control hand or
program's Which could be beneficial to Wildlfe Unless there is a more
-42
,
0'
realistic
budget and personnel distribution between administration and the
field, no
effective field management can ,occur.
A. Herd
Biology Investigative Needs
.
1.
Additional documentation of herd migrational and seadoual use.
r
patterned is needed.
2.
Herd composition, or age structure data is needed.
3.
Reproduction and recruitment data is not available.
4.
All mortality factors need additional study and documtnlation.
S.
Food habits information should be updated.
6.
Competition with domestic animals and non-native (e.g., turkeys)
wildlife species needs further study.
7.
Human disturbance of deer behavior need further definition and
documentation including hunting impacts.
8.
Preferred use areas on all ranges are not completely 'known.
B. Habitat
1.
Extensive amounts of winter range have been lost or degraded by rural
residential enercachment.
2
Road Construction has destroyed and degraded large aCrenges of all
rangesf and has increased poacher access to all ranges.
3.
Fuelwood cutting is causing a considerable loss of hardwoods,
4.
Reforestation And brush management tends 'to create monotypic habits,r s
unproductive for deer, and most, other wildlife species.
5.
Reservoirs have inundated large amounts of deer habitat, and other
hydroelectric projects have resulted in habitat loss and 6-gradAtion.
6.
Fire suppression has reduced browse quantity and quality by retarding
browse regeneration and permitting brush loss via clir,ax vegetation
succession.
,,43-
7. Small parcel sizes on winter range compound the inability to
manipulate 'habitat.
8 Federal and state programs which permit habitat improvement projects
are :frequently poorly funded, and some not at all.
9. Overgrazing has occurred on portions of winter range, and could
become a problem on ,other ranges.
C. Utilization
1: There are conflii,ting hunter use demands between high and low alti-
tude hunters.
2. Over4ized deer. zones (eqg D3) prevent management on a herd basis to
the dat•ri...nt of public utilization.
3. D3 ologically sound management decisions are difficult to obtain
becatjae oL }olif'tical constraints, such as county veto power over
either sex hunting.
4. Public ignorance of biolog;r results in a lack of support, and fre-
quently opposition to, wildlife. and management needs. The public is
generally ignorant of Fih and Gamescapabilities and constraints.
3 Many hunters feel that deer hunting opportunities and quality are
steadily deteriorating.
D. Communication
1. There is poor distribution of biological information in the
Department.
16 The public has a poor understanding of 'Department constraints,
problemta, responsibilities, and operations.
9
11
E. Law Enforcement
1. Poaching losses are increasing- as the human population expands.
2. Valuable 'patrol time is lost to duties not of a law enforcement
nature.
3. Lax courts and lou bail schedules do not act as deterrents to
poachers.
4. Public attitudes toward or 'knowledge of game laws is Frequently poor.
S,. Public assistance in apprehending poachers is limited,
6. The Fish and Game code sections on dogs running. or harming wildlife
need streng thening,
V. MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS AND PRESCRIPTIONS
A. Inventory and Investigation
1.
Radio telemetry and tagging projects shall be continued to further
document herd migration and seasonal use patterns,
2.
Herd composition counts will be initiated to determine herd comp os-
tion, recruitment, and fawn survival. Whereaswinter range counts
for the Mooretown herd should be feasible, summer range counts for
the Bucks Mountain herd will be made as terrain and access on winter
range is diffilult
Age structure information cannot feasibly be obtainad due to the
scattered nature of the kill in time and locality, and- the lack of
manpower. Unless such information included female samples, such
information is not applicable to the whole herd.
3.
Reproduction rates may be determined through examination of Dead does
during field checks if either' sex hunts occur,
4.
An update of food habits will be made pending the allotment of funds.
5.
Prior to the introduction of exotic wildlife species or significant
increases in livestock use, all possible adverse impacts caused by
such introd.Uctions or increases should be identified. if it is
determined that exotic wildlife would complete with deer, such
species must not be introduced. Livestock use increases should be
based on hab to ichprovement to mitigate the: increased competition;
6.
Human disturbance impacts on deer may be determined by;
a. Reference to publisht.l documents and ongoing studies in the
Department,
-464
i
b• Local study of human -deer conflicts in areas of residential
encroachment on deer range.
c. Monitoring the effects of hunting :regulations.,.
7• Preferred deer use areas may be better identified b
tiansec s Y use of pellet
radio telemetry, Forest Service compartment analysis, and
Land Sat analysis. Recently established Forest Service ,pellet
transects should be continued.
0
e
u
B • Mortality Control
1• Mortality control shall be attempted by;
a The mitigation -necessar
Y to reduce losses caused by road
Projects and water projects will be sought through appropriate
legal and licensing requirements,
Present resources' will perms'^ a limited monitoring of road
and drownings. A kill
partial alleviation of these problems may
occur by wayof structural design, g structure placement, and the
use of deer exclusion devices,
bi identification of disease problems and taking all
� Feasible
corrective actions,
Ci A limited take (by hunting) f
c responsible predators when
predatiOn has been demonstrated as the cause suppressed de'
Populations.
deer
d Depredation problems will increase with the continued
encroachment on deer ran _ e . human
g Land use planning that restricts
residential growth in good deer rauge will be recommended
local to
government.
-47-
e.
Land use restrictions mentioned in the preceding section may
help to keep poaching from reaci—n it's full potential. Road'
closures where possible on public Lands should reduce poaching
which occurs mostly along roads.
Also, dog training should be prohibited on summer range except
during hunting seasons. This action could reduce fawn stress
and poaching losses.
f
Habitat improvement programs can reduce weather, disease,
predation, and disturbance induced. mortality by increasing herd
vigor through better nutrition.,
C. Habitat
1. Rural residential encroachment impacts on winter range may be reduced
by -
a.
Supplying local government with available da .a 0a deer which
illustrates the need ;for range protection via Und use $ea4 ral
plans,
b.
Assisting local governments in developing plans and policies to
protect deer range &Wch as in the example giVen in Appendix 4
which i1as been submitted to Butte
Q.
Advocating 40 acre minimum parcel sizes on critical deet 'range,
G.
and 20 acre minimums on the remaining range:
d,
When local governments ignore wildlife needs the Fish and Carne
Must use legal recourse as pro'v'ided by CEQA, Subdivision Hap
Act, etc:
e.
A better established economic value for deer may sway land use
decision makers to a more favorable vildl £a viewpoint.
,,,48
A
0
Q
2 Road construction impacts on all ranges can be reduoed by.
a. Recommended measures in C1. above.
b. Insts.11ation of uadercross;ings and fencing on high speed roads
transecting migration routes and high use areas.
C. Reduce or limit roads to two miles per section.
d. Forbidding the use of salt on road beds.
e. Removing existing roads from meadows, and routing permanent
roads 300 yards or more from meadows and riparian areas.
f'. Revegetatiro and closure of 'logging roads when regular manage -
tent use is not planned within 10 years,
g. avoir roads through high u,,.- ,deer areas.
h. Laavt
-°x9 vegetation along roads to reduce disturbance and
'IRching.
3. Fuelw,—.d cutting shouldbe governed by amendments to the California
Forest Practices Act Which would control oak removal on private land._
_
Additional �Azndiug for t. -he Department of Forestry may be needed for
more euforcemOnt agaiz,st wood thieve..
On federal lands, controlling agencies should insure by policy and
enforcement that no area be depleted of hardwoods to the extent that
wildlife use ;is significantly reduced. This should include minimum
tree coverage g par acre as recommended in, the following section 4,
4. Ref'ores'tation impacts can be reduced by:
A. Retention. of hardwot;ds as prescribed in Appendix 5.
-40-
b. Brush control should preferably
'be limited
to mechanical
means.
Herbicide applications, if used,
should be
made from the
ground,,
and limited to the immediate influence zone of the species to be
protected..
c. Brorse plants should be seeded in forage deficient areas within
three years of tree stocking. Seed sources need to be
developed,.
d Leaving islands of existing forage and cover on 25% of the
conversion area.
e. Retain high value deer areas and admini.s ter thdm as such.
5,. Reservoir and hydroelectric project, impacts should be -reduced by*..
a. in kind habitat replacement with acreages of equivalent value
for the Life of the project.
b Thorough pre -project study to determine: all impacts on deer and
implementing appropriate mitigation measures.
6. Significant habitat improvements through fixe use can be obtained by
a Permitting wildfires to burn up to 40 acres of habitat when that
fire poses no threat to life or high value prnperty.
b. Use of prescribed burning through California's Vegetation
Management Program and Private Laads Wildlife Management program
on private land.
c. Use of prescribed burning for wildlife benefits on public lands
via the Sikes and KV Act, -)4 This method should be 'utilized for
brush management in relItion to fire control and reforestation.
Mechanical techniques may be feasible when fire is not.
- kt
i
ri
0
11
7. There is no easy solution to habitat improvement problems caused by
-51-
small parcel sizes. Adoption of B.I.c4 above would help.
Local government adoption of large open space and resource conserva-
tion land :use elements in general plans offer the bent potential for
meaningful habitat improvement.
8. Little or no funding for federal and state habitat improvement pro-
grams is a serious limitation, particularly for intormediate and
summer rangei only public support for sues programa can alter the
present situation. Agency personnel also need to present a better
case for wildlife need's to federal and state administrations.
9. Habitat can be retained by
a) Retention of public lands as such.
b) Acquiring land through purchase or trade,
c) Acquisition of consea:vation easements.
10. Reduction of overgrazing on Winter range will be attempted by working
with local agricultural comt.-issioners and farm advisors. Soil-
Conservation Servit:e involvement may by helpful.
ll. Public agencies will be urged to remove recreational facilities and
buildings out of and away from meadows.
-51-
1
D. Utilization
1. Some hunters in Zone 03 consider the low deer populations to be the
result of excessive hunter pressure on winter range, The have .
They v advo-
cated severe hunter quotas, season or zone, splits, and shortened sea-
sons (closing in mid-October) as solutions to the alleged problem.
These proposals have no biological basis. There is li,ttic or no
reason to believe hunting has had a significant imP4ct on deser. The
above proposals would virtually eliminate low altitude deer 'hunting
as the subject herds do not reach winner' range until late October.
To resolve these differences, the following alternatives should be
considered:
a. A split season (two halves) with hunters restricted to a choice
Of Only one half to hunt.
b` p
zone slit as recommended in Section 2 below.
�• Continue hunter number restrictions. Such actions should not be
Arbitrarily established on public guesswork, .but ou a biological
basis.
z. For management on a herd basis as is necessary to obtain, management
goals, these two herds should be plated in a separate hunting zone.
utilizing the boundary between the Mooretown and Downieviile herds,
and include F of the Stoat herd if it is consistent with Stoat
herd goals;
-52-
7. The veto power of Boards of Supervisors over hunting regulations must
be revoked so that wildlife management will free of prejudices caused
by, emotion and personal bias.
4. Hunter opportunities and hunting quality can be increased or improved
by
41. Use of antleress deer hunting when herd levels can sustain such
hunting without significant popul.atitm reduction.
b. Hunter access on private land should be increased by providing
incentives to landowners through access fee:sy private lands
management, tax breaks, and reduction of accident liability.
The Private Lands Qildlife Management Program off-ers the oppor-
tunity to provide private land access.
E: Commuu3 t^.a Lou
1. Pubj.ic iguotance of wildlife biology and Department capabilities and
constraints could .* reduced by _
ry Department spontiared seminars throughout the state in coopera-
tion With other agencies.
b. Improved use of public information officers within the
Department,
Ci More frequent use of the news media by field personnel.
d. Ecology courses in public schools:
2. The Departmeut must require a full report after the completion of
biological studies (e.g,; radio 'telemetry), all reports must be
circulated within the Department, and made Available to other
-53-
interested parties in order that all may benefit by tho £ridings of
the studies.
F. Law
Enforcement
1.
Public pressure (County Supervisors) ate.) can be sought to prod lax
courts into a more 'favorable attitude toward fish and game Laws.
2.
Patrol time can be increased by placing some permit (especially 1600
Section) responsibilities into other functions. The reserve warden
program could be expanded.
3.
Possible means of deterring poachers are:
A. Seek legislation to increase fines to a minimum mandatory of
$1,500 which would approximate the economic value of deer.
b. Forfeiture of poaching equipment,, especially guns.
c.. increased jail sentences,
4.
Public education in regard to the need for wildlife protection should
be expanded. Regulations should be made more comprehensible.
5.
Public assistance can be increased by:
a. Expand Ca'ltip to a 24 hour a day, 7 day a week toll free phone
contact with the Department.
b. bistribution of violation report cards such as prov4-=ded by the
Butte County Fish and Game Commission.
R
-a4
0
b. Fish and Game laws should permits
a. Destruction of any uncontrolled dogs harassing any wildlife
species on public land. On private land uncontrolled dogs
should Ive destroyed for harassing wildlife except for
depredating species.
b. }log owners should have to compensate for any wildlife Losses.
G. Review and Update
Objective: Maintain this plan such that the informations and recommenda-
tions are current and meet specific immediate and long-term needs in the
herd unit.
1. Annually review the plan and update as is appropriate-. Input into
the review will be obtained from Department personnel including unit
And regional petsonnel, the plumas and Lassen National Forests, and
interested publics. Harvest, , kI composition, and range status
information will be maintained and added to the plan, in addition to
new information derived from special studies.
As a vehicle of public input into t•.he plan a questionnaire should baa
formulated and distributed to hunters, to local sportsmens groups,
and to other interested publics,.
=55i.
VI. ALTERNATIVES
Some alternatives to this plan exist. They are currently infeasible because of
legislative mandate, land use priorities, lack of fun4ing, or essentially
irreversible adverse impacts on the range.
A Status Quo
There is little management presently, and most of it directed toward regu-
lation of use. The lack of a management plan giving policy direction
toward goals, and current political and funding restraintsi provide a
haphazard approach to deer management. The legislative mAndAte would not
be. fulfilled.
Without.a committment to protecting deer herds, and with inconsistent
management, deer population trends can be expected to 'decline. Habitat
loss and deterioration would continue to the point: of irreversibility.
Public dissatisfaction would :increase to the extent that Department
credibility may cease:
B. Habitat and Population Increase to 1965 Levels
If this alternative could be obtained despite habitat losses and human
Population increases, major land use changes would have to occur. Wild
life needs would have to receive top priority. Extensive conversions of
forest, rural, and grazing land to prime deer habitat would have to occur.
Large budgets for habitat improvement programs, studies, and additional
personnel would have to be available,
-S6�
VII. rLEFERENCES
Ashcraft, G. C. 1976. Deer Propagation quits and Population Centers.
North
Kings Deer nerd Cooperative Management Project. California Department of
Fish and Game.
Browning, B., R. W. Schulenberg, and 0. Brunetti. 1973. Rail'Road Flat Deer
Study, California Department of Fish and Game. Fed. Aid to Wildlife
Rest; Proj. W52 -R. Wildlife Management Administrative Report #73-1.
" Fowler, G. S., and R. B. Wagner. 1982. The Blue. Canyon Deer Herd Management
Plan, California Department of Fish and Game.
Longhurst, W. M., A. S. Leopold, and. R. L. Dasmaun. 1952. A Survey of
California Deer Herds. Their Ranges and Management Problama. California
Department of Fish and Game Bulletin #6. 136 pp.
Neal; D. L. 1981. Fawn Mortality in the North Kings Deer Herd: Same
Preliminary Results. Cal -Neva Wildlife Transactions,
Ramsey, T. E. 1981. Eastern Tehama Deer Herd Plan. California -Department of
Fish- and Game.
Siperek4 J. 1983. Yolla to1'ly Leer Herd Management Plan, California
Department of Fish and Game.
Spillett, Juan. 1984. Values of Deer and 'Elkonthe Caribou National Forest.
Food. For Thought. The Habitat Express, No. 84-5, July 1984. Wildlife
tianagement Staff. Intermountain Region, U.S. Forest'Service.
Wallmo, 0. C., ed. 1981. Mule and Black -tailed Deer of North America.
University of Nebraska Presse 554 pp.
0
=57
1,
.Appendix 1
MOORETOWN DEER HERD TELEMETRY STUDY PROGRESS RLPORT
Obj ective
To provide up-to-date documentation of herd boundaries and migratory movements.
Recent planning efforts by Federal, State, and local agencies involved in land
use considerations have expressed a need .for recent documentation on local deer
herds in order that they may make appropriate decisions in regard to wildlife.
The ;same need has been recognized in deer herd management plans being prepared_
by the Department.
Procedures
Winter range deer trapping (utilizing clover traps) was initiated in. February
and December 1980 at Sunset Hill in Butte County. Ndditional trapping occurred
at Fields Midge in February 1981. These locations are on Plumas N. F. lands in
the upper portion of winter range.
Six radio telemetry units were available for placement upon adult does. All
deer trapped were ear -tagged with yellow T-lok and aluminium ear tags.
Most information gathered was through monitoring radio telemetry units by air
and ground. No visual sightings of other marked deer have been received except
for one buck which was taken by a hunter ;near trap site during the hunting
season after the buck's capture.
A major portion of the project's personnel eftstt was supplied by Plumas N.P.
biologists', Art Robacher and Bea Anderson, of the LaPorte 'Ranger District.
;
They were essentially responsible for the trapping and did considerable
telemetry ground monitoring.
..58-
Trapping and telemetry equipment and aircraft for aerial monitoring were
supplied by the Department.
Results
Trap lines near Sunset Hill +sere run in February and December 1980; only three
dee,3 were caught each season. Fight deer were caught on Fields Ridge in
Y February 1982. The attached tagging form gives specific information.
l0ir" ;W:ptur,_ 'success rate was experienced each season. Most of the ,problem
wAd fair, W ,c' h*r "ring the trapping periods. One doe in a trap was
turned loose by a `NACU tVe� wary`: vhey found a trap with the doe in it.
six of 114 deer caught were adult does. Riaur the six proved to be migra-
tory. The sixth doe (doe 9) could not be found subsequent to capture and was
probably a poaching victim near trap site. Doe 10 disappeared after reaching
summer range in June 1980 (another poaching victim?). Doe -3 was to k' In by _a
poacher in November 1982 on winter range shortly after returning from summer
range. Her cut radio collar was found in Clipper Mills the following May.
Monitored movements ,(see attached map) ascertained' migratory routes already
determined by spot hill maps and field observations. Some movejnentt (does 3
and 10) from a major ridge system to another show again that not all deem
migrate along JUC' one redge system.
One holding area was detected on Hooreville Ridge when doe 3 wade long spring
y pp p
and fall delays. Doe 4 appears to be another example of a fast migrator that
does not utilize a holding area.
59»
Doe 5 was found dead (:cause undetermined) at the base of Sly Creek Dam on June
llt 1982. She had been in that area since May 4 and died about June 6.
Spring migration movement began in late April and early May in 1982 and was
about two weeks later in 19x3. Timing correlates with drying up of winter
range. The two week delay in 1981 was anticipated as the wping was wetter and
cooler than in 1982. Similar timing 'has been observed in the more northerly
East Tehama herd.
Fall migration began late September to mid-October. Several rain storms in
late September, early October 1982 appeared to have little affect on deer
movement. Doe 4 did come down a little faster than she went up 'which is the
reverse of most deer obs,,;rved so far.
Does 2 and 4 did not return to within a half mile of trapsite (for the 1982.83
winter) but remained two to three miles fur-ker upridge. It is likely that the
snow and cold of 1981-83 had pushed these deer to the trap site area; however, ,
they may have attracted to new growth vegetation in the tree plantations where
they wintered in 1992-83.
Recommended Action
project completion will depend upon the life of the radio telemetry units.
Trapping ce: orts may continue through the 198+-85 weather, if various
conditions prevent an earlier completion.
ginter range trapping may occur in 1985-84 as part of a study to determine
residential encroachmwnt impacts on migratory deer: Such trappir;g sail:.. by the
result of a heed 'to supply specific, up-to-date iuf+itmation to County pls-
-60
a
Snaring on summer, range will be attempted, possibly in October 1983. Summer
range deer capture is desirable as all deer are migratory, a better dispersion
on winter range is probable, and summer range boundaries can be better
determined by a greater snaring dispersion.
Other capture techniques may be tried if equipment is available. Capture nets
may beeffective on winter range. Dart guns or net launchers would be helpful
on summer range as deer babits and densities render snaring difficult.
County
Butte
Species
Deer
Including Tag Nos.
thr
Trapping
Sites
A Sunset
Hill
B Fields
Ridge
D
Tag
Antlers
Live
Hate
Trap
T -Lok
Freq. Other
No. Sect
R L
Age
Wt.
Trapped
Site
No.
Channel Idem: Ramarks
Yellow
159.420
1641 F
A
2-13-80
A5
187
9
retrap A3.
1642 F
F
2-14-80
A2
188
4-
121-24-80
159.435
1643 .F
A
to
A6
189
10
'Yellow
1769 H
F
35
12-24-80
Al
231
Yellow
1770 K
1 1
Y
72
12-24-80
A2
232
Yellow
1771 a
1 1
Y
75
12-31-80
A5
233
Yellow
1647 M
F
56
1-28-82
B1
210
Yellow
159.3`15
1685 F
A
95
2-02-82
B2
191
2
159:360
1649 F
A
73
If
B4
192,
5'
159,.330
1650 'F
A
18
It
B5
193
3
1701 F
Y
58
if
B6
194
159,345
1702 F
A
big
It
Bt
195
4
Yellow
1703 F
A
96
2-05.82
B5
209
1704 H
F
42
2-09-82
B3
208
-62
11
Ap-wcdis 2
*BCDH - glue Canyon Deer Herd; Pacific Deer Hetd
An .0ti+nty taken lnte; considered, unreliable,
***Caunt not taken.
****Data not available at time of writing-,
o,6,3-
............
HERD COMPOSITION ('r"'VTY
COMPARISON
195'7 -PRESENT
BLUE CANYON
x31D MCIFIC DEER
HERDS
FALL
SPRING
Fawas100
1�-ar
Bucks:100 Female
-BCDH* PDH*
Female
BCDH PDH----BCDH
Sample Site
PDH
Fawna':100 Female
ACDH PDH
Sale Size
.BCDH PDH
11957-58
-'s7
33
63 77
130
144
***
108
_***
183
1958-59
46
36
86 9%
156
483
60
148
338
159
'19.59-60
47
36
56 97
37
286
56
---
266
1.960-61
45
48
62 5v
139
314
--
43
---
369
1961-62,
42
28
59 53
234
190
47
45
304
344
1962-63
23
41
42 35
Y'85
167
55
49
200
251
1963-64
--
27
76
134
-
94
--
300
1964-65
--
9**
-•� 47**
---
332**
...
57
.--
186
1965-66
..
43
-- 59
,-.
154
--
64
---
165
1966-67
--
25
»,.r 50
---
347
'"
59
---
125
Is7-68-»
46
-- 87
---
179
.-115
38 �
-.�-
1968-69
18
28
76 78
178
124
65
48
271
370
1969-70
--
24
-- 90
....:
90_
--
66
-_ .
244
1970-71
30
35
53 67
104
Ill
86
66
212
238
1971-72
16
33'
41 54
119
185
--
43
---
150
1972-73
21-
31
40 43
117
191
=-
48
--
438
1973-74
--
26
-- 55
---
174
-
so
188
1974-75
--
30
-- 61
--=
252
--
60
---
186
1975-76
»-
37
85
•--
133
.-
70
1.83
1976-77
20
****
56 *;**
104
1977-78
21
**,r*
58 ****
227
078-79
28
, **
58 ****
149
32
***
168
** *
1979-80
*BCDH - glue Canyon Deer Herd; Pacific Deer Hetd
An .0ti+nty taken lnte; considered, unreliable,
***Caunt not taken.
****Data not available at time of writing-,
o,6,3-
............
t
APPENDIX 3
PLANT COMMUNITIES
BUCK. i MOU14TAIN AND MOORETOWN DEER HRRD MANAGEMENT UNITS
A. Blue Oak -Savannah '
shrubs Grasses, Forbs
Trees
Blue oak - Nucrcus dou 1 Huckbrush - Cean_g cuneatus Ave
- Medica` o hispida'
ur c
Bromus ap.
Eros sp.
B. Digger Pine - Oak
Trees
Digger pine
Blue oak 3010
Canyon live oak - uercus chime,
Interior live oak ,g• wislizenii
California buckeye - Aesculus californica
California laurel - U+'fel ulaill ahfO Ra
shruli s
Manzauita Arctostaphylos sp.
Buckbrush
Western redbud - Ce_ ciA occiddutalis
Mountain mahogany Cercocarpus betur, lig'
Scrub oak - Quer.cus dumosa
Poison oak - Rhus djve�oba.
California coffeeberramus caliv._.fO
G. Chaparral
Shrubs (Winter Range)
Manzan'ta
Mountain whitethorn
Deerbrush
Snowbush - Geanothus vclutinus
Western chokecherry
Prunus virg", nig
Bittercherry '.— P. Imam
Huckleberry
oa-Quercus vacciuifolia
siera chinquapin - Castanopsis sem pervitens
C. Black Oak Woodland
Trees
uercus ke1� 1 CanyonBig livele
ak- !1 marrophvllum
Tanoak Black oakLithocarpus dens�,,_,iflora Mountain
Madrone Arbutus menziesii Mountain dogwood - Cornua nutt� a, s i
Incense cedar - Libo__-__ce�u8 decurrens Douglas fir - Pseu � Ea menziesii
ine - Pinu's ponderosa
Ponderosa p
-64-
APPENDIX 3 (CONTINUED)
D Black Oak Woodland continued
Shrubs
Deerbrush Poisonoak
Lemmon ceanothus - Ceanothus lemmonii. California coffeeberry —Rhamnus californica
E,. Mountain 'Meadow
Trees Grasses and Forbs
Willow Salix sp. Cyperaceae
Alder Alnus sp'. Juncaceae
Lodgepole pine - Pinus murraZana Graminae
F. Riparian Deciduous
Trees Shrubs ~
Willow
Alder
Quaking aspen -_2E! lus tremuloides
Black cottonwood - P. trichocarpa
Fremont cottonwood - P,. fremontii
California sycamore - Pla-tarsus racemosa
Big_ leaf maple"
G. Mixed Conifer
Blackberry - Rubus vitifolius
Wild grape - Vitis califoraica,
Trees Shrubs
Sugar pine - Vitus lambertiana Deerbrush
Ponderosa pine Mountain White'thoru
White fir - Abies concolor Western ser-riceberry - Amelanchier alnifolia
Douglas fir — Gooseberry - Rees sp.
Incense cedar Man�anita
Black oak
H. Red Fir
Tress Shurbs
Red fir - Abids magnifica Hanzanita
White fir Gooueberry
Jeffrey pine - PinUs . effre i Mountain whitethorn
Western white pine - E. monticbla
Lodgepol;e pine
-b5`-
APPENDIX 3 (CONTINUED)
I, Lodgepole Pine
Shrubs
Trees
Mauzanita
Lodgep ole pine
Gooseberry
Western white pine
Western serviceberry
Red fir
J, Jeffrey Pine
Shrubs
Trees
Mountain whitethorn
Jeffrey ;pine
Snowbush
Lodgepol e. pine
Mainzauita
White fir
Western serviceberry
Red f :
Sierra chinquapin .,
Black oak
Huckleberry oak
F,. Ponderosa Pine
Trees
Shrubs
--
Manzauita
Ponderosa pine
Buckbrush
Incense Cedar
Lemon ceauothus
Black oak
Poison oak
Appendix 4
MIGRATORY DEER STUDY PANEL REPORT
BUTTE COUNTY
INTRODUCTION
Three separate migratory deer herds are found in the eastern foothill/mountains
of Butte County; the East Tehama, Bucks Mountain, and Mooretomi deer herds.
While some summer and intermediate ranges are found in the County, the majority
of the deer habitat is winter -range. Deer herds migrate each fall from their
summer ranges in the Tehama, Plumas, and eastern Butte Counties to their winter
range in Butte County. During mild weather deer usually linger at the higher
elevations of their winter -ctinge until forced down by the first ~major snow
storm to their "critical" winter range. Dees generally remain concea.trated on
the critical Winter ranges until early April, perserving the stresses and
hardships of winter.
Migratory deer have used their summer and winter rrnge"s in the past with .little
disturbance from human activity and development. However, this situation has
changed in recent yearn,
Subdivisions have encroached and are continuing to encroach into deer ranges at
an Accelerating rate, in particular, the winter range. Subdivision and
d'e'veloped parcel divisions g low land use changes yhleh result in a permanent
loss of deer habitat. Forage ant cover'' plants are ,tliminatad, Disturbance
from noise, traffic, and domestic dogs increase. Poaching problems generally
increase along with increased public use as a result of kmprovod ;,oad access
and subdivisions in the deer Lange:
0
Loss of deer ranges, particularly Vinter range, to develo are
P o,t has become a,
major problem threatening the welfare of migratory deer along the western slope
of the Sierra. Deer face further hardships in the future uniorit, planning
efforts are expanded to identify important deer ranges and control and direct
development to less sensitive areas.
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Several laws apply to proposed subdivisions in deer ranges. Some of these are,
1) the Subdivision Map Act, 2) the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
3) AB 132,1 of 1977 and 4) the Butte County Land Use Element of the General
Plan
Subdvisioh Mao Act
Section 66474(e) of the Act states, "A legislative body of a city or count
Y
shall deny approval. of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative
,map was not required, if it mattes any of the following =findings; (e) that the
design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely, to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or
Wildlife or their habitat."
California Environmental Quality► Act (CEQA)
CEQA guidelines require an Envir,jnmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared for
projects having .a significant adverse impact upon the environment. Section
15091 of the guidelines identify the findings tinder which a public agency may
(or may not) apprnVe a project having one or more significant adverse effects
that are iden"tifie� in an EIR.
LJ
0
0
AB-1521_(5e2tember 1977)
This billdeclares it to be the policy of the legislature to encourage the.
conservation, restoration, maintenance, and utilization of California's deer
populations. The bill further provides a legislative mandate to the Department
of Fish and Game to develop plans to manage deer herds. The objectives of
these plans are the restoration and maintenance of healthydeer herds in the
wild state and to provide for high quality and diversified use of deer in
California„
Butte County Land Use Element of the General 'Plan
The Land Use Element's policy toward deer is to "regulate development in
identified winter ranges to facilitate the survival of deer herds".
DEER STUDY PANEL
in August of 1983, :the Butte County Board of Supervisors created a Deer Study
,Panel to study the problem of development encroachment into the migratory deer
herds' ranges. The panelconsists of representatives from the Department of
Fish and Game (DFG), Butte County Fish and Game Commiasion, Butte County
Planning Department, an independent planning professional, a private engineer,
environmental consultant, and a private landowner. The panel's r6Qpersibility
was to study trays to minimize the impact of development on, migratory deer and
to maintain the population levels of these migratory animals.
The following briefly outlines' the deer panel's goals, programs and
recommendations:
.69-
I. GOALS
To provide protectionto migratory deer in Butte County against
significant adverse impacts from subdivision development.
To identify important migratory deer habitats.
To develop a General Plan Land Use Element policy and
implementation procedure to achieve these goals.
YI, PROGRAMS
A., Develop overlay constraint maps on:
Deer herd information maps (e.g., summer range, 'wintu`
range, migration corridors, etc.).
Parcel sixes averaging five acres or less; stx to 20 acres,
and 21 acres or greater.
General plan designations with its existing minimum acreage
size and existing zoning.
- Identified transportation corridors.
Other constraint maps be developed to identify buildable
areas (e.g:t slope) soil deptho stream setback,, etc:),*
*Task to be accomplished;
-70+
B. The Departme.,at of, Fish and Game's (DFG) specific tasks are the
following;
Identify deer migration "windows" th=ough selected
transportation corridors. This will be provided to the
County Planning Department in the summer of 1984.
Update their migratory deer herd range 'maps at least once
every five years to facilitate any future amendments to thta
Land Use Element and Natural Resources Vement of the Butte
County General Plan.
C. Develop mitigation measures to protect migratory deer.
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. IN AR DESIGNATED AREAS ADJACENT TO IDENTIFIED TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDORS (see Table I)'t
1. Establish a perimeter fence design criteria. On parcels
greater than five acres in migratory deer range, the
perimeter fence is limited to barbed Wite (unless 8 special
Use permit is acquired). To allow passage of deer, the
fence should be constructed of five strands or Mesa of
barbed wire; the bottom and top wire be a minimum, of
16 inches and a maximum 48 inches above the ground,
2. Create a deer habitat improvement fund by establishing a one
time fee for allowing development of less than 40 acres
minimum parcel size in critical summer and winter range and
2'0 acre minimum parcel size in nen critical, summer and
winter range. The fee ($45' /acre. in critical summer and
winter range and $25/;acre in noncritical summer and Winter
range) would be paid by the landowners when they apply for a
building permit. The fund would be to improve deer habitat
elsewhere in the County as mitigation for development
imIpacts along designated transportation corridors.
Alternative to fee structure;
,.f
Acres Fee/Acre
0-10 $45
10.01 - 20 $25
20.01 - 39,.99 $15'
40+ do fee
3,. Adopt attached Appendl- "A" as a county deg control
ordinance.
4. The Board of Supervisors should determine which one of the
following scenarios they gish to implement to allow cluster
development within the AR designation areas Tong the
identified transportation corridors ('TC)':
Scenario "A"
Allow development of existing parcels to a density less than
a 40 acre minimum in winter range if the landowner(s) along
the TC can combine with a landowner (s) of AR lands within
the critical winter range outside the TC who is/are willing
to transfer their development rights to the TC. in this
manner, if both parties were in agreement, the lands along
the TC should be developed into a cluster concept limited; by
other ;:oastraints (e.g., slope, soil permeability, soil
stability, etc.). Alt designated lands within the critical
winter range that are not located along the -TC would be left
undisturbed in perpetuity. This alternative would allow an
equal sharing of the economic gains through development
along the TC.
Scenario "B"
Allow development of AR designated lands along the TC to
less than 40 acres minimum on critical summer and winter
range and 20 acre minimumon nen-critical summer and winter
range, Development along the TC would be as described in
Scenario "All. AR designated lands not along a TC Would be
limited to 40 acres minimum on major migration. 'corridors,
holding, areas, critical summer and Ointer ranges and 20 acre
minimums On non-critical summer and hinter range, The
lauddwners would not share in the economic benefits of
development along the TC.
-73-
1
TABLE I
DEER STUDY
IDENTIFIED TRANSPORATION CORRIDORS
IN AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS OF THE BUTTE
COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
Cohasaet Road
Richardson Springs Road
Highway 70
Highway 32
Honey Run Road
Skyway (To Inskip)
Neal Road
Clark Road
Penta Road
C'oncow Road
Big Bend Road
Cherokee Road
Oro -Quincy Highway
Bald Rock Road
Forbestown Road (bct not Lower Forbestown Road)
Stringtown and Lumpkiu Roads
Black Bart Road
uding HurletoneSwedes Fla:. Road
Swedes Flat Road incl
LaPorteRoad
Upham Road
Hurleton Road
• 5. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG)'will identify deer
migration "windows" through the TC where pascals wi)„l remain
at least 40 acres minimum in critical winter range and
20 acres in winter range to allow deer movement to occur.
'
B. IN AR DESIGNATED LANDS ;WITHIN HIGRATORY DEER RANGES THAT ARE NOT
ADJACENT TO THE TC:
1. Maintain either the existing parcel size or a 40 acre
minimum in critical summer and fainter range## major
migration corridors, holding areas, and 20 acre minimum
on
T ranges.
non-criti'cal summer and winte
2.. Encourage landowneres to transfer their development rights to
acres within the above mentioned TCareas (see Section
III.A.4.) if Scenario "A” is selected.
3. Establish perimeter meter fence design criteria (see Section
IV.A..I..),
4. Adopt appendix "A" as the dog control ordinance.
G. pN g W ITiiIN MIGRATORY DEER RANGES OTHER THAN 'THOSE
DESIGNATEll Ag AR IN THE GENERAL PLAN;
L. Maintr.;a existing General. Elan designations and exis`.ing
min4.mum parcel. sizes.
2. Establish ;a perimeter fence design criteria (see Section
3. Enforce Appendix �'A" as the County dog control ordinance.
D. THE FOLLOWING POLICIES SHOULD BE INCORPORATED -INTO THE LAND USE
_ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
r
P o_O ^'
Oa migratory deer range lands, maintain the existing General
Plan Land Use designations and minimum parcal sizes.
Except oa.AR des%gnated lauds adjacent to identified
trausportatiotL corridors, no parcel division and development
of less than 40 acres minimum in major migration corridors,
critical summer and winter range and 20 acres minimum in.
noncritical summer and winter range will be allowed.
;egiilate development in identified deer ranges to facilitat®
the survival of the deer herd,
+• Encourage the transfer of development rights if Scenario
is selected for implementation (see Section II1.A.4.)
E. RECOMMENDED MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN
MIGRATORY DEER 'RANGES:
Retain existing General Plan designations and minimum parcel
sixes.
Incorporate appropriate witigatioa measurei in Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (C.C'. and Rs).
Iro riata mitigation measures as conditions of
ncorpora i.
a app p �W.
building: permit approval.
- Incorporate appropriate mitigation measures as conditions of
land division approval
A county ordinance be created to require a. special use
permit for the construction of all woven wire (e.g.,
tyclone, hogwire etc.) perimdter fenced an, parcels greater
than five acres in migratory deer, ranges.
Establish an ordinance (Ap'perd ac "A") which is effective in
controlling dogs in migratory deer ranges.
Require building envelopes along the TC.
Establish a deer habitat fund by collecting a fee far.
development 'within dpsiguatad transportation cortidors (sde
Section Ilt.A,2 ).
The County, should ,appoint an ad hoc committer« of fund a
study to develop constraint map overlays along the
identified transportation corridors to identify buildable
areas (e.g., slope, soil depth= soil permeability, soil
stability, stream setbacks, etc),
SUMMARY
Protection provided through the above mitigation measures to migratory deer is
accomplished without any !proposed changea to the land :use designations of the
existiug Land Use Element of the General Pian. Since the above mitigation
measurer do allow controlled developmelit to occur adjacent to selected
transportation corridors, deer habitat will be lost along these areas.. ThIs
Places greater importance upon the remaining deer habitat to sustain the herda,
Implementation, of the above mitigation measure$ will: l) limit intense
de�relopment to areas adjacent ro transportation corridors on land designated as
Alt 'in the General Plan, and 2)- create a ,fund to be used for habitat improvement
Projects on critical dee.' ranges to improve the quality of the habitat. These
sites would be determined by the DepartmenL of Fish and Game 'working in close
cooperation with the Butte County Fish and Game Commission, 1
In developing the above recommendations, assumptions were made that mitigation
measures "Ill.b " and ►�TII.C.'e could be achieved. Any deviations from out.
assumptions would result in unmanaged land development that would be inconsist-
ent with the Subdivision Map Act, the existing Land Use Element 'Policy of the '
General. Plan, and the existing California Legislature Policy (AA 1521 of 1577). Y
REFERENCES
1.
'Responsibilities of Department of Fish and Game, Local Agencies, Property
Owners (prepared by Mike Evans).
2.
Article entitled "Converting Chaparral to Grassland Increases Soil
F ew ti li ty"
3.
Article entitled "Evaluating the Profitability of Brush Management. and Oak
Tree 'Thinning for Range Improvement".
4.
Letter from Department of Fish anal Game dated February 10, 19.83. pertaining
to Areas of Special Biological Importance and migratory Baer herds.
5.
Letter from Department of Fish and Game dated January 6 1983 dealing with
migratory deer in the Butte County foothills.'
6.
Minutes from the December 21, 1482 meeting of the 36ard of Supervisors -
motion on item 4.10 about the 40 acre minimum parCel size recommended by
the State Department of Fish and Game:
7.
Letter from Department of Fish and Game dated March 30, 1982 regarding the
change in recommendations from 20 to 40 acre minimum paresls in important
deer Winter ranges.
j
8:
Assembly Bill No. 1521 of 1977.
9
Subdivision Map Act as amended January 1, 1984; Section 66474.
10,.
Excerpt fro:a Land Ilse Element of Butte County General Plan; October 1973.
11.
Excerpt from Open Space Element of Butte County General Plan, 1973.
12,
unified Sportsmen of WX information;
13.
Existjng Couaty, bog,Orginance Division 14 of Food and Agricultural Code
Regulation and Licenting of Dogs.
-79-
M
APPENDICES
A. Proposed Revised Butte County Dog Ordinance.
B. Letter from Department of Fish And Game, dated February 24, 1984, about
December 1983 migratory deer herd maps„
C. Articles entitled "Vhat is Deer Habitat and How Can It be Managed?" and
"Feeding Strategy of Deer" - handouts from DeerHerd Management Series
held in Chico on February 8, 13, and 15, 1984.
D. Letter from Department of Fish and Game dated March 29, 1983 addressing
migratory deer herd minter range losses to residential development in
Butte County.
E. Letter from Department of Fish and Game dated January 31, 1983 concerning
the three migratory deer herds which utilize Butte County, Taunting zones,
license per zone, deer take per year, deer harvest and deer populations
per herd.
F Natural Habitat Combining District,, Lassen County; means used to address
residential development Within recognized wildlife areas.
=80°
APPENDIX "A"
PROPOSED REVISED BUTTE COUNTY DOG ORGINANCE
112. The provisions of this ordinc:nce shall apply to the unincorporated,
undeveloped, or very low density residential areas in the foothills and
mountains ease of Highway 99 (see Exhibit available at Butte County
Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive,-Aroville, for specific
locations where Ordinance applies).
113. In any instance in which a dog or dogs is/are observed killing, wounding,
or pursuing dee., except as noted in Section 114, the pa Va on observing
this action may kill the dog(s) if they are on their own property, have
the permission of the landowner, or are our public laadzs (a.g. U.S. Forest
Service, Bureau of Land, Management, etc.)
114. The provisions of Sections 112 and 113 shall not apply to -any of the
following
a. Any area. within thecorporate limits of any city, or within any
developed rural or 'residential area with lot sizesof less than 'three
acres.
9
b Any dogs being used for the purpose of lawful training or hinting
during prescribed dog training or hunting seasons.
c. Dogs in the immediate piresence and under direct °control of the owner,
The. dog must be in close prakimity to the owner and the owner must.
demonstrate effective conto 1 of the dog
115. The provisions of this act do not provide a legal treason for unauthorized
trespass. Offending dogs may be shot only by persons with a right or
premission to be on the property.
All incidents occurring under this provision, 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,
Appendix 5
HARDWOOD RETENTION PRESCRIPTION'
Prescriptions and recommendations prepared by: Gary Ben4nn, Regional Ecology
Program; Bill La«denslayer, Fish and Wildlife Mgmt. Staff; Gary Hartman, Forest
Wildlife Biologist; all located at Tahoe Naticnal Forest, Nevada City,
California-.
GENERAL RECOt32iENDATIONS REGARDING HARDWOOD RETENTION m AREAS W11tr11 TIMBER
PRODUCTION IS THE PRIMARY RESOURCE DIRECTION
1. Recommendations concerning hardwood stand de%.sity ad spatia? distribution'
for wildlife utilization
Hardwoods appear to be: wore effectively utilized by wildlife When .hey are
maintained as aggregations, stands, inclus$.o tls in stands or stringers
rather than as scattered lndividual trees in a timber stand. 7,t -would be
preferable to emphasize ;the growth and management df hardtaocrds as
aggregations such as the example (Draft SilviculturAl. Practices Handbook)
of one hardwood aggregation of 25 f t2 of basal area in one portion of A 5
acre unit (or 230 �tZ of ;basal area per 4.0 acres • Forest Service Manua;t
2405.14-5)•
Ree,earch work IndiclLtes that more banefits (wildlife, ineremental growth of
hardwoods, fuelwood prodUction) are attained from hardwoods ii They are
maintained as aggregations with stand densities greater than 80 ft! of
basal area per acre (Tappeiner and 41cl7onald, 1979; MCDonald, eft al.
publication due: in 1983)
Zj Recommendations for fruit (or hard wast) and forage production in hardttaod
aggregations.
-82-
n
11
I.]
-83
Mature hardwoods do provide food and cover for many wildlife species. Food
is provided by the immature stages of oak through browse (twigs, stems,
leaves) of the .seedlings and saplings. The mature 'stages of oak provide
hard mast (acorns) and hollows for dens. Little,, information is available
regardi,.g: 1) the age at whish 'various hardwoods1 are mature enough to
ptn duce fruit or mast in quantities large enough to contribute to the diet
of wildlife species, or 2) the age at which the hardwoods become decadent
and begin a steady decline in fruit production. The following provides
information about some hardwoods in the Sierra Nevada ,and the Central
Valley of 'California for which data is available.
Naturally occurring California black oak ( uercus 4cellogg\.i) starts to
produce acorn in moderate quantities at approximately 80 ytars, although
noticeable acorn production has been reported for black oak SpTouts that
Were 20-25 years old. The a -e. at which Acorn production declt.nes ;in
California black oak, is uncertain, however it apparently occurs some time
after 30( years of age (McDonald, 1969). Blue oak (quercus douglassii)
produces raoderate amounts of acorns by 60 years of age however th►+t Age of
decline in acorn production is not known. The time of initial seed :Crop
production. for other California oaks, such as valley oak (R.,, lobata)`,,
Oregon white oak (q,gar-.yana) j canyon live oak (q, chrysolepis), in°tAerior
live oak (_q, wislizenii), etc: is not know. (McDonald, pens, comm.)
Tanoak probably reaches a poderate level of acorn production at approx. :1+0
years of age and probably declines after 100 years. 41though tanoak acorns
are not preferred by deer- elk, bear, etc., they appear to be fully
utilized; thus tanoak acorns may provide an important component. of the
fainter food supply for deer and bear as o,.11 is other wildlife species.
I.]
-83
Pacific madrone (Arbutus menz� i^ essii) begins toxkl:
roduce berries `
p ea (ar fruit)
at about 60 years of are and these berries area very' important food source
for birds, eg, bank -tailed pigeons Colu
( mba fascia) ta, mule dreg
('Qdocoleus hemiJnus)
--------�_ > ,and dusky -footed: wood rats (Neotoma
tuscipes)�
Pacific madrone will produce heavy berry crops up to 160
ynrtcs of age but
fruit produc�-j on is uncertain after that time (McDonald aril 'Olson, in
press).
If the management objective is to maintain maximum or near -maximum fruit
(acorn) production in hardwood aggregations consisting of black oak, tanoak
and madrone, it is 4cWggested that these hardwood stands be regenerated at
ages gauging from 161) to 250 years. If these hardwood stands are to be
regenerated through resprouting, then regeneration should occur at an age
when resprouting can still, be vigorous There is an indication that black
Oaks become incapable of vigorous resprouting by 200 years of age g , (Boss,
at.al , 1978)• The age at which tanoak and madrone are no longer capable
of resproistiug is not known, however 200 years of age is a suggested
Intermediate value ;for the harvest age.
Individual oak trees are quite variable in their acorn production. Some
trees are consistent
good years, producers whereas other do not
p produce acorns even in
It is important to select good aldorn PVJducers to manage in
the aggregation. Selection of 'ehose trees mature enough to produce- acorn..
s
should be done from late July to early September when the acorn crop is
most evident NAlter C. Graves, pert: comm,).
mgt,
0
Age/diameter at breast height (d.b.h.,) relationships for hardwoods are not
very clear but I am ,providing some general guidelines for black oak, tanoak
and taadrone derived from Phil McDonald's work. on thinned hardwood stands on
good sites at the Challenge Experimental. Forest in the northern Sierra
Nevada. I have also added some information on canyon live oak based on an
administrative study on the Tahoe National Forest (Escano and Yamanaka,,
1973). I separated the d.b.h. ranges for the different species on the
basis of the density of the stands. An arbitrary level of 607.. canopy cover
was selected to separate open stands from dense "stands. This level was
selected on the basis of what represented a reasonable separation point by
field workers.
These general guidelines may be 'useful to estimate the age of individual.
hardwood trees Without having to core them.
D.B.H. Range (in inches) D.B.H. Range (itl inches)
for 80 yr. old trees for 200 yr, old tres
Species dense "stand open stand dense stand opan stand
Calif. Black Oak' 4 9 10 - 14 --- 20 30
Canyon Live Oak 6 - 7 •--- 12 _ - 15
Tanoak 6 - 10 11 - 14 -- 12 15
Pacific�Adrone 4 - Z 7 8 -- 14 - 20
Dense stand - greater than 60% canopy cover
Open strand less than 60 % canopy rover
3. Recommendations for maxiratzing fuelwood production in California black oak
Aggregations as the primary objective with acorn production for wildlife as
the secondary objective.
r
The following informations is based ou black oak but may be Useful fOr
application to other oaks and taaoak.
a. Seedling regeneration recommendations.
oak seedling estalishment may possibly be enhanced by plowing or
discing; the ground under mature productive oaks when acorns are falling
to the ground or by schf.dul ng the harvesting of dacadennt productive
oaks shortly after aco?,n fall. In either case, disturbance of the soil
surface may result in blirial of acorns andimproved conditions for seed
germination and seedlings establishment from the acatdt (McDonald', peas.
comm.)
b. Sprout regeneratior recommendations.
yany of the oaks tanoak and madrone will resprou,t vigorously following
harvest which provides for ample sprout regeneration. A light fire can
also be used to stimulate Oak, tanoak and madrone slump sprouting.
Tanoak, California black oak and several other oak species are
susceptible to heart rots which, can develop into a sevete problem .n
these types of hardwood stands;. The following prescription developed
for south-west: Orego;a and northern California hardwoods may be utilized
to reduce this prob:el
'loud ,means for virtually eliminating heart rot in young hardwood stnad5
in Oregon and California is to leave a stump less than S inches tall, a
.
practice that 'promotes sprouting from the root crown, Sprouts from
root crowns have an eXtremely low incidence of rot bridging from stump
to pith of sprout. Stool, sprouts, which arise a,t Or near the top of
*Sby
_..._ r�r�mBiiriiii��wWr�a�1
c. Thinning operation recommendations in young hardwood stands.
Thinning, operations in immature Oak or immauure tanoak aggregations
should result in maximum incremental growth. Thinning of natural black-
oak
lackoak stands should be done when sprouts and seedlings are 30-50 feet
tall: or when the stand exceeds 125 ft2 of basal area/acre. 'gees
growing in clumps (sprouts originating from the same hardwood root
crown) Usually should be reduced to no more than 4 sprouta/root crown
('Tappeinet and McDonald, 1979)• Reducing the sprouts to one
sprout/root crown may result in a spreading :branch pattexn of that
sprout but if maximum incremental growth is to be emphasized, 4 sprouts'
should remain because the incremental growth of each sprout is
approximately the same as one sprout/root crown (McDouald� 1979).
Two precautionary notes for thinning; operations in black oak.-
1)
ak:l) thinning of aprouts that are 1-3 years old Will result in vgorou's
additional sprouting, however Little respro'uting occurs if the
sprouts to he thinned are at least 4 years old (McDonald, 1978),
and
2) if the 4+ year-old sprouts are thinned sown to 2.4 sprouts per root
crown; some Will stlffdr'from sunscald and forking;.
the level of sunscald damage increases significantly as the basal arca
Is reduced below 1.10 ft2/acre. Unthinned black oak and madrone
sprouts of similar age do not suffer from sunscald and only from minor
amounts of fork°.s
.g7'
higher .stumps, ;almost
always are rotten
and,
also are susceptible to
breakage by wind and
snow" (McDonald, et
at.,
publication due in 1983),
c. Thinning operation recommendations in young hardwood stands.
Thinning, operations in immature Oak or immauure tanoak aggregations
should result in maximum incremental growth. Thinning of natural black-
oak
lackoak stands should be done when sprouts and seedlings are 30-50 feet
tall: or when the stand exceeds 125 ft2 of basal area/acre. 'gees
growing in clumps (sprouts originating from the same hardwood root
crown) Usually should be reduced to no more than 4 sprouta/root crown
('Tappeinet and McDonald, 1979)• Reducing the sprouts to one
sprout/root crown may result in a spreading :branch pattexn of that
sprout but if maximum incremental growth is to be emphasized, 4 sprouts'
should remain because the incremental growth of each sprout is
approximately the same as one sprout/root crown (McDouald� 1979).
Two precautionary notes for thinning; operations in black oak.-
1)
ak:l) thinning of aprouts that are 1-3 years old Will result in vgorou's
additional sprouting, however Little respro'uting occurs if the
sprouts to he thinned are at least 4 years old (McDonald, 1978),
and
2) if the 4+ year-old sprouts are thinned sown to 2.4 sprouts per root
crown; some Will stlffdr'from sunscald and forking;.
the level of sunscald damage increases significantly as the basal arca
Is reduced below 1.10 ft2/acre. Unthinned black oak and madrone
sprouts of similar age do not suffer from sunscald and only from minor
amounts of fork°.s
.g7'
i
Thinning operations usually result in increaaed producti(n of fruit and
can enhance reproduction. The thinning, operations in young black Oak,
tanoak and madrone aggregations (1-10, 10-80 year-old stands) should
emphasize trees of seed ori,ia instead of trees from stump sprouts due
to observations that seed origin trees tend. to have straighter bules
And potentially will bear fruit at an earlier age (Tappelner and
McDonald, 1979), If the hardwood aggregations are being maintained
primarily for wildlife then the hardwood trees (especially oaks and
tanoaks) older than 200 years should be harvested because mast produc-
tion
roduc tion may start to decline after this age and heart rot becomes increas-
ingly significant at 110-120 years for black oaks in natural stands.
C Slash disposal a:.d burning recommendations for., hardwood stands.
Bost of the hardwoods and especially the oaks are easily damaged by.
intense fire. Consequently great caution should be exercised when firs
is to be employed for managing undergrowth A getatiot.L or reducing heavy
fuel loads under hardwood stands I,Boss, et a1., 1978). McDonald, est..
al., publication due in 1983, makes the following recommendatious
tdgarding fire 'in hardwood stands:
"Once a hardwood stands has been clearcut, slash disposal by
broadcast bursting promotes root crown sprouts by removing
accumulations oZ slash from aroung the root crowns and by
killing abovdwground portions ofstumps.
Slash in partially -cut hardwood stands should be lopped.and
scattered or Piled; Prescribed burning is not vecotamended. The
bark of most hardwood species provides little insulation from
fire. Cambium is killed easily by small amounts of radiative.
heat, and long vertical bole wounds are common after fire" .
Wigg:,
0
0
11
• SPECIFIC HARDWOOD RETENTION PRESCRIPTION FOR KEY DEER WINTER RANGE IN THE
CENTRAL SIERRA WITii PO;3SIBLE APPLICATION IN THE PiORTH COASTAL AREA OF
CALIFORNIA.
Thisrescription refers to the following hardwood species unloso otherwise
P
ii , tarioakuv
specified; Cs).;.forma cer
'black oak ( cus kellog -)
densiflOrus), and Pacific madrone (Arbutus 'me'nziesi ).
Em hasis Hardwoods ecies for Key Deer Winter Range.
The Oaks especially California black oak are to be emphanized due to their
value as browse (seedlings, saplings And young tree stages) Ana production
of hard mast (acorns) which is of very high value for dde3rt a k, w d
etc► Tanoak acorns are not preferred but are
turkey, wild pigs squirrels
utilized so this is also ai import ant hardwood..e•�
ac'ies :for overwintering
wildlife. pacific madrone is an important }d.rdwrood species because it
produces berries which are extermely imprirtant to band -'hailed pigeons,
other birds and squirtels. The b,�rriej are also an important food source
f of wood rats..;
other rodents and deer,, Alder(Al-aus 222-,-), willow (Salix
,�, ;are
aspen (�Po ulus 2221 maple Acer, s )
cottonwood (P�pulus spa,.) , p �.�.--._...
important species Aloug streams and in moist areas fir browse species and
cover to travel corridors for wildlife moving between diffaren•t mast-
producing hardwood stands orother destinations-
2. Recommended Age-Class-Distributions for Hast- and Frutt-Pro.duciu
Hardwoods.
Tt is recommended that two broad age class groups of hardwoods be
maintained. These groups should be presOnt: with the followingage-class
distribution.
a, One broad age -class group of older mast and fruit -producing hardwood.
trees ranging in age from 80 to 200 ycrars old
b. One broad ages -class group of young hardwood trees to replace the older
mast- and fruit -producers as they become decadent or die. The age
range should vary from 10 to 80 years (for stands Nri.giaating from
sprouts) or 20 to 80 years (for stands originating froseedlings),
c. Stands that are l to 10 (sprouts) or 1 to 20 (seedlings) years old'
would be considered as stands that are in the ,process of becoming
established.
3,► Hardwood Stand Selection
Hardwoods should be present as aggregations It units of 0,5-10 acres,
rather than individual scattered trees. The hardwoods should be present as
standsI stringers, or iu:lusions in a stand} and should be managed strictly
for wildlife purposes or for wildlife and fuelgood purposes. When
hardwoods are present in hardwood -conifer mikes, na�tusal groupings of
hardwoods should 'be selected for maintaining anis iraproVing these
aggregations. h few conifers Left within or immediately adjacent to these
I
aggregations provide for wildlife diversity and shelter, Field
observations of mature California black oak andcanyon liVO oak.. .trees.
indicate some trees are consistent acorn- producers even in poor years,
whereas other trees do not produce acorns even in good years.
Consequently, specific hardwood trees (especially oaks) should be selected
for inclusion into stands when acorns (or fruit) are most apparent (late
July - early November), assuming the trees are mature enoogh to produce
acorns (Walter C. Graves, pees. comm.).
It is recommended that these hardwoodaggregations should be established as
distinct timber stands, placed on definite rotation lengths and than stand
record cards be established for them.
4. Distribution of Hardwood,Aggregitions over a Large Area.
a. The hardwood aggregations (especially black oak, tatioak and madrone)
should be located wherever wildlife values are recognized as a yield
from the forest. Long narrow hardwood stands including such species as
alder, willow, cottonwood, etc, should' be established or retained along
streamside management zones or riparian stringers for 100 feet on
either side of the stream course to maintain continuity between
discrete hardwood stands and provide travel corridors for wildlife.
The discrete hardwood aggregations should be o!i.s"tributed as uniformly
as feasible in the subject area.
taformation from California wildlife biologists indicates that hardwood
aggregations on slopes greater than 60% receive only .a low level of
utilization by deer (Salwasser, Hal) et at., 1982; Gary Hartman, Pers.
..gl_
comm.), However it is suggested that slope classes gretttar or less
than 50% be used in the guidelines because 50% is the O L0,1e per Cent
separation point used in land management planning and timber -harvesting
operations'.
The following area allocation recommendations are based on assumptions'
management of California black
and values presented in a paper on the
oak and deer winter range by Donald Potter .and Barbara Johnston, 1879.
in their paper they conclude that 490 pounds of acorns/p,cre/year will
simultaneously provide the folluwiag:
l) 50 of the October -
through -December diet of one deer
(Odecoileus h,emionus in the Sierra Nevada mountain duv'ug
GOOD MAST YEARS o
2) 9C),. of the year -to
diet of one gray squirrel (Sciurus
rias)
I erember diet of one mountain quail
3) 50'l. of the October -through- ,
(Oreort x iF..,ota,) or one valley quail (Ca11�la- californica).
`old re' uirements area applied in conjunction with studies of mast
'hese f 9 19b9) to
^ k oak (Grimesy 1977; McDonald,
produ..l;:ion fos California black ounds
d,.termine the .size. and .number of trees required to provide 490 p
of :acorns/acre%year; They estimated that 8.2 trees../acre. would provide
the requisite amount of acorns assuming the trees were to+ inches
the number nct site
d.b.h.
ViiL•r. an average crown diameter of 36 deet:
of trees would occupy about 20% of each acre.
tions and values are based
The reader is reminded thatthe above as in c" ele`�s where medius-tojgood
on black oak acorn production occurring y