CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
MULE DEER HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
AND THEIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
FOR CHEESEBORO CANYON
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Geography
by
Janet M. Edwards
May 1987
The thesis of Janet M. Edwards is approved:
Dr. Robert Hoffpa\1\it\
Dr. Phillip Kane, Chair
California State University, Northridge
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Several
individuals assisted me with the thesis.
Superintendent John Reynolds,
Park,
North Cascades National
suggested mule deer as the subject for the thesis.
Robert Plantrich, forester for the Santa Monica Mountains
National Recreation Area,
graphs,
fire
assisted with aerial photo-
the vegetation map,
management
Plantrich,
deer observation data and
information.
Paul Rose,
David Ochsner,
Robert
and Timothy Thomas, all members of
the park's Resource Management Division,
reviewed the
draft thesis and provided useful comments;
Tim Thomas
critiqued the draft as thoroughly as a committee member.
Assistant Superintendent Nancy Ehorn provided critical
information
on
the
practices.
Dr.
park's
management policies
Gerald \vright,
National
and
Park Service
biologist, Cooperative Parks Study Unit at the University
of
Idaho,
offered
Kheryn Klubnikin,
insights
into the
original draft.
formerly environmental specialist at
the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area,
also commented on the scope of the project.
I
Mount
am grateful to Jerry Sanders,
former dispatcher,
Rainier
his
National
Park,
iii
for
support
and
encouragement throughout the tedious hours of typing the
first
draft.
I
also wish to thank Robert Ortman for
proofreading the draft and providing numerous
insights
and Nikki Nachun for typing the final editions.
Special thanks are extended to my committee members,
Dr. Phillip Kane,
Logan.
Dr. Robert Hoffpauir,
and Dr. Richard
Dr. Kane not only commented on the written work,
but provided a valuable critique of the project while in
the field.
Dr. Logan critiqued the written drafts,
in a
manner
thorough
I
as
as
that
of
a
thesis
chair.
am
particularly grateful to these professors as well as
California State University graduate advisors
in the
Geography Department, Dr. Gordon Lethwaite and Dr. Robert
Gohstand,
for
their
support
to students who conduct
graduate work in conjunction with a full-time profession.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
LIST OF TABLES . • • . • . . . • . • • • • . • • . . • . . . . . • • • • . . . . . . . • . viii
LIST OF FIGURES.... . • . • . . . . . • . • . • • • . . . . • • . .. . . . . . . • . .
ix
ABSTRACT • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
X
FRONTISPIECE ••••••••••.•.•••.••.•••••••••••••••••.••
xii
CHAPTER
I.
II.
INTRODUCTION •••• .•••••.••••.•••••••••••••••••••
1
Purpose of Study.
1
Study Area............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Scope of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY OF CHEESEBORO CANYON
7
Climate and Hydrology.
7
Geology and Soils ••••••••••••.•••••.••.••••••.. 11
III.
Flora .••
15
Fa una . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22,
Wildfires •.••
23
HABITAT REQUIREMENTS OF MULE DEER IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA •••••••••••••••
27
Nutrition.....................................
27
Variation and Utilization of Forage and
Water •.•••.•••••••••.••••••••.••••••••.•
v
29
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
III.
HABITAT REQUIREMENTS OF MULE DEER IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (continued)
Forage ............................................ 29
Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Home Range. • .. • • • • • . • • • • • .. • .. . • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • . • 41
Trails and Deer Movements ••.•••.•••.••.••.•.•.. 43
Cover. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
IV.
THREATS TO HABITAT PRESERVATION IN
CHEESEBORO CANYON. • • • . • • • • • • • . • . • • • . • . • . • • • • • . • 48
Livestock Grazing ••.•••••••••••••••.••••••••.•• 48
Urban Encroachment ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 54
Visitor Usage.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
V.
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS FOR
CHEESEBORO CANYON.... • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • 65
Current Resource Management Policies and
Practices........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Management Policies ••.•••.•••.•••••••••••••• 65
Park Legislation ••..•.•.•.•••.•••••••••••••. 66
Land Protection Plan ••••••••••••••••••••.•••
C'7
VI
General Management Plan •••••••••••.•.•••••.• 68
Natural Resource Management Plan ••..••••••.• 70
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation
Area Activities Which Affect Mule Deer ••••.•••• 74
Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Resource Management and Scientific
Research... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Visitor Usage.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
V.
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS FOR
CHEESEBORO CANYON (continued)
Response to Urban Encroachment •••.••••••.••• 87
VI.
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
90
REFERENCES CITED. • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
94
vii
LIST OF TABLES
1.
Canoga Park Monthly Temperature Normals
(1951-1980)......................................
8
2.
Mean Precipitation (1951-1980)..................
9
3.
Percentage of Crude Protein in Forage •••••••••.•
31
4.
Importance of Forage Species By Season •••..•••.•
32
5.
Stomach Analysis in a South Coast Deer
Range. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.
34
Trace Food Items on a South Coast Deer
Range.............................................
35
7.
Inferred Forage Plants of Cheeseboro Canyon....
36
8.
Management Policies and Practices Which Help
or Hinder Mule Deer Resource Protection ••.••••••
75
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
1.
Geographic Range Of Mule Deer................
2
2.
Mule Deer Subspecies in California...........
3
3.
Study Area Vicinity Map ••.....•••.•••.•. Rear pocket
4.
Place Names of Cheeseboro Canyon ....•••. Rear pocket
5.
Sandstone Outcrops of the Chatsworth
For1na t
ion................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
13
6.
Vegetation Map ....•.•.......••....••••.. Rear pocket
7.
Chamise, Scrub Oak, and Laurel Sumac.........
17
8.
Middle Canyon After the 1982 Dayton
Canyon Fire..................................
25
The Riparian Zone............................
44
9.
10.
Deer Use of Cheeseboro Canyon .•.......•• Rear pocket
11.
Cattle Grazing...............................
51
12.
Urban Pockets................................
55
13.
Calabasas Landfill...........................
57
14.
Entrance Sign to Cheeseboro Canyon...........
60
15.
Preservation of Mule Deer....................
93
ix
ABSTRACT
MULE DEER HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
AND THEIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
FOR CHEESEBORO CANYON
by
Janet M. Edwards
Master of Arts in Geography
The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area,
is mandated to preserve natural
domain.
One
of
the
California mule deer.
park's
resources within its
wildlife
resources
is
Among their most important habitat
requirements are forage,
cover,
and water.
These basic
elements are found within Cheeseboro Canyon.
Threats
to mule deer habitat in Cheeseboro Canyon
include livestock grazing which alters species composition
and
decreases
the
amount of
forage
and
cover.
Second, urban development, near the south, east and west
boundaries,
Third,
doubled
reduces
the amount of contiguous habitat.
the number of visitors to Cheeseboro Canyon has
in the past year and is expected to jncrease
X
steadily over the next decade.
Heavy visitor usage can
interfere with deers' use of range.
National
Park
Service
actions
which assist
in
habitat preservation include annual prescription burning,
elimination of livestock grazing,
and review of develop-
ment proposals which may adversely affect mule deer.
Habitat
preservation
is
inhibited by
insufficient
information about Cheeseboro's deer population as well as
the quality and quantity of forage.
for
natural
amount of
Insufficient funding
resource management programs restricts the
research and monitoring which can be accomp-
lished.
Using
available
operating
funds,
however,
National Park Service can still protect resources.
the
Those
actions include identification of all mule deer research
needs,
habitat
development of a
requirements,
visitor education program on
assessment
of visitor
impact on
habitat, and implementation of a private land stewardship
program for protecting habitat.
xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Study
The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area
was set aside by Congress in 1978 to protect the natural
resources within this chaparral ecosystem and to provide
opportunities for visitors
that
to enjoy them.
the Santa Monica Mountains range
example
of
island biogeography due
development of nearby properties.
to
It appears
is becoming an
the
constant
Gradually the Santa
Monica Mountains are being isolated from the adjoining
Transverse Ranges because of this development
and Plantrich,
1984,
p.
3}.
(Ochsner
This isolation decreases
plant and animal numbers and diversity which eventually
will lead to loss of species.
One of the wildlife resources within the Recreation
Area which
is
threatened by decreasing open space is
California mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus californica}.
This subspecies in western North America ranges from the
central foothills of California's Sierra Nevada to the
south coast ranges
(Figures 1 and 2}.
1
2
Figure 1. Geographic range of mule deer.
(1) Rocky Mountain, (2) Desert or burro, (3) California
(4) Southern, (5) Peninsula, (6) Columbian black-tailed
deer, and (7) Sitka black-tailed deer.
Adapted from: Wallmo, 1981, p.3.
3
LEGEND
ROCKY
~
•
Figure 2.
CALIFORNIA MULE DEER
SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS
NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
Mule deer subspecies in California.
Adapted from:
1976, p.S.
California Department of Fish and Game,
4
The purpose of
this study is
to examine National
Park Service policies and practices relating to mule deer
preservation
and
to determine
whether
all necessary
actions are being taken to preserve this wildlife species
in Cheeseboro Canyon,
one of the park sites within the
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.
The
physical geography and habitat characteristics of this
site are reviewed to determine if the basic mule deer
habitat elements exist.
In order to verify this,
an
examination of mule deer habitat requirements in Southern
California has been undertaken.
Threats to mule deer in
this park unit are discussed to demonstrate the need for
examination of National Park Service resource management
polices and practices.
one
wildlife
species
Although this study focuses on
in one park
site,
it
also has
resource management implications for the preservation of
other wildlife species within the canyon and in other
areas of the Recreation Area.
Study Area
The Cheeseboro Canyon study site,
at the northern-
most point of the Recreation Area, is located in the Simi
Hills Transverse Mountain Range. Bell Canyon and the San
Fernando Valley 1 i e
to the east and Thousand Oaks and
Agoura to the west (Figure 3, rear pocket). Cheeseboro is
approximately
14 miles
north
of
the
coast
and
is
5
separated from the Santa Monica Mountains by the Ventura
Freeway.
Cheeseboro CanyGn was acquired primarily for
wildlife
Service
resources.
in
1981,
it
Purchased by the
serves
as
a
its
National Park
wildland connection
between the Santa Monica Mountains and the Simi Hills,
Santa Susanna Mountains and mountain ranges
in Santa
Barbara and San Bernadino Counties. The need to retain
Cheeseboro as a
wildlife corridor is critical for the
long-term survival of wildlife, especially larger mammals
such as mule deer (Ochsner and Plantrich, 1984, p. 4).
Cheeseboro Canyon has been chosen as the study site
because
its
abundant
wildlife
resources
are being
increasingly threatened from internal activities such as
visitor usage and external activities,
expansion,
development
on
nearby non-park
such as urban
properties.
Urban
is continually encroaching upon the open
landscape causing Cheeseboro Canyon to become an island
within an island.
Scope of Study
After describing the physical setting in Chapter 2,
Chapter 3 identifies the essential.habitat requirements
for
mule
California.
and horne
deer
in
chaparral
ecosystems
of Southern
The description of necessary forage, cover,
range have been
extracted
from published
6
literature.
Field reconnaissance provided specific
information on the habitat within Cheeseboro Canyon.
Three threats to habitat preservation in Cheeseboro
are
identified and discussed in Chapter 4.
grazing, urban development,
Livestock
and visitor use all have the
potential to adversely impact natural habitat and are
present within the National Recreation Area boundary.
The National Park Service natural resource management polices and practices applying to the Recreation
Area are evaluated in Chapter 5 and 6 according to their
effect
Finally,
on preservation
actions
of
deer
taken by the
and
their habitat.
agency
to monitor and
address threats are also considered.
Sections of the study area will be described using
place names (Figure 4, rear pocket) devised by the author
and most are not officially recognized. They are listed
to clarify the locations of specific canyons and ridges.
CHAPTER II
PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY OF CHEESEBORO CANYON
Climate and Hydrology
Cheeseboro Canyon ranges in elevation from 1300 feet
above mean sea level in the riparian zone,
along the northwest boundary.
mild,
to 2300 feet
The regional Mediterranean
climate
of
rainy winters and hot dry summers
prevails
in Cheeseboro Canyon.
Annual daytime tempera-
tures range between 50 degrees and 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
Average annual precipitation ranges from 16 to 25 inches.
Tables 1 and 2 provide monthly data on temperature and
p r e c i p i t a t i on
f r om
three
Canoga Park Pierce College,
Topanga Patrol Station
stat ions
near
Cheese b oro :
Lechuza Point Station,
(Figure 3,
rear pocket).
and
Also
nearby, the Rocketdyne Test Laboratory at an elevation of
1,550
feet
recorded 62.6 degrees
monthly mean
precipitation.
temperature
with
41
Fahrenheit as
the
inches of annual
In 1984 the test laboratory recorded 65
degrees Fahrenheit as a monthly mean temperature and 11.1
inches of precipitation.
Rainfall dropped again in 1985
7
8
TABLE 1
CANOGA PARK MONTHLY TEMPERATURE NORMALS {1951-1980)
STATION:
ELEVATION:
Canoga Park
Pierce College
790 ft.
MONTH
MAX
MIN
MEAN
January
67.0
39.1
53.1
February
69.9
40.4
55.2
March
71.5
41.3
56.4
April
75.7
44.1
59.9
May
79.7
48.6
64.2
June
86.4
52.6
69.5
July
94.9
57.0
76.0
August
94.0
57.5
75.8
September
91.3
54.4
72.9
October
83.6
48.7
66.2
November
74.4
42.6
58.5
December
68.6
39.1
53.9
79.8
47.1
63.5
ANNUAL AVERAGE
IN INCHES:
Source: Court, 1985, p. 16.
9
TABLE 2
MEAN PRECIPITATION (1951-1980)
Canoga Park
Pierce College
Lechuza Point
Station
ELEVATION:
790 ft.
1600 ft.
January
4.03
5.78
6.78
February
3.26
4.35
5.02
March
2.46
3.12
3.76
April
1.19
1.72
1.85
May
.25
.30
.28
June
.02
.06
.02
July
.00
.01
.02
August
.15
.09
.14
September
.16
.27
.22
October
• 25
.27
.27
November
2.13
2.98
2.99
December
2.10
3.17
3.44
16.00
22.12
24.59
STATION:
ANNUAL TOTALS
IN INCHES:
Source:
Court, 1985, p. 40, 42, 46.
Topanga
Patrol
Station
745 ft.
10
to 10.6 inches and a
monthly mean temperature of 63.4
degrees Fahrenheit (Rocketdyne, 1983-1985).
Cheeseboro Canyon creek is an intermittent tributary
in the Medea Creek watershed, which is the largest within
the National Recreation Area.
Although the
u.s.
Geologi-
cal Survey has established stream flow gauges for some of
the
streams
in the Santa Monica Mountains,
taken for Cheeseboro Canyon.
runoff
feeds
streambed is
no data are
Normally in winter,
the stream channel.
During
storm
summer
the
usually dry and may remain so until late
spring
if winter precipitation has been low.
Besides
runoff,
the stream is fed by four natural springs on the
property, Lower Spring, Sulphur Spring, Upland Spring and
Northwest Spring.
During
field observations after the winter rains,
three to twelve inches of water filled Cheeseboro Creek
south of the springs.
rainy season.
Water was prevalent throughout the
By Apri 1, springs produced less water
and streambeds began to dry.
springs was a
By August,
water at the
few inches deep, but was present for only
several hundred feet downstream from the springs.
pattern of
abundant
water
in winter
This
and scarcity in
summer was characteristic during field studies from 1983
to 1985.
Although no water quality data are available on
springs within Cheeseboro Canyon,
information on springs
11
within Los Angeles and Ventura Counties provides insight
into similar springs.
found
at
rates
range
elevations .from 280 to 5240 feet.
components
from 3 to 61 gallons per
include sodium sulfates,
bicarbonate
sulfate,
bicarbonate
sulfate,
calcium sulfate.
to
Within these counties springs are
sulphur
in
Discharge
minute.
calcium,
Chemical
magnesium,
calcium bicarbonate,
sodium chloride,
and
calcium
magnesium
The springs have a milky appearance due
suspension.
Data
collected on springs
within five miles of Cheeseboro indicated that the water
is
soft
sulphur
lack
and
odor
of
good
(Mendenhall,
of data on
1913,
quality
p.
wildlife,
in the riparian
with
253).
the quality of water
its suitability for
water
drinking
a
strong
Despite the
in Cheeseboro and
deer were often seen near
zone and tracks
are
found
to the
water's edge.
The
Chatsworth
Canyon is eroded,
sandstone,
p. 89).
Format ion,
into
which Cheeseboro
is a thick sequence of upper Cretaceous
mudstone,
and
Cheeseboro Canyon
conglomerate
consists
of
(Carey,
1981,
thin
thick
to
bedded sandstone which is fine to coarse grained.
Shale
and siltstone can also be found but are rare (Schymiczek,
1981,
p. 19).
The Chatsworth Formation
is part of a
large submarine fan complex involving beds of equivalent
12
age and facies
in the Simi Hills and the Santa Monica
Mountains to the south (Link, 1981, p. 7).
Cheeseboro Canyon is carved into the southern face
of the Simi Hills.
for
Its upper portion trends southeast
approximately one
another mile.
mile and
then
The width of the valley floor varies from
approximately 200 feet
in the narrow portions of South
Cheeseboro to approximately 1000 feet
Slopes vary
turns south for
from gentle
inclines
in Northwest Bowl.
in South and Lower
Cheeseboro to steeper canyon walls at the Northwest Bowl
and at Browse Bend.
Rock outcrops are visible at Quail Uplands,
Rocky
Creek Bend and on the east-west ridge overlooking Coyote
Road.
A major rock outcrop is visible at Baleen Rock in
the Middle Canyon.
Outcrops can also be seen at Quai 1
Uplands (Figure 5).
In
it s
sinuosity.
up p e r
pa r t ,
the
rna in stream has
1i t t 1e
In Lower Cheeseboro the stream meanders more
noticeably~
Several
short
side canyons
drain
into
Cheeseboro Creek, primarily in the southeast section of
the study area.
The main creek bed is generally two to five feet
deep,
the
shallower
deep e r
in the south section of the canyon than
Nor t h we s t
Bow 1 .
approximately three to eight feet.
The wi d t h
ranges
f rom
14
So i 1 s
in
the Simi Hi 11 s
are
characteristically
shallow, poorly drained, causing considerable runoff, low
fertility,
low alkalinity,
Park Service,
1982,
p.
soils are dry xeralfs,
and
41.)
low salinity (National
In Cheeseboro Canyon the
with a mean annual temperature
greater than 47 degrees Fahrenheit.
a gray to brown surface.
These alfisols have
The subsurface horizons have a
medium to high base of clay.
Two rna jor so i 1 types are found in Cheeseboro.
the north and
middle
section of
the canyon,
In
Gaviota
association soils have developed on canyonwide sedimentary rock.
These Gaviota association soils are found on
15 percent to 30 percent slopes to steeper hillsides of
30 percent to 50 percent and are well-drained sandy loams
that
are
shallow
underneath,
(8-14
inches)
with a pH of 7.
is moderate to rapid.
sandstone
Vegetation on these soils
generally consists of brush,
(So i 1 Conservation Service,
and cover
annual grasses,
1970, p.
27) •
and oaks
Permeability
Surface runoff is medium to rapid
with moderate to severe erosion.
Soil types of the Calleguas-Arnold association can
be
found
in
the
Cheeseboro Canyon.
middle
and
southern
sections
of
They are characteristic of mountain-
ous uplands of 10 percent to 50 percent slope.
They are
well-drained shaly loams that are shallow over shale or
sandstone and are somewhat excessively drained sands that
15
are very deep over sandstone (Soil Conservation Service,
1970,
p. 15).
brush,
Service,
The associated vegetation consists of
annual
grasses,
1970, p. 15).
and
forbs
(Soil Conservation
Low fertility is characteristic
for both soils which are susceptible to sheet erosion.
Steep slopes
drained,
(those over 50 percent) are excessively
shallow,
soil profile.
and coarse with rocks and gravel
in
They have an angular, blocky structure and
neutral pH at the surface.
Flora
Vegetation in Cheeseboro Canyon is a combination of
mixed chaparral,
grasslands.
coastal sage scrub,
oak woodland,
and
Chaparral grows in shallow, coarse soils and
consists of sclerophyllous
(drought
tolerant) plants,
generally woody shrubs with thin dry leaves and deep
roots.
The
roots
pat tern wi tl1 a
are
extensive and
form a
lateral
second network of deep roots which seek
water during summer drought.
from three to fifteen
feet
Chaparral generally range
in height,
with an average
height of three to six feet (Hanes, 1977, p. 449).
Most chaparral plants are evergreen with thin leaves
for the purpose of conserving moisture.
within the
Tannin is found
leaves of most species increasing suscepti-
bility to fires, a necessary ingredient in the life cycle
of this fire-climax vegetative association.
16
Cheeseboro Canyon
communities
is
representative of the plant
described by Pearsons
for
Palo Comado.
According to Pearsons,. the mixed chaparral association in
the
Palo Comado-Cheeseboro Canyon
following species:
(Quercus dumosa),
loides),
laurel
large
sumac
sugarbush
(Rhus
laurina),
and monkey flower
(Rhamnus
ilicifolia),
southern honeysuckle
p. 55).
toyon
ilici-
Climbing penstemon
(Heteromeles arbutifolia),
(Mimulus australis)
are also found in
although toyon is uncommon.
stoma fasciculatum)
the
scrub oak
hollyleaf cherry (Prunus
1984,
(Keckiella cordifolia),
Cheeseboro,
(Rhus ovata),
leaved redberry
(Pearsons,
contains
mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betu-
(Lonicera subspicata),
folia)
area
Chamise (Aden-
is often in almost pure stands from
six to nine feet tall on south facing slopes which also
support yerba santa (Eriodictyon crassifolium).
ita
(Arctostaphylos glandulosa),
berberdifolia)
and scrub oak
are found on north-facing slopes
Manzan(Quercus
(Taber,
1958, p. 64) (Figure 6, rear pocket).
Mixed chaparral species occur commonly in Middle
Canyon to Northwest Bowl
scrub oak
(Figure 7).
(Quercus berberdifolia)
Creek Bend sunflower
(Datura meteloides),
Near Loop Flats
is common.
(Encelia californica),
tree tobacco
At Rock
jimson weed
(Nicotiana glauca),
mustard (Brassica spp.) and Indian paintbrush (Castilleja
affinis) are found throughout Middle Canyon.
In the
18
central canyon around Loop Flats,
chamise
(Adenostoma
fasciculatum), black sage (Salvia mellifora), and laurel
sumac
(Rhus laurina)
stump sprouts are prevalent.
Tree
tobacco (Nicotiana glauca) is found on the disturbed site
along the road between Middle Canyon and Quail Uplands.
In the Northwest Bowl,
the most predominant species is
chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum).
in this
yerba
location
santa
Other common species
include scrub oak
(Quercus dumosa),
(Eriodictyon crassifolium)
sage
(Salvia
spp.), and laurel sumac (Rhus laurina).
The coast a 1 sage scrub plant community is common in
the canyon.
It is an open, partly woody shrub community
which quickly invades disturbed soils.
drought
deciduous,
that
is,
some
Some species are
leaves drop off,
retaining moisture in the plant during the hot,
months.
This plant community is noted for
quality,
especially sage and sagebrush.
steep
south
facing
slopes
and
is
summer
its aromatic
It is found on
often below the
chaparral community on actively eroding or
unstable
slopes.
Coastal
sage
scrub grows
in dry,
thin
soils on
gravelly or rocky slopes. The soils are low in fertility
and are subject to rapid erosion.
The primary species
included
coastal
in
(Artemisia
phylla),
this
community
californica),
and black sage
are
purple
sage
sagebrush
(Salvia
(Salvia mellifera).
leuco-
Sagebrush
19
may be dense or scattered with £orbs and grasses intermixed.
This
community also
consists
of
yucca
(Yucca
whipplei), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum),
bush
sunflower
(Encelia californica),
(Nicotian glauca),
sugarbush (Rhus ovata),
elderberry (Sambucus mexicana)
Golden yarrow
sumac
(Rhus
lepida).
(Pearsons,
tobacco
and Mexican
1984, p. 54).
(Eriophyllum confertifolium) and laurel
laurina)
are
coastal sage communities
p. 54),
tree
as well as
found
in Cheeseboro Canyon
(National Park Service,
small-flowered needle grass
1985,
(Stipa
Coastal sage is especially noticeable in South
and Lower Cheeseboro.
Native grasslands
grasses
and both
in the canyon consist of annual
annual
dominant perennial grass
pulchra).
and
perennial
£orbs.
is purple needlegrass
The
(Stipa
Annual grasses such as wild oat (Avena fatua),
slender wild oat (Avena barbata) and
moll is) are found within the area.
melitensis),
mustards,
soft chess (Bromus
Tocalote ( Centaurea
(Brassica spp.),
yellow sweet
clover (Melilotus indicus),
red stemmed filaree (Erodium
cicutarium),
(Bromus diandrus),
ripgut grass
foxtail
barley (Hordeum leporinum), and red brome (Bromus rubens)
are
the common
p. 52).
Owls'
ann ua 1
clover
forb
species (Pear sons,
(Orthocarpus
1984,
purpurascens),
microseris (Microseris linearifolia) and tidy tips (Layia
20
platglossa) are also annual £orbs found within the canyon
(Pearsons,
1984,
p. 52).
Perennial
forbs
include
Catalina Mariposa lily (Calochortus catalinae), golden
stars
(Bloomer ia crocea) ,
wild hyacinth ( Dicelostemma
pulchella) and harvest brodiaea (Brodiaea jolonensis).
Other
weedy herbs
include horehound
(Marrubium
vulgare), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), white stemmed
filaree
(Erodium moschatum), California chicory (Rafine-
squia californica),
pastoris),
Shepard's purse
and common sow thistle
(Capsella bursa-
(Sonchusoleraceus)
(Pearsons, 1984, p.53).
Ashy leaf buckwheat
Indian paintbrush
(Eriogonum cinereum),
(Castilleja
affinis),
coastal
saw toothed
goldenbush (Happlopappus squarrosus), and deerweed (Lotus
scoparius),
are also scattered throughout the canyon
(Pearsons, 1984, p. 54).
In disturbed areas,
such as canyon bottoms with
, ..: _,..... ... , .. ,. trafficked dirt roads where cattle have grazed
.l..L':::Jlll-.L:J
for years, non-native species have invaded.
mustard
(Brassica
geniculata),
melitensis), horehound
(Nicotiana glauca),
flora),
tocalote
(Marrubium vulgare),
Short podded
(Centaurea
tree tobacco
telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandi-
California chicory (Rafinesquia californica),
soft chess
(Bromus mollis),
and foxtail chess
rubens) have replaced native species.
(Bromus
21
Coast
(Quercus
live oak
lobata),
californica)
oaks,
(Quercus agrifolia),
valley oak
and California black walnut
dominate the oak woodlands.
the most common trees,
(Juglans
Coast
live
are scattered on the north
facing slopes of both the coastal sage and mixed chaparral communities, particularly in canyon bottoms or north
facing slopes where soils are "deep,
moist,
loamy, or gravelly,
well aerated and well drained" {Pearsons,
1984,
10:.
p. 57).
The understory of
of miner's
lettuce
(Stellaria media),
fiesta
flower
the woodland
is composed
(Claytonia perfoliata),
goose grass
(Pholistoma
chickweed
(Galium aparine), blue
auritum),
common
eucrypta
(Eurypta chrysanthemifolia), Pacific sanicle (Sanicula
crass i c au 1 i s ) ,
purple sage
( Sal v i a
leu coph y ll a ) ,
coastal goldenbush (Haplopappus venetus).
is open,
sunlight will dry the soils.
and
If the canopy
The understory
includes western wild rye (Elymus glaucus) and giant wild
rye
(Elymus
condensatus)
(Pearsons,
1984,
p. 57).
Commonly exotic grasses have replaced understory native
annual grasses in these woodlands (National Park Service,
1985, p. 58).
The riparian area extends throughout the center of
the study area
from Northwest Canyon to Lower Canyon.
The densest riparian vegetation is found in Northwest
Canyon and Enchanting Forest.
agrifolia),
Coast live oak
California sycamore
(Quercus
(Platanus racemosa),
22
western verbena (Verbena lasiostachys), white hedgenettle
(Stachys albens),
mulefat
(Baccharis glutinosa),
glauca),
common,
Douglas nightshade
arroyo willow
red willow
(Salix
(Salix
(Solanum xanti),
tree tobacco (Nicotiana
lasiolepis)
laevigata)
are
and
less
the common
riparian zone species (Pearsons, 1984 p. 58-59).
Fauna
Cheeseboro Canyon serves as habitat for
species of
animals.
californicus),
bonii),
Black-tailed
Audubon cottontail
jackrabbit
several
(Lepus
(Sylvilagus audu-
California ground squirrel (Cite1lus becheyi),
valley pocket gopher,
latrans ochropus),
western fence
(Thomomys bottae), coyote (Canis
bobcat
lizard
(Lynx rufus californicus),
(Sceloporus occicentalis biseri-
atus), side blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana herperis),
southern alligator
lizard
(Gerrhonotus multicarinatus
webbi), gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus annectens),
common kingsnake
(Lampropeltis getulus californiae), and
western rattlesnake
(Cortalus viridus helleri)
this chaparral region (Pearsons,
racer
1984, p. 76).
(Masticophis flagellum piceus)
the California vole
inhabit
The red
is rarely seen and
(Microtus Californicus) and deer
mouse (Peromyscans boylii) are more common.
Several species of birds frequent the area including
dove
(Zenaida
kingbirds
sp.),
sparrow
(Tyrannus verticalis,
(Passer
domesticus),
Tyrannus vociferans),
23
and quail (Callipepla californica).
The canyon is known
as
species of
a
prime habitat
for
various
raptors
including golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), coopers hawk
(Accipiter cooperii),
red
tailed hawk
(Buteo
jamai-
censis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), screech owl
(Otus asio),
horned owl
burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia), great
(Bubo virginianus),
long eared owl
(Asio
otus), and barn owl (Tyto alba).
Sightings by the present writer or by National Park
Service personnel of all the species listed above have
not been recorded for Cheeseboro Canyon itself.
However,
because they are characteristic of the habitat found in
Cheeseboro, they are included.
Wildfires
Southern California with its cool,
hot,
dry summers,
is prone to fire
wet winters and
in summer and early
fall when the vegetation becomes dry and fuel moisture is
low.
the
Santa Ana winds beginning in fall,
vegetation
and
increase
further dry out
susceptibility to fire.
Fires generally are ignited by lightning, although arson
fires are also common in the Santa Monica Mountains.
Historically, local Chumash Indians burned chaparral
to promote the growth of plants which contributed to
their diet (Plantrich, 1986, p. 19).
Although they were
set primarily in grassland communities along the coast,
the fires may, on occasion, have burned farther into the
24
interior of
the
coastal
Spanish settlement period,
burned regularly
mountain range.
During the
large areas of chaparral were
to. encourage grassland
(Plantrich, 1986, p. 19).
for
grazing
These fires had no permanent
detrimental effects on the chaparral community and when
used
sparingly,
During the 1800s
probably
increased hunting
success.
local ranchers and homesteaders set
fires to improve their rangelands.
Many large fires occurred from 1900 to 1918 and, for
the safety of local residents, the need to suppress them
seemed inevitable.
In 1919 an organized fire department
was established for the Los Angeles County unincorporated
areas and,
fires
until
the advent of prescription burning,
were suppressed whenever possible. Most fires
in
this period were either accidentally or deliberately set
by humans. Eighty-five fires larger than 100 acres, were
recorded from 1925 to 1985 in the Santa Monica Mountains
(Plantrich,
1986,
p.2lj.
The
last
major
Cheeseboro Canyon occurred in October, 1982.
fire
1n
The Dayton
Canyon fire, as it is now called, began in the Simi Hills
north of Cheeseboro and swept quickly to the Pacific
coast (Figure 8).
A rare lightning-caused fire occurred in Cheeseboro
Canyon in May,
1984.
The fire burned approximately 200
acres in South Cheeseboro,
then continued to burn large
sections of adjoining Las Virgenes Canyon before it was
26
subdued.
Prior to this 1984 fire,
the canyon burned in
1949, 1967, and 1970.
Fire suppression is still the goals of county and
city fire departments.
These suppression techniques have
already altered the natural succession and have resulted
in an increase of decadent plants which have low nutritional value for deer.
CHAPTER III
HABITAT REQUIREMENTS OF MULE DEER IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Nutrition
Deer need between 6000 and 10,000 calories per day
depending on
p.
60).
the
These
Approximately 75
size of
the
animal (Dasmann,
calories
are
largely carbohydrates.
percent
of
the
calories
1964,
consist of
lipids (fats) with the remainder being protein, vitamins,
inorganic elements and water.
A 100 pound deer eats 2.2
to 3.0 air-dry pounds of forage per day or five to seven
pounds of green browse (Dasmann, 1981, p. 35).
In order to process the chaparral forage,
stomach has
omasum,
into
chambers called the rumen,
and abomasum.
the
resting,
four
rumen
it will
a deer's
reticulum,
Deer select food that will pass
without
chewing.
regurgitate
Finer materials will pass
the
When
"cud"
the deer
is
and chew it.
to the reticulum,
then the
omasum and finally the abomasum. Coarse vegetation matter
stays in the rumen and is attacked by bacteria.
The digestive system depends on the interaction of
bacteria and protozoa.
The rumen converts carbohydrates
27
28
into organic acids called fatty acids.
Proteins are
broken down into amino acids, organic acids and ammonia.
The
crude
fiber
content
of
digesting crude protein.
forage
is
important
It also assists
for
in breaking
down soluble carbohydrates.
How palatable
process.
type,
a plant
is
affects
the digestion
The palatability of plants depends on the soil
season,
amount
of
shade,
burning,
and other
environmental factors {Dasmann, 1971, p. 41).
Protein
deer's
is
diet.
the most
It not
important
ingredient of the
only maintains a base level of
health, but also builds strength against stress, disease
and injury {Dasmann, 1964, p. 52).
Since fawns have higher protein requirements than
mature
deer,
fawn
survival
is
generally
limited by
available nutrition and ample quantity of summer forage
{Dasmann, 1981, p. 41).
that
if a doe
Bowyer {1981, p. 18) points out
is undernourished,
its fawn may be born
underweight which would reduce its chances for survival.
If the female does not nurse her fawns they become more
susceptible to parasites and diseases.
Nursing requires
a high quality diet and ample moisture.
Dasmann
{1981,
actively seek out
p. 24)
foods
indicates
that
that are best for
deer
them.
may
Deer
test leaves before eating them by licking the leaves and
holding them in their mouth.
They also smell them before
29
eating and select certain leaves over others.
select ion of
However,
food is not based entirely on nutritional
value, but also on edibility. Poisonous plants, unfamiliar to a deer,
may be tasted once and then avoided with
no ill effects
(Dasmann,
1981, p. 25).
Deer will eat a
variety of plants but mostly their diet consists of only
a
few species because deer
feed on preferred species
whenever possible.
Variation and Utilization of Forage and Water
Forage
California mule deer feed on browse species
plants)
(woody
at certain times of the year and on succulent
herbaceous plants at other times.
The presence of winter
green grass significantly affects the nutrition of deer.
During the growing season,
annual and perennial grasses
have high protein,
and mineral content.
water
broadleaf herbs appear after the grasses,
When
the deer will
graze on them as long as they are succulent.
Grasses and
forbs vary in nutritional value and palatability just as
browse
spring.
species do,
with
the high protein
Grasses and forbs
levels
in
are also eaten by deer in
winter when protein levels are higher than common browse
species.
Protein content in forage species
deer)
(plants eaten by
drops significantly during summer months after
peaking in spring.
Toyon
(Heteromeles arbutifolia)
and
30
hollyleaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) produce new growth
Within two to three months after most browse
in June.
species have reached their peak, this new growth provides
protein in drier periods when deer seek foods to nourish
them until
fall
Tables 3 and 4
summer
foods
rains
arrive
indicate the
(Blong,
1956,
p. 14).
importance of spring and
such as chamise
(Adenstoma fasciculatum),
poison oak (Rhus diversiloba), western mountain mahogany
(Heteromeles arbutifolia),
crassifolium).
and yerba santa
In the fall,
rains
(Eriodictyon
leach water soluble
carbohydrates and minerals from dry vegetation and cause
losses in nutritional value. Increased rains may further
deplete forage quality.
In September,
time
in
grow.
the
the deer eat acorns and spend more
riparian woodland area where the oak trees
Acorns are
low in protein and minerals but are
high in fats and starches.
Deer select acorns from the
most productive trees.
The California Department of Fish and Game indicated
that
no
rumen
analysis have been
Cheeseboro Canyon.
available for
County,
deer
However,
done
stomach
from similar areas
documented by Blong
(1956).
on
deer
analyses
in
are
in Los Angeles
Blong's data
collected in the summer of 1955 show that the stomachs
contained hollyleaf cherry
(Prunus
ilicifolia),
oaks
(Quercus spp.), and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) the
31
. I
TABLE 3
PERCENTAGE OF CRUDE PROTEIN IN FORAGE
SPECIES
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
s
0
N
D
Chamise
6%
8
11
14
14
10
9
6
6
4
7
7
8
9
10
14
15
12
11
7
7
6
9
7
24
23
21
16
10 10
7
4
Scrub oak
Poison oak
coast live oak -
5
ho1lyleaf
cherry
western
mtn mahogany
7
toyon
9
redberry
8
yerba santa
8
7
10
sagebrush
manzanita
6
17
20 16 12
12
12
9
8
8 10
9
1 A
1 1
........
9
8
7
8
7
- 11
7
8
5
6
7
7
7
6
6
14
17
15
9
15
.LU
.L '"r
16
10
12
9
10
17
13
4
23
6
, c.
13
6
NOTE: Each species is most important
are highest.
Source:
10
7
9 11
6
~1en
protein levels
Biswell, 1955, p. 148-149; Dasmann, 1964, p. 42.
32
TABLE 4
IMPORTANCE OF FORAGE SPECIES BY SEASON
SPECIES
WINTER
SPRING
SUMMER
XX
X
April-June
June-Aug
Chamise
(Adenostoma
fasciculatum)
0
Coast live oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
0
Scrub oak
(Quercus
berberdifolia)
X
X
Jan-Feb
May
Poison oak (Rhus
diversiloba)----
X
Feb
Grasses and Forbs
Toyon
(Heteromeles
arbutifolia)
0
0
FALL
0
XX
Sept-Dec
X
XX
XX
May
X
0
XX
X
0
0
X
X
XX
X
June-Aug
Hollyleaf cherry
0
(Prunus ilicifolia)
X
Mountain mahogany
(Heteromeles
arbutifolia)
X
XX
Redberry
Rhamnus crocea)
0
XX
June-Aug
X
X
Sept
X
Mar-May
NOTE: XX=Very Important
O=Unimportant
X
May
X
June-Aug
X
Sept
X=Moderately Important
Source: Biswell, 1955: Blong, 1956: Dasmann, 1964, 1981:
Taber, 1958: Urness, 1981.
33
predominant
crocea)
foods
eaten along with redberry
(Rhamnus
and mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides).
Tables 5 and 6 summarize Blong' s data and indicate the
importance of
(Prunus
such woody species as hollyleaf cherry
ilicifolia),
toyon
(Photinia arbutifolia),
and
manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.) and forbs such as miner's
lettuce (Montia sp.).
Comparing
the
list
California chaparral
plant species
of
deer
foods
zones with Pearsons
in Palo Comado,
in
southern
list of all
Table 7 has been devel-
oped. Since Palo Comado is adjacent to Cheeseboro Canyon,
species are assumed to be similar (see page 36).
In some
cases the genus is listed as forage, but the species is
unknown.
It cannot be inferred from Table 7 that species
which exist in Cheeseboro are in fact eaten by deer.
species is
listed,
likely that
however, because
A
it would appears
if it is a browse plant in another part of
Southern California,
it probably is utilized by deer
in
Cheeseboro Canyon as well.
Throughout the year, deer tend to feed in different
portions of their home
range~
however,
they do not eat
forage uniformly, and some areas are browsed more heavily
than others.
If an area has been overbrowsed by deer,
and most of the palatable and nutritious plants eaten,
the productivity of the plant will decrease (Longhurst,
1952, p. 54).
34
TABLE 5
STOMACH ANALYSIS IN A SOUTH COAST DEER RANGE
This is an analysis of 27 deer stomachs collect during
the dry period (August, 1955}.
PERCENT PERCENT
VOLUME OCCURR.
PLANT SPECIES
BROWSES
Prunes ilicifolia
Quercus sp.
Photinia arbutifolia
Rhus arbutifolia
QUercus wislenzenii
Eriogonum fasciculatum
Ceanothus cuneatus
Hollyleaf cherry
unident'd oaks (leaves}
Toyon
Poison oak
Interior live oak
Calif buckwheat
Buckbrush
Tree lichen
Quercus dumosa
scrub oak
Quercus douglasii
blue oak
Rhamnus crocea
redberry
Cercocarpus betuloides western mtn mahogany
Salix sp.
willow
Quercus sp.
unident'd oaks (acorns}
Quercus agrifolia
coast live oak (acorns}
Fraxinus dipetala
foothill ash
nightshade
Solanum douglasii
SUBTOTAL
23.0
12.5
11.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
86.0%
40.7
29.6
51.9
44.4
14.8
22.2
25.9
37.0
22.2
11.1
33.3
33.3
22.2
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
FORBS
unidentified forbs
Melilotus sp.
sweet clover
Amaranthus retroflexus rough pigweed
mock locust
Amorpha californica
ground-cherry
Physalis sp.
ferns
Polypodiaceae
SUBTOTAL
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
.5
12.5%
51.9
18.5
11.1
11.1
3.7
11.1
1.5
63.0
GRASSES
unidentified
SUBTOTAL
Source:
1. 5%
Blong 1956, Table VII.
35
TABLE 6
TRACE FOOD ITEMS ON A SOUTH COAST DEER RANGE
Those species listed below were eaten by 27 deer during
the dry period (August, 1955).
PERCENT FREQUENCY
OF OCCURRENCE
PLANT SPECIES
Eriodyction crassifolium
Artemisia californica
Populus fremontii
Lonicers sp.
BROWSES
coffeeberry
common mistletoe
manzanita
chamise
wild rose
quixote plant
valley oak
(probably deerweed)
unidentified leafage
wooly yerba santa
California sagebrush
cottonwood
honeysuckle
Centaurea sp.
Compositeae
Mantia sp.
Erodium cicutarium
Galium sp.
Lathyrus sp.
Liliaceae sp.
Madia sp.
Medicago hispida
Mentha sp.
Polygonum
Trifolium sp.
FORBS
star thistle
composites
miner's lettuce
red-stem filaree
bed straw
campo pea
lillies
tar weed
bur clover
mint
knot weed
clover
Bromus sp.
Avena fatua
Horedeum sp.
Juncus sp.
GRASSES
brome grass
wild oat
wild barley
rush
Rhamnus californica
Phoradendron villosum
Arctostaphylos sp.
Adenostoma fasciculatum
Rosa sp.
YUCCa whipplei
Quercus lobata
Lotus sp.
Source: Blong, 1956, Table VII
22.2
18.5
11.1
11.1
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
14.8
14.8
11.1
3.7
':!
.J o
'7I
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
7.4
3.7
3.7
3.7
36
TABLE 7
INFERRED FORAGE PLANTS OF CHEESEBORO CANYON
SPECIES
REFERENCE
ANNUAL GRASSES
Blong
Trippensee
Blong
Blong
Trippensee
Trippensee
Lupine
Wild oat
Bur clover
Buckwheat
Filaree
Evening primrose
Sagebrush
Paintbrush
Clover
Yucca
Purple sage
COASTAL SAGE SCRUB
Blong
Rue
Blong
Blong
Blong
CHAPARRAL
Blong
Blong
Hollyleaf cherry
Toyon
Laurel sumac
Chamise
Encelia
Mountain mahogany
Mustard
Scrub oak
Longhurst
Rue
Longhurst
Trippensee
Trippensee
Longhurst
Blong
Yerba santa
OAK WOODLAND
Blong
Blong
Blong
Rue
Blong
Blong
Redberry
Poison oak
Miner's lettuce
Elderberry
Coast live oak
Valley oak
Douglas' nightshade
Mistletoe
Oaks
RIPARIAN WOODLAND
Blong
Blong
RIPARIAN SCRUB
Blong
Wild rose
NOTE:
*
= trace only
PARTS EATEN
blades
*
leaves/flowers
stems/flowers
leaves/stems
*
*
*
berries
field observ.
new shoots
leaves
twigs
acorns/new
shoots
*
*
*
*
*
*
37
A plant's
resistance to browsing varies with the
season and its site.
Many species can tolerate 40 to 60
percent
destruction by browsing
32-34).
Deer usually prune
selectively nibbling.
of
the plant
(Dasmann,
1981,
p.
the plants they browse by
This actually enhances the growth
and keeps
it
from growing out of reach
(Dixon, 1934, p. 316).
The age of the stand affects the nutritional value
Seedlings and new sprouts are particu-
of the browse.
larly high in nutrients.
Mature plants are tolerable but
older plants are undesirable because their nutritional
value is low.
Fires can improve the carrying capacity of an area
by increasing the amount of edible browse. Fires burn off
the chaparral
and
decadent
vegetation.
The
extreme
temperatures of the fire stimulate seed germination and
stump sprouting.
Stump sprouters draw food and water
from unaffected roots
direct
rainfall
for
and
require
After
spring burns,
(lignotubers)
moisture.
sprouts will appear within three to four weeks and will
be in ample supply throughout the summer months.
Much of
the highly nutritious forage produced the
first year after a fire is underutilized because deer do
not have adequate cover (Ashcraft, 1979, p. 186).
second year,
however,
deer
By the
return to burned areas to
forage because the plants are of sufficient quantity to
38
provide suitable forage regardless of the reduced cover.
During these early years after a burn, forage is
high in
nutrients.
In Cleveland National Forest,
experiment
showed protein
percent higher
Dasmann
levels
for burned sites
(1971,
p.
87)
reports
a
in
fuel
forage
(Bell,
that
modification
10 to 15
1974, p.
older
169).
stands
of
chaparral in California yield 13 to 106 pounds per acre
of browse.
After prescription burning an acre can yield
800 to 1800 pounds depending on the season.
brush was managed by fire
Ranges where
tripled the number of deer
(Longhurst, Connolly, 1970, p. 147).
Ovulation rates
conditions,
ranges
with
with
71
deer vary depending on range
the highest
incidents
the best quality
Biswell reports
are
for
forage.
occurring on
For
example,
that ovulation rates on unburned brush
fawns per 100 does.
After wildfire the rates
increase to 115 fawns per 100 does and on ranges managed
through prescription burning,
145 fawns are dropped per
100 does (Biswell, 1961, p. 133).
Water
Forage is not the only nutritional requirement for
deer.
Water
is
an
habitat. The need
equally important element of the
for
water depends
on
temperature,
moisture content and type of forage, evaporation rate and
39
the deer's condition,
weight and activity (Trippensee,
1948, p. 206).
Water availability depends on rainfall,
structures,
density of vegetation,
soil,
rock
fire frequency,
the condition of the range.
If a fire
non-wettable
formed within the soil is
layer which
is
thicker and reduces soil porosity.
less
intense
fires
because more water
water table
can
is too hot,
and
the
More frequent and
increase water availability
is absorbed into the soil and the
(Plantrich,
1986, p. 87).
This can lead to
Burning riparian areas
increased runoff and water loss.
near springs or seeps, where the vegetation, is thick may
also increase water availability by reducing the rate and
amount of transpiration (Dasmann, 1981, p.20).
Daily water requirements for a 100 pound deer are
2.5 quarts
(Ashcraft,
1979, p. 180) and because of this
deer are found within a half mile to one mile from a
water
source
p.38).
the
(Linsdale,
1953,
p.
328~
Bowyer,
1981,
Water requirements are less in the winter when
moisture
content
in
the
forage
is high.
Deer
generally drink once in a 24-hour period, usually in the
evening or at
urinate
less
night
(Lin s d a 1 e ,
frequently
in
19 53 ,
summer
and
p.
328).
fall,
thereby
retaining more water when the vegetation has a
moisture content.
vegetation
Deer
lower
When deer begin eating succulent
in winter and spring,
urination frequency
40
Deer will not decrease the amount of water
increases.
intake at the onset of fall
rains, but will reduce the
amount of water only after the appearance of more succulent vegetation {Linsdale, 1953, p. 332).
Linsdale
{1953,
p.
333)
reports that during the
spring months of March through May deer drink 1 it tle or
no water.
This is due to the amount of water contained
within the succulent vegetation.
Nursing fawns do not
need to drink water until they are several months old.
During summer drought deer look for water in deep
side canyons,
where rocky ledges may contain pools of
water.
indicates that pools are generally found
Taber
throughout most deer habitats {Taber, 1958, p. 24).
At the San Dimas Experimental Forest in southern
California,
Cronemiller
numerous seeps were found
year-long flows
of water.
{1950,
p.
349)
noted
that
in the area which provided
Even by the end of summer,
pools along stream courses were still full.
Cronemiller
estimated that San Dimas supported 12 to 15 deer per
square mile {Cronemiller, 1950, p. 351).
Because the main stream in Cheeseboro Canyon
generally dry
in the summer,
water is extremely limited.
is
the amount of available
Although there may be rocky
ledges that serve as drinking holes for deer, none were
discovered during
Cheeseboro Canyon.
field
reconnaissance
trips
into
The natural springs on site provide
41
water year-round,with a
meager
supply
in
the
summer
months.
Home Range
Mule deer
inhabit plains,
foothills,
of the western United States.
and mountains
In these various terrains
mule deer are adaptable to many types of habitats and
climatic regions,
desert scrub.
including forests,
shrublands,
and
In areas where there are distinct seasons
marked by significant temperature changes deer migrate
between
however,
two home
there
between seasons
ranges.
is
not
In
Southern California,
enough change
to warrant
Migration generally occurs
in
temperature
long-distance migration.
in areas where snowfall is
prevalent.
Home
range
is
an
area
large enough
individual's physiological needs.
portion of the home range that
have year
round territories:
to meet an
A territory is the
is defended.
Some deer
others defend territories
only during certain times of the year.
Once established,
the territory is held for years.
The size of the home range is one mile in diameter
or smaller with boundaries determined by the terrain and
the presence of food,
1953,
water and cover (Linsdale, Tomich,
p. 335: Ashcraft,
and shape may change,
familiar areas.
1979,
p. 184).
but deer are
The range size
likely to stay in
42
If deer are frightened,
they flee their home range
temporarily, returning within a few hours.
retreat
in the direction familiar
The deer will
to that
individual.
Deer have no difficulty running up or down steep canyon
walls.
(This was observed several times in Cheeseboro
Canyon.
found
The steepness of slopes on which trails were
also
attests
to
the
agility of
mule
deer.)
Irregular topography actually benefit deer because the
slopes conceal them.
Males and females stay in or near their home range
year
round except during the rut.
During that time,
males may travel several extra miles outside their home
range in an effort to breed.
California
mule
deer
in
chaparral
zones breed
between mid-October and mid-December peaking in November.
Stag groups
(male deer)
ranking scheme
establish a hierarchy.
The
is established by threats of physical
strength with one rna le at tempting to scare away another.
Size,
weight and fitness have a good deal to do with
ranking.
Polygamous by nature,
males with higher rank
rut first and breed to as many females as possible.
Gestation lasts between 205 and 212 days
months).
In Southern California chaparral ranges,
are dropped
in April and May (Ashcraft,
Many fawns die shortly after birth.
p • 179 )
s u spec t s
that
this
is
due
fawns
1979, p. 179).
Ashcraft
to
(seven
(1979,
the mother ' s
43
improper
nourishment before
the birth.
First
time
mothers generally bear only one fawn. In succeeding years
they commonly bear two and sometimes three.
When it is
time to give birth, the doe finds a secluded spot in the
shrubs,
often
in a
riparian area,
where she drops her
five to eight pound offspring (Figure 9).
Trails and Deer Movements
A deer's daily routine includes feeding,
and resting.
watering
Deer generally develop a mass network of
trails to fulfill the various habitat uses with several
deer using a common path.
Trails are generally visible
and well defined, with vegetation often trampled and bare
soil occasionally exposed.
Routes circumvent dense over-
growth. Deer travel along livestock or equestrian trails
and roads, too,
if available and safe.
Several deer trails were located by the writer in
Cheeseboro Canyon between 1983 and 1985 and occasionally
deer
were
seen
along
them.
pinpoints these deer sighting.
Figure 10
(rear pocket)
The National Recreation
Area office maintains
the complete record of reported
sightings in the park.
The field map also distinguishes
between areas of light, moderate, and heavy use by deer.
Where trails were abundant and sightings occurred,
zone is classified as a heavy use area.
If trailing was
more sporadic and sightings less frequent,
labeled as moderate.
the
the area
Those areas unmarked receive
is
45
lighter use. Lower Cheeseboro had not been purchased by
the
National
Park
Service at
reconnaissance trips .and,
the
therefore,
time of
is not
the
field
included in
the descriptions.
Riparian areas,
the greatest use.
as well.
especially near a spring,
receive
Oak woodlands receive considerable use
Moderately used areas
include mixed chaparral
and coastal sage communities farther away from established
roads,
ranches,
and
residential development.
Moderately used areas are also found adjacent to the core
riparian zones.
On moderately used sites,
trails exist
but multiple trails crossing each other are not as common
and sightings are
less
frequent.
include those where forage
Lightly used areas
species are not abundant,
where an area has recently burned, or locations close to
development or human activity.
Areas of heaviest use
include Enchanting Forest,
riparian zones from Sandy Cliff Canyon to Dome Canyon,
Browse Bend, Quai 1 Uplands,
and Northwest Canyon.
Figure 4 for place name locations.)
(See
Moderately used
areas include the zones extending from the riparian areas
upslope to the north, east, and west boundaries.
Lightly
used areas are generally found in South Cheeseboro.
Deer were
lines.
Fences,
frequently sighted near park boundary
maintained by the National Park Service,
border all side of the Cheeseboro property.
At various
46
places along the fence,
enough for deer to
the barbed wire strands are low
jump.
Some lower strands are high
enough that deer can crawl under.
lower
than the
Boundary gates are
fence and can be hurdled easily.
Deer
jump fences without hesitation if they are less than four
foot tall.
The highest fence which Linsdale and Tomich
observed a deer jumping was 62 inches (1953, p. 296).
Cover
Cover assists deer
in escaping from predators and
intruders and protect them from the physical
especially changes
in temperature.
rugged topography as shelter.
elements,
Deer make use of
When spotted in Cheeseboro
Canyon the deer would often quickly travel over a ridge
and
down
into
an
adjacent
canyon
and out of
view.
Cheeseboro lends itself to this because there are several
small canyons off the main channel.
The
most
suitable
temperature
Mediterranean type habitat
heit.
the
for
deer
in
this
is 55 to 65 degrees Fahren-
Dasmann's research (1971, p. 20) indicates that in
southern coas ta 1 area
direct
Ca 1 i forn ia,
sun light on hot summer days.
and shadows change,
location to be
sweat
of
glands
maintain a
When the sunlight
move
to
Since deer have no
another
suitable body temperature.
cold weather,
avoid
the deer may change their bedding
in constant shade.
they
deer
deer move
microclimate to
By contrast,
in
from cooler canyons and north
47
facing slopes to warmer open areas on south facing and
leeward slopes to keep warm {Taber, 1958, p. 22}.
these cold periods,
During
deer hair stands erect and at right
angles to the body to maintain warmth.
Since deer use vegetation for foraging and cover,
there is a careful natural balance between deer consumption of
forage and restraint from browsing.
On ranges
where deer numbers do not exceed carrying capacity, deer
do not deplete their own cover.
protective vegetation has been
discontinued
{Dasmann,
If too much of the
removed,
1981, p. 19}.
browsing
is
A shrub or tree
serves as a hiding place if it is at least five feet tall
{Kerr, 1979, p. 43}.
Deer habitat is most suitable when islands of cover
are interspersed with open areas.
These "edges" create
good browsing conditions while maintaining cover nearby.
Under optimum conditions a range contains 60 percent open
forage and 40 percent cover.
ten to thirty acre
According to one authority,
islands of cover
interspersed with
slightly larger open areas provide the best ratio {Kerr,
1979, pp. 43-44).
---
~
··-
-
--·-
----
-~--
-------·
-
'
CHAPTER IV
THREATS TO HABITAT PRESERVATION IN CHEESEBORO CANYON
Livestock Grazing
Cattle
grazing
California since
Livestock,
has
prevalent
their
dense
and
introduced many
forbs
concentrations
in
took a heavy toll on native grasslands
(California Department of Forestry,
Spaniards
in Southern
Spanish settlement in the late 1700s.
because of
particular areas,
been
into the
1981, p.
M~diterranean
76).
The
annual grasses
western United States.
Annuals
competed with natives and often became dominant species
by the
late 1800s and early 1900s when the area was
overgrazed during drought conditions
ment of Forestry,
1981, p. 76}.
(California Depart-
The present day annual
grasslands in Southern California have largely replaced
native perennial grasslands (Longhurst, 1976, p. 80}.
Cheeseboro Canyon was part of the San Buenaventura
and
San
p. 11).
Fernando mission
rangelands
(Donley,
1979,
After the mission period, the property was held
by private landowners until
purchased it in 1981.
the National Park Service
Cattle grazing had been common in
48
'
49
Cheeseboro Canyon for decades
p. 5).
(Ochsner, Plantrich, 1984,
Evidence of the impacts of grazing can be seen in
the various exotic plant species which have replaced
natural vegetation.
Impacts on vegetation and soils from cattle grazing
are
most
grasses
severe
and
in
the
forbs
riparian
zone.
have out-competed more
species and accelerated soil erosion.
Southern California,
zones have been
Here
exotic
favorable
In other parts of
oak woodlands alongside riparian
converted
to chaparral due to over-
grazing.
For the most part, cattle and deer have different
eating habits.
Cattle have a large rumen to handle the
digestive processes.
than deer,
a
They have a lower metabolic rate
function
of body weight:
therefore,
must consume more food per unit of weight.
apparent dissimilarity in forage species,
deer
Despite the
Sampson found
that in California 54 percent of foods eaten by deer were
also eaten by cattle (Dixon, 1934, p. 341).
Livestock and deer compete for the same species when
animal
p. 77).
able
numbers
increase on a
range
(Dasmann,
1971,
Competition with cattle is particularly notice-
in the spring because both mammals feed on newly
sprouted grasses.
On overgrazed ranges cattle may be
forced to browse on plant species eaten by deer instead
of
consuming
their
typical
grass
diet
(Rue,
1978,
50
p.
Many years of
302).
decreased
range
excessive
conditions
livestock
use has
in Southern California,
especially during drought years (Longhurst, 1952, p. 45).
In a
study by Bowyer and Bleich
cattle and deer
were never
observed
(1984,
p.
246),
together.
They
concluded that deer may actually avoid cattle in some
areas and their data revealed only a small number of deer
on ranges where cattle grazed
(Bowyer,
Bleich,
1984, p.
246).
Mackie
(1976,
p.
51)
indicated that deer feed in
different parts of their home range when livestock are in
the area to maintain distance from them.
Harassment by
livestock encourages deer to move from preferred habitat
to a
less desireable location
ment of Fish and Game,
sharing of resources,
difficult
(California State Depart-
1975, p. 12).
There may be some
when cattle are present, making it
to determine if deer prefer a certain browse
species or are competing with cattle for
(Mackie,
(McMahan,
1971;
1981, p.
1966;
500).
Elisor,
and Hood and
1 imi ted forage
Mackie cites several studies
1969;
Inglis,
Firebaugh,
1974)
1969; Dusek,
which suggest that
livestock grazing interferes with deers'
use of their
home range (Figure 11).
Research in the Laguna Morena Demonstration Area (a
chaparral region of San Diego County) revealed that there
were significantly less deer using areas where cattle
52
grazed than
Bowyer
in
those areas where cattle were absent.
suggested
that
this
is
due
to fewer
suitable
forage species (Bowyer, 1981, p. 67).
In this demonstration area,
was
manipulated
from
1984
a mosaic of vegetation
through
1985
to
improve
wildlife habitat. The study revealed that deer did shift
to areas where cattle could not gain access
(Bowyer,
Bleich, 1984, p. 240).
On several occasions during the 1983 through 1985
reconnaissance trips,
field
in Cheeseboro Canyon.
cattle grazing was observed
Most often cows were seen in Lower
Cheeseboro and South Cheeseboro,
riparian area.
generally near
the
This area was commonly grazed because it
is relatively flat.
It is also close to the road which
connects to adjacent properties where cattle gain access.
Tracks,
beds,
trampled vegetation,
and dung verified
previous cattle use in areas where cattle were not seen.
The Northwest Bowl has been heavily grazed
the amount of
exotic vegetation,
judging from
the number of cattle
droppings, and the severe erosion.
Grazing
is
a
common
land
use
in
Palo Comado,
immediately to the west of Cheeseboro and Las Virgenes to
the
east.
Lower Cheeseboro,
before purchase by the
National Park Service in 1985,
was consistently used as
grazing pasture.
The mixed chaparral
zone north of the
53
canyon is presently unsuitable for grazing because of the
dense stands and more rugged topography.
Shortly after
the National Park Service purchased
Cheeseboro Canyon,
Galbreath Land and Cattle Company
requested a grazing permit in spring 1982 to simplify the
transition
to public land ownership.
In a memorandum,
Robert Plantrich, park forester, calculated the pounds of
available forage and indicated that Cheeseboro Canyon did
not contain enough grass to support the number of cattle
for the time specified in the permit (Ochsner, Plantrich,
1984, attachment 2, p. 1).
Despite
the
argument
presented by the
Resource
Management Division within the park, a permit was granted
by the National Park Service from March 19,
1982 until
April 30,
the park's
1982 for 6000 head.
A year later,
management team decided that grazing would not be allowed
in Cheeseboro Canyon again because of potential environmental
impacts discussed by the Chief of the Resource
Management Division.
In January and February of that
year several cattle had been seen in the canyon: therefore,
a decision was made to repair the fences so cattle
grazing
in
Cheeseboro.
Palo
Comado
The April
Federal Regulations
would
not
spill
over
into
1984 revision of the Code of
regarding
livestock use restricts
cattle grazing in Cheeseboro Canyon from this date onward
(U.S. Department of the Interior, 1986, p. 30).
54
Since cattle grazing in Cheeseboro is now confined to
occasional
trespass grazing,
the successional stage of
vegetation has changed and formerly grass covered slopes
are returning to their natural chaparral cover.
Urban Encroachment
With
the
increase of houses,
service buildings,
offices, and roads, there has been a considerable loss of
mule deer habitat in the Santa Monica Mountains and Simi
Hills.
Of
the
Recreation Area
been approved
two
lies,
for
counties
in
which
the National
more development proposals have
Los Angeles
County
indicating
its
political, economic, and social pressure to provide urban
amenities.
Ventura County has been more selective about
the development proposals which are approved.
In this
manner Ventura Country preserves more open space anq
natural resources than its neighboring county.
However,
county goals are often challenged by new proposals.
In 1984 the most critical threat to the
environment
in Cheeseboro Canyon came from a development proposal for
586 townhouses and single units in Palo Comado and Lower
Cheeseboro.
The new housing would have linked suburban
communities that border the U.S.
lOl
(Ventura)
Freeway
and plugged the open space that now lies between the Las
Virgenes community on the east and Agoura on the west
(Figure 12).
Although the proposal was not accepted,
interest in developing the area arose again in 1987
56
(Eileen Salenik,
National Park Service,
1987, personal
communication).
The
known.
and
influence
of highways
on mule deer
Traffic noises may affect deer behavior
others,
1976,
p.
40),
is
not
(Wallmo
but no known research of
possible effects on deer in the Simi Hills is available.
In some areas roadside vegetation is attractive to deer,
resulting
p.
in more road kills
This
40) •
is
not
the
(Wallmo and others,
case
on
U.S.
101
1976,
in
the
Cheeseboro Canyon area because the freeway is elevated
and there are no grasses planted on the roadside edges.
The physical barrier created by U.S.
deer to pass under the freeway,
Housing
Virgenes,
development,
extend
to
if they can cross at all.
such
south,
A landfill,
Cheeseboro Canyon.
Lower Cheeseboro,
for
the
101 would require
as
Agoura
east,
Las
west of
located directly east of
is evidence of the increasing demand
land associated with urban communities
Its presence reduces
Cheeseboro which,
and
and
the
(Figure 13).
mule deer habitat south of
if undeveloped,
would have served as a
buffer from the residential areas.
Activities
directly
Canyon.
affect
on
adjacent
deer
private
lands
can also
populations within Cheeseboro
Such activities as construction of buildings,
use of motorized equipment including recreational dirt
bikes, and dense unmanipulated vegetation all interfere
58
with
the
quality of
deer
habitat.
Although
it
is
unfeasible to suggest that no buildings be constructed
and no motorized vehicles or equipment be used, keeping
these vehicles on established roads reduces interference
with wildlife.
Not all
improvements on private lands are detri-
mental to wildlife.
Isolated rural homes probably have
little affect on wildlife.
fuel breaks,
Some developments such as
water troughs,
and reservoirs even create
favorable conditions for deer.
owners
In addition,
many land-
in Cheeseboro Canyon's rural setting are inter-
ested in preserving open space and natural resource and
have participated in early discussions with National Park
Service
staff
regarding
a
cooperative
stewardship
program.
Landowners in the Oak Park Foundation of Agoura
have expressed an interest in deer preservation in their
community.
Several homeowner organizations in the Santa
Monica Mountains testify at public meetings on the value
of open space.
In contrast,
others wish to preserve
their right to develop their property, regardless of the
consequences to wildlife habitat.
Visitor Usage
As
the
local
population
expands,
recreational enthusiasts also increases.
the number of
With population
growth in Southern California ever-increasing, the demand
for
outdoor recreation has mushroomed in the last few
59
decades.
From 1950 to 1977,
reported
that
the
number
the U.S.
of
visitor
use
days has
(Reed,
1981,
p. 510).
increased nationwide ten times
Southern California,
Forest Service
with its mild climate,
draws more
than its share of residents and visitors seeking a wide
variety of recreational opportunities.
To meet
opportunities,
the challenge of providing recreational
the National Park Service has considered
various types of uses that could be permitted within the
Recreational Area.
They are delineated in the park's
General Management Plan
p. 57).
(National Park Service,
This plan calls
for hiking,
picnicking and group nature walks
1982,
equestrian use,
in Cheeseboro Canyon
which is intended to serve as one of these activity sites
within the Recreation Area.
trian trailheads exist.
(Figure 14).
1987,
will
Trailhead parking and eques-
Picnic sites have been proposed
A Development Concept Plan,
identify the exact
for
underway in
any develop-
ments to enhance recreational use.
The National Park Service purchased Lower Cheeseboro
in
1985
to provide access
southwest border.
into
the
canyon
from
the
Before the purchase of this property,
visitors could enjoy the canyon only during scheduled
ranger-led hikes.
usage prior to 1985.
Cheeseboro received little visitor
After public access was provided,
however, the number of visitors rose, then doubled in
61
1986, despite an overall drop in visitors for the entire
National Recreation Area.
to Cheeseboro Canyon
532,500 who visited
1985,
p.
1) •
in
The annual number of visitors
1985 was 7,600 of the total
the park
(National Park Service,
By 1986 the number of Cheeseboro Canyon
visitors reached 16,900 out of 520,000 for the entire
park (National Park Service, 1986, p. 1).
The
number
of
visitors
is
expected
to
increase
dramatically over the next decade because of the continual development of residential units near Cheeseboro
Canyon.
The park staff estimates that new development
proposals can bring over 30,000 new residents to the
area, many of whom would enjoy the recreational opportunities which Cheeseboro Canyon provides
(Nancy Ehorn,
National Park Service, 1987, personal communication).
Studies
from other
National
Park
units
reveal
visitor/deer interaction and their possible consequences.
Cornett's 1983 study on the Mineral King deer herd 1n
California indicates that deer had different responses to
different types of disturbances.
automobiles was
off-trail hikers
hikers
(Cornett,
less
The deers' response to
than to hikers on the trail, but
caused more
response
1983, p. 66).
than on-trail
Deer were spooked more
often up to 100 yards than those within the 100 to 200
yard
range
(Cornett,
1983,
p. 66).
The
study also
measured deer habitat use adjacent to developed areas.
62
To determine usage,
pellet groups were counted. Using
this method the number of fecal groups along a transect
line are counted,
then with a statistical equation,
Cornett's
estimate of the population can be derived.
study (1983,
p.
66)
an
revealed that habitat around cabins
were used less frequently than more isolated areas with
similar vegetation.
At
Yosemite National
Park,
a
study by Ashcraft
(1977) showed that there was a direct correlation between
deer use and distance to human activity.
away, the greater the use.
Fish and Game,
The farther
The California Department of
through Ashcraft's study, determined that
deer were particularly sensitive to humans during fawning
and that reduction of human use increased fawn survival.
It is particularly important to discourage human disturbance of deer
in June and July because pregnant does
prepare for birth (Cornett, 1983, p. 82).
Blong,
in his South Coast Range Study, reports that
dogs were seen chasing deer
(Blong,
1956, p.
residential units around Cheeseboro increase,
greater
likelihood of similar activity.
Service regulations permit dogs
21).
As
there is a
National Park
in the canyon,
if they
are on a leash.
In 1982 hunting was proposed by the local rifle
associations
Canyon.
as
a
form of
recreation
for
Cheeseboro
Hunting was discussed at public meetings held by
63
the
Santa Monica Mountains National
Advisory Commission.
Recreation Area
Because hunting is not specified in
the enabling legislation which created the park,
activity can not be permitted.
this
Ventura County hunters
use firearms on nearby properties to the north and west.
Hunting by bow and arrows
County,
east
and
is permitted in Los Angeles
south of Cheeseboro Canyon.
It is
uncertain whether or not poaching occurs in the canyon,
although shots have been heard by field patrol rangers.
Rangers
carry side arms
and are prepared to contact
potential poachers and issue citations whenever necessary.
Hiking is one of the two most popular activities in
the canyon and one which can be compatible with deer use
of
their
range.
Trails provide a variety of hiking
experiences, each highlighting particular vistas.
Hiking
along ridgelines would rarely affect deer since deer are
generally found there only in passing.
However,
...._ ....
.:,~
'-.LC~.Li::J
which pass through the riparian zone have the potential
of interfering with deer use of their range because it is
the focal point of deer daily and seasonal patterns.
Although
Cheeseboro,
hiking
is
an
enjoyable
activity
in
it does take the visitor away from urban
amenities and, during the summer, the terrain is dry and
hot.
Therefore, hikers are seen more frequently in Lower
Cheeseboro because
it
is
the closest
to the visitor
64
parking area.
canyon.
Visitors have no vehicular access into the
As one moves deeper into the property there is
an inverse relationship between the number of visitors
and the distance
gate.
from the Cheeseboro Canyon entrance
The concentration of visitors in these areas of
lighter deer use will
result
in less
interference in
moderate and high use zones.
Often visitors wish to horseback,
a
recreational
pursuit en joyed in the canyon for many decades.
trians are seen
in the canyon occasionally and horse
tracks are riddled throughout Cheeseboro,
the
Eques-
valley bottom.
Trails
for hikers
primarily in
and horses are
intended to extend through the canyon and connect to
China Flat,
property to the northeast managed by the
Rancho Simi Park and Recreation Department.
Equestrian usage and hiking on established routes
will have an
initial
impact on deer, but impacts will
decrease as deer adjust to daily travel patterns accordingly.
If the location of human disturbance is predict-
able as along an established trail,
deer can adjust.
Excessive trail use or off-trail hiking may cause deer to
avoid those areas where hikers and horses are frequently
found.
people
"It is
said that the behavior of deer towards
is determined largely by the behavior of people
towards deer" (Reed, 1981, p. 533).
CHAPTER V
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS FOR CHEESEBORO CANYON
Current Resource Management Policies and Practices
Management Policies
The National Park Service is preservation oriented
in its approach to management of natural resources.
The
Service maintains a holistic view of protecting ecosystems rather than focusing on a single species such as
mule deer.
The agency operates under policies which
describe its resource protection responsibilities.
policy clearly
states
the
National
Park
This
Service's
responsibility to conduct scientific research and to fund
programs to preserve wildlife resources.
resources,
their condition,
Understanding
undesirable changes,
and
actions needed to mitigate impacts are emphasized in this
policy.
The dynamic nature of plant and animal population,
and human influences upon them requires that they be
monitored to detect any significant changes. Action
will be taken in the case of changes based upon the
type and extent of change and the appropriate
management policy.
65
66
• The National Park Service will, therefore,
conduct a program of natural and social science, to
support management in carrying out the mission of
the Service and provide accurate scientific data
upon which all aspects of planning, development, and
management of the units of the System may be based
(National Park Service, 1978, p. IV 2).
The Service will perpetuate the native animal life
of the parks for their essential role in the natural
ecosystems.
Such management, conformable with
general and specific provisions of law and consistent with the following provisions, will strive to
maintain the
natural abundance, behavior, diversity, and ecological integrity of native animals in
natural portions of parks as part of the park
ecosystem (National Park Service, 1978, p. IV 6).
Park Legislation
Each park operates under the Congressional mandates
of the legislation which created it.
Public Law 95-625,
which established the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation
Area,
recognizes
that
the park contains
nationally significant natural resources.
Collectively
they form a coastal Mediterranean ecosystem unlike any in
the National Park System.
The legislation identifies the
potential for scientific research within the park.
The
law does not address the urgency of resource protection
in
light
of
the
threats
from rapid urban expansion,
increasing visitor use, and land uses within the boundary
which are
incompatible with resource protection.
The
park legislation reads as follows:
There are significant scenic, recreational,
educational, scientific, natural, archeological, and
public health benefits provided by the Santa Monica
Mountains.
67
• • There is a national interest in protecting and
preserving these benefits for the residents of and
visitors to the area; The Secretary shall manage the
recreation area in a manner which will preserve and
enhance its scenic, natural, and historical setting
(U.S. Congress, 1978, Section 507}.
The law further
Interior
states that
will develop a
General Management Plan.
direct
Land
the Secretary of the
Protection Plan and a
These documents are intended to
the park's land acquisition program and outline
appropriate activities which can occur on those lands.
Land Protection Plan
Soon after the creation of a park, a Land Protection Plan
within
is
the
written.
park
The plan considers all
boundary
for
National
Park
lands
Service
purchase which will preserve critical natural resources
and provide recreation opportunities.
The Secretary shall identify the lands, waters and
interests within the recreation area which must be
acquired and held in public ownership for the
following critical purposes:
preservation of
beaches and coastal uplands; protection of undeveloped
inland
stream drainage basins;
connection of
existing state and local government parks and other
publicly owned lands to enhance their potential for
public recreation use; protection of existing park
roads and scenic corridors,
• protection of the
public health and welfare;
• to include, but not
be limited to, parks, picnic areas, scenic overlooks, hiking trails, bicycle trails and equestrian
trails (U.S. Congress, 1978, Section 507, d, 1.)
Funds appropriated from Congress to purchase lands
is the best means to protect wildlife habitat. The Land
P'rotection
Plan
identifies
Palo Comado,
immediately west of Cheeseboro as a
the
canyon
target for full fee
68
acquisition.
The acquisition of
this property would
provide contiguous acres of wildlife habitat. Congress
has not appropriated _the amount necessary to accomplish
the objectives of the Land Protection Plan and, unless a
renewed
interest
is
forthcoming,
it
is unlikely that
large additions to the National Recreation Area will be
acquired.
General Management Plan
Using the park legislation as a guideline, each park
then develops a General Management Plan and during its
writing,
seeks comments from local governing bodies, the
public and
landowners.
This plan addresses management
objectives for the park and all planning activities.
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area's General
Management
Plan
( 1982)
proposes
several
objectives for natural resource protection.
management
Abstractions
of those which apply to the protection of mule deer are
as
l.
The overall goals for managing resources are to
mitigate unacceptable resource impacts, perpetuate
the natural diversity of ecosystems.
2.
Protect,
cesses.
preserve,
and maintain natural pro-
3.
Conduct research to gather and analyze information necessary to manage, restore, and Iilaintain
natural processes.
4.
Monitor natural systems to evaluate trends
ecosystem dynamics and impacts.
in
5.
Restore and maintain natural terrestrial,
aquatic, estuarine, coastal, and atmospheric
~
'
69
ecosystems that have been impaired by the activities
of man and his technology.
6. Limit unnatural sources of air, water, and noise
pollution and visual intrusions to the greatest
possible degree.
7. Develop, promote, and participate in cooperative
resource management programs with local, state, and
other federal agencies and private landowners
(National Park Service, 1982, p. 38-39).
The National Park Service has addressed information
management
concerns
by establishing a
geographic information system.
ings
is
monitor
been
now entered
computerized
Data on mule deer sight-
into this
system.
A program to
"natura 1 systems" and measure impacts has not
implemented.
The methods
for
conducting such a
monitoring program has not been identified.
Although a cooperative stewardship program has been
identified,
a program for wildlife stewardship has not
been developed.
However, after the program begins, it is
unlikely that stewardship of wildlife habitat will be
among the first
items addressed.
Its priority among
stewardship topics will depend on homeowner interest and
the availability of staff time to coordinate the program.
Besides natura 1 resource protect ion,
the General
Management Plan also discusses specific resource management objectives,
as they relate to wildlife. The follow-
ing abstractions from the plan illustrate this:
1.
Inventory the wildlife of the National Recreation Area (including mammals, birds, reptiles,
amphibians, and native fish) by determining the
species present, establishing and maintaining a
,.....---
---
70
wildlife monitoring program and identifying critical
and threatened species.
2.
Conduct studies that include impacts of urban
development on wildlife populations and biogeography, classification of wildlife habitats, determination of endangered species habitats, determination of the relationship between recreational use
and wildlife needs, and identification and analysis
of wildlife corridors and areas of habitat necessary
to sustain the community.
3.
Conduct studies on certain species or groups
with specific management needs including raptors,
mountain lions, mule deer, coyote, feral animals,
reptiles, and amphibians (National Park Service,
1982, p. 47}.
Although some wildlife studies have been undertaken,
they are sporadic and
funded by sources outside the
National Park Service such as local universities.
National
Park
Service's highest
The
priority research
programs may not be tackled for years because privately
funded researchers may not wish to study that particular
topic.
The course of wildlife study described in the above
resource management objectives,
would not only provide
adequate information for management decisions, but also
scientific data which could be used to document the need
to preserve habitat outside Cheeseboro Canyon.
Natural Resource Management Plan
The Natural Resource Management Plan, an action plan
for preserving resources parkwide,
is derived from the
objectives stated in the park's General Management Plan.
The
Natural
Resource Management
Plan consists of
a
,.,.. - -
-
---
71
description of natural resources in the park, problems in
preserving those resources,
monitoring
activities.
It
and possible research and
is
revised each year
and
contains a
five-year projection of anticipated needs
inc 1 ud ing
funding
requested
for
each project.
The
projects within the plan are ranked according to their
importance as perceived by the park's natural resource
management staff.
When the original Natural Resource Management Plan
for
the Santa
Monica Mountains
was
fourteen projects were identified.
dealt with herbivores directly,
provide
ments
written
Although no project
several projects could
in for rna t ion on mule deer or result
to habitat.
resource
Those projects
information system,
in 1982,
in improve-
include a
natural
monitoring fuel character-
istics of vegetation, predator studies and a cooperative
resource
management program.
information system is
The natural
resource
in its infancy with sightings of
mule deer incorporated into the data base.
The 1985 through 1987 revisions of the plan included
all of the projects above with the addition of a new
propos a 1 for
a
three-year project to rnon i tor mule deer
populations and habitat.
This project would result in a
long-term deer monitoring plan to assess the condition of
the population and the habitat at specified intervals.
The plan recommends the collect ion of baseline in forma-
....... - - -
---
72
tion for population estimates and general health of deer
within the park.
habitat
The plan also recommends
improvement
implementing
and herd management programs
research identifies existing problems.
if
Through these new
studies the park hopes to identify and protect critical
habitat areas including wildlife corridors (National Park
Service, 1987, p. 70).
The plan requests $65,000 over three years
(above
the amount currently in the park's operating budget)
conduct research on mule deer.
to
The program will require
coordination with the California Department of Fish and
Game and the California State Department of Parks and
Recreation.
A new National Park Service staff biologist
position is projected.
The Natural Resource Management Plan also discusses
the
preservation of
means.
First,
vegetation
remote
resources by various
sensing will be employed to
inventory and map vegetation.
Special vegetation zones,
such as riparian habitats, will be identified.
The plan
also suggests research to assess the impacts of visitor
use on vegetation and determine the maximum number of
visitors which can be allowed on any park site (carrying
capacity) (National Park Service, 1985, p. 9).
Before any resource management program,
those described above,
can be implemented,
such as
the Resource
Management Division must decide which funding source to
...-----
-
73
request for
the project.
Funding can be requested from
the park's operating budget.
However,
this is generally
not the best method of securing funds since, each fiscal
year,
division
needs
exceed
the available dollars.
Operation base increases are rare.
funding
source,
Program,
can be
the Natural
tapped
for
Another Servicewide
Resource
natural
Preservation
resource
studies
involving research, monitoring, or mitigation of impacts.
In order
to
compete
for
this
funding
all
resource
management projects are first ranked within the park.
In
the 1987 Natural Resource Management Plan, the mule deer
project ranked number 13 out of
36 projects parkwide
(National Park Service, 1987, p. 16).
If it were the case that mule deer population were
in
immediate
higher
jeopardy,
in priority
the park would rate the project
in a
later revision of the plan.
Because the Santa Monica Mountains
National Recreation Area,
is classified as a
and numerous adverse environ-
mental impacts have already occurred; resource management
projects are often not perceived as critical as other
projects
nationwide
which
also
compete
for
scarce
funding.
In order for any project to receive funding,
it
generally needs to be rated high priority by the park,
the Western Region,
and by the National Office.
The
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area competes
74
with other national parks such as Grand Canyon, Sequoia,
and Yosemite which possess
the public's traditionally
favorite natural resources.
It is likely that the mule
deer project will remain unfunded for
years as other
priority projects are pushed ahead of it.
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area
Activities Which Affect Mule Deer
National Park Service guidelines can be grouped into
categories
of
administration,
scientific research,
resource management,
visitor usage,
enforcement of park
regulations and responses to urban encroachment.
Some of
these guideline practices and policies of the National
Park Service would seem to assist in the protection of
mule deer
while other practices and policies hinder
preservation (Table 8).
Administration
The
Division
establishment
in 1980 was
taken by the
of
the
the first
National
Resource
Management
administrative action
Park Service to assist
preservation of natural resources.
in the
Resource management
planning and research are coordinated by a chief, natural
resource specialist,
forester,
management technician.
botanist,
and a resource
They have expertise in wildlife
biology, botany, physical geography, and hydrology.
The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area
expends a larger percentage of its park operating budget
--75
TABLE 8
MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES WHICH HELP
OR HINDER MULE DEER RESOURCE PROTECTION
HINDER
HELP
ADMINISTRATION
Established the Resource
Management Division in 1980
and employed staff with
expertise in wildlife biology, botany, geography, and
hydrology.
The Land Protection Plan for
the park addresses the need
to purchase lands adjacent
to Cheeseboro Canyon.
Lack of appropriated funds
from Congress to purchase
adjacent lands.
The park expends a larger
percentage of its operating
budget on resource management activities than other
parks in the Reg ion with
comparable budgets.
More
resource management specialist positions exist than in
other regional parks of
comparable size.
Resource Management activities are not always
considered a high priority
for park funds when competing with law enforcement,
fire suppression, maintenance, and visitor service
needs.
Park's budget must be
distributed for all park
activities, leaving an
insufficient amount to
accomplish all desired
resource management activities.
~
.
76
TABLE 8 - Continued
MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES WHICH HELP
OR HINDER MULE DEER RESOURCE PROTECTION
HELP
HINDER
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Incorporated a project
statement into park's
Natural Resource Management
Plan requesting funding for
mule deer research.
Within the Regional priority l i s t , the park's
special science studies do
not rank high enough when
competing with other parks.
Identified the need for a
private stewardship program
for adjacent landowners to
assist in preserving habitat. This project included
in the Natural Resource
Management Plan.
Pellet count transects, to
estimate population numbers,
have been established at
another site within the
National Recreation Area.
The same method is intended
for use in Cheeseboro.
Identification of all
research needs has not been
made.
There is insufficient
information
about
Cheeseboro's deer populat i on numbers , age s t r u c ture, and hea 1 th to determine if a deficiency exists
and if management actions
should be taken.
A method for acquisition of
baseline data and long-term
monitoring of range
has
conditions and population
has not been implemented.
77
TABLE 8 - Continued
MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES WHICH HELP
OR HINDER MULE DEER RESOURCE PROTECTION
HELP
HINDER
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (continued}
Successional changes in
vegetation over time are
monitored.
No monitoring program
exists to assess the quality and quantity of forage
and to detect significant
changes in vegetation.
Discontinued special use
permit for livestock grazing.
Granted a permit for cattle
grazing in 1983 when the
number of cattle exceeded
range carrying capacity.
Implemented a prescription
burn program which will
improve nutritional value of
forage.
VISITOR USAGE
Most intense recreational
activities are provided on
other sites within the park.
A hiker/equestrian trail
exists which passes through
the riparian area, a critical deer habitat zone.
Visitor usage which is more
likely to impact resources
within Cheeseboro are planned for the southern section
of the canyon where deer use
is light.
No program to monitor
visitor impacts on deer
habitat and behavior has
been established.
78
TABLE 8 - Continued
MANAGEMENT POLICIES &~D PRACTICES WHICH HELP
OR HINDER MULE DEER RESOURCE PROTECTION
HELP
HINDER
VISITOR USAGE (continued)
The National Park Service
has the authority to close
an area to visitor usage
when resources are heavily
impacted.
An information sheet is
proposed for visitors which
will explain resources
within Cheeseboro and how to
protect them.
ENFORCEMENT
Rangers conduct patrols to
prevent poaching and arson.
Motor vehicles disrupt deer
activities.
Rangers conduct patrols to
assure that cattle from
adjacent lands are not
grazing within Cheeseboro
Canyon.
Rangers contact visitors who
may harass wildlife.
URBAN ENCROACHMENT
Staff comments on development proposals outside the
park which may adversely
impact resources within the
park.
The National Park Service
does not have legal
authority to prevent development from impact ing park
resources.
79
on its Resource Management Division than many other parks
with comparable budgets
in the Western Region
Ehorn,
National Park Service,
tion).
Also,
(Nancy
1987, personal communica-
resource management specialist positions
exist than in other parks of similar size.
The Santa
Monica Mountains National Recreation Area employed a
larger
resource management staff
in anticipation of a
larger land base in National Park Service ownership and
complex resource management issues on those properties.
Despite the commitment to resource management displayed by active science personnel, the park's budget is
not
large
enough
to accomplish all desired
management programs.
resource
The annual operating budget must be
divided among other park activities, such as law enforcement,
fire suppression,
maintenance and visitor service
activities which may take precedence.
Resource Management and Scientific Research
Nat ion a 1 Park Service does not focus on management
for
any single species unless
"threatened,"
unless
a
"endangered,"
it
is has a
"rare,"
or
status of
"unique,"
resource problem has been documented.
or
The
Management Policies state that staff members will accomplish the following:
Identify all threatened and endangered species
within park boundaries and their critical habitat
requirements.
Active management programs,
where necessary, may be carried out to perpetuate
the natural distribution and abundance of threatened
or endangered species and -the ecosystem on which
80
they depend,
laws.
in accordance with existing Federal
Plant and animal species considered to be rare or
unique to a park- shall be identified also and their
distribution within the park mapped.
Management
actions for their protection and perpetuation shall
be incorporated into the natural resources management plan (National Park Service, 1978, p. IV-11).
Because mule deer are not
considered threatened,
endangered, rare, or unique, and no decline in population
numbers or health has been identified, special management
actions have not been considered.
No action will be
taken unless there are data on Cheeseboro Canyon 1 s deer
indicating that population numbers and/or health of the
herd is diminishing.
Because there are no answers to questions regarding
deer population numbers, age structure, health and range
conditions,
research programs are needed to determine if
deer populations or range are below the norm.
The intent
to conduct scientific research requested park 1 s
natural
resource management plan, is described in this management
policy:
This plan defines the course of action, based on
Service policy and law, for the continuous protection, management, and maintenance to perpetuate the
resources, to achieve park purpose and objectives,
and to appropriately regulate the effect of park use
on these resources.
The plan defines the operating program related to
all the natural resources and the science program
necessary to address crucial aspects or refinements
of those operations.
In the absence of the adequate
knowledge, operational programs will be aimed at
maintaining the status quo and avoidance of long
term or possibly irreversible impacts until priority
81
research can provide necessary information for
rna nagemen t changes" (Nat ion a l Park Service, 1978,
p. IV-3).
Pellet count transects,
used to estimate population
numbers, have been established at another site within the
Recreation Area and the staff intends to incorporate this
same census method in Cheeseboro.
There is, however, no
method for long-term acquisition of baseline data.
In order to maintain proper health within a deer
population,
adequate nutrition
is essential.
Succes-
sional changes in vegetation over time, which is directly
related to forage quality,
is monitored.
However,
no
monitoring program exists to assess the present forage
conditions and detect
future decreases
in quality and
quantity.
Increased knowledge of deer populations and range
conditions
in Cheeseboro may be
limited because all
research needs have not been identified.
these needs is
Articulation of
important so that researchers can become
available to undertake specific studies.
Although the
Natural Resource Management Plan identifies the need for
the
large-scale collection of baseline data,
research needs have not been
research such as
tional
content
quality of
identified.
stomach analysis,
of
forage,
forage,
specific
Additional
analysis of nutri-
assessment of
amount and
locations and sizes of horne ranges,
and deer density, will provide answers to questions posed
82
about the condition of Cheeseboro Canyon's deer and their
habitat.
Since resource preservation on National Park Service
lands generally means the absence of active management
unless a problem has been demonstrated,
occur.
Only two actions have
few activities
in fact been taken
in
Cheeseboro Canyon: discontinuation of livestock grazing
and implementation of a prescription burn program.
The first practice,
cattle grazing,
occurred until
1983, one year prior to a revision in Federal regulations
which restricted livestock use.
only be permitted if
it
is
Presently,
used for visitor education
relating to the history of the area,
Rancho Sierra Vista,
ation Area.
grazing can
such as occurs at
another park site within the Recre-
The 1984 revised Code of Federal Regulations
regarding livestock use reads as follows:
The running at-large, herding, driving across,
allowing on, pasturing or grazing of livestock of
any kind in a park area for agricultural purposes is
prohibited except:
1.
As specifically authorized by Federal statutory
law: or
2.
As required under a reservation of use rights
arising from acquisition of a tract of land; or
3. As designated, when conducted as a necessary and
integral part of a recreational activity or required
in order to maintain a historic scene (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1986, p. 30).
Trespass grazing still occurs in Cheeseboro.
jump over fences and,
Cattle
sometimes owners deliberately cut
83
The cattle owners are cited and the cattle
fences.
impounded, but the problem has not been resolved
Ehorn,
National Park Service,
(Nancy
1987, personal communica-
tion).
While
approved
cattle
grazing
is
a
management
practice that hinders mule deer habitat quality, another
practice,
ranges.
prescription burning,
This
method of
increasingly popular
in
actually enhances deer
wildfire
control has become
the
few decades as
last
knowledge of its benefits become more widespread.
scription burning
is
a
technique on public lands.
which
common vegetation
the
Pre-
management
A yearly program is developed
involves decreasing fuel
loads through burning.
The nutritional value of the vegetation, and its quality,
quantity,
and availability are all enhanced
(Plantrich,
1986, p. 45) .
National Park Service policy regarding prescription
burning states the following:
The fire management program of all parks must be
designed around park objectives.
In natural systems
this may include the need for some areas to proceed
through succession towards climax while others are
set back by fire. Natural zones should represent the
full spectrum of the parks' dynamic natural vegetative pattern (National Park Service, 1978, p. IV13) •
Urbanization has replaced much of the "natural fire"
corridor
from the San Gabriel Mountains
Monica Mountains.
could fulfill
Prescribed fires
the role that natural
in
to the Santa
such an area
fires once took,
84
although
verses
they will
always be smaller,
10,000 to 20,000 acres.
If
100-500 acres
they are frequent
enough, prescribed fires can provide benefits similar to
conditions produced by wildland fires
(Plantrich,
1986,
personal communication).
The
Fire Management
Plan
for
the Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area recommends an annual
prescription burn program
for
deer browsing.
which creates edges favorable
Completed in 1986,
the plan recom-
mends annual burning of 500 acres of older age stands of
vegetation
in various areas of
the canyon
(Plantrich,
1986, p. 52).
Visitor Usage
Although the Nat ion a 1 Park Service recognizes the
need for resource protection in all units of the System,
the Management Policies clearly state that a Recreation
Area should also fulfill the following purposes:
Located and designed to achieve comparatively heavy
recreation use and should usually be located where
they can contribute significantly to the recreation
needs of urban populations.
National Recreation Areas should provide recreation
opportunities significant enough to assure national,
as well as regional visitation (National Park
Service, 1978, p. I-9).
"Heavy recreation use" has been provided at other
sites within the National Recreation Area, such as Paramount Ranch.
reduces
Concentrating the activities on other sites
the pressure
for
intense
recreation on more
85
pristine areas such as Cheeseboro.
The recreational
activities permitted in Cheeseboro Canyon alone would not
be sufficient to "contribute significantly to the recreational needs of urban populations."
Several
inappropriate visitor activities have been
already considered and rejected by the National Park
Service.
These
include hunting,
and family camping.
off-road vehicle use,
While exclusion of these activities
will protect deer use of the canyon to a large extent,
other accepted activities may interfere with rangeland
use by deer.
For example,
the Sulphur Springs hiking
trail takes visitors into the riparian zone,
element of mule deer habitat.
a critical
Visitors can enjoy the
canyon without significantly interfering with deer
if
they are rerouted away from the riparian zone and water
sources.
Generally,
likely to
impact deer,
activities
which would be more
such as picnicking,
are planned
for the southern section of the property where adequate
forage and cover are limited and deer usage is lighter.
Educating the public about appropriate visitor use
of the canyon is an important aspect of preserving wildlife
in
the
canyon.
Presently,
exists which would alert visitors
quently use the riparian area.
no
information sign
that wildlife fre-
An informational brochure
is planned which will discuss natural resources within
Cheeseboro Canyon and how they can best be protected.
86
According to agency policies,
visitor usage can be
regulated if it may adversely impact park resources.
In order to provide an enjoyable park experience, to
meet its mandate to preserve 'the scenery and the
natural
objects and the wildlife' of the
parks,
• will, whenever necessary, regulate the
amount and kind, and time and place, of visitor use
in the parks (National Park Service, 1978, p. VII1) •
Park sites can be closed if visitor impacts become
too great.
Before this can be determined, however,
program to monitor visitor
a
impacts on resources must be
implemented.
Enforcement
In order to assure that visitors are behaving in a
manner which facilitates
resources,
patrol
rangers trained in law enforcement procedures
National
National
the preservation of natural
Park Service properties within
Recreation Area.
The number of
rangers
the
is
limited, so they are not always on-site when visitors are
present: however,
even for
remote properties such as
Cheeseboro Canyon, weekly and sometimes daily patrols are
conducted.
The rangers serve a dual purpose, to educate
the public about the natural resources of the park and
how to protect
them,
and to enforce park regulations
aimed at preserving those resources.
Ranger patrols minimize incidents of trespass grazing arson, or harassment of wildlife within the National
Recreation Area.
Although ranger patrols assist in the
87
protection of wildlife resources,
arily disturbs nearby deer.
vehicular use tempor-
Field observations of deer
within 200 feet of a moving vehicle in Cheeseboro Canyon
indicated that deer
leave the area immediately. Rangers
also patrol on horseback or foot which is less disturbing
to deer, however,
exclusive use by these methods may not
provide adequate protection of
resources.
Emergency
operations may be impeded if vehicular access is limited.
Roads within the canyon are maintained by utility companies which were granted easements by the National Park
Service when the property was purchased.
Response to Urban Encroachment
The National Park Service not only recognizes the
threats of urban encroachment,
but regularly reviews
development proposals within the Santa Monica Mountains
zone which may impact park natural resources.
of proposals
ones
staff
is often overwhelming.
The number
The more critical
require careful examination by the professional
to
determine
which
impacted and to what degree.
natural
resources
may be
The National Park Service
maintains the same right to comment on proposals that any
landowner
in
the
Santa Monica Mountains possesses.
Writ ten comments on development proposals are generally
sent to the County where the permit was filed.
necessary,
oral testimony is provided.
the proposal is tracked.
When
The progress of
Despite the care which is taken
88
to
protect park natura 1 resources
in this manner,
the
National Park Service has no legal authority to prevent
development on adjacent lands.
Instead the Service must
rely on decisions made by Ventura County or Los Angeles
County regulatory agencies.
The
Natural
Resource
Management
Plan directly
addresses the threat of urban encroachment.
The major threat to the integrity of natural
resources stem from the rapid, and sometimes
insensitive urban encroachment within the mountains
and along the coast.
The result is a rapid change
in species diversity and abundance through al teration of wildlife habitat and native vegetation, air
and water quality deterioration.
Urbanization has both direct impacts through the
commitment of lands to development and indirect
impacts as more lands are required to provide residential services such as sewage treatment and solid
waste disposal.
Sewage treatment plants and landfills are located in the National Recreation Areas.
One landfill has accepted hazardous wastes in the
past (National Park Service 1985, p. 7).
Wildlife populations in the Santa Monica Mountains
are becoming restricted to biogeographic islands,
habitats surrounded by freeways and residential
developments.
Maintenance of normal wildlife populations within the carrying capacity of the
ecosystem becomes more tenuous and complex within
the constraints of expanding urban development
(National Park Service, 1985, p. 67).
In order to address the need to rna inta in wildlife
habitat, the National Park Service recognizes the need to
"make recommendations to local
land management agencies
and private landowners for protection of wildlife habitat
" (National Park Service, 1985, p. 115).
89
Another means of addressing the urban encroachment
threat
such
is to develop a cooperative stewardship program,
a
program
Management Plan.
is
identified
in
the park's General
Through such a program,
landowners are
encouraged to provide wildlife habitat on their property,
by such methods as maintenance of open space, maintenance
of
forage
species,
and provision
for
accessways
for
wildlife traveling across property lines.
The National Park Service will
exchange
information with and provide, on a reimbursable
basis, technical and professional assistance to
Federal, State and local governments,
and
private owners of natural
• properties for the
purpose of assuring the continuation of the
Service's mandate of the protection and enjoyment of
America's park lands.
These services include, but
are not limited to, consultation, training, general
physical planning, program planning, and publications.
In addition, the Service will maintain
continuing participation in the activities of
national, regional, State and local professional
organizations relevant to Service interests
(National Park Service, 1978, p. I-10).
Many private
landowners within the park boundary
lines support wildlife habitat preservation because it
improves the aesthetics surrounding their home.
Based on
comments at public meetings and personal interviews with
staff,
many are
willing
to participate
in a private
stewardship program which may be beneficial to mule deer
as well as other natural resources.
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area
has demonstrated its commitment to mule deer resource
preservation
First,
in
Cheeseboro Canyon
in
several ways.
the staff has prepared all of the required plans
and clearly outlined the objectives for management of
wildlife resources
(including mule deer studies}.
have requested funding for mule deer studies.
park managers have allocated a
They
Secondly,
larger percentage of the
park's operating budget to resource management activities
than many other parks of comparable size.
Third,
the
Land Protection Plan suggests the purchase of Palo Comado
Canyon on the west boundary of Cheeseboro Canyon.
acquired,
If
approximately 2,000 addition acres of con-
tiguous habitat
would be protected.
Fourth,
submits comments regarding environmental
the park
impacts of all
major development proposals which may affect habitat.
Fifth,
a computerized geographic information system has
been established which wi 11. store data on mule deer
Cheeseboro Canyon.
Sixth,
in
an on-going annual prescrip-
90
91
tion burn program improves the quality and availability
of deer
forage.
Seventh,
the recreational activities
which National Park Service planners have selected for
the
Cheeseboro
disturbance
Canyon
to deer.
involve
And
a
limited amount
finally,
of
park rangers are
educating visitors about wildlife resources and insuring
that
they obey regulations designed to preserve those
resources.
To further protect mule deer,
the National Park
Service could take the following additional actions.
First and most
important is the acquisition of baseline
data on habitat and populations,
changes.
This
indicators
of
and then monitoring
information will provide managers with
any unfavorable conditions.
Second,
desired research programs must be identified early on in
the planning
stage
and
incorporated
Natural Resource Management Plan.
into the park's
Third,
a detailed
accounting of visitor activities must be obtained to
provide managers with information on visitor uses which
adversely
programs
impact
should
deer.
include
Fourth,
visitor
education
information about
mule deer
habitat requirements and the effects of human activity
within their home range.
Fifth,
development and imple-
mentation of a private stewardship program would provide
local landowners with methods of preserving and enhancing
mule deer habitat.
p '
92
Despite limitations
imposed by insufficient funds,
the National Park Service has taken the initial actions
necessary to protect .mule deer habitat.
mule deer resource management program,
By continuing a
the National Park
Service will be able to assess the condition of the local
mule deer population and habitat.
If these resources are
impacted by external activities, such as urban encroachment, or internal activities, such as visitor usage, then
mitigation can be undertaken.
.I
Photo by Burt Wallrich
Figure 15. Preservation of Cheeseboro Canyon's mule deer requires an
assessment of the population and habitat conditions.
REFERENCES CITED
Ashcraft, G. C., 1979, Effects of fire on deer in
California, California-Nevada wildlife transactions, p. 177-189.
Bell, M.M., 1974, Chaparral fuel modifications and
wildlife, Symposium on living in the chaparral,
proceedings: San Francisco, California, Sierra
Club, p. 167-172.
Biswell, Harold and Helen Strong, 1955, The crude protein
variations in the browse diet of California deer:
California Fish and Game, v. 41, no. 2, p. 145155.
Biswell, H. D., 1961, Manipulation of chamish brush for
deer range improvement: California Fish and
Game, v. 47, no. 2, p. 125-144.
Blong, Bonnar, 1956, A south coast deer range:
Sacramento, California Department of Fish and
Game, Region V report, p. 1-27.
Bowyer, Terry R., 1981, Management guidelines for
improving Southern California mule deer habitat
on the Laguna-Morena Demonstration Area:
California, U.S. Department of Agriculture, u.s.
Forest Service, p. 18-67.
Bowyer, Terry R. and Vernon C. Bleich, 1984, Effects of
cattle grazing on selected habitats of southern
mule deer, California Fish and Game, v. 70, no.
4, p. 240-247.
California Department of Forestry, 1981, Chaparral
management program, final environmental impact
report: Sacramento, California, California
Department of Forestry, p. 76.
94
95
California State Department of Fish and Game, 1951-1953,
Santa Barbara, Analysis of 27 deer stomachs:
Sacramento, California State Department of Fish
and Game, p. 5.
California State Department of Fish and Game, 1957, Santa
Barbara, collection list, stomach analysis August
1954 to August 1955: Sacramento, California
State Department of Fish and Game, p. 3-6.
California State Department of Fish and Game, 1976, A
plan for California deer: State of California,
np, Resources Agency, 15 p.
California State Department of Fish and Game, 1975, Draft
California deer management plan: Sacramento,
California Department of Fish and Game, p. 1-24.
Carey, Sean, 1981, Sandstone petrography of the upper
cretaceous Chatsworth formation, Simi Hills,
California, Simi Hills cretaceous turbidites,
Southern California: Los Angeles,California,
Pacific Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, p. 89-90.
Connolly, Guy E. and Olof C. Wallmo, 1981, Management
challenges and opportunities, Mule and blacktailed deer of North America: Lincoln, Nebraska,
University of Nebraska Press, p. 537-545.
Cornett, D.C., W.M. Longhurst, R.E. Hafenfeld,
T.P. Hemker, and W.A. Williams, 1983, The ecology
and management of Mineral King deer: Davis,
California, Cooperative National Park Resources
Studies Unit, University of California, Technical
Report No. 14, p. 66-82.
Court, Arnold, 1985, California Climates: Northridge,
California, California State University,
Northridge, p. 1-55.
Cronerailler, F.P., and P.S. Bartholomew, 1950, The
California Mule Deer in Chaparral Forests:
California of Fish and Game~ v. 36, p. 343-365.
Dasmann, William, 1981, Deer range:
improvement and
management: Jefferson, North Carolina, McFarland
and Co. Inc., 137 p.
96
Dasmann, William, 1971, Food Preference, If deer are to
survive: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Stackpole,
p. 41-103.
Dasmann, Raymond F., 1964, Wildlife biology:
John Wiley and Sons, 231 p.
New York,
DeBano, L.F., 1974, Chaparral soils, Symposium on living
in the chaparral: San Francisco, California,
Sierra Club, p. 19-20.
Dixon, J.S., 1934, A study of the life history and food
habits of mule deer in California: California
Fish and Game, v. 20, no. 3 and 4, p. 181-282,
315-354.
Donley, Michael W. et. al., 1979, Atlas of California:
California, n.p., Pacific Book Center, p. 11-128.
Gibbens, R. P. and A.M. Shultz, 1963, Brush manipulation
of a deer winter range: California Fish and Game,
v. 49, no. 2, p. 95-118.
Hanes, Ted L., 1977, California chaparral, Terrestrial
vegetation of California: New York, n.p., John
Wiley and Sons, p. 421-486.
Keeley, J.E., Keeley, S.C., 1981, Post fire regeneration
of southern California chaparral: American
Journal of Botany, v. 68, p. 524-530.
Kerr, Richard M, 1979, Mule deer habitat guidelines:
Denver, Colorado, Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, p. 1-61.
Link, Martin, Richard Squires and Ivan P. Colburn (eds.},
October 1981, Introduction, Simi Hills cretaceous
turbidites, Southern California: Los Angeles,
California. Pacific Section, Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists, p. 5-8.
Linsdale, Jean M. and Quentin P. Tomich, 1953, A herd of
mule deer, a record of observations made on the
Hastings Natural History Reservation: Berkeley,
California, University of California Press,
p. 286-353.
Longhurst, W.M., A.S. Leopold, and R.F. Dasmann, 1952,
Survey of California deer herds, their ranges 'and
management problems: California Fish and Game
Bulletin, no. 6, p. 5-116.
97
Longhurst, W.M. and G.E. Connolly, 1970. The effect of
brush burning on deer, California-Nevada wildlife
and fisheries transaction, p. 139-155.
Longhurst, W.M., E.O. Garton, H.F. Heady and G.E.
Connolly, 1976, The California deer decline and
possibilities for restoration, California-Nevada
wildlife and fisheries transaction, p. 74-103.
Mackie, Richard, 1976, Interspecific competition between
mule deer and other game animals and livestock,
Mule deer decline in the west, a symposium:
Logan, Utah, Utah State University, p. 49-54.
Mackie, Richard, 1981, Interspecific relationships, Mule
and black-tailed deer of North America: Lincoln,
Nebraska, University of Nebraska, ch. 13, p. 487508.
Mautz, W.W., 1978, Nutrition and carrying capacity, Big
game of North America, ecology and managemen~
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Stackpole Books,
p. 321-348.
Mendenhall, W. C., 1913, Springs of California:
California, u.s. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Geological Survey, p. 16-399.
National Park Service, 1987, Addendum, natural resource
management plan and environmental assessment:
Los Angeles, California, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area, 121 p.
National Park Service, 1985, Addendum, natural resources
management plan and environmental assessment:
Los Angeles, California, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area, 109 p.
National Park Service, 1982, General management plan:
Los Angeles, California, u.s. Department of the
Interior, Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area, 150 p.
National Park Service, 1978, Management policies of the
National Park Service: Washington D.C., U.S.
Department of Interior, ch. IV, p. I-IX.
98
National Park Service, 1985, Visitor Service Division
monthly and year-end statistics, Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area: Los Angeles,
California, 1 p.
National Park Service, 1986, Visitor Service Division
monthly and year-end statistics, Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area: Los Angeles,
California, 1 p.
Ochsner, David c. and Robert Plantrich, 1984, Resource
management overview, Cheeseboro Canyon: Los
Angel.es, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, California, memorandum, 14 p.
Pearsons, E. L. and Associates, October 1984, Rancho Palo
Comado draft environmental impact report:
Gardena, California, Pearsons and Associates, p.
52-83.
Plantrich, Robert, 1986, Fire management plan: Los
Angeles, California, U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area, 103 p.
Radtke, Klaus W. H., Arthur M. Arndt, and Ronald H.
Wakimoto, 1981, Fire history of the Santa Monica
Mountains, Proceeding of the symposium on
dynamics and management of Mediterranean-type
ecosystems: San Diego, California, U.S. Department of Agriculture, u.s. Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,
General Technical Report No. PSW-58, p. 438-443.
Reed, Dale F.,l981, Conflicts with civilization, Mule and
black-tailed deer of North America: Lincoln,
Nebraska, University of Nebraska Press, p. 509535.
Rocketdyne, Annual monthly weather report on temperature
and precipitation: Simi Hills, California,
unpublished data sheets, 1983-1985.
Rue, Leonard L. III, 1978, The deer of North America:
New York, n.p., Outdoor Life Books, 428 p.
Schymiczek, Herman B., 1981, Palo Comado Canyon section,
Simi Hills, California, Simi Hills cretaceous
turbidites, Southern California: Los Angeles,
California, Pacific Section, Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists, p. 19-20.
99
Soil Conservation Service, 1970, Soil survey, Ventura,
California: Washington D.C., u.s. Department of
Agriculture, p. 15-27.
Taber, Richard D., 1958, The black-tailed deer of the
chaparral, its life history and management in the
North Coast Range of California: Sacramento,
Taber and Dasmann, 163 p.
Thornton, Bill, 1981, Response of deer to fuel management
programs in Glenn and Colusa Counties,
California, Proceedings of the symposium on
gynamics and management of Mediterranean type
ecosystems, General Technical Report No. PSW-58:
California, n.p., u.s. Department of Agriculture,
u.s. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station, p. 255-257.
Trippensee, Reuben Edwin, 1948, Upland game and general
principles, Wildlife management: New York, n.p.,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, v. l, p. 179-232.
u.s.
Congress, 1978, Public Law 95-625, 92 Statute 3502,
Section 507, 16 United States Code 460.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1968, Data for springs in the
Southern Coast transverse and peninsula ranges of
California: Menlo Park, California, U.S.
Geological Survey, Water Resources Division,
21 p.
u.s.
Geological Survey, 1975, Topographic-bathymetric map
of Los Angeles, California, scale 1:250,000.
u.s.
Geological Survey, 1967, Topographic quadrangle map
of Calabasas, California, scale 1:24,000.
u.s.
Department of the Interior, 1986, Title 36, Code of
Federal regulations, Parks, forests, and public
property, Livestock use and agriculture:
Washington D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office,
p. 30-31.
Urness, Philip, 1981, Desert and chaparral habitats, Food
and Nutrition, Mule and black-tailed deer of
North America:
Lincoln, Nebraska, University of
Nebraska, p. 347-365.
Wallmo, Olof, 1981, Distribution and habitats, Mule and
black-tailed deer of North America: Lincoln,
Nebraska, University of Nebraska Press, p. 3.
100
Wallmo, Olof, Albert LeCount and Sam Brownlee, 1981,
Habitat evaluation and management, Mule and
black-tailed deer of North America: Lincoln,
Nebraska, University of Nebraska Press, p. 366409.
Wallmo, Olof C., L.H. Carpenter, 1976, Alteration of mule
deer habitat by wildfire, logging, highways,
agriculture, and housing development: Mule. deer
decline in the west, a symposium: Logan, Utah,
Utah State University College of Natural
Resources, p. 37-47.
White, Tom, 1985, Laguna-Morena Demonstration Area
prescription burn: U.S. Forest Service,
Cleveland National Forest, letter, 1 p.