Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-0303 Documents Submitted at Meeting 31/2 in. Cougars, also called mountain lions, are Oregon's O O Oregon is OREGON largest cat species. While cougar sightings and 0 encounters are relatively rare, it is wise to educate O oo D 4 COUGAR yourself about cougars. n nawaam, Native to Oregon, cougars range throughout the l\ / Q COUNTRY state. Population densities vary depending on habitat - the highest densities occur in the Blue Mountains COUGAR DOG in the northeastern part of the state and in the+ ' southwestern Cascade Mountains. Oregon's current 1 , 1 1 cougar population is estimated at more than 5,000. Cougars are carnivores. Their primary food source is deer, but they also will take elk, raccoons, bighorn sheep, and other mammals and birds. As a top ' predator, the health of the cougar population is a - G a> good indicator of the health of the entire ecosystem. Attention on these animals has increased as Oregon's human population expands and more people work, play and live in areas inhabited by these big cats. By following the guidelines in this brochure, you can reduce your chances of a negative encounter. 1- p7• ~ 1 r yY ~ N 1 w~~ nay 1~' 1 • ~ , , 1 Jill 1111 11 1 1 ell i Living in Cougar Country Recreating in Cougar Country Encountering a Cougar Some common sense guidelines can keep you and Cougars usually will sense people and leave an area, Cougars often will retreat ifgiven the opportunity. your neighborhood safe, but by following these guidelines you can further Always leave the animal a way to escape. minimize your risk of encountering one. J Learn your neighborhood. Be aware of any wildlife ❑ Stay calm and stand your ground. corridors or places where deer or elk concentrate. J Be aware of your surroundings at all times. ❑ Maintain direct eye contact. J Walk pets during the day and keep them on a leash. J Leave your dog at home or keep it on a leash. U Pick up any children, but do so without bending J Keep cougar. pets indoors at dawn and dusk. Shelter them g your gar. for the night. U Hike in groups. Make noise to alert. wildlife of J Back away slowly. your presence. J Feed pets indoors. U Do not run. Running triggers a chase response in J Keep children close to you. Teach them about cougars, which could lead to an attack. Cl Don't leave food or garbage outside. wildlife. U Use animal-proof garbage cans if necessary. J Keep campsites clean. Sleep 100 yards from J Raise your voice and speak firmly. cooking areas. J If the cougar seems aggressive, raise your arms to J Remove heavy brush from near the house and any make yourself look larger and clap your hands. play areas. U Store food in animal-proof containers. J U Carry deterrent spray. If in the very unusual event that a cougar attacks J Install motion-activated lights outdoors along you, fight back with rocks, sticks, tools or any other walkways and driveways. J Be cautious at dusk and dawn. items available. Cl Be more cautious at dawn and dusk when cougars J Never feed any wildlife. Prey attract predators. are most active. U Do not approach any wildlife, J Do not feed any wildlife. By attracting other wildlife stay at least 100 yards away. you may attract a cougar. J Steer clear of baby wildlife. J Keep areas around bird feeders clean. The mother likely is nearby. U alert J Deer-proof your garden and yard with nets, lights or when sitting quietly and fencing. or stopping to rest. J Be especially alert at dawn J Fence and shelter livestock. Move them to sheds or and dusk when cougars are barns at night. most active. J Report any cougar sighting or encounter to a local J Be aware that animal calls and ODFW office or Oregon State Police office. animal kills can attract a cougar. J Report any cougar sighting or encounter to a local ODFW office or Oregon State Police office. Richard Appicello - FW: RPS Questions Page 1 y~ From: "Lisa Marston" <Imarston@rvcog.org> Date: 03/03/2009 8:17:36 AM 3 19 Subject: FW: RPS Questions From: Michael Cavallaro Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 3:39 PM To: Lisa Marston Subject: FW: RPS Questions Lisa Please distribute the e-mail below, which was provided by Richard Whitman in response to questions occasioned by the attached letter dated February 2, 2009. From: Richard Whitman [mailto: Richard.Wh itman @state. or. us] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 3:12 PM To: Michael Cavallaro Subject: RPS Questions Michael: I am writing in response to your email questions, which follow from my letter dated February 2, 2009. As a preliminary matter, please remember that I cannot provide you or any of the jurisdictions involved in the RPS effort with legal advice; each should seek legal advice from its own counsel. Also, this informal response does not necessarily represent the views or position of the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) or of the State of Oregon or of other agencies of the state. As you know, the RPS statutes appear to contain few procedural requirements, leaving much up to the entities involved in each unique situation. Finally, we are aware that the participation of two cities is still in question. This email is not intended as a comment on the merits of either city's decision whether or how to participate, or on the options available to the region if the cities elect not to participate. 1) Is the Participants' Agreement consistent with the RPS statutes and Goal 1? I believe so. The RPS Agreement is, as I understand it, fundamentally an agreement by multiple jurisdictions to submit a land use application to Jackson County. The RPS Agreement does not determine what the county will approve as the final RPS Plan, nor does it bind the jurisdictions to adopt the draft RPS Plan. The draft RPS Plan will be reviewed through the normal public process for consideration of a legislative Richard Appicello - FW: RPS Questions Page 2 comprehensive plan amendment. The county may decide, based on citizen participation and other input, to alter the RPS Plan or even to not adopt it at all. The RPS statute specifies certain things that must be in an RPS Agreement. The RPS statute also requires the RPS Plan to conform, on the whole, with the statewide land use planning goals. Goal 1 requires local planning processes to ensure the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The Participants' Agreement provides for the draft RPS Plan to be submitted to Jackson County and reviewed as a proposed legislative comprehensive plan amendment, with several "sub-regional" hearings by the county planning commission, as well as hearings by the county Board of Commissioners. These procedures appeal to comply with Goal 1. As we have stated previously, it is our expectation that the public process for review of the draft RPS Plan may result in changes to that plan by Jackson County. We believe that it is time for the region to put the draft RPS Plan forward, into a public process, so that citizens and others have a full opportunity to participate in Jackson County's decision-making process. 2) Is the RPS Agreement's definitions of the term "participant" consistent with the RPS statute? believe so. As you know, the RPS statute does not define "participant." The Bear Creek RPS Agreement defines a participant as * * those jurisdictions and agencies that elect, by signing this Agreement, to implement the regional solutions to the regional problems identified [in the RPS Agreement]." As indicated previously, I believe that definition is consistent with the context provided by the RPS statutes, which speaks in terms of those affected by the particular regional planning problem or problems, and that have agreed to participate. 3) Does the Policy Committee's position that was taken last year that the Agreement needs to be signed before the comprehensive plan amendment process begins qualify as one of the "conditions" you refer to in your letter? If not, please explain what would constitute a condition. The Policy Committee's position that the RPS Agreement must be signed before the county's comprehensive plan amendment process begins appears consistent with ORS 197.656(3) and (4), which provide that: Richard Appicello - FW: RPS Questions Page 3 "(3) A local government that amends an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation or adopts a new land use regulation in order to implement an agreement reached in a regional problem-solving process shall submit the amendment or new regulation to the commission in the manner set forth in ORS 197.628 to 197.650 for periodic review or set forth in ORS 197.251 for acknowledgment. (4) The commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction for review of amendments or new regulations described in subsection (3) of this section. A participant or stakeholder in the collaborative regional problem-solving process shall not raise an issue before the commission on review that was not raised at the local level." Subsection (3) seems to contemplate that the process for amending a comprehensive plan or land use regulation (or adopting a new one) will be to implement an RPS agreement. Further, the "raise it or waive it" provisions in subsection (4) appear to contemplate that participants and stakeholders will have agreed to participate by the time a plan review process is underway. While these statutory provisions are not definitive, I believe the Bear Creek Policy Committee's decision that the RPS Agreement should be signed before the application is submitted to Jackson County is a reasonable one. As for conditions, as stated in my prior letter, the types of conditions on participation that may be problematic relate to the elements listed in ORS 197.656(2)(b) (substantive elements of the RPS Plan). In closing, I continue to hear from a variety of viewpoints that there are substantive concerns with the draft RPS Plan. It is my sense that further work on the draft RPS Plan is unlikely to gain more of a consensus than presently exists (given the substantial time and effort that already have been devoted to the draft RIPS Plan). As a result, I believe the best way to resolve the ongoing substantive issues is for the region to move to the next, public, step of the process and allow broad citizen input into Jackson County's decision about whether and, if so, what elements of the RPS Plan to adopt. Richard Richard Appicello - FW: RPS Questions Page 4 Richard Whitman Director Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 1 Salem, OR 97301-2540 Office: (503) 373-0050 ext. 280 1 Fax: (503) 378-5518 richard.whitman@state.or.us <maiIto: richard.whitman@state.or.us> www.oregon.gov/LCD <http://www.oregon.gov/LCD> D epartment of Land Conservation and Development I)regkon 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor Salem, Oregon 97301-2524 59 Phone: (503) 373-0050 First Floor/ Coastal Fax: (503) 378-6033 Second Floor/ Director's Office Fax: (503) 378-5518 Third Floor/ Measure 37 Fax: (503) 378-5318 Web Address: http://wwworegon.gov/LCD February 2, 2009 The Honorable Kate Jackson Chair, Regional Problem Solving Policy Committee c/o Rogue Valley Council of Governments P.O. Box 3275 Central Point, OR 97502 Subject: Procedures for Consideration of the Draft Regional Plan Dear Ms. Jackson: You have asked for the department's thoughts on several issues related to the procedures for consideration of the draft Greater Bear Creek Regional Plan. This letter contains our comments on these issues. Please remember that we cannot provide you or others with legal advice, and that you should seek the advice of your own counsel on these matters to the extent that they involve legal issues. We also cannot speak for the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) on these matters. LCDC will have the final decision-making authority in the review of any plan adopted by the region under the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) statute. Public Participation in Review of the Draft Plan One issue of concern raised before LCDC this past fall was the need for a full opportunity for public participation in review of the draft RPS Plan, and in the decisions whether to adopt that Plan and (if so) its final form. As a result of these concerns, changes were made to the Participants Agreement that were intended to clarify that the draft RPS Plan is just that, a draft that will next be put out for public comment through Jackson County's review of the proposed RPS Plan. Just as with any comprehensive plan amendment, Jackson County will hold public hearings on the RPS Plan. We fully expect that the final version of the RPS Plan, if it is adopted by the county, may be different from the current draft. Participants The RPS statutes (ORS 197.652-197.658) do not define the term "participant" in the regional problem solving process. The department believes this leaves the region with some discretion to determine who must participate in the plan and the agreement. Under the terms of the statute, however, it appears that the legislature intends that jurisdictions ~ r The Honorable Kate Jackson February 2, 2009 Page 2 of 3 that are affected by the problems that are the subject of the plan must be allowed the opportunity to participate. ORS 197.654(1). Thus, we believe that the framing and scope of the problem(s) addressed in the regional plan largely dictate who must be given the opportunity to participate. The statute expressly recognizes that the problem(s) may involve only a portion of a county. ORS 197.654(2). In that case, only the cities in the affected portion of the county must be offered the opportunity to participate. Although all local governments affected by the problem(s) that are the subject of the RPS process and plan must be offered the opportunity to participate, ORS 197.654(1), ORS 197.656(2), which specifies the criteria for approval of a regional plan, does not require that all local governments affected by the problem be participants. In other words, if a local government is offered the opportunity to participate, and declines that opportunity, then that local government would not be a participant and its inclusion in an RPS agreement and regional plan would not be required. Applying these principals to the Bear Creek RPS effort, the answer to the question of which cities' must be "participants" is determined by two things: first by the nature of the problems addressed in the RPS Plan,2 and second by whether a city has accepted an offer to participate. Cities that are affected by the problems addressed in the plan must be offered the opportunity to participate. Conversely, if the plan addresses problems that do not affect a city, that city need not be offered the opportunity to participate. Finally, if an offer to participate is made, and a city declines that offer, we believe the city would not be a "participant" as that term is used in the RPS statutes. The statutes do not speak directly to whether there may be conditions placed on an offer to participate in a regional problem solving process. On balance, we believe the statutes imply that conditions are not allowed. Otherwise, the statutory requirement (in ORS 197.656(2)(a)) for agreement among all of the local participants would be rendered meaningless. As a result, if a city is affected by the problems addressed in the draft plan, and it wishes to participate, we believe its concurrence with the agreement elements listed in ORS 197.656(2)(b) is required. Timing of Decisions to Participate We do not believe the RPS statutes dictate, as a legal matter, when a city must decide whether it will be a participant in an RPS process (other than to require that such decisions be made before LCDC may acknowledge any comprehensive plan amendments or land use regulations based on the RPS agreement). In the case of the Bear Creek RPS Plan, if certain cities decide not to participate, those elements of the plan involving those cities should not be included in the plan adopted by Jackson County. If some cities are ' I use the term city or cities here recognizing that other local governments (special districts that provide urban services) also may be participants in regional problem solving. z The draft RPS Plan identifies three problems (1 - lack of a mechanism for coordinated regional growth planning; 2 - loss of valuable farm and forest land caused by urban expansion; and 3 - loss of community identity). The Honorable Kate Jackson February 2, 2009 Page 3 of 3 uncertain about whether they will participate, we believe the county could either: (1) proceed into a public plan amendment review process without including the elements of the RPS pertaining to those cities; or (2) could continue with those elements, but with the understanding that they would not be adopted at the end of the review process if the cities elect not to participate. We do want to underline that if a city is not a participant, any comprehensive plan or land use regulation amendment involving that city would not come under the RPS statutes and, as a result, would need to fully comply with all applicable LCDC rules. Conclusion The department supports the region's efforts to move the RPS process into the next phase of review, where the public will have a full opportunity to participate in review of the draft RPS Plan. It is important that everyone understand that this includes the possibility of changes to the current draft of the plan in response to that public input. At the same time, we also urge local jurisdictions to make it clear now if there are aspects of the plan that they will not agree to, rather than waiting until the end of the RPS process. Sincerely, AO Richard Whitman, Director cc: Steve Shipsey - DOJ John Renz Chris Pellett Michael Cavallaro Martha Bennett .5~vb nz&d Na 9 ezvnu,,Q , ~ omem UAM ~~J 11-fe, P46y OREGON APPENDIX B: Cougar Incident Response Guidelines Cougar populations are generally healthy and increasing throughout Western North America, and Oregon is no exception. Cougars have now occupied all of what biologists have identified as cougar habitat. As cougar populations have increased, individual animals are now establishing home ranges in and around valley floors, suburbs, and other locations that bring them into close and regular contact with humans. Evidence suggests this is not a function of cougar wandering out of more traditional ranges, but is an expected development given current cougar population trends. With this trend, contacts between humans and cougars are increasing. While statistically there is a low probability of attack or danger to human beings, recent events in California, Colorado, and British Columbia where fatal attacks on people have occurred indicate that a cautious approach to cougar management is warranted. Therefore, ODFW will utilize the following guidelines when dealing with cougar/human interactions and damage situations involving cougars: 1) When sightings are reported by the public, without clear evidence of damage or any aggressive behavior (see "Behavior Pattern Criteria" listed in 2) below), ODFW will utilize this contact as an opportunity to educate the public about cougars, their population increase, the fact that people and cougars now occupy more and more of the same habitat, and safety precautions people can take to minimize cougar-human conflicts. ODFW will not attempt to remove cougars because of incidental sightings. The public should be referred to the brochure "Living With Mountain Lions" for more information on this topic. 2) When "Behavior Pattern Criteria" as listed below do indicate a concern and it is practical to do so, ODFW will attempt to remove offending cougars. All animals contacted under these circumstances will be humanely euthanized. Under no circumstances will ODFW or its agents attempt to trap and re-locate cougars, because a chance of human attack and/or continuing damage or human conflict exists. If one or more of the following criteria are satisfied, the decision to destroy the animal due to concerns over human safety is justified. Behavior Pattern Criteria: a) Aggressive actions directed toward a person or persons, including but not limited to charging, false charging, growling, teeth popping and snarling; b) Breaking into, or attempting to break into, a residence; c) Attacking a pet or domestic animal as defined in ORS 167.310; d) Loss of wariness of humans, displayed through repeated sightings of the animal during the day near a permanent structure, permanent corral or mobile dwelling used by humans at an agricultural, timber management, ranching or construction site. 3) Where cougar(s) are causing damage, being a public nuisance, or posing a public health risk, and ODFW personnel or its agents are called to respond, the animal will be humanely euthanized. Under no circumstances will consideration be given to re-location of cougars. 102 2006 Oregon Cougar Management Plan Adopted 13 April 2006 ORE ORE ►~aauaw rarawww 4) In the case of lethal removal of a lactating female cougar, all reasonable attempts will be made to locate juveniles and capture these animals alive. If successful, juveniles shall first be offered to any bona fide educational facility (member: AZA) for display and/or educational purposes. If no such permanent home can be found, juvenile(s) shall be humanely euthanized. Because of potential for future human interactions and danger, no attempt shall be made to rehabilitate and release juvenile cougars in Oregon. 5) Under no circumstance will attempts be made to rehabilitate any cougar for release into Oregon. All animals contacted by ODFW or its' agents as a result of disease, injury, vehicle accident, or other causes, shall be humanely euthanized. Attempts will be made to place captured juveniles as in 4) above. However, if unsuccessful, juveniles will be humanely destroyed. All opportunities to explain and educate the public about the rationale behind lethal removal shall be utilized. These include not only the potential for future danger, but also cougar population biology (particularly territoriality and intra-specific competition and mortality), legal liability, and our policy of not moving a potential problem animal to another location where someone else's pets, livestock, or family could be put at risk. All efforts to prepare and respond in a positive manner will be made by all personnel involved in public contacts related to cougar management activities. 103 2006 Oregon Cougar Management Plan Adopted 13 April 2006