biological assessment -...

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

For

CATTLE GRAZING

Within the

DESERT GRAZING ALLOTMENT PROJECT

Prepared by: /s/Leeann Murphy Date: June 17, 2013

Leeann Murphy

Wildlife Biologist

Inyo National Forest

Biological Assessment

Desert Allotment Grazing Project 2

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Biological Assessment (BA) is to analyze the potential effects of the Desert

Grazing Allotment Project on Federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed terrestrial

vertebrate and invertebrate species within the Inyo National Forest (Forest). For Federally listed

threatened, endangered, and proposed species, this document analyzes potential effects and

makes determinations based on the best science to ensure compliance under the Endangered

Species Act (as amended 1973).

Based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife list of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate

species for Inyo County

(http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/countySearch!speciesByCountyReport.action?fips=06027

updated on June 3, 2013) the following species that occur in the vicinity of the project area are:

Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis sierrae) Endangered

This BA will meet the requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of

1973, as amended, and implementing regulations [19 U.S.C. 1536 (c), 50 CFR 402.12 (f) and

402.14 (c)] and standards established in Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2672.42). Any

consultation and/or conferencing requirements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)

or National Marine Fisheries Service for species listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed

will be completed prior to publication of the Mono Basin Grazing Allotment Project Finding of

no Significant Impact.

II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT

There are five grazing allotments in the Desert Grazing Allotment group which vary in size from

5,110 acres to 80,160 acres. These allotments include: Alabama Hills, George Creek, Ash Creek,

Olancha, and Tunawee. These allotments are grazed in conjunction with Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), Bishop Field Office allotments. The Forest manages only 18% of these

allotments, the remaining 82% occur on BLM managed lands.

The Mt. Whitney Ranger District of the Inyo National Forest proposes to continue to permit

livestock grazing by incorporating adaptive management strategies on the five grazing allotments

(see Table 1 for a list of the allotments) within the Desert Allotments Group while meeting

Forest Plan direction. The proposed action is designed to maintain or improve trends in

vegetation and watershed conditions where current conditions are satisfactory and functioning.

Collectively, these five allotments cover approximately 195,895 acres of lands managed by the

U.S. Forest Service (35,510 acres) and BLM (160,385 acres). Management of BLM lands is not

covered by this Proposed Action.

The Proposed Action would:

A. Authorize the continued grazing of livestock on the Desert Allotments Group within the

analysis area through issuance of a permit for each allotment.

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/countySearch!speciesByCountyReport.action?fips=06027



B. Implement an adaptive management system to maintain defined desired conditions

through design criteria1, monitoring, and constrained flexibility.

Adaptive Management System

The proposed Adaptive Management System (AMS) is designed to maintain or improve trends in

rangeland vegetation condition, stream condition, and forage utilization and to allow management

the flexibility to accomplish this through a variety of management actions. The AMS is based on

design criteria and monitoring. Design criteria provide the constraints that are applied to

management activities, such as the maximum number of livestock, duration of grazing, and forage

utilization. Monitoring indicates whether actions are being implemented as planned, whether they

are meeting design criteria, and whether they are effective in meeting or moving towards desired

resource conditions. Adaptive management is flexible, allowing for a variety of actions, triggered

by monitoring of results, within the defined management constraints. The following sections

detail the design criteria, monitoring, management actions, and desired conditions proposed for

the implementation of an AMS for the five allotments within the project area.

Design Criteria

The design criteria define the limits that guide management activities in the five allotments, including

the proposed grazing season, stocking rates, range readiness, and utilization levels. This information

will be included in the individual Allotment Management Plans (AMP).

Design criteria common to all allotments under the Proposed Action are as follows:

The number of livestock as measured by number of cow-calf pairs and period of use by

grazing allotment will be determined yearly as part of the adaptive management plan. The

season of use will be set based on results from range readiness checks conducted prior to turn

on and utilization levels monitored throughout the grazing season. Stocking rates and grazing

seasons under the previous permit will be included in the Range Specialist Report.

Base on-dates on plant phenology, soil moisture level, annual climate variation, or other

site-specific constraints for each key area. Off-date is dependent on level of forage

utilization.

Distribute livestock as evenly as possible throughout suitable rangelands by managing

rotation of livestock through pastures or herd areas during the specified time periods.

Use the Forest Plan Amendment #6 forage utilization matrices to adjust allowable use

levels based on vegetation composition as measured through methods such as toe point

inventories at five-year intervals.

Allowable use levels outside of key areas would follow Forest Plan Amendment #6

protocols for the key areas (see Appendix A)

1 Design criteria provide the sideboards to management and define the “constrained flexibility” that adaptive

management provides. Design criteria state what constraints will be applied to management.



Follow Forest Plan Amendment #6 in order to “maintain or enhance the integrity of key

winter ranges, holding areas, migration routes, and fawning areas for mule deer” (USFS,

1988).

The allowable browse utilization level would be 20% of annual leader growth of mature

riparian shrubs and trees. No more than 20% of seedlings would be browsed (USDA,

2004, pg. 359).

Remove livestock from any area of the allotment when browsing indicates a change in

livestock preference from grazing herbaceous vegetation to browsing woody riparian

vegetation (USDA, 2004, pg. 359).

Streambanks would not exceed 20% disturbance per reach.2 Disturbance includes bank

sloughing, chiseling, trampling, and other means of exposing bare soil or cutting plant

roots (USDA, 2004b, pg.63)

Equipment (trailers, water drafting equipment) and clothing shall be cleaned before

arriving on Forest land. Equipment will be considered clean when visual inspection of

tires, tracks, and underbody does not reveal soil, seeds, plant material or other such

debris. Disassembly of equipment components or specialized inspection equipment is not

required.

Allotment specific actions, restrictions, or mitigations are as follows:

Utilization levels would be prescribed according to the Forest Plan Amendment #6 protocol for

desert shrub and sagebrush/bunchgrass vegetation communities. The current grazing permits

used the standards for sagebrush/bunchgrass communities for Alabama Hills, Ash Creek,

Olancha, and Tunawee. George Creek was analyzed as a bitterbrush community. After data

collection in 2012, it was determined that the Alabama Hills, George Creek, and Olancha key

areas are in sagebrush/bunchgrass communities, but that Ash Creek and Tunawee key areas are

in desert shrub communities. Thus, utilization standards for the Ash Creek and Tunawee

Allotments would be lower under the Proposed Action than under current management.

Table 1 Proposed Utilization Standards Key

Area

Range Type/Location Desired

Plants/ Total

Herbacious

Am. 6

Matrices

Tier

Forest Plan Amendment

#6 Watershed data

shows area to be at

PFC?

Forest Plan

Amendment

#6 Standards

Utilization Levels Specific to the Alabama Hills Allotment

1 Sagebrush-

Bunchgrass/Upland

between Diaz and

Tuttle Creeks

45/48 1 Yes 50%

Utilization Levels Specific to the Ash Creek Allotment

2 Earth disturbance is defined as complete removal of vegetation or a percentage of bare ground resulting from the disturbance

(USDA 1995).



Key

Area

Range Type/Location Desired

Plants/ Total

Herbacious

Am. 6

Matrices

Tier

Forest Plan Amendment

#6 Watershed data

shows area to be at

PFC?

Forest Plan

Amendment

#6 Standards

1 Desert Shrub/Upland

north of Ash Canyon

51/69 1 Yes 30%

New

Key

Area

Desert Shrub/Upland

south of Cottonwood

Creek

46/68 1 Yes 30%

Utilization Levels Specific to the George Creek Allotment

1 Sagebrush-

Bunchgrass/Upland

between Hogback and

George Creeks

49/56 1 Yes 50%

Utilization Levels Specific to the Olancha Allotment Early Late

1 Sagebrush-

Bunchgrass/Upland,

southeast of the

junction of Falls and

Walker Creeks

25/61 2 Yes 40% 60%

Utilization Levels Specific to the Tunawee Allotment Early Late

1 Desert Shrub/Upland

between Johnson and

Talus Canyons

46/61 1 Yes 40% 30%

Table 2 summarizes possible actions that could be used in an adaptive management approach. Table 2 Possible Management Actions Employed in Adaptive Grazing Management

Grazing Management Actions*

Use of salt or supplement to draw livestock toward or away from specific areas

Rest from livestock grazing for one or more seasons

Constructing temporary electric fence to control livestock distribution patterns or to

exclude livestock from specific areas

Adjusting the grazing season (livestock turn-on and removal dates)

Adjusting the stocking rate (AUMs per acre)

Adjust utilization levels based on the current vegetation and watershed condition, per

Forest Plan Amendment #6 protocol

Resting areas from livestock grazing for one or more seasons

Do not allow livestock grazing

Implementing rest-rotation grazing system**

Implementing a once-over grazing system***

Implement a deferred rotation grazing system****

Removing existing water development (pipeline, tanks, windmill, well, stock dam)

Enhancing native grasses by inter-seeding

Enhance riparian shrub regeneration by planting native shrubs

Implement a high-intensity/short duration grazing system (by riding, herding, temp.

fence, etc.)

Implement a low-intensity/short duration grazing system



Grazing Management Actions* * Possible management practices are designed to be used alone or in combinations in order to achieve management objectives. **Rest-rotation includes only the two-pasture rest rotation system in which there would be total rest on one pasture and season-

long use on the other.

***Once over grazing refers to a duration of approximately five days for cattle, within a given management unit.. ****Deferred rotation grazing involves dividing the allotment into pastures. One or more of the pastures would be rested each year.

Monitoring

Monitoring that would occur if the Proposed Action was implemented is specified in the

Monitoring Plan outlined below. This plan includes both implementation and effectiveness

monitoring. Implementation monitoring is used to determine if the grazing activity is

implemented as designed. Effectiveness monitoring is conducted to determine if the

management practices applied have been effective in moving toward or maintaining desired

condition and meeting resource objectives. The monitoring process involves collecting data to

determine, what—if any—adjustments are needed to meet the desired conditions and the

standard and guidelines outlined in Forest Plan Amendment #6 and SNFPA. At least 20 percent

of the key areas shall be monitored annually.

Key areas on the allotments are chosen because they are representative of the allotment as a

whole. Monitoring of key areas allows one to extrapolate the condition of the rest of the

allotment and to determine the effects of livestock grazing and its management. By monitoring

key areas regularly it is possible to adjust management in order to produce desired conditions.

Table 3 Monitoring Plan

Monitoring Item

Method

Frequency

Variability Indicating

Action

Implementation Monitoring (Permit Administration)

Permit Compliance Allotment and Units

Inspections

Ongoing, annual permittee

actual use reports

Non-compliance

Livestock numbers Count livestock Random Numbers outside of AOI

authorized for season.

Excess use Allotment inspections Ongoing All excess use

Improvement maintenance Inspections Ongoing Failure to maintain

improvements

Salting Allotment inspections Ongoing Failure to follow AOI

instructions

Range Readiness R5 range readiness

procedure

Pre-season and ongoing as

needed

Range not ready for

grazing

Forage utilization Key Species, Extensive

Browse

20% of key areas Annually Utilization standards

exceeded

Streambank

Stability/Disturbance

MIM, Alteration by

livestock, Stability and

Cover

Ongoing Downward trend

Effectiveness Monitoring

Riparian Ecologic

Condition and Trend

Rooted Frequency,

Greenline MIM, PFC,

Photo Points, BMP

3-5 years Downward trend

Upland Ecological

Condition and Trend

Line Intercept, Toe Point,

Shrub age and Form Class,

3-5 years Downward trend



III. CONSULTATION TO DATE

The Inyo National Forest has informally consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on

several occasions regarding domestic sheep grazing in proximity to Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep

and has closed several allotments to minimize potential contact between the two species. In the

vicinity of the Northern Recovery Unit, the Forest closed all allotments located west of Highway

395 (Bloody Canyon, Algier Lake and June Lake West). The Forest informally consulted

regarding continued sheep grazing within several pastures of the Rock Creek Allotment (near the

Convict Creek herd unit). The Forest determined that continued sheep grazing of the Hilton Unit

would not pose an unacceptable risk of disease transmission and the Service concurred. When

the Forest obtained new information regarding movement of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep into

the Convict Creek herd unit a decision was made to discontinue domestic sheep grazing within

the Hilton Unit.

The Forest signed a decision in 2012 that authorized the use of helicopters in capturing Sierra

bighorn sheep within Wilderness areas over the next 10 years. This decision included the

authorization of releasing Sierra bighorn sheep into the un-occupied herd units Taboose Creek

and Olancha Peak herd units on the Inyo National Forest and removing sheep from the Inyo

National Forest to be introduced into the Laurel Creek and Big Arroyo herd units in the Sequoia

and Kings Canyon National Parks. This analysis included the impacts of this reintroduction on

the adjacent livestock grazing allotments (all cattle) and determined that there would be no

impacts to livestock operations from this activity (Barron 2012 and Authorizing Helicopter

Landings by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in Wilderness Areas for Capturing

Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep May, 2012). The analysis also included effects of livestock

grazing on Sierra bighorn and determined that there would be no effect to re-introduced Sierra

bighorn in the Olancha Peak herd unit (Murphy 2012).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a 5-year review on Sierra bighorn recovery which

stated that disease transmission from cattle grazing in the eastern Sierra Nevada was not

considered to be a major threat to SNBS at this time (USDI, 2008). Furthermore, the

translocation plan developed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for re-

introductions of Sierra bighorn into the Olancha Peak herd unit did not analyze effects of

adjacent cattle grazing, only domestic sheep grazing, leading the Forest to believe that CDFW

does not believe that effects from cattle grazing pose a risk to the recovery of Sierra bighorn.

IV. SPECIES ACCOUNT AND HABITAT DESCRIPTION

The Sierra Nevada distinct population segment (DPS) of California bighorn sheep was

emergency listed on April 20, 1999. At the time of the emergency listing, the population was

thought to total no more than 125 animals. The final rule to list this DPS as endangered was

published on January 3, 2000. Notice of Availability of the Final Recovery Plan for SNBS

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007) was published in the Federal Register on February 13,

2008. On August 5, 2008 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published the final rule on critical

habitat designation for SNBS and a taxonomic name change to Ovis canadensis sierrae (USDI

Fish and Wildlife Service 2008).



Bighorn sheep select open habitats that allow detection of predators at sufficient distances to

allow adequate lead-time to reach the safety of precipitous terrain. Optimal bighorn sheep

habitat is visually open and contains steep, generally rocky, slopes. Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep

avoid forests and thick brush, but will use open woodland habitats on rocky slopes. Bighorn

sheep in the Sierra Nevada utilize a wide range of elevations, from alpine peaks in excess of

4,000 meters (13,120 feet) to the base of the eastern escarpment as low as 1,450 meters (4,760

feet) (Wehausen 1980). Within this elevational range, there is a wide variety of vegetation

communities, including (from lowest to highest): (1) Great Basin sagebrush-bitterbrush-

bunchgrass scrub; (2) pinyon-juniper woodland and mountain mahogany scrub; (3) mid-

elevation and subalpine forests, woodlands, and meadows; and (4) alpine meadows and other

alpine habitats varying from cliffs to plateaus.

SNBS inhabit the alpine and subalpine zones during the summer, using open slopes where the

land is rough, rocky, sparsely vegetated and characterized by steep slopes and canyons. During

the summer months SNBS can be found at elevations between 10,000 and 14,000 feet (USDA

Forest Service 2001). In winter, they occupy high, windswept ridges, if weather conditions

allow, or migrate to the lower elevation sagebrush-steppe habitat as low as 4,800 feet (USDA

Forest Service 2001).

Bighorn sheep behavior has adapted to avoid predators. Bighorn sheep tend to live in groups,

which allow for more visual awareness of predators and allow members of the group to spend

more time feeding than watching for predators. SNBS generally avoid forests and thick brush, as

these habitats do not allow for the open areas needed to watch for predators (USDA Forest

Service 2001). Bighorn sheep are primarily diurnal and daily activity can show some predictable

patterns that consist of feeding and resting periods (USDA Forest Service 2001). Nights are

spent on rocky slopes, but feeding activities may occur short distances away from rocky escape

terrain. This distance to escape terrain can be influenced by visual openness of vegetation or

weather, wind, gender, season and abundance of predators. Male and female groups of bighorn

utilize different habitat types throughout the year. Both sexes utilize the same winter ranges, but

during the summer the two sexes move to different habitats. Females use alpine environments

along the crest during the summer and males are often found at lower elevations in subalpine

habitats. Males join the females during the breeding season in late fall (USDI Fish and Wildlife

Service 2007).

Bighorn sheep in the Sierra Nevada begin birthing season as early as the end of April and end as

late as early July, with most of the births occurring in May and June (USDI Fish and Wildlife

Service 2007). The gestation period for a bighorn sheep is about 174 days. The breeding or

rutting season in the Sierra Nevada occur during late fall and early winter, mostly November and

December, when bighorn are usually at higher elevations.

On August 5, 2008, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated approximately 417,577 acres

of critical habitat for this species in Tuolumne, Mono, Fresno, Inyo and Tulare Counties.

Approximately 272,000 acres of designated critical habitat are within the boundaries of the Inyo

National Forest. In this analysis, suitable habitat is considered to be synonymous with areas

designated as critical habitat by the USFWS. A total of 12 critical habitat units were designated,

10 of which overlap the Inyo National Forest. These include, from north to south; 1) Mount



Warren, 2) Mount Gibbs, 3) Convict Creek, 4) Wheeler Ridge, 5) Taboose Creek, 6) Sawmill

Canyon, 7) Mount Baxter, 8) Mount Williamson, 9) Mount Langley, and 10) Olancha Peak. At

present, all but the Taboose Creek herd unit is occupied. In 2010, a group of bighorn sheep were

located near Nevahbe Ridge in the Convict Creek critical habitat unit. In March 2013, the

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) successfully released 14 Sierra bighorn in

the Olancha Peak herd unit, including 10 ewes and 4 rams. Three ewes were also released in the

Convict Creek and Mt. Gibbs herd units.

The USFWS also identified primary constituent elements (PCEs), which are physical or

biological features considered essential to the conservation of the species and that may require

special management considerations or protection. The PCEs identified for the Sierra Nevada

bighorn sheep include:

1. Non-forested habitats or forest opening within the Sierra Nevada from 4,000 feet to

14,500 feet in elevation with steep (greater than or equal to 60 percent slope), rocky

slopes that provide for foraging, mating, lambing, predator avoidance, and bedding as

well as seasonal elevational movements between these areas.

2. Presence of a variety of forage plants, as indicated by the presence of grasses (e.g.,

Achnanthera spp.; Elymus spp.) and browse (e.g., Purshia spp.) in winter, and grasses,

browse, sedges (e.g.. Carex spp.) and forbs (e.g., Eriogonum spp.) in summer.

3. Presence of granite outcroppings containing minerals such as sodium, calcium, iron, and

phosphorus that could be used as mineral licks in order to meet nutritional needs.

All five Desert Grazing allotments are permitted for cattle grazing, domestic sheep are not

permitted for grazing within these allotments. Four of these allotments are located within or

immediately adjacent to the Mount Williamson, Mount Langley, and Olancha Peak herd units,

all of which are occupied by Sierra bighorn (Figure 1). Based on GPS and VHF collar location

data monitored by CDFW, Sierra bighorn in the Mount Langley herd unit have utilized portions

of the Alabama Hills allotment (Figure 2) and the newly released Sierra bighorn in the Olancha

Peak herd unit have utilized portions of the Olancha allotment (Figure 3). Although portions of

the Mount Williamson herd unit are adjacent to the Alabama Hills and George Creek allotments,

no Sierra bighorn have utilized these portions of the herd unit that fall within the allotments. The

portions of the Mount Langley and Olancha Peak herd units within the Ash Creek allotment have

also not been used by Sierra bighorn; however, bighorn may begin using the northern portion of

the Olancha herd unit that falls within the Ash Creek allotment once the herd establishes their

home and seasonal ranges.

The following tables (Table 4 and 5) display the acreage and percentage of the allotments on the

Inyo NF and BLM and the portion of the allotments that occur within Sierra bighorn designated

critical habitat. The George Creek and Tunawee allotments do not occur within designated

critical habitat and are therefore not included in Tables 4and 5.



Table 4 Acreage and percentage of the Desert Grazing Allotments on the Inyo NF and BLM, Bishop Field Office

Alabama Hills George Creek Ash Creek Olancha Tunawee

Forest BLM Forest BLM Forest BLM Forest BLM Forest BLM Total

Acres

80,160 5,110 15,810 32,250 60,570

Acres per

agency 1,910 78,250 2,030 1,520 11,800 4,010 15,490 19,760 4,280 56,290

Percent

of each

agency

2% 98% 40% 60% 75% 25% 18% 82% 7% 93%

Table 5 Acreage and percentage of the Inyo NF portions of the Desert Grazing Allotments found within Sierra

bighorn designated critical habitat

Mount Langley Herd Unit Olancha Peak Herd Unit Total for Each Allotment Acres within allotment Acres on Inyo NF Acres within allotment Acres on Inyo NF On the Inyo NF

Alabama Hills 1,225 1,130 None 1,130

Ash Creek 1,700 1,700 5,500 5,150 6,850

Olancha None 3,300 3,300 3,300

Bighorn sheep use within the Desert Grazing allotment project area is generally during the

winter, as these allotments are found in the lower elevations of the Mount Langley and Olancha

Peak herd units. Lambing areas have not yet been established permanently in the Olancha Peak

herd unit as the Sierra bighorn there are newly relocated to this area and although have lambed

this last spring, these areas may not become the established lambing areas in the future. These

lambing areas occurred on south-facing slopes from 0.5 to 2 miles east of the Olancha allotment

boundary. It should be noted that lambing may have occurred this close to the allotment

boundary, but is outside of areas suitable for cattle grazing due to the steep slopes and the

distance from suitable cattle grazing areas to lambing habitat is more like 1 to 3 miles.



Figure 1 Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep critical habitat within the Desert Grazing Allotment Project Area



Figure 2 Sierra bighorn sheep locations from the Mount Langley herd unit within the Alabama Hills allotment

within the Desert Grazing Allotment Project Area



Figure 3 Sierra bighorn sheep locations from the Olancha Peak herd unit within the Olancha allotment within the

Desert Grazing Allotment Project Area



The habitat present in the Alabama Hills, Ash Creek, and Olancha allotments include very steep

slopes ( >30%) which provide for escape terrain and suitable foraging vegetation for Sierra

bighorn (Figures 4, 5 and 6). Cattle use within this type of habitat is extremely limited due to the

steep slopes, cattle do not tend to use slopes steeper than 30% unless driven there by a food

source (feeding trough, etc.) or available water (Ganskopp and Vavra 1987). The areas which are

steep (>30% slope) do not contain water sources suitable for cattle, including artificial sources

like water troughs. Approximately 7,930 acres (or 27%) of the forest portion of the Alabama

Hills, Ash Creek, and Olancha Peak allotments are less than 30% slope and include water

sources that may be accessible to cattle. Approximately 21,255 acres (or 73%) do not support

livestock grazing due to the steepness of the slopes and lack of water. Table 6 displays the acres

of each allotment and herd unit greater and less than 30% slope within the project area.

Table 6 Acres of areas greater and less than 30% slope within the Desert Grazing Allotment project area and within

Sierra bighorn designated critical habitat

Acres per Allotment (INF) Mount Langley Herd Unit Olancha Peak Herd Unit

Less than 30% Greater than 30% Acres less than 30% Acres greater than

30%

Acres less than

30%

Acres greater

than 30%

Alabama

Hills 570 1,340 170 960 --- ---

Ash Creek 1,600 10,195 120 1,580 220 4,930

Olancha 5,760 9,720 --- --- 80 3,220

Total 7,930 21,255 290 2,540 300 8,150



Figure 4 Areas within the Alabama Hills allotment that is not accessible to cattle due to being greater than 30%

slope.



Figure 5 Areas within the Ash Creek allotment that is not accessible to cattle due to being greater than 30% slope.



Figure 6 Areas within the Olancha allotment that is not accessible to cattle due to being greater than 30% slope.



Current Cattle Grazing: All of the allotments except the Olancha Allotment are managed as

term grazing permits with on/off provisions. This means that the allotment as a whole comprises

lands managed by the Inyo NF and the BLM, Bishop Field Office. The total number of animals

allowed is based on that combined acreage. The number of animals permitted by the USFS is a

percentage of that total number and is determined according to the relative amount of USFS

acreage. The number of animals permitted by the USFS is called the “on provision” and the

number permitted by the BLM is the “off provision.” This analysis only evaluates the Forest

portion (or “on portion”) of the allotments.

All of the allotments except for the Olancha Allotment receive only incidental use, as the

majority of grazing takes place on the BLM portion of the allotments. The National Forest

portion of the allotments is permitted in order to cover the permittees in the case of cattle

wandering off of the BLM portion. On the Olancha Allotment, the Forest’s portion receives

about one third of the use of the allotment as a whole.

The allotments experience frequent nonuse due to drought—they are very sensitive to the timing

and amount of precipitation. The portions of the allotments on the Inyo NF can receive slightly

higher moisture levels than the BLM portion because these areas are at a slightly higher

elevation. However, if the BLM does not allow turn-out, then the Forest does not permit

livestock grazing as well. In this case, conditions on the BLM portion dictate whether or not any

of these allotments will be grazed.

Records show that the Alabama Hills allotment has been grazed since 1923, although the area

was most likely grazed for many years prior to record keeping. From 1923 to 1945 the allotment

was grazed by sheep. Cattle began grazing there in 1943. Currently, the permitted use is 7

cow/calf pairs (14 individual cows), and grazing is permitted from February 1st to June 30

th, with

the actual off-date around May 15th

. The current grazing system is continuous season-long use,

which means that the cows can occur throughout the entire allotment at any time during the

grazing season. Allowable use is currently 40% for early grazing and 60% for late grazing on the

ricegrass and needlegrass spp. and 40% for early grazing and 30% for late grazing on hopsage.

Records for the Olancha Allotment begin in 1923. Only 81 cow/calf pairs (162 cows) are

permitted on the forest between April 1st and June 30

th. In 2012 the permittee took non-use on

this allotment due to drought conditions (Personal communication Barron 2013). The current

grazing system is deferred rotation, meaning the permittee uses the northern half of the allotment

one year and the southern half of the allotment the following year (Personal communication

Barron 2013). The current allowable use is 40% in wet meadows, 50% on herbaceous vegetation

and 45% on browse in upland areas and 45% herbaceous and 20% on annual leader growth in

riparian areas.

Cattle use of areas within each of these allotments is based on the availability of water. Cattle use

is evenly distributed throughout these allotments by the placement of or natural occurrence of

water (Personal communication Barron 2013). In general cattle limit their use of hillsides when

grades approach 30% (Ganskopp and Vavra 1987).



Changes from current livestock use under the Proposed Action: The proposed action would

change some aspects of grazing management for the Desert Grazing Allotments. These changes

where determined using the Forest Plan Amendment #6 standards for specific vegetation

communities and based on the current condition of vegetation communities and watershed

conditions. Through adaptive management, further livestock grazing management changes may

be implemented to allow for vegetation communities or watershed conditions to meet the desired

conditions for each allotment. Table 7 outlines the differences, if any, on season of use,

allowable use standards, numbers of livestock, and grazing system.

Table 7 Changes to livestock grazing under the proposed action from current conditions for the Desert Grazing

Allotment Project

Season of Use Allowable Use Numbers of

Livestock

(# of individuals)

Grazing System

Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed

Alabama

Hills

2/1- 6/30 No

change

Ricegrass:

40% early

60% late

Hopsage:

40% early

30% late

50%

sagebrush-

bunchgrass

uplands

14 No

change

Continuous

Season-

long

No

change

George

Creek

4/1-6/30 No

change

Ricegrass:

40% early

30% late

Bitterbrush:

50% early

40% late

50%

sagebrush

bunchgrass

uplands

70 No

change

Continuous

Season-

long

No

change

Ash

Creek

2/1-5/31 No

change

Ricegrass:

40% early

60% late

Hopsage:

40% early

30% late

30% desert

shrub

uplands

160 No

change

Continuous

Season-

long

No

change

Olancha 4/1-6/30 No

change

Wet

Meadow:

40%

Uplands:

50%

herbaceous

45%

browse

Riparian:

45%

herbaceous

20% annual

leader

growth

40% early

and 60%

late for

sagebrush

bunchgrass

uplands

162 No

change

Deferred

rotation

No

change

Tunawee 2/16-

5/31

No

change

Ricegrass:

30% early

50% late

Hopsage:

30% early

20% late

40% early

and 30%

late for

desert

shrub

uplands

80 No

change

Deferred

rotation

No

change



Under the proposed action there would be no changes to the season of use, numbers of livestock

or grazing systems. Changes to these management actions can be made if monitoring shows that

desired conditions are not being reached under the proposed action. Utilization levels would be

prescribed according to the Forest Plan Amendment #6 protocol for desert shrub and

sagebrush/bunchgrass vegetation communities. The current grazing permits used the standards

for sagebrush/bunchgrass communities for Alabama Hills, Ash Creek, Olancha, and Tunawee.

George Creek was analyzed as a bitterbrush community. After data collection in 2012, it was

determined that the Alabama Hills, George Creek, and Olancha key areas are in

sagebrush/bunchgrass communities, but that Ash Creek and Tunawee key areas are in desert

shrub communities. Thus, utilization standards for the Ash Creek and Tunawee Allotments

would be lower under the Proposed Action than under current management. The utilization for

the Olancha allotment would be changed to a different standard than current grazing; changing

based on the time of season instead of having one standard for the whole season. Utilization

under the proposed action would be a little lower in the early season and a little higher in the late

season then under current conditions. Utilization standards are also established so that suitable

forage is available for wild ungulates, such as mule deer, elk and bighorn sheep. If wild

ungulates move into an area and forage on the vegetation, this use is taken into account at the

beginning of the grazing season and if wild ungulates have grazed the area to the utilization

standard established, then the cattle would not move onto the allotment. Drought conditions also

affect cattle use of the allotments. If drought conditions have caused a reduction in the available

forage, then the permittee may choose to take non-use on an allotment, or the Forest Service can

restrict use on the allotment.

V. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Direct and Indirect Effects

Factors limiting Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep recovery include disease, predation, low

population numbers and limited distribution, availability of open habitat, and potential further

loss of genetic diversity due to small population sizes and inadequate migration between them.

The Recovery Plan identifies disease transmission from domestic to bighorn sheep as a major

threat to this species and one of the key factors in listing the species.

Effects of cattle grazing on bighorn sheep can include changes in bighorn sheep behavior due to

the presence of cattle on the landscape (King and Workman 1984, Brown et al 2010, and

Bissonette and Steinkamp 1996), increase risk of some communicable diseases (Wolfe et al

2010, Robinson et al 1967, Noon et al 2002, Foreyt and Lagerquist 1996, Singer et al 1997, and

Clark et al 1993), and forage competition (Brown et al 2010).

Displacement of Sierra bighorn

The presence of livestock has had documented effects to wildlife distribution and movements on

species, including wild ungulates like elk, deer, and bighorn sheep (Bissonette and Skeinkemp

1996, Jenks and Leslie 2003, and Mishra et al 2004). Bissonette and Steinkemp (1996) studied

cattle grazing on newly reintroduced populations of California bighorn sheep in Idaho and their

study showed that when cattle (up to 400) where purposefully moved to within 800 m (2,624

feet) of bighorn sheep, the sheep responded by immediately vacating the area and creating new



core areas of use. These results may also have been caused due to the presence of humans on

horseback moving the animals (Bissonette and Steinkemp 1996). They noted that newly

reintroduced bighorn sheep are more sensitive to disturbance, perhaps resulting from recent

transplant activities, and react differently than do established undisturbed populations (Bissonette

and Steinkemp 1996). They also concluded that the sensitivity of these populations to

disturbance may diminish over time as populations become established (Bissonette and

Steinkemp 1996). Brown et al (2010) also conducted studies to better understand bighorn sheep

reactions to the presence of cattle. They observed bighorn sheep and their reactions to cattle in

Alberta, Canada and noted that bighorn did notice cattle on the landscape and move away from

the area. However, their results showed that bighorn sheep appeared to neither avoid nor prefer

cattle during close encounters. On a few occasions when cattle and sheep came into close

contact, they observed that the cattle always approached the bighorn sheep (Brown et al 2010).

Brown et al also found that if bighorn were bedded prior to contact, they would get up and move

away when the cows moved closer (2010). No chasing or aggressive interactions were observed,

nor did they observe complete avoidance of winter ranges due to the presence of cattle (Brown et

al 2010).

The recent re-introduction of Sierra bighorn to the Olancha Peak herd unit may mean that this

population is more sensitive to disturbances. The on-date for cattle on the Olancha allotment is

April 1st

and on the Alabama Hills and Ash Creek allotments its February 1st. Bighorn sheep that

occur in low elevation winter ranges remain on this range until late May (for ewes) and early

June (for rams) (Personal communication with Few 2013). Although there is potential for

overlap in the season of use between cattle and Sierra bighorn on low elevation winter range, the

potential for bighorn sheep to purposefully move into a new area or lead to complete changes in

herd use of low elevation winter range is extremely low. This is due to the following: 1) Limited

cattle use of suitable Sierra bighorn sheep habitat, 2) Limited number of cows on the forest

portion of the allotment, 3) Sierra bighorn have become accustomed to cattle use.

As noted above, approximately 21,255 acres of the forest portion of the allotment are not used by

cattle; this is due to the steep slopes and lack of water in these areas. The Alabama Hills

allotment is grazed in a continuous pattern, with incidental use occurring on the forest, as the

Forest portion of the allotment comprises only 2% of the entire allotment. This reduces the

likelihood of cattle being present on the forest portion of the allotment. Furthermore, the number

of cattle present on the landscape (14 to 162) is far less than the 400 or more used in the

Bissonette and Steinkemp study which showed extreme movements of bighorn sheep due the

presence of this many cows (1996). Sierra bighorn that have been utilizing low elevation winter

range in the Mount Langley herd unit have become accustomed to the presence of cattle on the

landscape, as cattle have been grazing this area since 1923. Bighorn sheep in the Olancha herd

unit may be new to the herd unit, but these bighorn came from the Mount Baxter herd unit where

cattle grazing occurred within low elevation winter range. It is assumed that, using Bissonette

and Steinkemp’s (1996) conclusion, bighorn sensitivity to the presence of disturbances, such as

cattle on the landscape, would diminish over time once they establish their home and seasonal

ranges and due to these bighorn sheep already accustomed to seeing cattle on the landscape, this

disturbance would not cause permanent displacement of bighorn sheep.



Ewes that are lambing may be more susceptible to disturbances than rams or non-lambing ewes.

Lambing areas in the Olancha Peak herd unit have not yet been permanently established, but this

last year it appears lambing occurred on south-facing, steep slopes in the Falls Creek canyon

area. This is located approximately 0.5 to 2 miles from the Olancha allotment boundary, but in

reality it’s more like 1 to 3 miles from where cattle occur on the Olancha allotment because

lambing areas occur on extremely steep slopes and outside suitable grazing areas for cattle.

Furthermore, cattle grazing in the Independence allotment does not appear to be effecting

lambing in the Mount Baxter herd unit, but this could again be due to the steep slopes in which

lambing occurs and the distance from suitable cattle grazed areas (approximately one to five

miles).

The presence of cattle on the landscape may lead to an individual or small groups of Sierra

bighorn to move closer to escape terrain or out of the immediate vicinity of cattle (Brown et al

2010), but this effect is limited to specific areas of low elevation winter range where Sierra

bighorn move into areas where cattle are present. The presence of cattle on the landscape would

not have long-term detrimental effects (Brown et al 2010) to Sierra bighorn use of low elevation

winter ranges or affect the recovery of Sierra bighorn.

Disease Transmission

Disease transmission from cattle to bighorn sheep have been documented in many studies (Wolfe

et al 2010, Robinson et al 1967, Noon et al 2002, Foreyt and Lagerquist 1996, Singer et al 1997,

and Clark et al 1993). As discussed in the 2007 Recovery Plan, the potential for cross species

transmission of diseases between cattle and wild ungulates may vary with local environmental

conditions (USFWS). Bovine viral diarrhea causes a complex of respiratory diseases,

gastrointestinal diseases, and reproductive failure and may be transmitted between species

(USFWS 2007). Hemorrhagic disease and pneumonia resulting from bluetongue virus (BTV)

infection have been reported in bighorn sheep (Robinson et al 1967 and Noon et al 2002). Singer

et al (1997) concluded that cattle, deer, and bighorn sheep did not share similar patterns of

exposure to the three pathogens and, thereby, proposed that cattle did not constitute a health risk

for bighorn sheep in that area. Although cattle may carry Pastueurella spp. that are pathogenic to

bighorn sheep, Foreyt and Lagerquist (1996) hypothesized that “the nose to nose contact required

for transmission of Mannheimia haemolytica is less likely to occur between bighorn sheep and

cattle” than with domestic sheep because the social interactive behavior between bighorn sheep

and domestic cattle.

A recent occurrence of disease outbreaks in bighorn sheep due to cattle was studied in Colorado

(Wolfe et al 2010). In this case, 21 bighorn sheep were found dead in winter range between

December 13, 2007 and February 2008. Death was determined to be caused by a pasteurellosis

epizootic wherein a Pasteurellaceae strain carried by cattle contributed to a pneumonia outbreak.

However, the causes for this outbreak were attributed to the severe winter conditions that

occurred in this area. The winter of 2007-08 was one of the most severe in recorded history for

the Gunnison Basin (where the bighorn sheep herd occurred); almost two feet of snow fell within

one day, burying mountain shrub communities and the below average temperatures ranged from

-4 degrees F to 19 degrees F precluded any appreciable snowmelt. These weather conditions may

have led to cattle having more interactions with bighorn sheep and the cumulative stress of the

weather conditions may have caused bighorn to be more susceptible to diseases (Wolfe et al



2010). Wolfe et al (2010) also concluded that intimate interactions between bighorn sheep and

cattle (use of shared feed lines or troughs) should be discouraged.

On the Alabama Hills allotment, although bighorn sheep utilize portions of this allotment during

the winter, the cattle use that would be permitted is only for 14 cows, as this allotment receives

incidental use as cattle move through the BLM portion of the allotment. The opportunity for

cattle to interact with bighorn in this area is extremely limited not only to the low number of

cattle present, but the steep slopes and lack of water which would attract cattle into suitable

Sierra bighorn habitat; 960 acres (or 84%) over 30% slope out of 1,130 acres within the Mount

Langley herd unit. Bighorn sheep have not been observed using the Ash Creek allotment. Cattle

use in this allotment is restricted due to the large amount (6,500 acres out of 6,850 acres) of

terrain that is over 30% slope within the portions of the allotment found in the Mount Langley

and Olancha Peak herd units. Bighorn sheep may begin utilizing this allotment after they

establish their home and seasonal ranges in a few years.

Currently Sierra bighorn have not utilized the Ash Creek allotment, but the newly introduced

herd in the Olancha Peak herd unit may begin utilizing the northern portion of the herd unit

within the Ash Creek allotment after they establish their home and seasonal ranges over the next

several years. Cattle and Sierra bighorn interactions within this portion of the Ash Creek

allotment is expected to be very low due to the majority of this portion of the allotment being

greater than 30% slope; 4,930 acres (or 95%) out of 5,150 acres of the allotment within the

Olancha Peak herd unit.

The Olancha Peak herd unit only makes up 3,300 acres of the 34,250 acres of the Olancha

allotment. Of this, only 80 acres are less than 30% slope which offer suitable habitat for cattle.

The likelihood of cattle and Sierra bighorn interacting is incredibly low due to the low potential

of cattle moving into Sierra bighorn habitat. Although there is potential for Sierra bighorn to

move into areas less than 30% slope, and therefore move into areas where cattle do occur, the

limited number of cows within this allotment (162), the proposed grazing strategy (deferred

rotation) and the short duration in which cattle grazing overlaps with potential bighorn use (two

months) limits the risk of interaction between cattle and bighorn sheep. Furthermore, there are no

artificial watering or feeding areas on the forest that could attract both cattle and bighorn and the

weather conditions in this area would not become so extreme it would force cattle and bighorn to

use the same areas for a long period of time, as was seen by Wolfe et al (2010).

In addition, the 2007 Recovery Plan (USFWS), 5-year Recovery review (USFWS 2008) and

Translocation Plan (Few et al 2013) has not listed cattle grazing as a risk to the recovery of

Sierra bighorn sheep. Personal communication with Ben Gonzales on the risk of disease

transmission from cattle concluded with him stating that behaviorally he believes cattle are much

less of a risk to bighorn sheep than domestic sheep, but cattle do appear to carry infections that

are pathogenic to bighorn and that cattle are more of a displacement problem for bighorn sheep

than a disease issue (email received 6/3/2013). He also acknowledges that to his knowledge

there have been no occurrences of cattle transmitting diseases to Sierra bighorn (email received

6/12/2013).



Overall, the risk of disease transmission due to interactions between cattle and Sierra bighorn

sheep is low due to the limited number of cattle found on the forest portions of the allotments,

the lack of artificial watering and feeding troughs, and the limited suitable habitat for cattle

within Sierra bighorn herd units.

Forage competition

The competition between cattle and native ungulates is a common concern (Pickford and Reid

1943). Grazing by high density of cattle can alter grassland ecosystems (Fleischner 1994) and

negatively affect native ungulates (Jenks and Leslie 2003 and Mishra et al 2004). Sierra bighorn

sheep forage on needlegrass, buckwheat spp., sagebrush, ephedra, blackbrush, bitterbrush and

bush beardtongue during the winter (Wehausen 1980). Cattle generally forage on bunchgrasses

such as Indian ricegrass and needlegrass and desert shrubs like hopsage, bitterbrush and

buckwheat during the winter. Although there may be some overlap between the species being

chosen during the winter by both these species, the forest manages livestock use by establishing

utilization levels. Utilization standards are determined based on vegetation and watershed

conditions, as directed by Amendment 6 of the Inyo NF LRMP (1995). The proposed action

would change the current utilization standards in the Alabama Hills, Ash Creek, and Olancha

allotments by establishing standards that would maintain the allotment in desired condition or

restoring the area to desired conditions, as well as providing forage for native wildlife species

such as mule deer and Sierra bighorn.

As Table 6 shows, the utilization standards were changed to address the vegetation present in the

allotments, which is a change from the current conditions. These new standards would allow for

the continuance of suitable browse species in sagebrush, bunchgrass, and desert scrub habitats.

On the Alabama Hills allotment utilization levels would be established at a standard of 50%

grazing on sagebrush and bunchgrasses in upland habitats throughout the Forest portion of the

allotment. As noted above, the Forest only comprises 2% of this allotment and is grazed by only

14 cows, which is considered incidental use when cows wander onto the Forest, but return to the

BLM portion of the allotment.

The utilization standards for Ash Creek would be reduced to 30% in the desert scrub habitat.

However, Sierra bighorn have not been documented utilizing this allotment. If Sierra bighorn

from the Olancha herd unit move north and begin wintering on portions of the Ash Creek

allotment, the large amount of acres of terrain greater than 30% would reduce the cattle use in

these areas and forage availability would not be effected in these areas and the low utilization

standard of 30% would still allow for forage for wintering bighorn.

On the Olancha allotment utilization standards would be changed to match the season of use,

rather than having one standard for the entire allotment. Use would be a lower in the early

season, 40%, and a little higher later in the season, 60%. However, cattle are not authorized on

the Olancha allotment until April 1st, which is near the end of bighorn sheep use of winter range.

Therefore the increase in use during the late season on the allotment would not affect the

availability of forage for bighorn sheep during the winter and cattle use of this allotment is in a

deferred rotation pattern, in which cattle utilize the northern portion of the allotment one year

and the southern portion the next year, allowing for foraging opportunities by Sierra bighorn on

winter range.



Furthermore, the adaptive management strategy of the proposed action allows for changing

livestock management if the proposed action is not allowing for vegetation conditions to meet

desired conditions. The use of the Forest portion of the allotments is determine by the use of the

BLM portion of the allotments; if BLM does not authorize use due to drought or other reasons,

then the Forest portion of these allotments is not grazed.

Drought conditions may lead to bighorn sheep utilizing areas further from escape terrain and

therefore moving further into the areas grazed by cattle, such as in the Olancha allotment.

Drought conditions alter livestock grazing several ways; cattle may not be authorized to entire

the allotment by the Forest Service, or the permittee may take non-use and cattle would not

entire the allotment. These management actions are considered when the range is being

determined ready for use at the beginning of the grazing season. Range readiness is determined

by the amount of suitable forage available at that time and the prediction of how long grazing

may occur; drought conditions may mean livestock come off the allotment sooner than

permitted. The utilization standards remain the same during a drought year, so if Sierra bighorn

have moved into the Olancha allotment before the cattle have arrived, they would have the

opportunity to forage in the area first. If they move into the area after cattle are present,

utilization levels are checked and once the level has been reached the cattle are removed from the

allotment. Although drought conditions may lead to Sierra bighorn moving further into the

allotment, forage would still be available under the proposed action due to the new utilization

standards, season of use, and limited number of cattle in the allotment.

Overall, forage competition between Sierra bighorn and cattle would not result in a risk to the

recovery of Sierra bighorn by limiting the availability of foraging areas on low elevation winter

ranges, even in drought conditions.

Designated Critical Habitat

The PCEs identified for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep include the presence of a variety of

forage plants, as indicated by the presence of grasses (e.g., Achnanthera spp.; Elymus spp.) and

browse (e.g., Purshia spp.) in winter. Within the Desert Grazing Allotment project area; these

plant species are present, including others, which offer suitable winter forage for Sierra bighorn.

Under the proposed action these species would remain on the landscape and would not be

removed permanently or modified in such a way that they would not be available for foraging, or

would not be available the following year for forage. This is due to the changes in the utilization

standards under the proposed action, which in some allotments lower the utilization level, and

that these utilization levels still provide forage for wild ungulates, such as Sierra bighorn. These

utilization standards are designed to allow for the continuance of these species on the landscape

so use would not lead to a complete loss of these species. Although there may be a reduction in

specific areas of forage, if cattle are grazing in that area, the steepness of slopes throughout these

allotments still allows for 21,255 acres (or 72%) out of 29,200 acres to be grazed by Sierra

bighorn and not cattle.

Cumulative Effects



The species was emergency listed in 1999 as endangered by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

because of the dramatic population decline in the late 1990s attributable to predation by

mountain lions, failure of sheep to utilize favorable low elevation winter range habitat because of

the presence of mountain lions, and the threat of large-scale mortality that could occur if

domestic sheep transmitted disease to a bighorn population. The inability of existing regulatory

mechanisms to deal with the issues of lion predation and disease transmission was also noted as a

major reason for the listing of the species.

Domestic sheep grazing within the high risk portions of the Inyo NF have been eliminated, with

sheep grazing not being authorized recently on the Hilton Unit of the Rock Creek allotment due

to the presence of Sierra bighorn in the Convict Creek herd unit. Six of the seven allotments

located west of Highway 395 have been vacated or closed to domestic sheep grazing. The 7th

allotment (Sherwin/Deadman) is partially within high risk area; however the areas of overlap are

either not grazed by domestic sheep, or are separated from occupied Sierra Nevada bighorn

sheep habitat by a highly developed area (Town of Mammoth Lakes) and large contiguous

forested areas. There is one domestic sheep allotment located nine miles from the Olancha Peak

herd unit and it was determined in the Translocation Plan (Few et al 2013) that the presence of

the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power aqueduct and fencing of the aqueduct would

provide a suitable barrier from domestic sheep and bighorn sheep and the time of year domestic

sheep grazing occurs, spring, would reduce the risk of bighorn sheep rams becoming attracted to

domestic sheep ewes.

Cattle grazing occurs on the west side of the Sierra crest in the Kern Plateau area on the Mulkey

and Monache allotments. The Templeton and Whitney allotments are currently not grazed and

haven’t been grazed since 2001. These allotments are grazed during the summer, when bighorn

sheep occur at higher elevations and not when they are on low elevation habitat on the eastside

of the Sierra crest. There would be no cumulative effects due to grazing on these allotments

because of the season of use on theses allotments. Cattle grazing also occurs during the winter

months in the Independence allotment adjacent to the Mount Baxter and Mount Williamson herd

units. Displacement of Sierra bighorn from low elevation winter ranges has not been

documented, only that cattle have been observed grazing near Sierra bighorn sheep in this

allotment (personal communication Few).

Approximately 29 miles of roads exist within designated critical habitat. Several of these routes

are the primary means of accessing popular recreation sites, including Lundy Canyon, Pine

Creek, Laurel Lakes, Onion Valley and Horseshoe Meadow. Such primary access roads account

for 14 of the 29 miles. The Forest recently issued a motorized travel management decision

which closed three miles of road and seasonally closed an additional three miles to reduce

potential disturbance of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep.

Mountain lion predation continues to be a risk factor for Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep; however

recent efforts by CDFG to monitor lion movements and remove lions known to prey on bighorn

are helping to mitigate this risk.

No other projects or activities are identified in designated critical habitat with the potential to

affect Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep or PCEs of critical habitat.



VI. DETERMINATION

Based on the information presented above it is my determination that the Desert Grazing

Allotment proposed action MAY AFFECT, BUT IS NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT

SIERRA NEVADA BIGHORN SHEEP and would NOT EFFECT SIERRA NEVADA

BIGHORN SHEEP DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT. This is due to the following:

1) The Desert Grazing Allotment project area includes 24,500 acres of terrain greater than

30% slope. This reduces the areas in which cattle would graze, leaving suitable forage for

bighorn sheep using this area during the winter, reducing the disturbance caused by cattle

to bighorn sheep, as cattle would not occur in these areas, and reducing the opportunity

for risk of disease transmission.

2) There is no water or feeding troughs located on the Forest that would attract large

numbers of cattle to an area and provide an area where bighorn sheep and cattle could co-

mingle.

3) Cattle are grazed in a dispersed pattern, grazing on both the Forest and BLM managed

portions of the allotments.

4) Utilization standards would be lowered under the proposed action, allowing for suitable

forage for wintering Sierra bighorn.

5) Sierra bighorn have the potential to become accustomed to the presence of cattle on the

landscape, as bighorn in the Mount Langley herd unit have not changed winter range use

due to the presence of cattle. Sierra bighorn removed from the Sawmill Canyon herd unit

occurred on low elevation ranges where cattle are present and were moved to the Olancha

Peak herd unit. It is likely these sheep will be accustomed to cattle when they determine

their home and seasonal ranges.

6) The 2013 Translocation Plan (Few et al), 5-Year Recovery Review (USFWS 2008), and

Recovery Plan (USFWS 2007) did not list cattle grazing as a threat to the recovery of

Sierra bighorn sheep.

7) No disease outbreaks have been documented due to transmission from cattle in Sierra

bighorn sheep.

8) Suitable foraging species identified as a PCE for winter range would not be permanently

removed or modified in such a way that it would prevent suitable forage from returning

the following year.



VII. LITERATURE CITED

Bissonette, J.A. and Melanie J. Steinkamp. 1996. Bighorn Sheep Response to Ephermeral

Habitat Fragmentation by Cattle. Great Basin Naturalist 55(4): 319-325.

Brown, Natalia A., Kathreen E. Ruckstuhl, Steve Donelon, Corey Corbett. 2010. Changes in

vigilance, grazing behavior and spatial distribution of bighorn sheep due to cattle presence in

Sheep River Provincial Park, Alberta. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 135 (2010)

226-231.

Clark, Richard K, Cecelia A. Whetstone, Anthony E. Castro, Mark M. Jorgensen, Jill F. Jensen,

and David A. Jessup. 1993. Restriction Endonuclease Analysis of Herpesviruses Isolated from

Two Pennisular Bighorn Sheep. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 29(1): 50-56.

Few, Alexandra P., David W. German, John D. Wehausen, Becky M. Pierce, and Thomas R.

Stephenson. 2013. Translocation Plan for Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep, February, 2013.

Few, Alexandra. 2013. Personal communication regarding winter seasonal use of Sierra Nevada

bighorn sheep. Email dated 06/03/2013.

Fleischner, T. L. (1994). Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America.

Conservation Biology, 8(3), 629-644.

Foreyt, William J. and John E. Lagerquist. 1996. Experimental Contact of Bighorn Sheep (Ovis

canadensis) with Horses and Cattle, and Comparison of Neutrophil Sensitivity to Pasteurella

Haemolytica Cytotoxins. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 32(4):594-602.

Ganskopp, David and Martin Vavra. 1987. Slope Use by Cattle, Feral Horses, Deer, and Bighorn

Sheep. Northwest Science 6(2): 74-81.

Gonzales, Ben. 2013. Personal communication regarding disease risk between cattle and bighorn

sheep, any new literature on the subject and documented cases of disease outbreaks in bighorn

sheep due to cattle. Emails dated 06/03/2013 and 6/12/2013.

Jenks, J.A., D.M. Leslie Jr. 2003. Effect of domestic cattle on the condition of female white-

tailed deer in southern pine-bluestem forests, USA. Acta Theiologica 48, 131-144.

King, M. M., & Workman, G. M. (1984). Cattle grazing in desert bighorn sheep habitat. Desert

Bighorn Council Transactions, 28, 18-22.

Mishra, C., S.E. Van Wieren, P. Ketner, I.M.A Heitkonig, and H.H.T. Prins. 2004. Competition

between domestic livestock and wild bharal Pseudois nayaur in the Indian Trans-Himalaya.

Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 344-354.



Noon, Ted H., Shannon Lynn Wesche, Dave Cagle, Daniel G. Mead, Edward J. Bicknell,

Gregory A. Bradley, Shawnee Riplog-Peterson, Dave Edsall, and Carlos Reggiardo. 2002.

Hemorrhagic Disease in Bighorn Sheep in Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 38(1):172-176.

Pickford, G.D and E.H. Reid. 1943. Competition of elk and domestic livestock for summer range

forage. The Journal of Wildlife Management 7, 328-332.

Robinson, R.M., T.L. Hailey, C.W. Livingston, and J.W. Thomas. 1967. Bluetongue in the

Desert Bighorn Sheep. The Journal of Wildlife Management 31(1): 165-168.

Singer, Randall S., David A. Jessup, Ian A. Gardner, and Walter M. Boyce. 1997. Pathogen

Exposure Patterns among Sympatric Populations of Bighorn Sheep, Mule Deer and Cattle.

Journal of Wildlife Diseases 33(2): 377-382.

Stephenson, Tom. 2013. Personal communication regarding documentation of any changes to

Sierra bighorn sheep use due to the presence of cattle. Phone conversation on 06/10/2013.

USDA, Forest Service. 1995. Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

Amendment #6: Forest-Wide Range Utilization Standards

USDA, Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Volume 3.

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep.

Sacramento, California, xiv + 199 pages.

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;

Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis

californiana) and Taxonomic Revision. August 5, 2008. In Federal Register Vol. 73 No. 151,

45534-45604.

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep: Five-Year Review

Summary and Evaluation.

Wehausen, J. D. 1980. Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep: history and population ecology. Ph.D.

Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Wolfe, Lisa L., Brandon Diamond, Terry R. Spraker, Michael A. Sirochman, Daniel P. Walsh,

Chandra M. Machin, Donald J. Bade, and Michael W. Miller. 2010. A Bighorn Sheep Die-off in

Southern Colorado Involving a Pasteurellaceae Strain that May Have Originated from Syntopic

Cattle. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 46(4): 1262-1268.

biological assessment -...

Documents