Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Page 0 of 48
Environmental Assessment for the Sierra Bighorn Sheep Habitat Protection Project
Inyo National Forest, Mono & Inyo Counties, California
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service
Pacific Southwest Region
April, 2014
Page 1 of 48
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on
the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial
status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or
because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all
prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for
communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's
TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to
USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-
9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider
and employer.
Page 2 of 48
Table of Contents Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action ....................................................................... 4
1.1 Summary ............................................................................................................ 4
1.2 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 4
1.2.1 Document Structure ..................................................................................... 4
1.2.2 Background ................................................................................................. 5
1.2.3 Description of the Project Area .................................................................... 6
Table 1. Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep Recovery Units, Herd Units and Wilderness Areas within project area .......................................................................................... 7
1.3 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................. 9
1.4 Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 10
1.5 Decision Framework ........................................................................................ 10
1.6 Public Involvement ........................................................................................... 11
1.6.1 Native American Consultation ................................................................... 11
1.7 Issues ............................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 2 Alternatives ................................................................................................ 13
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated ........................................................... 14
2.4 Comparison of Alternatives: Meeting Purpose and Need ................................ 15
3.3.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) ................................................................................ 15
3.3.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ..................................................................... 15
2.5 Comparison of Alternatives Relative to Issues ................................................. 15
Table 2a. Comparison of Alternatives for Recreation Opportunities ....................... 15
Table 2b. Comparison of Alternatives for meeting recovery goals from the Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep ............................................................. 16
Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences ................................................................... 17
3.1 Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................... 17
3.2 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Relative to Issues .............................. 18
3.2.1 Issue 1: Risk of Disease Transmission between Pack Goats and Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep ............................................................................................ 18
3.2.1.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) ........................................................................ 18
3.2.1.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) .............................................................. 20
3.2.2 Issue 2: Wilderness Experience and Accessibility ..................................... 21
3.2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) ........................................................................ 21
Page 3 of 48
3.2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) .............................................................. 22
3.4 Effects relative to significance factors .............................................................. 24
Chapter 4 Lists ........................................................................................................... 31
4.1 Agencies and Persons Consulted .................................................................... 31
4.2 Environmental Assessment Preparers ............................................................. 31
4.3 References Cited ............................................................................................. 32
Chapter 5 Appendices ................................................................................................ 35
Appendix A – Maps of pack goat closures ................................................................. 35
Appendix B – Maps of trails in the Sierra Nevada that will remain open to pack goats ................................................................................................................................... 41
Figures
FIGURE 1. PROJECT AREA MAP ........................................................................................... 8
Tables
TABLE 1. SIERRA NEVADA BIGHORN SHEEP RECOVERY UNITS, HERD UNITS AND WILDERNESS AREAS
WITHIN PROJECT AREA ............................................................................................ 7
Page 4 of 48
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action
1.1 Summary
The Inyo National Forest proposes to permanently close occupied Sierra Nevada
bighorn sheep (Sierra bighorn) habitat to pack goat use in order to protect this
endangered species from the risk of fatal disease transmission. This action allows the
forest to carry out direction found in the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan
on reducing the risk of disease transmission from domestic livestock, including goats
(USFWS 2007). The proposal involves immediate closure of designated Sierra bighorn
critical habitat areas, including portions of the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) within critical
habitat areas, to pack goat use. The proposal also calls for the eventual closure of the
Coyote herd unit (not designated critical habitat) to pack goats once it is confirmed that
Sierra bighorn have moved into that area.
In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also evaluated the following
alternative:
No Action Alternative: Under this alternative, the forest would not close Sierra bighorn
habitat to pack goat use. Pack goats would continue to be able to be used for
recreational purposes in all areas on the forest. Sierra bighorn would continue to be at
risk for disease transmission from pack goats.
This EA will be distributed to agencies, tribes, and the public for consideration and input.
1.2 Introduction
1.2.1 Document Structure
The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State
laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and
alternatives. The document is organized into four parts:
Introduction: This section includes information on the history of the project
proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal
for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest
Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.
Page 5 of 48
Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section
provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well
as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives
were developed based on issues raised by the public and other agencies.
This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this
section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences
associated with each alternative.
Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental
effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This
analysis is organized by issues.
Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers
and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental
assessment.
Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the
analyses presented in the environmental assessment.
Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources,
may be found in the project planning record located at the Inyo National Forest
Supervisor’s Office in Bishop, California.
1.2.2 Background
The United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), Inyo National
Forest is committed to cooperating with state agencies to inventory, protect, manage,
and plan for threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species (FSM 2671.1),
as well as to manage federally listed species habitats to achieve recovery objectives so
that protection measures provided under the Endangered Species Act are no longer
necessary (FSM 2670.21).
Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis sierrae) are a unique subspecies of
North American wild sheep, with distinct genetic and morphological traits relative to
other wild sheep in California. Sierra bighorn inhabit alpine and subalpine environments
in the Sierra Nevada for most or all of the year. The Inyo National Forest provides for
62% (or 343,660 acres) of the recovery area (includes both critical habitat and non-
essential herd units).
This taxon was federally listed as endangered on January 3, 2000 following emergency
listing on April 20, 1999. After federal listing and the completion of the Recovery Plan for
Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep in 2007, the California Department of Fish and Game was
authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to be the agency responsible
Page 6 of 48
for management and implementation of recovery actions for Sierra Nevada bighorn
sheep.
From 2001 to 2011, the Inyo National Forest issued 16 wilderness permits to 11
individuals that included pack goat use. Reporting of private stock use on wilderness
permit applications is voluntary, so it is possible that the actual use of pack goats on the
forest is higher than the reported figures, but it is unlikely that this number is significantly
higher. For 2012, there was no wilderness permit data available for private stock use,
and in 2013, there was no reported use of pack goats.
1.2.3 Description of the Project Area
The project area encompasses approximately 343,660 acres of Sierra bighorn habitat
that includes portions of eleven herd units (Figure 1). The project area is located within
portions of the Ansel Adams, Hoover, John Muir, Owens River Headwaters, South
Sierra and Golden Trout Wildernesses. It ranges from the Mt. Warren SNBS herd unit
in the North zone of the Inyo National Forest to the Olancha Peak SNBS herd unit in the
South zone.
The project area includes portions of the recovery area as identified in the Sierra
Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan (USDI 2007). Table 1 lists the herd units within
the project area, the wilderness area in which they occur and whether they are currently
occupied by bighorn sheep.
The project area includes a variety of vegetation communities, including: 1) Great Basin
sagebrush-bitterbrush-bunchgrass shrub, 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. Optimal
bighorn sheep habitat is visually open and contains steep, generally rocky, slopes
(USDI 2007).
Page 7 of 48
Table 1. Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep Recovery Units, Herd Units and Wilderness Areas within project area
Recovery Unit Herd Unit Currently
Occupied
Within Project
Area
Wilderness
Northern
Mt. Warren Yes Yes Hoover
Mt. Gibbs Yes Yes Ansel Adams
Central Convict Creek Yes Yes
John Muir
Wheeler Ridge Yes Yes
Southern
Coyote Ridge No Yes
Taboose Creek No Yes
Sawmill Canyon Yes Yes
Mt. Baxter Yes Yes
Mt. Williamson Yes Yes
Mt. Langley Yes Yes
John Muir, Golden Trout,
and Sequoia Kings
Canyon
Olancha Peak No Yes Golden Trout and South
Sierra
Page 8 of 48
Figure 1. Project area map including designated critical habitat units and herd units for Sierra bighorn on the Inyo National Forest.
Page 9 of 48
1.3 Purpose and Need
The purpose of this project is to support the Recovery Plan for Sierra bighorn (USFWS
2007) by addressing concerns regarding disease transmission between pack goats and
bighorn sheep.
Pack goats can carry a variety of diseases which are communicable and deadly
to native Sierra bighorn.
Diseases introduced by pack goats present a major threat to Sierra bighorn
populations.
Eliminating contact between pack goats and Sierra bighorn populations is
expected to reduce exposure of Sierra bighorn to disease.
The need for this proposed action involves continuing protection of Sierra bighorn from
disease and expanding this protection based on changing conditions and new
information.
When the Recovery Plan was finalized in 2007, the Inyo NF had been using a
series of emergency forest orders to close areas inhabited by Sierra bighorn to
pack goat use. The last of these forest orders expired in 2008, but the Recovery
Plan states that this closure policy should continue in order to provide protection
to Sierra bighorn from potential disease transmission.
Sierra bighorn critical habitat was designated in 2008, after the previous forest
orders expired.
Sierra bighorn populations have increased and populations have expanded into
new areas since the previous forest orders.
Due to changing conditions since the establishment of the original forest orders and the
new information regarding expanding Sierra bighorn herds, the Inyo National Forest
needs to establish new forest orders that offer protection to Sierra bighorn from disease
transmission between pack goats as described in the 2007 Recovery Plan (USFWS).
1.3.1 Laws, Regulations, and Policies
This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Inyo National Forest
Land Management Plan (INF LRMP), and helps move the project area towards desired
conditions described in that plan (INF LRMP 1988).
The LRMP direction for threatened, endangered, and sensitive animal species is as
follows:
Emphasize the protection and improvement of habitat for threatened or
endangered wildlife. Manage for the protection and enhancement of all
Page 10 of 48
historically and potentially threatened or endangered species habitat as
necessary to meet recovery levels (Wildlife Standards and Guidelines page 98).
Forest Service manual direction states the following for threatened and endangered
species (FSM 2670.21).
Manage National Forest System habitats and activities for threatened and
endangered species to achieve recovery objectives so that special protection
measures provided under the Endangered Species Act are no longer necessary.
1.4 Proposed Action
The Federal action considered under this proposal is closure of Sierra bighorn habitat to
pack goat use. The Inyo National Forest proposes to close or limit pack goat access to
trails within designated critical habitat for Sierra bighorn. The proposed action would
affect 103 trails covering 357 miles on the Inyo National Forest. This comprises 35
percent of the 1,113 trails (covering 1,020 miles) on the Inyo National Forest.
If the proposed action is selected, the forest is proposing to immediately close 80 trails
or trail sections, covering approximately 297 miles, to pack goat use. An additional 21
trails or trail sections, covering 60 miles, in or adjacent to the Coyote Herd Unit, which is
NOT designated critical habitat, will remain open until such time as Sierra bighorn are
confirmed to be within the unit. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
conducts surveys of the herd unit annually (Few, 2014). Once confirmed reports of
Sierra bighorn are found within the unit by CDFW, these trails will also be closed.
Approximately 90 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) runs through the Inyo National
Forest. The portions of the PCT outside of designated critical habitat will remain open
to pack goat use. Approximately 30 miles of the PCT that run through critical habitat will
be closed. These 30 miles are included in the overall 297 miles noted above. Please
see Appendix A for maps of the SNBS critical habitat units and trail closures. Appendix
B contains maps of trails that will remain open to pack goat use.
1.5 Decision Framework
Given the purposes and need, the deciding official will review the proposed action and
the other alternatives in order to determine whether to close Sierra bighorn herd units
on the Forest to pack goat use. The analysis will be mainly focused on effects to Sierra
bighorn as the purpose and need are focused on the protection of this endangered
species.
Page 11 of 48
1.6 Public Involvement
The proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on September 12, 2012.
The proposed action was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during
scoping (September 2012). Interested parties were contacted by mail, phone and in
person. Nine comment letters were received during scoping, including letters from
federal and local government and from several individuals who use pack goats on the
forest. Communication between interested parties also occurred in July 2013 when the
Forest Service exchanged several emails and phone calls with representatives from the
North American Packgoat Association.
1.6.1 Native American Consultation
Native American Tribes that claim ancestral home lands within the project area were
consulted pursuant to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Executive
Order 13007 (1996), and under Section 101(d)(6)(B) of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended). No issues or concerns have been brought
forward. This project has been discussed with the following Tribes via formal letters,
phone calls and meetings. Formal consultation for this project began in September
2012.
Federally Recognized Tribes:
Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation
Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony of California
Death Valley Timbi-Sha Shoshone Band of California
Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence
Reservation
Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony
Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation
Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation
Not Federally Recognized Tribe:
Mono Lake Kutzadikaa Tribe
Page 12 of 48
1.7 Issues
An issue is a point of debate, dispute, or disagreement regarding anticipated effects of
the proposed action. Public and internal scoping identified the following issues
concerning the effects of the proposed action.
(Issue #1): Risk of Disease Transmission between Pack Goats and Sierra bighorn.
There is a contention that there is no scientific evidence that pack goats can transmit
diseases to Sierra bighorn.
This issue is a point of disagreement with the project’s purpose and need. In the other
words, the issue states that if the risk of disease transmission from pack goats does not
exist, then there is no need to close Sierra bighorn herd units to pack goats.
The Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service maintain that there is ample
scientific evidence that pack goats can transmit disease to Sierra bighorn. Furthermore,
disease transmission between domestic sheep and goats and bighorn sheep was one
of the threats that initiated the listing of Sierra bighorn as endangered (USDI, 2007).
The evidence supporting the listing, and therefore the purpose and need for this
analysis, has been well documented (Heffelfinger, 2004; Bunch et al, 1999; Goodson,
1982; Foreyt and Jessup, 1982; Coggins, 2002; Martin et al, 1996; Onderka and
Wishart, 1988; Foreyt, 1989, 1990, 1994; and personal communication Gonzales,
2013). Although the threat of disease transmission from domestic sheep to Sierra
bighorn was addressed in more detail in the recovery plan, the recovery plan also
included an analysis of the risk of disease transmission from pack goats (USDI, 2007, p.
108). This analysis stated that the Forest Service should continue its policy of
prohibiting pack goat use within bighorn habitat in order to eliminate the risk of disease
transmission.
(Issue #2): Wilderness Accessibility. Concerns were raised during scoping about the
proposed action’s effect on reducing recreation opportunities, especially backcountry
and wilderness access, for pack goat users, particularly those who have medical
conditions or physical disabilities and who rely on pack goats to carry their gear. For
these users, pack goats are easier to care for, load and manage on the trail than other
types of pack animals.
This issue, along with impacts to the wilderness experience, is explored in depth in
Chapter 2: Alternatives.
Page 13 of 48
Chapter 2 Alternatives
2.1 Introduction
This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Sierra Nevada
Bighorn Sheep Habitat Protection project. This section also presents the alternatives in
comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative and providing a
clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the
information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative
and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic
effects of implementing each alternative.
2.2 Alternatives
2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action alternative, Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep herd units on the Inyo
National Forest would not be closed to pack goats. Pack goats would still be allowed in
all areas of the forest. The forest would work with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to implement other portions of the Sierra
Nevada bighorn sheep Recovery Plan.
2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Under the Proposed Action, Sierra bighorn herd units would be closed to pack goat use.
The Federal action considered under this proposal is closure of Sierra bighorn habitat to
pack goat use. The Inyo National Forest proposes to close or limit pack goat access to
trails within designated critical habitat for Sierra bighorn. The proposed action would
affect 103 trails covering 357 miles on the Inyo National Forest. This comprises 35
percent of the 1,113 trails (covering 1,020 miles) on the Inyo National Forest.
If the proposed action is selected, the forest is proposing to immediately close 80 trails
or trail sections, covering approximately 297 miles, to pack goat use. An additional 21
trails or trail sections, covering 60 miles, in or adjacent to the Coyote Herd Unit, which is
NOT designated critical habitat, will remain open until such time as Sierra bighorn are
confirmed to be within the unit. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
conducts surveys of the herd unit annually (Few, 2014). Once confirmed reports of
Sierra bighorn are found within the unit by CDFW, these trails will also be closed.
Approximately 90 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) runs through the Inyo National
Forest. The portions of the PCT outside of designated critical habitat will remain open.
Page 14 of 48
Approximately 30 miles of the PCT that run through critical habitat will be closed. These
30 miles are included in the overall 297 miles noted above. Please see Appendix A for
maps of the SNBS critical habitat units and trail closures. Appendix B contains maps of
trails that will remain open to pack goat use.
2.3 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated
The following are alternatives that were considered but ultimately eliminated from
further analysis.
2.3.1 Access Alternative
An alternative providing more backcountry trail access to recreation users with pack
goats was considered, but eliminated from further analysis because it did not meet the
project’s purpose and need of eliminating contact between pack goats and Sierra
bighorn in order to reduce the risk of disease transmission.
This alternative would have allowed pack goats on certain trails within Sierra bighorn
herd units where the trails were not near known bighorn sheep herds, e.g. the trail
follows the canyon bottom and bighorn sheep are found on the higher mountain ridges.
Pack goat owners would have been required to adhere to mitigation measures, such as
staying within 500 feet of the trail, ensuring that their goats were up to date on
vaccinations, tethering goats while walking and in camp and/or using GPS collars on the
goats and immediately reporting lost goats to the Forest Service and the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
This alternative was eliminated because it was determined that, even if goat owners
could control their animals, management of wild bighorn sheep movements cannot be
controlled. Furthermore, the workload of monitoring Sierra bighorn sheep near areas
where pack goats are authorized would require placing GPS collars on 100% of the
animals and receiving real-time data to insure bighorn have not moved into areas where
pack goats are located. California Department of Fish and Wildlife GPS tracking data
has shown instances of individual bighorn sheep wandering down from the herds on the
ridges to temporarily occupy the canyon bottoms, but this data was only received for a
small percentage of the bighorn sheep located in the herd, as only a few bighorn sheep
are collared (CDFW GPS location data 2009-2013, on file at INF). Therefore, there is
still the possibility that a wild sheep could come into contact with a pack goat regardless
of the measures pack goat users are implementing to prevent this contact.
Page 15 of 48
Furthermore, the normal bacteria found in pack goats’ intestinal tracts can still be
pathogenic to wild sheep. Even if goats are vaccinated against strains of bacteria that
are harmful to wild sheep, this only protects the vaccinated individual from getting sick.
Vaccinated goats can continue to carry the bacteria and transmit it to other non-
vaccinated animals (Gonzales, 2013). Therefore the risk of fatal disease transmission
to Sierra bighorn is still present.
2.4 Comparison of Alternatives: Meeting Purpose and Need
This section provides a comparison of how each alternative analyzed would meet the
project objectives established in the purpose and need (EA Section 1.3).
3.3.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)
The No Action alternative would not meet the stated purpose and need of eliminating
contact between domestic goats and wild sheep. Since pack goats would still be
allowed in Sierra bighorn herd units, there is no guarantee that the two types of animals
would not mix and potentially spread disease. The spread of disease could lead to
large die offs in one or more herd units, which is exactly contrary to the goals of the
Recovery Plan for Sierra bighorn (USFWS, 2007).
3.3.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
The Proposed Action does meet all portions of the stated purpose and need. It directly
supports the Recovery Plan for Sierra bighorn (USFWS, 2007) by addressing concerns
regarding disease transmission between domestic goats and Sierra bighorn. Pack
goats would be prohibited in all designated Sierra bighorn critical habitat and herd units,
and therefore the risk of disease transmission between domestic goats and wild sheep
would be minimal. This would reduce the risk of local or large die-offs.
2.5 Comparison of Alternatives Relative to Issues
This section compares how the alternatives affect the issues described in Section 1.7.
Table 2a. Comparison of Alternatives for Recreation Opportunities
Recreation
Opportunities Analysis Indicator Alternative 1 –No Action Alternative 2 – Goat Closure
Wilderness
Experience
Wilderness
Character-
Under the no action alternative, there is risk
of major adverse effect on natural quality
over long term because one or more Sierra
bighorn herd units could become extirpated
Under the proposed action, there would be
major beneficial effects on the natural
quality of wilderness character over the long
Page 16 of 48
Natural Quality (Novak, 2013). term. (Novak, 2013).
Wilderness
Accessibility
Wilderness
Character-
Opportunities for
Primitive/Unconfined
Types of Recreation
Under the no action alternative, there would
be no effects to the existing opportunities for
primitive and unconfined recreation because
all areas of the forest would still be open
visitors using pack goats (Novak, 2013).
Under the proposed action, there would be a
long-term adverse effect to the opportunities
for primitive and unconfined recreation in the
Hoover and John Muir Wildernesses as this is
where the majority trail closures would occur.
There would be a lesser, long-term effect on
opportunities in the Ansel Adams Wilderness
and small effect in the Golden Trout and
South Sierra Wildernesses as the majority of
trails in these areas would still be open to
visitors using pack goats (Novak, 2013).
Table 2b. Comparison of Alternatives for meeting recovery goals from the Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep
Recovery Plan
Goal Analysis Indicator Alternative 1 –No Action Alternative 2 – Goat Closure
Prevent contact
between bighorn
sheep and
domestic sheep
or goats
Presence of pack
goats
Pack goats occur within occupied Sierra
bighorn habitat and the risk of disease
transmission between pack goats and Sierra
bighorn is present.
Pack goats do not occur within occupied
Sierra bighorn habitat and the risk of disease
transmission between pack goats and Sierra
bighorn is eliminated.
Page 17 of 48
Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences
This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of
the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to
implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for
comparison of alternatives presented in the chart above.
3.1 Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person
undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative effects are considered for
all alternatives and are presented for each issue.
The Cumulative Effects Area (CEA) was established for each resource and varies
between resources. The analysis considers present and reasonably foreseeable future
actions which occur within the same temporal and spatial scale and which have the
same type of effect as described in direct and indirect effects as the alternatives (see
Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2). The time frame for the analysis is focused on the next 10-15
years, during which time it is expected that recovery of Sierra bighorn would continue,
with the CDFW implementing a translocation program that populates unoccupied herd
units with Sierra bighorn (Murphy, 2013).
Past Actions
In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the
alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the
impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact
of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and
might contribute to cumulative effects.
The following past activities are described in detail because they have similar direct and
indirect effects to Sierra bighorn.
- Domestic sheep grazing allotments within Sierra bighorn critical habitat on the
Inyo National Forest have been closed beginning in 1999 when the species was
first listed. Sheep grazing allotments continued to be closed up until 2010
(Convict Creek allotment) as Sierra bighorn re-colonized suitable habitat. There
are currently no authorized domestic sheep grazing allotments within Sierra
bighorn sheep occupied habitat on the Inyo NF.
Page 18 of 48
Current Actions
Actions which are occurring or have the potential to occur within the portions of the
project area are defined below.
- In June, 2012 the Inyo National Forest authorized the use of helicopters by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife in wilderness areas for the purposes of
capturing Sierra bighorn sheep as part of monitoring and translocation recovery
actions (USFS 2012). Following a translocation in March 2013, Sierra bighorn
now occupy nine of the ten essential herd units for recovery on the Inyo.
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Actions which have the potential to occur within the project area are described below.
- Under the helicopter landing decision described above, the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife plans to translocate sheep to the Taboose Creek
herd unit, which is designated as being critical to the recovery of the species.
This translocation is expected to take place within the next five to ten years.
3.2 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Relative to Issues
3.2.1 Issue 1: Risk of Disease Transmission between Pack Goats and Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep
3.2.1.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under this alternative, no action would be taken and pack goat use would continue on
the forest and within Sierra bighorn habitat.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Bighorn sheep species are susceptible to many diseases transmitted from both
domestic sheep and goats; of most concern is pneumonia caused by the pathogen
Mannheimia haemolytica or Pasteurella multocida (USFWS 2007). Although outbreaks
of respiratory disease from infections can occur in bighorn sheep herds without known
contact with domestic livestock (Miller et al 1991), the risk of disease transmission
becomes high when domestic livestock, particularly sheep and goats, are present within
occupied bighorn areas (Goodson 1982, Martin et al 1996, Onderka and Wishart 1988,
Foreyt 1989, 1990, 1994, and Foreyt and Silflow 1996). As such policies to maintain
separation between domestic sheep and goats have been adopted by wildlife
departments, as well as land management agencies (Bureau of Land Management
Page 19 of 48
1992, 1998; USFS 2001 and 2008; Baumer et al 2009; Croft et al 2009; and Wild Sheep
Working Group 2012). These policies typically address domestic sheep use, such as the
policy currently used by the Inyo NF (Baumer et al 2009), but domestic goat use, such
as pack goats, also need to be addressed in order to reduce the risk of contact and
potential disease transmission.
Under this alternative pack goats would be permitted to use trail systems which allow
access into occupied Sierra bighorn habitat. Although pack goats are accustomed to
staying with their owner, generally do not wander, and can be tethered, these measures
cannot guarantee that bighorn sheep would not come into contact with the goat. The
risk of contact still remains high even if mitigation measures are used to try to prevent
contact. The habitats in which bighorn sheep occupy are generally further away from
trails and on steeper slopes, however, the potential of a bighorn sheep to move into an
area with a pack goat still remains, and therefore the potential for contact and then
disease transmission remains high.
Some contacts between bighorn sheep and domestic livestock may not result in
transmission of respiratory disease to bighorn; the outcome likely depends on a variety
of factors including the exposure history and immune status of both the bighorn sheep
and domestic livestock. However, current technology does not allow us to predict which
particular contact will result in disease transmission. Further, the onset of pneumonia in
affected bighorn sheep may be delayed by days, weeks or months following contact
with domestic livestock, and disease in isolated herds may not be detected for months
after infection. In addition, surviving bighorn may transmit pathogens to adjacent
populations. If disease outbreaks were to occur it may not only lead to individual Sierra
bighorn mortality, but larger population die-offs that would reduce the ability of the
species to recover.
Cumulative Effects
The Cumulative Effects Area (CEA) developed for this analysis includes all SNBS
critical habitat designated on the Inyo National Forest. The Inyo contains 61% of the
total Sierra bighorn critical habitat designated by USFWS. Ten of the eleven herd units
on the Inyo are listed by USFWS as being essential to the recovery of the species as a
whole. Nine of the ten essential units are currently occupied. This accounts for 75% of
the total occupied Sierra bighorn habitat throughout the Sierra Nevada. A disease
outbreak in occupied Sierra bighorn areas would hinder recovery of this species in
areas outside the Inyo NF. In order to recover the species, two herd units in the Sequoia
and Kings Canyon National Parks need to be occupied (USFWS 2007). Translocations
into these herd units are dependent upon capturing animals located on the Inyo NF. If
Page 20 of 48
die-offs are occurring on the forest, translocations would cease and recovery goals
would not be met.
Alternative 1 Effects Summary
Under this alternative the risk of contact between Sierra bighorn and pack goats
remains high due to the inability to manage for bighorn sheep movements. The potential
disease transmission and die-offs that may result from this contact could lead to
negative effects to Sierra bighorn populations and hinder recovery of the species.
3.2.1.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Under this alternative, 297 miles of trails through Sierra bighorn habitat would be
immediately closed to pack goats, including the Mt. Warren, Mt. Gibbs, Convict Creek,
Wheeler Ridge, Sawmill Canyon, Mt. Baxter, Mt. Williamson, Mt. Langley, and Olancha
Peak herd units. An additional 60 miles of trails would be closed in or adjacent to the
Coyote herd unit once Sierra bighorn are confirmed to be occupying the unit.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Effects to Sierra bighorn sheep were disclosed in the Biological Evaluation (Murphy,
2013) and are summarized in this document. Under Alternative 2 the direct and indirect
effects are likely to have a beneficial effect on Sierra bighorn sheep. This is due to the
elimination of the risk of contact between bighorn sheep and pack goats, as pack goats
would not be located within occupied Sierra bighorn habitat. With the removal of pack
goats within occupied Sierra bighorn habitat, and the risk of contact eliminated, the
threat of a disease outbreak and potential die-off within Sierra bighorn populations is
reduced. This warrants a beneficial effect to this species by meeting the recovery action
to prevent contact between bighorn sheep and domestic goats. No ground disturbing
activities would occur; therefore there would be no adverse modification to designated
critical habitat.
Cumulative Effects
As in the No Action alternative, the Cumulative Effects Area (CEA) developed for this
analysis includes all SNBS critical habitat on the Inyo National Forest. Domestic sheep
have already been eliminated within Sierra bighorn critical habitat on the Inyo NF
through the closure of sheep grazing allotments. Therefore, the proposed action will
have a cumulative benefit on Sierra bighorn by also removing pack goats from their
occupied habitat. This action further reduces the risk of disease transmission and
would allow for recovery of the species to continue (Murphy, 2013).
Alternative 2 Effects Summary
Page 21 of 48
Under Alternative 2 there would be beneficial effects to Sierra bighorn sheep
populations on the forest, as the risk of contact and potential disease transmission
would be eliminated.
3.2.2 Issue 2: Wilderness Experience and Accessibility
Under both the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives, there would be no
authorized action that would affect the untrammeled quality of wilderness character,
defined as an action that manipulates the biophysical environment. Similarly, there
would also be no authorized action under either alternative that would affect the
undeveloped quality of wilderness character, defined as an action that affects
structures, initiates construction in wilderness or involves the use of mechanical
transport or motorized equipment. (Novak, 2013) Therefore, neither of these qualities of
wilderness character requires further analysis. The remaining two qualities of
wilderness character, natural quality and opportunities for primitive and unconfined
recreation, are discussed in the analysis below.
3.2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no mechanism to limit the risk of
disease transmission from pack goats to wild sheep. The natural quality of wilderness
character addresses the intended and unintended effects of human actions on
ecological systems inside wilderness. Since Sierra bighorn are an integral part of the
natural landscape in the high Sierra, there would be a risk of major adverse effects on
natural quality of wilderness character over the long term because one or more herd
units may become extirpated from disease transmission and subsequent die-off. Such
a loss may affect the wilderness experience for backcountry recreationists, including
pack goat owners (Novak, 2013a).
Under the No Action alternative, pack goats would continue to be allowed in all areas on
the National Forest, including all wilderness areas. Recreation users who rely on the
support and convenience of pack goats to carry gear in order to access the backcountry
would continue to be able to do so. There would be no direct effect on wilderness
access, defined as opportunities for unconfined and primitive types of recreation, for
current user groups (Novak, 2013a).
Cumulative Effects
The Cumulative Effects Area (CEA) for this recreation and wilderness analysis includes
the 11 Sierra bighorn herd units found on the Inyo National Forest.
Page 22 of 48
For wilderness character, the cumulative effect of the No Action alternative would be to
potentially negate the effects of other past and present management actions (helicopter
capture and relocation and elimination of domestic sheep grazing). The effects from all
other Sierra bighorn management actions are designed to move the species towards
meeting recovery goals, but introducing the risk of a major disease outbreak and
potential die-off could threaten the species ability to recover. In turn, this would have
moderate to major adverse effects on natural quality of wilderness character over the
long-term because one or more herd units may become extirpated.
There are no other past, present or reasonable foreseeable future actions that would
curtail wilderness and backcountry access for pack goat users, so the cumulative
effects on recreation access are the same as those described in the direct and indirect
effects section above. (Novak, 2013a)
Alternative 1 Effects Summary
In summary, Alternative 1 would have no effect on access for pack goat users, but may
have an indirect negative effect on the wilderness experience by impacting the natural
character of wilderness should Sierra bighorn recovery be hindered due to a disease
outbreak and potential die-offs.
3.2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Under the proposed action, there would be major beneficial effects on the natural quality
of wilderness character over the long term. By removing the threat of a source of major
disease outbreak, other elements of the Sierra bighorn Recovery Plan are more likely to
be successful, allowing the species to persist on the landscape, and therefore contribute
to the integrity of wilderness character (Novak, 2013a).
The Proposed Action alternative would prohibit use of pack goats in wilderness areas
that intersect with designated Sierra bighorn herd units, resulting in a direct negative
effect to wilderness access for recreation users who rely on pack goats to carry gear
and supplies into the backcountry. Approximately 35% of trails on the Inyo National
Forest would be subject to this closure, including most trails in the Hoover and John
Muir Wildernesses. However, large portions of the Ansel Adams Wilderness and almost
all of the Golden Trout and South Sierra Wildernesses would still be open to use by
pack goat owners. The entire White Mountain and Inyo Mountain ranges, including the
White Mountains Wilderness, would also be unaffected by the closure. Together, this
means that approximately 65% of trails on the Inyo National Forest would remain open
to pack goats (Novak, 2013a).
Page 23 of 48
There are also other options available to members of the public who want to have a
backcountry experience, but who are physically unable to carry their own overnight gear
and supplies. These options include commercial pack stock use (Novak, 2013a). There
are opportunities for this use in the Hoover and John Muir Wilderness areas where pack
goats would be prohibited.
Cumulative Effects
As discussed above, the Cumulative Effects Area (CEA) for this analysis includes the
11 essential Sierra bighorn herd units on the Inyo National Forest.
For natural quality of wilderness character, the proposed action would have
cumulatively major beneficial effects over the long term. Along with other beneficial
management actions, eliminating the risk of disease transmission to Sierra bighorn
ensures that the species will likely continue to meet down- and de-listing criteria and
result in recovery of the species (Novak, 2013a).
Alternative 2 Effects Summary
If pack goats are prohibited from Sierra bighorn herd units, there would be major
beneficial effects on wilderness character by further reducing the risk of disease
transmission and potential die-offs of Sierra bighorn populations. For users who wish to
use pack goats in the wilderness, there would be a direct negative effect to wilderness
access for these users, particularly in the Hoover and John Muir Wildernesses where
the majority of the Sierra bighorn herd units on the Inyo are located.
Page 24 of 48
3.4 Effects relative to significance factors
1. Beneficial and adverse impacts.
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Hydrology, Soils, Air: There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects
to soil, water or air resources from the no action alternative, since no ground
disturbing activity will occur (Ellsworth, 2013).
Sensitive Plants and Weeds: There would be direct impacts from goats to
noxious weeds from browsing, grazing and trampling. This will leave the
vegetation slightly more intact and capable of resisting future weed infestation.
There would also be direct impacts from goats to sensitive plants from browsing,
grazing and trampling. Pack goats may also have the indirect effect of
introducing weeds to the area (Weis, 2013a and 2013b).
Wildlife and Aquatic Species: There would be negative direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects to the endangered Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep from
continuing to allow pack goat use within designated critical habitat and occupied
herd units on the Inyo NF. For a more thorough discussion of effects to Sierra
bighorn please see the previous section (section 3.2.1.1) There would be no
impact to any Pacific Southwest Region sensitive aquatic or wildlife species
under the no action alternative (Murphy and Sims, 2013).
Heritage: There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to heritage
resources under the no action alternative, since no ground disturbing activity will
occur (Nicholas, 2013).
Wilderness: There would be negative direct, indirect and cumulative effects to
wilderness character from implementing the no action alternative (Novak, 2013a).
For a more thorough discussion of effects to wilderness please see the previous
section (section 3.2.2.1).
Recreation: There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to recreation
access to wilderness areas as a result of the no action alternative. Pack goats
would continue to be allowed throughout wilderness areas on the Inyo (Novak,
2013a).
Page 25 of 48
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Hydrology, Soils, Air: There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects
to soil, water or air resources from the proposed action alternative, since no
ground disturbing activity will occur (Ellsworth, 2013).
Sensitive Plants and Weeds: There would be a slight beneficial effect to
sensitive plants as a result of pack goats being prohibited in Sierra bighorn herd
units, since they would not browse, graze or trample any plants. There would
also be a very slight reduction in risk of weed spread or new weed invasions
since pack goats would no longer be a vector for carrying and spreading noxious
weeds into the prohibited areas (Weis, 2013a and 2013b).
Wildlife and Aquatic Species: The proposed action would not likely adversely
effect, but would have beneficial effects on Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep
(Murphy, 2013). For a more thorough discussion on direct, indirect and
cumulative effects to Sierra bighorn see the previous section (section 3.2.1.2).
There would be no impact to any aquatic or wildlife Pacific Southwest Region
sensitive species under this alternative (Murphy and Sims, 2013).
Heritage: There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to heritage
resources from the proposed action alternative, since no ground disturbing
activity will occur (Nicholas, 2013).
Wilderness: There would be beneficial direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to
wilderness character from implementing the proposed action alternative. Please
see the previous section on direct, indirect and cumulative effects relative to the
natural quality of wilderness character (section 3.2.2.2) for a more thorough
discussion of effects. (Novak, 2013a)
Recreation: There would be a direct negative effect to recreation access for
pack goat users to certain wilderness areas as a result of the proposed action
alternative. The magnitude of the effect would vary between areas on the forest
and is based on the amount of designated critical habitat and herd units within
each wilderness area. Access to the John Muir and Hoover wildernesses would
be the most restricted. Some portions of the Ansel Adams Wilderness would be
restricted. The majority of access to the Golden Trout, South Sierra and White
Mountains wildernesses would be unaffected (Novak, 2013a).
Page 26 of 48
2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.
No Action: Under this alternative, there would be no direct, indirect, or
cumulative effects to public health or safety. Those recreationists who require
support in order to safely carry gear into the backcountry would continue to be
able to do so with pack goats or with another means, such as hired mules or
horses.
Proposed Action: Under the proposed action alternative, there would be limited
direct effect to public health or safety and no indirect or cumulative effects.
Those recreationists who require support in order to safely carry gear into the
backcountry would continue to be able to do so with another means, such as
mules or horses (Novak, 2013).
3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area.
The affected environment of the proposed action includes several
Congressionally-designated wildernesses, including the John Muir, Hoover,
Ansel Adams, Golden Trout and South Sierra Wildernesses.
No Action: The No Action alternative has the potential to compromise natural
character of wilderness in these wilderness areas by allowing the potential threat
of disease transmission between pack goats and Sierra bighorn to continue.
Sierra bighorn are a vital component of the natural character of wilderness in
these areas. Please see Table 2a in Chapter 2 and section 3.2.2.1 in Chapter 3
of this document for a detailed discussion of the effects of the no action
alternative on wilderness values.
Proposed Action: The proposed action would protect the natural character of
wilderness in these wilderness areas by increasing the chances that Sierra
bighorn, a vital component of natural character, will persist on the landscape.
Please see Table 2a in Chapter 2 and section 3.2.2.2 in Chapter 3 of this
document for a detailed discussion of the effects of the proposed action on
wilderness values.
4. The degree to which the effects on the human environment are likely to be
highly controversial.
Page 27 of 48
No Action: The effects of the no action alternative on the human environment
are not likely to be highly controversial as the no action alternative is the same as
the existing condition. The no action alternative is also the same as the previous
environmental condition before the first emergency pack goat closure on the Inyo
in May 2000.
Proposed Action: The effects of the proposed action on the human environment
are not likely to be controversial since the proposed action (closing SNBS herd
units on the forest to pack goats) has been implemented in the past with previous
emergency forest orders, beginning in May 2000. The effects of the past
closures are well known. The action analyzed under this EA would add
additional closures to the previous forest orders, since Sierra bighorn are now
occupying additional areas on the forest that were previously uninhabited. Even
with this additional closure, 65% of all trails on the Inyo would still be open to
pack goat use. The overall effects of the additional closure are not likely to be
different from the effects of the previous closure as to create additional
controversy.
5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are
highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.
No Action: The effects of the no action alternative on the human environment
are not highly uncertain nor do they involve unique or unknown risks as the no
action alternative is the same as the existing condition. The no action alternative
is also the same as the previous environmental condition before the first
emergency pack goat closure on the Inyo in May 2000.
Proposed Action: The effects of the proposed action on the human environment
are not likely to be highly uncertain nor do they involve unique or unknown risks.
The proposed action (closing Sierra bighorn herd units on the forest to pack
goats) has been implemented in the past with previous emergency forest orders.
The effects of the past closures are well known. The action being analyzed
under this EA would add additional closures to the previous forest orders, since
Sierra bighorn are now occupying additional areas on the forest that were
previously uninhabited. Even with this additional closure, 65% of all trails on the
Inyo would still be open to pack goat use. The overall effects of the additional
closure are not likely to be different from the effects of the previous closure that it
would create additional uncertainty or unique or unknown risks.
Page 28 of 48
6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions
with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future
consideration.
No Action: There would be no action taken, therefore this does not establish a
precedent for future actions or represent a decision in principle about a future
consideration. Though the forest would continue to work with the US Fish and
Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to implement
the SNBS Recovery Plan, this is consistent with the Endangered Species Act
and the Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.
Proposed Action: Implementing the proposed action does not establish a
precedent for future actions or represent a decision in principle about a future
consideration. There is a provision in the proposed action which allows trails in
or adjacent to the Coyote Ridge herd unit to remain open until such time as
Sierra bighorn are confirmed to be in the unit or sheep are introduced into the
neighboring Taboose Creek herd unit. Once sheep are confirmed within the
Coyote Ridge herd unit by California Department of Fish and Wildlife, trails or
trail sections within or adjacent to the unit will be closed to pack goat use.
7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant
but cumulatively significant impacts.
For both the no action and proposed action alternatives, potential cumulative
effects are addressed in the following sections of the EA:
o 3.1 Cumulative Effects
o 3.2 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Relative to Issues
8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites,
highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places, or may cause loss or destruction of
significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.
No Action: No action would be taken. Current management of backcountry
visitors would remain as it currently is. There would be no adverse impacts
(direct, indirect or cumulative) to scientific, cultural or historic resources as a
result of the no action alternative. (Nicholas, 2013)
Page 29 of 48
Proposed Action: Under the proposed action, there would be no adverse
impacts (direct, indirect or cumulative) to scientific, cultural or historic resources.
The action cleared under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as
a screened undertaking where no ground disturbing activity would be conducted.
(Nicholas, 2013)
9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or
threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
No Action: Under this alternative pack goat use would pose a threat to Sierra
bighorn populations and may in turn hinder recovery of the species due to
disease transmission and resulting mortality and large die-offs of Sierra bighorn
populations. This alternative would not allow for recovery goals to be reached
and may lead to negative effects on Sierra bighorn.
Proposed Action: The proposed action would continue the implementation of
the recovery plan for Sierra bighorn and remove the threat of disease
transmission between pack goats and Sierra bighorn. The proposed action would
result in beneficial effects to Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (Murphy, 2013).
10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or
other requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.
National Forest Management Act – Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent with the
National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
Wilderness Act – Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent with the Wilderness Act.
Where a choice must be made between wilderness values and visitor or any
other activity, preserving the wilderness resource is the overriding value. (Novak
2013)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) - Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent with
the American with Disabilities Act. The Forest Service is not required to provide
any form of special treatment of accommodation for wheelchair users, and, by
inference, other persons with disabilities. (Novak, 2013)
Endangered Species Act – The Endangered Species Act states that: “All other
Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the
Secretary [of the Department of the Interior], utilize their authorities in furtherance
Page 30 of 48
of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of
endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of this
Act.” The Forest Service is required to conserve bighorn sheep; conservation is
defined by the Act as using all methods which are necessary to bring about the
recovery of the species. Under Alternative 1 the Inyo NF would not be meeting all
the recovery goals for Sierra bighorn sheep, as pack goats would remain a threat
for disease transmission and may hinder recovery of the species. Alternative 2
would fully meet the recovery plan by eliminating the risk of contact between
pack goats and Sierra bighorn sheep and therefore allowing recovery of the
species to continue (Murphy 2013).
National Historic Preservation Act – Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent with the
National Historic Preservation Act. No ground disturbing activity would occur
under either alternative. (Nicholas, 2013)
Inyo NF Land and Resource Management Plan – Alternatives 1 and 2 are
consistent with the Inyo NF Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). The
LRMP Standards and Guidelines state wildlife management should emphasize
the protection and improvement of habitat for threatened or endangered wildlife
and to manage for the protection and enhancement of all historically and
potentially threatened or endangered species habitat as necessary to meet
recovery levels. (USDA 1988)
Page 31 of 48
Chapter 4 Lists
4.1 Agencies and Persons Consulted
US Fish and Wildlife Service
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
4.2 Environmental Assessment Preparers
Todd Ellsworth, Watershed Program Manager
Leeann Murphy, Wildlife Biologist
Colleen Nicholas, South Zone District Archaeologist
Jeff Novak, Wilderness Manager
Lisa Sims, Aquatic Biologist
Sue Weis, Assistant Forest Botanist
Lesley Yen, Project Lead
Page 32 of 48
4.3 References Cited
Baumer, A., N. East, J. Echenique, M. Haworth, M. Leinassar, C. Papouchis, T.
Stephenson, D. Weaver, and G. Wilson. A Process for identifying and managing risk of
contact between Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep and domestic sheep. February 2009.
37pp.
Bunch, T.D., W.M. Boyce, C.P. Hibler, W.R. Lance, T.R. Spraker, and E.S. Williams.
Diseases of North American wild sheep. Pages 209-237 in R. Valdez and P.R.
Krausman, eds. Mountain sheep of North America. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
1999.
Bureau of Land Management. Guidelines for domestic sheep management in bighorn
sheep habitat. 6630 (230/220) Instruction Memorandum No. 92-264. 1992.
Bureau of Land Management. 1998 Revised guidelines for domestic sheep and goat
management in native wild sheep habitats. 6849(P) CA-930.6. 1998.
Coggins, V.L. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep/domestic sheep and domestic goat
interactions: a management prospective. Biennial Symposium of the Northern Wild
Sheep and Goat Council 13;165-174. 2002.
Croft, Brian, Marcy Haworth, MaryBeth Hennessy, Rachel Mazur, Steven Nelson,
Richard Perloff, Joe Robson, and Tom Stephenson. Application of the Document
Entitled A Process for Identifying and Managing Risk of Contact between Sierra Nevada
Bighorn Sheep and Domestic Sheep dated February 2009. April 2009.
Ellsworth, Todd. RE: Pack Goat Specialist Reports Due July 23. Email correspondence.
2013.
Few, Alexandra. Email correspondence with Leeann Murphy. 2014.
Foreyt, W.J. Fatal Paseurella haemolytica pneumonia in bighorn sheep after direct
contact with clinically normal domestic sheep. American Journal of Veterinary Research
50(3):341-344. 1989.
Foreyt, W.J. Pneumonia in bighorn sheep: effects of Pasteurella haemolytica from
domestic sheep and effects on survival and long term reproduction. In Proceedings of
the Biennial Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council. 7:92-101. 1990.
Foreyt, W.J. Effects of controlled contact exposure between healthy bighorn sheep and
llamas, domestic goats, mountain goats, cattle, domestic sheep, or mouflon sheep.
Biennial Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council. 9:7-14. 1994.
Page 33 of 48
Foreyt, W.J. and D.A. Jessup. Fatal pneumonia of bighorn sheep following association
with domestic sheep. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 18:163-168. 1982.
Foreyt, W.J. and R.M. Silflow. Attempted protection of bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis)
from pneumonia using a nonlethal cytotoxic strain of Pasteurella haemolytica Biotype A.
Serotype11. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 32:315.321. 1996.
Gonzales, Ben. Personal communication regarding newly discovered disease outbreak
in desert bighorn sheep populations in Southern California that were attributed to goats.
2013.
Goodson, N.J. Effects of domestic sheep grazing on bighorn sheep populations: a
review. Proceedings of the Biennial Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat
Council 3:287-313. 1982.
Heffelfinger, J. Bighorn sheep disease epizootic in the Silver Bell Mountains, southern
Arizona. Performance Report. Project No. W-78-R-54. Arizona Game and Fish
Department. 2004.
Martin, K.D., T. Schommer, and V.L. Coggins. Literature review regarding the
compatibility between bighorn and domestic sheep. Proceedings of the Biennial
Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 10:72-77. 1996.
Miller, M.W., N. Thompson Hobbs, and E.S. Williams. Spontaneous pasterurellosis in
captive Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis Canadensis): clinical,
laboratory, and epizootiological observations. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 27:534-542.
1991.
Murphy, Leeann. Biological Assessment for Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Habitat
Protection on the Mono Lake, Mammoth, White Mountain, and Mt. Whitney Ranger
Districts, Inyo National Forest. 2013.
Murphy, Leeann and Lisa Sims. Biological Evaluation for Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep
Habitat Protection on the Mono Lake, Mammoth, White Mountain, and Mt. Whitney
Ranger Districts, Inyo National Forest. 2013.
Nicholas, Colleen. Section 106 Clearance for Pack goat Closures EA. 2013.
Novak, Jeff. Proposed Prohibition on pack goats in portions of the Inyo NF Wilderness
and Effects to Visitors with Disabilities and Other Accessibility Issues. 2013.
Novak, Jeff. Wilderness Report: Proposed Pack Goat Closure and Forest Order.
2013a.
Page 34 of 48
Onderka, D.K. and W.D. Wishart. Experimental contact transmission of Pasteurella
haemolytica from clinically normal domestic sheep causing pneumonia in Rocky
Mountain bighorn sheep. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 24(4):663-667. 1988.
Probasco, Diane. Email correspondence between Diane Probasco (Forest Service) and
Leeann Murphy. 2013.
U.S. Forest Service. A Process for Finding Management Solutions to the Incompatibility
Between Domestic and Bighorn Sheep. Tim Schommer and Melanie Woolever. August
2001.
U.S. Forest Service. General Technical Report (RMRS-GTR-209) A Review of Disease
Related Conflicts Between Domestic Sheep and Goats and Bighorn Sheep. Timothy J.
Schommer and Melanie M. Woolever. September 2008.
U.S. Forest Service. Inyo National Forest. Authorizing Helicopter Landings by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife for Capturing Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep
within portions of the Ansel Adams, Hoover, John Muir, Golden Trout, and South Sierra
Wilderness Areas. Record of Decision signed June 11, 2012.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn
Sheep. Sacramento, California. xiv + 199 pages.
Weis, Sue. Biological Evaluation Plants. 2013.
Weis, Sue. Goat Closure Botany Report. 2013a.
Weis, Sue. Noxious Weed Risk Assessment: Goat Closure (Forest Order). 2013b.
Wild Sheep Working Group. Recommendations for Domestic Sheep and Goat
Management in Wild Sheep Habitat. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
2012.
Page 35 of 48
Chapter 5 Appendices
Appendix A – Maps of pack goat closures
Mt. Warren and Mt. Gibbs Critical Habitat Units
Page 36 of 48
Convict Creek Critical Habitat Units
Page 37 of 48
Convict Creek and Wheeler Ridge Critical Habitat Units
Page 38 of 48
Coyote Ridge Herd Unit and Taboose Creek Critical Habitat Unit
Page 39 of 48
Sawmill Canyon, Mt. Baxter & Mt. Williamson
Critical Habitat Units
Page 40 of 48
Mt. Langley and Olancha Peak Critical Habitat Units
Page 41 of 48
Appendix B – Maps of trails in the Sierra Nevada that will remain open to pack goats
Lee Vining Area
Page 42 of 48
June Lake and Mammoth Lakes Area
Page 43 of 48
Mammoth Lakes Area
Page 44 of 48
Rock Creek and Convict Creek Area
Page 45 of 48
Bishop Creek Area
Page 46 of 48
Whitney Portal Area
Page 47 of 48
Kern Plateau Area
