Bison Management EA · spp. species SSC Species of Special Concern SWFL southwestern willow...

Final

May 2015

Acronyms and Abbreviations

% percent

ac acre(s)

ARTO arroyo toad

BMA Bison Migration Area

BRFI Brodiaea filifolia

CAGN Coastal California Gnatcatcher

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CI chemical immobilization

CNPS California Native Plant Society

CRPR California Rare Plant Rank

CSS coastal sage scrub (Diegan)

DNA deoxyribonucleic acid

EA Environmental Assessment

EO Executive Order

ES Environmental Security

ESA Endangered Species Act

ft feet

GIS Geographic Information System

GnRH gonadotropin-releasing hormone

ha hectare(s)

INRMP Integrated Natural Resources

Management Plan

IUCN International Union for

Conservation of Nature

kg kilogram(s)

km kilometer(s)

km2 square kilometer(s)

lb pound(s)

LBVI Least Bell’s Vireo

m meter(s)

MCB Marine Corps Base

mi2 square mile(s)

mtDNA mitochondrial DNA

N/A not applicable

NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NNG Non-native Grassland

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

PZP porcine zona pellucida

RCUZ Range Compatible Use Zone

RFS Riverside Fairy Shrimp

RSZ Range Safety Zone

SCM Special Conservation Measure

SD standard deviation

SDFS San Diego Fairy Shrimp

SKR Stephens’ kangaroo rat

SMR Santa Margarita River

spp. species

SSC Species of Special Concern

SWFL southwestern willow flycatcher

U.S. United States

USC U.S. Code

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

USMC U.S. Marine Corps

VNG Valley Needlegrass Grassland

WL Watch List

Bison Management EA Final May 2015

A-1

Final

BISON MANAGEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLETON

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Lead Agency for the EA: United States Marine Corps

Title of Proposed Action: Bison Management

Designation: Environmental Assessment

Abstract

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 United States Code §§ 4321-4370h), Council on

Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 Code of

Federal Regulations Parts 1500-1508), and United States Marine Corps (USMC) procedures for

implementing NEPA, as described in Marine Corps Order P5090.2A, Change 3, Environmental

Compliance and Protection Manual (Chapter 12, 26 August 2013). The proposed action area is located at

Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton, situated approximately 40 miles (64 kilometers) north of the

City of San Diego, California. The USMC proposes to manage the non-native wild herd of plains bison

living on MCB Camp Pendleton. This EA analyzes the potential impacts to training/operations and land

use, biological resources, and public health and safety.

Prepared By: United States Marine Corps

Point of Contact: Department of the Navy

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest

Attention: Ryan Maynard

Community/NEPA Planner

1220 Pacific Highway

San Diego, California 92132-5190

E-mail: [email protected]

Telephone: (619) 532-3728

May 2015


ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The United States (U.S.) Marine Corps (USMC) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 United States

Code §§ 4321-4370h), Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the procedural

provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1500-1508), and USMC procedures for

implementing NEPA, as described in Marine Corps Order P5090.2A, Change 3, Environmental

Compliance and Protection Manual (Chapter 12, 26 August 2013).

The USMC proposes to manage the existing non-native wild herd of plains bison living on Marine Corps

Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton, situated approximately 40 miles (64 kilometers) north of the City of San

Diego, California. This EA analyzes the potential impacts to training/operations and land use, biological

resources, and public health and safety from bison management.

The bison herd descended from 14 founding animals donated by the San Diego Zoo that were released

between 1973 and 1979. As of the fall of 2011, the herd had grown to approximately 120 animals. MCB

Camp Pendleton’s bison population will likely continue to increase in the foreseeable future because the

bison herd has ample forage within the grassland habitats on MCB Camp Pendleton, bison have no

effective predators, and there are few incidental bison mortalities.

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to manage the bison herd. The Proposed Action is needed to

prevent mission impacts by minimizing the number of lost training days due to training range closure

associated with bison movement; reduce the risk of injury to military/civilian personnel as a result of

vehicle collisions and encounters with bison; and minimize adverse impacts to native and non-native

grasslands from overgrazing. As the herd continues to grow, the potential for mission conflicts,

bison/human interactions, and overgrazing could increase.

The Proposed Action would incorporate various tools to address bison herd growth as conditions warrant

over time and would provide MCB Camp Pendleton the flexibility to implement a variety of management

tools as future technologies develop or as training needs arise, in support of the MCB Camp Pendleton

mission.

In accordance with NEPA, this EA provides a focused analysis of the resource areas potentially affected

by implementation of two action alternatives and the No-Action Alternative: training/operations and land

use, biological resources, and public health and safety. Table ES-1 presents a summary of the potential

environmental consequences for each resource area from implementation of two action alternatives and

the No-Action Alternative.

Table ES-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No-Action Alternative

Training/Operations and Land Use ◑ ◑ ◑

Biological Resources

Public Health and Safety + +

Notes: + = Beneficial but less than significant impacts; ◑ = Less than significant impacts; = Negligible impacts;

= Adverse but less than significant impacts.


i

Final

BISON MANAGEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLETON

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................... Inside Front Cover

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. A-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. ES-1

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................. 1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 1-4

1.4 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................ 1-4

1.5 REGULATORY SETTING .......................................................................................................... 1-5

1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE EA .................................................................................................... 1-5

CHAPTER 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ..................................................... 2-1

2.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 EXISTING BISON MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................ 2-1

2.2.1 Range ......................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.2 Movement Corridors ................................................................................................. 2-3

2.2.3 Grazing ...................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.4 Water Supply ............................................................................................................. 2-4

2.2.5 Genetics ..................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.2.6 Herd Diversity ........................................................................................................... 2-5

2.3 ACTION ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................ 2-6

2.3.1 Screening Criteria ...................................................................................................... 2-6

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS ......................... 2-6

2.4.1 Fencing ...................................................................................................................... 2-6

2.4.2 Installation of Temporary or Permanent Bison Facility ............................................ 2-7

2.5 ACTION ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................... 2-10

2.5.1 Alternative 1 – Implement Bison Herd Management Plan ..................................... 2-12

2.5.2 Alternative 2 – Eliminate Bison Herd Over Time ................................................... 2-14

2.6 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................. 2-14

2.7 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................... 2-16

2.8 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................................... 2-16

2.9 SPECIAL CONSERVATION MEASURES ................................................................................... 2-16

2.9.1 SCMs by Resource Area ......................................................................................... 2-16

2.10 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................... 2-17


ii

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES ..................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 TRAINING/OPERATIONS AND LAND USE ................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.1 Definition of the Resource ........................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.2 Affected Environment ............................................................................................... 3-3

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................... 3-6

3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 3-7

3.2.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................................. 3-7

3.2.2 Affected Environment ............................................................................................... 3-8

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................. 3-20 3.3 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY .............................................................................................. 3-23

3.3.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 3-23

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................. 3-23

CHAPTER 4 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS BY NEPA ................................................................ 4-1

4.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-1

4.1.2 Past, Present, And Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ................................................. 4-1

4.1.3 Potential Cumulative Impacts by Environmental Resource Area ............................. 4-4

4.2 POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE ACTION AND THE OBJECTIVES OF FEDERAL,

REGIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS ..................................... 4-5

4.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES .................................... 4-6

4.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND LONG-TERM

PRODUCTIVITY ....................................................................................................................... 4-6

4.5 MEANS TO MITIGATE AND/OR MONITOR ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................. 4-6

4.6 ANY PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED AND

ARE NOT AMENABLE TO MITIGATION ................................................................................... 4-6

CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 5-1

CHAPTER 6 LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................. 6-1

CHAPTER 7 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED .......................................................... 7-1

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Public Participation Process Documentation .......................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B Bison Herd Management Plan .................................................................................. B-1

APPENDIX C Results of Residual Dry Matter Surveys ................................................................. C-1


iii

List of Figures

Figure Page

1-1 MCB Camp Pendleton Location Map ........................................................................................... 1-2

1-2 Bison Migration Area ................................................................................................................... 1-3

2-1 Bison Sightings in the Vicinity of the Bison Migration Area ....................................................... 2-2

2-2 Potential Bison Facility Locations 1 and 2 in Southern Zulu Training Area ................................ 2-8

2-3 Potential Bison Facility Locations 3 and 4 in Delta and Echo Training Areas ............................. 2-9

3-1 Training/Operations and Land Use within the Bison Migration Area .......................................... 3-4

3-2 Number of Bison Complaints by Year (2003-2013) ..................................................................... 3-5

3-3 Vegetation within the Bison Migration Area ................................................................................ 3-9

3-4 Aquatic Habitats within the Bison Migration Area .................................................................... 3-13

3-5 Bison Herd Growth Rate on Base from 1979 to 2011 ................................................................ 3-14

3-6 Federally Listed Species within the Bison Migration Area ........................................................ 3-16

4-1 Cumulative Projects in the Vicinity of the Bison Migration Area ................................................ 4-3

List of Tables

Table Page

ES-1 Summary of Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... ES-1

1-1 Environmental Requirements and Guidance Documents ............................................................. 1-5

2-1 Summary of Management Practices under Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and No-Action

Alternative .................................................................................................................................. 2-11

2-2 Alternative 1 Management Tools ................................................................................................ 2-12

2-3 Summary of Anticipated Effectiveness of Proposed Bison Herd Management Tools ............... 2-15

2-4 Summary of Management Tools under Each Alternative ........................................................... 2-16

2-5 Summary of Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 2-17

3-1 Plant Communities Acreages within the Bison Migration Area ................................................. 3-10

3-2 Bison Population Data and Calculated Growth Rates at MCB Camp Pendleton ....................... 3-12

3-3 Federally Listed or Candidate Plant and Animal Species Known to Occur or Potentially

Occurring in the Bison Migration Area ...................................................................................... 3-15

3-4 Non-Listed Special Status Wildlife Species Likely to Occur in the Bison Migration Area ....... 3-19

3-5 Special Status Plant Species Likely to Occur in the Bison Migration Area ............................... 3-20

4-1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects ..................................................................... 4-2

4-2 Status of Compliance of Alternatives 1 and 2 with Relevant Land Use Plans, Policies, and

Controls ......................................................................................................................................... 4-5


1-1

CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The United States (U.S.) Marine Corps (USMC) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S. Code

[USC] §§ 4321-4370h), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the

procedural provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and USMC

procedures for implementing NEPA, as described in Marine Corps Order P5090.2A, Change 3,

Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual (Chapter 12, 26 August 2013).

This EA describes the environmental consequences of managing the non-native wild herd of plains bison

(Bison bison) living on Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton. Herd management would include

planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation to employ a suite of techniques to achieve stated

goals. Bison management would not impede the mission of MCB Camp Pendleton, which is to:

Operate an amphibious Base.

Promote the combat readiness of Marines and Sailors by providing necessary facilities and

services.

Support the deployment of the Fleet Marine Force and other organizations.

Provide support and services responsive to the needs of the Marines, Sailors, retirees, and

families aboard MCB Camp Pendleton.

The Proposed Action would incorporate various tools to address bison herd growth as conditions warrant

over time and would provide MCB Camp Pendleton the flexibility to implement a variety of management

tools as future technologies develop or as training needs arise, in support of the MCB Camp Pendleton

mission. This EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts of management of the bison herd.

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION

The project is located on MCB Camp Pendleton, the USMC’s major amphibious training center for the

west coast (Figure 1-1). MCB Camp Pendleton encompasses approximately 125,000 acres (ac) (50,586

hectares [ha]) within the northern portion of San Diego County, approximately 40 miles (64 kilometers

[km]) north of the City of San Diego, California. MCB Camp Pendleton is bordered to the northwest by

Orange County, to the north by the Cleveland National Forest, to the east by the community of Fallbrook

and the Naval Weapons Station-Seal Beach/Fallbrook Annex, to the south by the City of Oceanside, and

to the west by the Pacific Ocean.

The 46,860-ac (18,964-ha) Bison Migration Area (BMA) is located east of Interstate 5, entirely within

MCB Camp Pendleton (Figure 1-2). The BMA represents the boundary of the grassland vegetation

(where it is not fragmented or isolated by roads, topography, and other vegetation communities) overlain

with historical bison sightings.

!"̂$

!"̂$

!"̂$

A³

A³

A³

A̧

A̧

ORANGE COUNTY

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

Vandegri f

tBou

levard

Fallbrook Creek

Basilone RoadBasilo n e Ro ad

SanMate

o Creek

Basilone Road

Vandeg r ift B oulevard

San Mate o Road

De Luz R oad

San ta

M arga

ritaRive

r

Coast Highway

Carlsbad Boulevard

DeLu

z Cre

ek

Doug lasDr

i ve

PalaRoad

Las Flores

Cree

k

MCB CAMP PENDLETON BOUNDARY

OCEANSIDE

Mission Rd.

FALLBROOK

City of Oceanside HarborDel Mar Jetty

LakeO'Neill

Cristi

anitos Road

CARLSBAD

Buena VistaCreek

Sa n Luis

Rey River

Oceanside Boulevard

VISTA

Vista Way

PAC I FI C O CE A N

Marine CorpsAir StationCamp Pendleton

CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST

Naval WeaponsStation Seal Beach

Detachment FallbrookEl Camino Real

Talega Road

Roblar Road

Stuart Mesa Road

LasPulg

asRoad

Case Springs Roa d

Jardi

neCa

nyon Road

North River Road

Rancho

Santa

Fe

San Mateo Canyon Road

Horno

CanyonRoad

Mission Road

El Camino Real

Talega Road

San Onofre Creek

Sandia Creek

?̧

ORANGECOUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

MCBCamp

Pendleton

RIVERSIDECOUNTY

!"a$

!"̂$

A³

A̧

!"̂$

O0 4 8

Kilometers

0 2 4Miles

Legend

MCB Camp PendletonCounty BoundaryRoad/HighwaySurface Water

Naval Weapons StationCleveland National Forest

!"̂$ Interstate HighwayA³ State Highway

Figure 1-1MCB Camp Pendleton Location Map

Source: MCB Camp Pendleton 2014b1-2


PAC IF I C OCE A N

!"̂$

A³

A̧

Naval WeaponsStation Seal Beach

Detachment Fallbrook


ORANGE COUNTY

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

Talega Road

Cri

stianit

osRo

ad

Basilone Road

Horno

Canyon Road

Las Pulga s R

oad

Jardi

ne Canyon Road Case Spring s RdRoblarRoad

Vandeg

r iftB

oulev

ard

De Luz Road

Douglas D

rive

Oceanside Boulevard

North River Road

San MateoCanyon Road

Stuart Mesa Road

El Camino Real

Basilone Road

LakeO'Neill


LegendBison Migration AreaMCB Camp PendletonNaval Weapons StationSurface Water

Training AreaHigh Hazard Impact AreaCleveland National Forest

!"̂$ Interstate Highway

A³ State Highway

Figure 1-2Bison Migration Area

0 2 4Miles

0 4 8KilometersO

ORANGECOUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

MCBCamp

Pendleton

RIVERSIDECOUNTY

!"a$

!"̂$

A³

A̧

!"̂$

Source: MCB Camp Pendleton 2014b


1-3


1-4

1.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND

Bison are not native to the San Diego area. The non-native wild herd of plains bison currently living on

Base descended from 14 founding animals donated by the San Diego Zoo that were released between

1973 and 1979. As of fall 2011, the herd had grown to approximately 120 animals (MCB Camp

Pendleton 2015). The herd was approved to be received by Major General Herman Poggemeyer, the

Commanding General of the Base at that time, because the Base had enough available grazing land to

help the zoo with its overcrowding issues. The bison were arranged to be released in the Case Springs

area by William Taylor, the Base’s first Grazing and Farming Manager (Irions 2012). Bison have been

continuously observed grazing in several training areas and throughout the high hazard impact area since

their release (Photo 1).

Photo 1. Bison Grazing on MCB Camp Pendleton as Viewed from Jardine

Canyon Road, Looking West into the Quebec Impact Area, 2008 Source: J.L. Asmus. Wildlife Biologist, MCB Camp Pendleton 2012a.

MCB Camp Pendleton’s bison population will likely continue to increase in the foreseeable future

because there is ample forage within the grassland habitats on MCB Camp Pendleton, there are no

effective predators, and there are few incidental mortalities. As the herd grows, more conflicts could

occur including training disruption, threats to human safety (e.g., vehicle strikes), and negative ecological

impacts.

1.4 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to manage the bison herd. The Proposed Action is needed to:

Prevent mission impacts by minimizing the amount of lost training time due to range disruption

and closure associated with bison movement.

Minimize adverse impacts of overgrazing to native and non-native grassland habitats.

Reduce the risk of injury to military/civilian personnel as a result of vehicle collisions and

encounters with bison.


1-5

1.5 REGULATORY SETTING

The preparation of this EA is based on, but not limited to, the environmental requirements and guidance

documents presented in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1. Environmental Requirements and Guidance Documents

Title Citation

Statues and Regulations

CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508

Endangered Species Act, as amended 16 USC §§ 1531-1544

Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual Marine Corps Order P5090.2A, Change 3,

26 August 2013

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 16 USC §§ 703-712

NEPA 42 USC §§ 4321-4370h

Sikes Improvement Act 16 USC §§ 670-670f

Executive Orders (EOs)

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands 42 Federal Register 26961

EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks 62 Federal Register 19883

EO 13112, Invasive Species and Soil and Water Conservation Act 64 Federal Register 6183

EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect

Migratory Birds 66 Federal Register 3853

EO 13443, Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife

Conservation 72 Federal Register 46535

1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE EA

Chapter 1 of this EA describes the background and purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. Chapter

2 describes the Proposed Action and alternatives. Chapter 3 provides a description of the affected

environment and the potential environmental consequences to each environmental resource area with the

implementation of each alternative. Chapter 4 addresses cumulative impacts and other NEPA

considerations (e.g., irreversible or irretrievable commitment of natural or depletable resources). Chapter

5 contains all references, and Chapter 6 presents the list of preparers and their qualifications. Chapter 7

presents persons contacted during preparation of this document. The appendices contain additional

information such as details of the Public Participation Process (Appendix A), Bison Herd Management

Plan (Appendix B), and Results of Residual Dry Matter Surveys (Appendix C) prepared in support of this

EA.


2-1

CHAPTER 2

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

This chapter describes the Proposed Action and alternatives. The Proposed Action is to more actively

manage the wild non-native bison herd on MCB Camp Pendleton to minimize impacts to the MCB Camp

Pendleton mission. Existing bison management on Base has allowed the bison herd to increase in size and

to roam and graze freely over a large, undeveloped area of MCB Camp Pendleton, where bison grazing is

compatible with the Base’s natural resource stewardship, and where conflicts with training have

historically been infrequent and manageable. The Proposed Action is needed to prevent mission impacts;

reduce the risk of injury to military/civilian personnel as a result of vehicle collisions and encounters with

bison; and to minimize adverse impacts to native and non-native grasslands from overgrazing.

As the herd continues to grow, the potential for mission conflicts, bison/human interactions, and

overgrazing could increase. Therefore, more active bison management in the future would include

contingencies to minimize the loss of training days, the potential for dangerous bison/human interactions,

and to limit the maximum size of the herd to a level that is ecologically sustainable. This EA analyzes the

potential impacts of continuing existing bison management practices and future, more active, bison

management at MCB Camp Pendleton.

2.2 EXISTING BISON MANAGEMENT

The bison herd now ranges freely on MCB Camp Pendleton. Since their introduction in 1973, bison have

not been formally managed, contained, or been given veterinary care or nutritional supplements. Existing

practices related to the bison herd are limited to activities to prevent conflict with the Base’s training

mission, such as moving bison off active training ranges when ranges are in use and measuring costs and

lost time associated with bison-training range conflicts. Other management actions have included

performing herd counts, tracking of herd growth rate, genetic analysis, and euthanizing injured animals.

MCB Camp Pendleton also conducts forage surveys and maintains wildlife guzzlers (water sources) that

bison and other wildlife use.

2.2.1 Range

Bison have generally been observed north of Basilone Road, no closer than 328 feet (ft) (100 meters [m])

to cantonment areas (Figure 2-1). They graze within impact areas and training areas and are most often

observed in the following areas: Delta/Echo Training Areas, and the Quebec, Whiskey, and Zulu Impact

Areas. They use the north fork of San Onofre Canyon and fire breaks for transit between hills and valleys.

Bison generally occur in grasslands although individuals have been observed to enter wooded areas; they

have not been sighted in chaparral (MCB Camp Pendleton 1989). These findings were confirmed through

aerial surveys conducted by MCB Camp Pendleton Game Wardens in 2011.

The only study of bison on MCB Camp Pendleton was prepared in 1989 (MCB Camp Pendleton 1989).

At that time, the estimated home range of the herd was 32 square miles (mi2) (83 square km [km2]) in

size. This area included canyons, impact areas, and unusable habitat, as well as about 12 mi2 (31 km2) of

grassland; however, the study appeared to exclude the grasslands in the southern Zulu Impact Area.

CaseSprings

Zulu Impact Area

Whiskey Impact AreaQuebec

Impact Area

South Fork San Onofre Canyon

Jardi

ne C

anyo

n

Las Pulgas Lake

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

PA C I F I C O C E A N



409A Impact Area

FinchTraining Area

DeltaTraining Area

EchoTraining Area

IndiaTraining Area

Kilo TwoTraining Area

Kilo OneTraining Area

Yankee Impact Area

X-Ray Impact Area

LFAM800

Alpha One!(1

!(1

!(3!(4

!(19!(4

!(5!(2

!(7

!(3

!(16!(11!(5

!(6!(8

!(2

!(1

!(4

!(1

!(1!(1

!(1

!(1

!(2

!(2!(14

!(1!(5

!(6!(24

!(1

!(1

!(1 !(2!(2

!(1!(1!(1!(1

!(1

!(1!(1!(1

!(1!(1!(1

Basi lone Road

Jardin

e Canyon

Road

San Mat eo Road

SanMateo

Canyon Road

Horno Cany

onRoad

LasPulg

asRoad

Roblar Roa d

Talega Road

El Camino Real

Stuart Mesa Road

Case Springs Road

Fallbrook C

reek

LasF

lores

Cree

k

Sant

a Mar

garit

a Rive

r

Sant

aMarg

ar it a

R iver

San Mateo Creek

San Onofre Creek!(5!(1

!(8

!(6

!(4!(1

!(2

!(1

!(5

!(1

!(2

!(35

!(2

!(1

!(1

!(1

!(1

!(2!(1

!(1!(4!(1

!(1

!(1

!(1

!(10!(3!(3

!(1

!(4!(31

!(6

!(6

Legend 2004200820092012Artillery Firing AreaHigh Hazard Impact AreaNon-dudded Impact Area

Training AreaBison Migration AreaWhiskey Home RangeZulu Home RangeMCB Camp PendletonCantonment AreaCleveland National ForestSurface WaterFiring Line

Figure 2-1Bison Sightings in the Vicinity

of the Bison Migration Area

0 1 2Miles

0 2 4Kilometers O

ORANGECOUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

MCBCamp

Pendleton

RIVERSIDECOUNTY

!"a$

!"̂$

A³E

A̧

!"̂$ 2

2

Number of Bison SightedDuring Fall Aerial Surveys


2

2


2-2


2-3

In 2012, the 1989 sighting information was combined with survey results obtained during the fall seasons

of 2004, 2008, and 2009 to identify areas commonly used by bison. MCB Camp Pendleton’s Geographic

Information System (GIS) vegetation data layer was used to identify grasslands that may be suitable

grazing habitat.1 The current home range size estimate is 33 mi2 (85.5 km2) and is divided into two main

home range areas (Whiskey and Zulu) within the overall BMA (refer to Figure 2-1).

2.2.2 Movement Corridors

Bison tend to occupy the hills located in the eastern portion of MCB Camp Pendleton. The eastern hills

have more standing water in the ponds and stream beds and there is less human activity than in the low-

lying western areas (MCB Camp Pendleton 1989). Bison do not often cross into U.S. Forest Service lands

(i.e., Cleveland National Forest) north of the Base due to steep terrain and lack of suitable forage.

Portions of the training areas and impact areas are fenced for personnel safety, but the majority is

unfenced and the bison’s range is unrestricted. General movement corridors have been ascertained by

tracing the paths of large animal trails visible on aerial photo surveys. This has determined that there are

two known corridors used by bison to move from the lower, southern impact areas up to the plateau

within Echo and Delta Training Areas (Figure 2-1). To determine precise movement corridors, bison

would need to be collared and tracked using global positioning system radio collars over a period of time.

2.2.3 Grazing

The paramount task for bison grazing management on Base is to ensure that grazing consumption does

not disrupt the native species present on Base by exceeding the carrying capacity of the available

grasslands. Carrying capacity (i.e., grazing capacity) is the number of bison that can be sustainably grazed

in the grasslands without damaging the ecological function of the vegetation community or natural

resources. The bison herd may provide ecological value such as grazing within a grassland ecosystem that

needs disturbance to thrive and remain ecologically robust. The carrying capacity is limited by annual

forage production, which, in turn, is determined by factors such as soil type, species of forage plants, and

local climate. To prevent the bison herd from exceeding the carrying capacity, and thereby potentially

degrading Base natural resources and training, resulting in impacts to the mission of MCB Camp

Pendleton, the herd size should be limited to a maximum of 350 animals (MCB Camp Pendleton 2015).

The carrying capacity of 350 bison was determined using the following calculation of forage production.

Forage production surveys performed on Base in 2011 and 2012 concur with forage productivity

estimates provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) through the Soil Data Mart.

The NRCS estimates of annual forage production range from 1,200 to 3,000 pounds (lbs)/ac) (1,300

kilograms [kg]/ha to 3,300 kg/ha) in unfavorable and favorable production years, respectively, for soil

types occurring on Base. Estimates of annual forage production were 2,761 lbs/ac (3,018 kg/ha) (standard

deviation [SD] = 935) in 2011 and 2,201 lbs/ac (2,406 kg/ha) (SD = 521) in 2012 (MCB Camp Pendleton

2015). As noted in the Bison Herd Management Plan (Appendix B), to conserve plant biomass in the

grasslands, the estimated total of annual forage production is reduced by 1,400 lbs/ac (1,500 kg/ha). The

area of grasslands likely to be grazed is estimated to be 13,212 ac (5,347 ha). Based on estimated forage

production in 2012 (2,201 lbs/ac [2,406 kg/ha]), and accounting for the forage reduction to conserve plant

biomass (1,400 lbs/ac [1,500 kg/ha]), the bison grazing allotment for 2012 was approximately 10.6

1 The current estimated size of the bison home range was supported using the Kernel Density Estimation method.

Kernel Density Estimation relied upon data from aerial surveys and interpolated the number of bison found in a 1-

mi2 (2.6-km2) search area from each bison point to validate the GIS/grassland estimate. A similar result was also

obtained using the Local Convex Hull algorithm (Wayne Getz Lab 2005) for estimating the home range.


2-4

million lbs (4.8 million kg) of forage (i.e., 13,212 ac x [2,201 lbs/ac - 1,400 lbs/ac] = 10,582,812 lbs)2.

The estimated number of bison on Base was 120 in fall 2011. That many animals would consume

approximately 1.7 million lbs (770,000 kg) of forage each year, which was approximately 16.3 percent

(%) of the estimated 2012 grazing capacity (MCB Camp Pendleton 2015). The 95% confidence interval

ranging from 6.0 to 15.2 million lbs (2.7 to 6.9 million kg) of available forage for 2012 indicated that the

bison herd may have consumed as little as 11.4% or as much as 29.0% of the available forage. Therefore,

the bison herd could triple in size without exceeding the grazing capacity.

The distribution of that grazing pressure within the BMA is not well known, although it may be

concentrated within Echo Training Area to southern Zulu Impact Area, where bison were regularly seen

during aerial surveys (refer to Figure 2-1). Verification of grazing pressure is problematic as access to the

southern Zulu Impact Area is restricted.

2.2.4 Water Supply

Sources of water serve as focal points for bison activity. This is evident from the density of the dung near

Case Springs and the frequency that the animals were observed in that general area. However, during the

17-month bison survey concluding in 1989 during which the bison were located, tracked, and observed

intermittently, the bison were rarely seen drinking or spending more than a few seconds drinking.

Therefore, it is assumed that bison utilize other water sources in addition to Case Springs. Bison use of

Las Pulgas Lake is infrequent (MCB Camp Pendleton 1989).

Guzzlers are provided and maintained by MCB Camp Pendleton as a supplemental water source for bison

and other wildlife at numerous locations across the Base. Guzzlers are storage tanks that are specifically

designed to collect rain water and/or automatically refill with groundwater, but they can also be manually

filled by a water truck. Lack of water can cause animals to move out of an area, so guzzlers are

particularly useful during the warm, dry summer months when water is sparse. There are two types of

guzzlers on MCB Camp Pendleton, one for small animals and one for large animals. The small animal

guzzlers do not hold an adequate volume of water to be a reliable water source for the bison. Photo 2

shows a bison investigating one of the self-filling fiberglass guzzlers designed for use by small animals.

2.2.5 Genetics

By the late 19th century, bison populations had been reduced to two small wild populations in

Yellowstone National Park and Canada. A number of bison were also scattered among zoos and private

cattle ranches. Ranchers had bred bison with domestic cattle in an effort to make a more tame disease-

resistant production animal. This hybridization across species is detectable in most bison, where genetic

analysis identifies the cattle genes within the bison genome, and is referred to as “cattle gene

introgression.” Introgression may result in the loss of an animals’ ability to adapt and cope with extreme

environmental conditions, which could ultimately result in their extinction. With the exception of the

Yellowstone National Park bison herd, most herds in the U.S. have some level of introgression (Robbins

2007; Derr et al. 2012).

2 For metric units: 5,347 ha x (2,406 kg/ha – 1,500 kg/ha) = 4,844,382 kg.


2-5

Photo 2. Bison at a Self-filling Fiberglass Guzzler

Source: J.L. Asmus. Wildlife Biologist, MCB Camp Pendleton 2012a.

A genetic survey of the Base bison herd was conducted in 2008 and 2009 by Texas A&M University.

Two testing methods, microsatellite3 and mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) (mtDNA)4

analysis, were performed on bison blood, nasal, and hair samples. Results from 10 tested animals showed

no evidence of cattle gene introgression (Derr 2010).

In 2011, as a follow-up to the Derr (2010) study, researchers at the University of Missouri conducted a

more sensitive test for the presence of cattle gene introgression (Schnabel 2011). The University of

Missouri conducted a Bovine SNP50 analysis on the DNA of a young bull bison from the MCB Camp

Pendleton herd. Results of DNA testing confirmed the presence of cattle genes, although at a level lower

than what was found in other herds (Schnabel 2011). The presence of cattle gene introgression in the MCB

Camp Pendleton herd is one of many factors to be evaluated before relocating bison from MCB Camp

Pendleton if relocation is selected as a bison management action (refer to Section 2.5.1). If further testing

confirms that the Base herd has a low rate of cattle gene introgression relative to other bison herds, then

that factor alone should not greatly limit the choice of receiver herds.

2.2.6 Herd Diversity

With the exception of the Yellowstone National Park herd, no existing bison herd is large enough to retain

adequate genetic variation. A bison population would need more than 1,000 animals to maintain genetic

diversity without active management (International Union for Conservation of Natures [IUCN] 2010). As

noted in Section 2.2.3, due to grazing pressures, it is not feasible to allow the herd on MCB Camp

Pendleton to reach this size. Unfortunately, smaller herds may lack sufficient genetic diversity, and are at

3Microsatellites are repeating sequences of portions of DNA. They are used as molecular markers in genetics for kinship,

population, and other studies.

4Mitochondrial DNA is DNA located in organelles called mitochondria, structures within cells that convert the chemical energy

from food into a form that cells can use. Most other DNA is found in the cell nucleus. Unlike nuclear DNA, that is a

combination of genetic material from both parents, mtDNA is inherited solely from the mother. Because of the maternal

inheritance, mtDNA remains virtually unchanged across generations along female lines. Changes in mtDNA arise via random

mutations that occur when mitochondria replicate and divide. The rate of mtDNA mutation is higher than that of nuclear DNA.

Because of this, mtDNA is a powerful tool for tracking ancestry through females and has been used to track the ancestry of

many species back hundreds of generations based on the frequency of shared mutations.


2-6

an increased risk of inbreeding depression, which can reduce long-term survival and reproductive fitness

of individuals.

2.3 ACTION ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT

The following process was used to identify action alternatives for analysis in this EA. First, the project

team identified screening criteria that captured the range of elements each alternative must address to

meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. The project team then identified possible

reasonable alternatives that would meet as many of the screening criteria as possible and then compared

the alternatives based on their fulfillment of the criteria. The outcome of this analysis was the

identification of those alternatives that met all of the screening criteria (and were therefore carried

forward for full analysis in this EA), and those alternatives considered but eliminated from analysis (as

they failed to meet all of the screening criteria). This process ensured that the EA identified those

alternatives that are considered technically practical or feasible and would meet the purpose of and need

for the Proposed Action.

The following sections present the screening criteria, the alternatives considered but eliminated, the

alternatives carried forward for analysis in the EA, and a comparison of the components of each

alternative.

2.3.1 Screening Criteria

Five screening criteria were developed for assessing whether a possible alternative would meet the

purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. Possible alternatives were evaluated based on their ability

to meet the following screening criteria:

1. Alternatives should not conflict with the MCB Camp Pendleton mission of promoting combat

readiness.

2. Alternatives should allow for the entire anticipated range of training events and for expansion of

operations to train on future platforms.

3. Alternatives should prevent over-grazing of grasslands.

4. Alternatives should minimize risk or injury to people from bison.

5. Alternatives should provide the ability to control the size of the bison herd.

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

2.4.1 Fencing

To reduce impacts to training, an alternative that included installation of a permanent fence to exclude

bison from the Basilone Road area was considered. However, a bison fence that excluded bison from

Basilone Road would impact the MCB Camp Pendleton mission by limiting training movement. This

alternative was eliminated because it would conflict with the MCB Camp Pendleton mission and because

it would not provide management tools to control the size of the herd. Photo 3 shows an example of a

typical bison fence.


2-7

Photo 3. Example of a Typical Bison Fence

Source: www.mozeyoninn.com

2.4.2 Installation of Temporary or Permanent Bison Facility

An alternative that included the installation of a 2.5-ac (1-ha) facility to support bison management was

considered. The Bison Facility would incorporate bison pens and chutes, a corral system, holding

pastures, and associated infrastructure for holding and processing bison.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Bison Facility would be located in previously disturbed or low-

value vegetation types such as non-native grassland, be accessible by an existing road, and would be sited

to minimize impacts to training/operations, sensitive resources, and open water. The Bison Facility would

be located within the bison home range to facilitate roundups. Four locations that met these basic

requirements were considered for a temporary or permanent Bison Facility. Two potential locations are

located in southern Zulu Training Area, one is located in Echo Training Area, and one is located in Delta

Training Area (Figures 2-2 and 2-3).

The Base recognizes that corralling bison at a Bison Facility is a commonly used and successful method

to manage bison throughout the U.S.; however, management via the corralling method would conflict

with the Base’s training mission. At this time, suitable locations are not available on MCB Camp

Pendleton to accommodate a Bison Facility due to the significant length of time it would encumber a

training area to capture the bison. This alternative does not fit the purpose and need of minimizing bison

related conflicts with the Base's training mission. Therefore, installation of a temporary or permanent

bison facility was eliminated from further consideration.

Las P

ulgas

Cany

on

Aliso

Cany

on

Location 1 Area within which a

2.5-acre bison facility could be located

Finch

Z U L U I M P A C T A R E A

AFA 18

Drop Z

one W

ildEa

gle

Location 2 Area within which a

2.5-acre bison facility could be located

KILO ONE

X - R A Y I M P A C T A R E A

INDIA

KILO ONE

Basilone Road

Range 407 Roa d

Robla

r Roa

d

Whitet a

il Ro ad

Alv a rezRoad

West India T ru ck Tr ail

Black Bear Road

Las Pu

lgas R

oad

Cone Hill Road

Las Pulg

asTa

nkTra i

l

Del Valle Street

Las Pulgas Tank Trail

400

200

6 00

8 00

6 00

4 00 60

0

40 0

600

800

600

400

8 0 0

200

600

40 0

400

600

600

600

6 00

60 06 00

400

800

Figure 2-2Potential Bison Facility Locations

1 and 2 in Southern Zulu Training Area

LegendPotential Search Area fora 2.5-acre Bison Facility'04-'05 Bison Sightings'08-'09 Bison Sightings200-ft ContourHigh Hazard Impact AreaNon-dudded Impact Area

Firing LineTraining AreaArtillery Firing AreaExisting StructureRoadStreamGuzzler Locations

O0 0.25 0.5

Miles

0 0.5 1Kilometers

ORANGECOUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

MCBCamp

Pendleton

RIVERSIDECOUNTY

!"a$

!"̂$

A³

A̧

!"̂$



2-8

Echo

Delta

SeasonalFire Station

Cas e Springs Road

Case Springs

Location 4Area within which

a 2.5-acre bison facilitycould be located

Location 3Area within which

a 2.5-acre bison facilitycould be located

North Fo rk San Onofre Creek


Case Springs

Whiskey Impact Area

LFAM 800ImpactArea

2200

2400

2000

1800

1600

2600

2800

Figure 2-3Potential Bison Facility Locations

3 and 4 in the Delta and EchoTraining Areas

LegendPotential Search Area for aa 2.5-acre Bison FacilityTraining AreaWetland'08-'09 Bison Sightings200-ft ContourFiring Line

High hazard Impact AreaNon-dudded Impact AreaArtillery Firing AreaMCB Camp PendletonCleveland National ForestRoadStream

O0 0.25 0.5

Miles

0 0.5 1Kilometers

ORANGECOUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

MCBCamp

Pendleton

RIVERSIDECOUNTY

!"a$

!"̂$

A³

A̧

!"̂$



2-9


2-10

2.5 ACTION ALTERNATIVES

The USMC has identified two action alternatives for analysis in this EA: Alternative 1 and Alternative 2

(A third alternative, the No-Action Alternative, is also analyzed in this EA in Section 2.6). Alternatives 1

and 2 include the same management tools. The difference is that Alternative 1 would implement a Bison

Herd Management Plan (Appendix B) that would allow MCB Camp Pendleton natural resources

personnel to adapt to changing conditions while addressing herd health, genetic diversity, and grazing

pressure through the use of management tools such as contraception, relocation, sharpshooting, and

hunting to manage and sustain the herd. Alternative 2 would allow MCB Camp Pendleton to eliminate the

herd entirely using the same management tools as Alternative 1.

Requirements of implementing the Proposed Action are the same for both action alternatives and include

the following bison management practices:

1. MCB Camp Pendleton Game Warden biological staff would consult with veterinary professionals

and San Diego County Veterinary Services to respond to serious diseases that are detected as part

of routine monitoring. Game Warden biological staff would consult with veterinarians and

California Department of Food and Agriculture to determine which diseases should be screened

based on the level of bison management actions such as capture and relocation versus basic

disease monitoring of sick and injured bison.

2. Game Warden biological staff would conduct disease screening on bison as they are captured for

relocation, euthanized, or harvested. Game Warden biological staff would disclose evidence of

reportable diseases to San Diego County Veterinary Services within 24 hours.

3. Game Warden biological staff would conduct springtime forage production surveys, as funding

allows, within grasslands adjacent to the impact areas to estimate averages of annual forage

production. They would calculate how much forage the bison herd would likely consume based

on recent results of herd surveys. Forage production surveys would cease after 5 years of

sampling.

4. Game Warden biological staff would conduct residual dry matter surveys, as funding allows, in

the fall to estimate the relative effects of bison grazing during the recent growing season and to

monitor for signs of overgrazing. Residual dry matter surveys would cease after 5 years of

sampling.

5. Game Warden staff would perform helicopter surveys every second year, as funding allows, to

estimate the size of the bison herd and record the locations of bison. Surveys would perform a

simple count of all bison observed on Base.

6. Game Warden staff would record incidental observations and reports of bison when they are

present in training areas outside impact areas including observations at Echo, Finch, and India

training areas. Incidental records would include age, class, and sex information that may be used

in describing bison herd demographics.

7. Game Warden staff would document reports of bison traffic incidents and bison-vehicle-collision

incidents. Records of conflicts would include location, time, date, a brief description of the

incident, and the action taken/outcome.

8. The Range Control Office would document reports of training conflicts with bison. Records of

conflicts would include location, time, date, and a brief description of the conflict, training time

lost, number of Marines affected, and the action taken.


2-11

9. Chemical immobilization (CI) (anesthetic injection) of bison would be limited to the cool winter

months to prevent overheating, hypoxemia, regurgitating rumen contents, and mortality in bison.

10. If a bison were to die due to CI, its carcass would not be left in place to decompose because its

tissues would be toxic to scavenging animals.

11. Specifically identified bison may be killed to reduce the rate of herd growth through

sharpshooting. Sharpshooting would use non-lead ammunition. Animals killed by a sharpshooter

would be left to decompose in place as a resource for scavengers.

12. Contracted bison workers with experience in bison handling would be hired to conduct roundup

for capture and transport of selected bison for relocation. A contractor education program would

be implemented to ensure that the contractor(s) and all bison workers are fully informed of

training range safety procedures and sensitive resources within the vicinity.

13. Game Warden biological or veterinary staff would vaccinate bison against disease during

processing after capture. Recommendations would be provided by a veterinarian that is

experienced with bison for the specific vaccinations administered.

14. When bison are captured for relocation, preference would be given to those organizations that

intend to use the bison for conservation purposes, and that would pay for the capture and

relocation of bison from Base.

15. Game Warden staff would implement a hunting program similar to the deer hunting program that

already exists on Base. If hunting were to occur, DNA and tissue samples would be collected to

screen for disease to monitor herd health.

Several of the Proposed Action practices listed above are currently being utilized and would continue as

part of the No-Action Alternative (Table 2-1).

Table 2-1. Summary of Management Practices under

Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and No-Action Alternative Management

Practice

Alternative 1 and

Alternative 2

No-Action

Alternative

1 Yes No

2 Yes No

3 Yes Yes

4 Yes Yes

5 Yes Yes

6 Yes Yes

7 Yes Yes

8 Yes Yes

9 Yes N/A

10 Yes N/A

11 Yes N/A

12 Yes N/A

13 Yes N/A

14 Yes N/A

15 Yes No

Notes: Yes = included, No = not included, N/A = not applicable.


2-12

2.5.1 Alternative 1 – Implement Bison Herd Management Plan

Under Alternative 1, the USMC would implement a Bison Herd Management Plan. The Bison Herd

Management Plan (Appendix B) describes the management actions required to successfully manage and

sustain a small herd of bison on Base. As the number of bison on Base continues to increase, this plan

identifies the timing and action that would be used to limit the herd’s size. Successfully implementing the

steps in the plan would promote a sustainably sized bison herd while minimizing disruptions to military

training. The Bison Herd Management Plan describes goals, objectives, monitoring metrics, and triggers

that require management response which include the use of management techniques or tools such as

contraception, relocation, sharpshooting, and hunting. It is not known precisely where these management

techniques would be used. Therefore, presentation of these tools is general; however, all management

parameters (i.e., conditions under which certain actions would take place) and monitoring protocols

would be consistent with the Bison Herd Management Plan (Appendix B). Table 2-2 lists the

management tools that would be employed through the Bison Herd Management Plan and provides a

brief description of their implementation requirements.

Table 2-2. Alternative 1 Management Tools

Management Tool Implementation Requirement

Contraception Veterinarian to oversee herd health and the administration of contraceptive injections.

Tagging and tracking of bison that received injections, including a monitoring system.

Relocation

Veterinarian to oversee administration of health screenings and vaccinations before

relocation.

Requires genetic testing and transportation costs.

Tagging and tracking of bison that received health screening and vaccinations before

relocation.

Sharpshooting

Requires qualified marksman or Base biological staff with sharpshooting skills to

ensure that bison are killed humanely.

Requires knowledge of herd demographics and well defined management goals.

Hunting Requires program administration similar to that currently used for deer hunting.

Factors that determine which management tools would be used include effectiveness of the method,

impacts to operations and training at MCB Camp Pendleton, carrying capacity, and herd health.

2.5.1.1 Contraception

Contraception is a non-lethal bison management tool involving the injection of bison with contraceptives

to limit reproduction. Injectable contraceptives currently used to control bison populations (off Base)

include porcine zona pellucida (PZP) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH).

PZP is injected into female bison and results in the distortion of the egg’s shape in such a way that sperm

cannot penetrate it, blocking fertilization. To maintain contraception effectiveness, the PZP vaccine needs

to be administered annually to female bison over the age of 2 years; however, depending on the goals of

bison management, not all females may be vaccinated annually. In some years, females may be allowed

to reproduce if it is decided to maintain the herd size at a certain level. The PZP injection has been used

successfully on Catalina Island by the Catalina Island Conservancy to manage bison since 2009 (Catalina

Island Conservancy 2011a).


2-13

The GnRH injection prevents the normal function of the ovaries and testes and their production of

progesterone and testosterone, respectively. Therefore, the GnRH injection can effectively prevent

reproduction by either females or males (Talwar 1985). The GnRH injection or treatment is generally

considered to provide temporary sterilization, because the reproductive activity of the target animal

returns as the GnRH antibody drops below a protective level. Currently, GnRH must be hand injected and

may not be used with remote darting equipment.

Important considerations in the development and implementation of a contraception management tool

include the following:

Method of administering the contraceptive

Scheduling of doses

Identification of treated individuals

Administration of contraceptive drugs and marking of the bison at MCB Camp Pendleton would be

accomplished remotely with a dart rifle or by hand (once bison are chemically immobilized).

2.5.1.2 Relocation

In addition to identifying one or more receiver herds, relocation would require the capture of bison,

medical screening, and compliance with all appropriate transportation guidelines. Receiver herds include

any of the publicly managed bison herds under federal, tribal, and state management, or potentially

private or non-profit conservation facilities. Relocation would need to be accomplished in stages over a

period of time as all bison cannot be captured at the same time because they do not occur within one

location on MCB Camp Pendleton. The Catalina Island Conservancy recommends baiting the animals

(Catalina Island Conservancy 2011b). Even if many are located in one area, that area may not be

accessible with traditional roundup methods. Baiting, helicopters, and ground vehicles would all be

considered possibilities during roundups. The frequency, timing, and method of roundups should be as

flexible as possible given the large potential for conflicting with training.

Repetitive roundups and capture (in preparation for processing and transfer of bison to transport vehicles)

would occur until the herd size has been reduced to a specified target population, or the herd has been

completely removed.

2.5.1.3 Sharpshooting

Sharpshooting involves the killing of specifically identified bison to reduce the rate of herd growth.

Sharpshooting would be accomplished by a qualified marksman or Base biological staff with

sharpshooting skills to ensure selected animals would be killed humanely. The choice of which animals to

eliminate from the herd is typically based on individual health (e.g., sick or injured) or management goals

for herd demographics. Female bison, for example, might be selectively removed if Base biological staff

decided they wanted to reduce the herd’s growth rate. Alternatively, Base biological staff could select

bison for removal to achieve a slightly female-biased herd as recommended by the IUCN (IUCN 2010). If

sick or injured animals are not available for removal, younger animals would be preferred for removal.

Scheduling of sharpshooting would be coordinated with the Range Operations Division.


2-14

2.5.1.4 Hunting

Although there are no regulatory restrictions to prevent hunting of bison on MCB Camp Pendleton,

hunting of bison has not occurred. Hunting of deer and other game regularly occurs on MCB Camp

Pendleton in compliance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) code. If hunting of

bison were to occur, it would conform to the MCB Camp Pendleton Resource Enforcement and

Compliance Branch General Hunting Rules that are revised periodically. Although CDFW Code § 2116-

2127 specifically omits the regulation of hunting, capture, possession, transportation, importation, or

release of bison, MCB Camp Pendleton would manage bison hunting to comply with other CDFW

guidance.

Guidelines specific to hunting bison would be developed by MCB Camp Pendleton similar to the

Resource Enforcement and Compliance Branch 2010 Deer Hunting Rules. The guidelines for a bison

hunting program would be written, implemented, and enforced by MCB Camp Pendleton Game Wardens

once a program was approved and authorized. A policy would be in place such that Game Wardens could

stop or cancel bison hunting whenever needed. Game Wardens may serve as escorts to hunters to assist in

identification of appropriate bison and to assist in bison removal. They would also collect DNA and tissue

samples to screen for disease to monitor herd health. A hunting fee would be implemented to support

expenses related to oversight and implementation of a hunting program and these funds would be used for

bison stewardship. Table 2-3 presents a summary of the preliminary effectiveness of each management

tool, its compatibility with the military mission and the feasibility of implementation.

2.5.2 Alternative 2 – Eliminate Bison Herd Over Time

Alternative 2 involves the complete elimination of bison from MCB Camp Pendleton using the same

management tools as Alternative 1: contraception, relocation, sharpshooting, and hunting (refer to Table

2-2). While selective application of these four management tools are also included in Alternative 1 as

needed, under Alternative 2, all bison would be eliminated from MCB Camp Pendleton over time through

the implementation of one or more of these methods. Elimination of the bison herd would not occur in a

single season, but would occur over time as funding and personnel are available.

2.6 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No-Action Alternative, bison would not be actively managed to minimize impacts to mission at

MCB Camp Pendleton. Existing management practices would continue (refer to Table 2-1). The size of

the bison herd and their grazing and migration activities at MCB Camp Pendleton may impact current and

future military training at MCB Camp Pendleton and its natural resources. Under the No-Action

Alternative, bison herd growth could become increasingly inconsistent with the MCB Camp Pendleton

mission, resulting in more frequent conflicts with military training. These training disruptions could

reduce combat readiness of USMC forces. Bison herd growth, absent active bison management, could

result in increased safety issues on Base roads and housing areas. Grazing pressures could intensify,

resulting in negative impacts to vegetation communities and the native species that depend upon them.

The No-Action Alternative is not considered a reasonable alternative because it does not meet the purpose

of and need for the Proposed Action. As required under CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.14[d]), it does

provide a description of the baseline conditions against which the impacts of the Proposed Action can be

compared.


2-15

Table 2-3. Summary of Anticipated Effectiveness of Proposed Bison Herd Management Tools

Management

Tool Effectiveness

Compatibility with

Military Mission

Feasibility of

Implementation

Other Possible

Results/Comments

Contraception

Highly effective in controlling herd size growth

rate if injection is administered annually.

Potentially effective using CI, but CI may not

be well tolerated by bison.

Less effective with remote darting because in

addition to remote injection, bison would need

to be marked with paint that would disappear

over time making identification of injected

bison unreliable.

Compatible; some

competition for

use of training

areas.

Feasible - remote darting

would be used or

injections would be

administered by hand

while bison are under CI.

Most effectively accomplished

using a Bison Facility for tagging,

holding, feeding, and

administering contraceptive

injections if injections are done by

hand. But could also be injected

with remote darting or during CI

since Bison Facility is not a part of

the Proposed Action.

Bison under CI may not survive.

Requires specific protocols be

developed for contraceptive

injection tracking.

Relocation

Effective in reducing the herd size, assuming

animals are successfully captured.

Cannot capture and remove all animals.

This method is non-selective and only removes

bison that are conveniently captured.

Compatible; short

term localized

disruption to

training areas

during capture for

relocation.

Reduced feasibility due to

high cost, transportation,

logistics, and potential

difficulty in capturing

animals.

Although a Bison Facility or a

temporary holding pen is not a part

of the Proposed Action, it would

facilitate the Base’s ability to hold

and process the bison before

transport.

Sharpshooting

Highly effective in decreasing herd growth rate.

Would need to be completed in stages over

time.

Allows for selectivity to promote herd health

and decrease herd growth rate.

Very compatible;

less intrusive than

bison or deer

hunting.

Feasible – qualified

marksman would be

contracted or would be

done by Base biological

staff.

Risk of unfavorable public

perception.

No Bison Facility is needed.

Hunting

Highly effective in controlling herd size if a

sufficient number of animals are harvested and sex

ratios are managed.

Very compatible;

some competition

for use of training

areas.

Feasible – would be

similar to existing deer

hunting program.

Risk of unfavorable public

perception.

No Bison Facility is needed.


2-16

2.7 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 2-4 presents a summary of the management tools that would be implemented under each

alternative. Implementation of Alternative 1 would allow for the full suite of bison management tools to

be used under the Bison Herd Management Plan (Appendix B), including future emerging technologies,

and allowing for adjustments as natural conditions warrant. Alternative 1 recognizes the bison herd may

provide ecological value such as grazing within a grassland ecosystem that needs disturbance to thrive

and remain ecologically robust. Alternative 2 would allow for the full suite of bison management tools to

be used, would not implement a Bison Management Plan, and would completely remove the bison herd

from MCB Camp Pendleton over time, therefore eliminating the potential for future training and safety

conflicts. The No-Action Alternative would allow continued herd growth and unrestricted movement

within MCB Camp Pendleton.

Table 2-4. Summary of Management Tools under Each Alternative

Management Tool Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No-Action

Alternative

Contraception Yes Yes No

Relocation Yes Yes No

Sharpshooting Yes Yes No

Hunting Yes Yes No

Notes: Yes = included, No = not included.

2.8 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The USMC has identified Alternative 1 as the Preferred Alternative for bison management on MCB

Camp Pendleton.

2.9 SPECIAL CONSERVATION MEASURES

The Proposed Action would incorporate elements designed to prevent and minimize adverse impacts to

resources. Special Conservation Measures (SCMs) apply to both alternatives and address current and

future practices.

2.9.1 SCMs by Resource Area

2.9.1.1 Training/Operations and Land Use

To minimize impacts to training/operations, training officials would continue to adjust the direction of

live fire when bison encroach onto firing ranges. If necessary, bison would be hazed with loud noises

(e.g., pyrotechnics, air horns, etc.) by Game Wardens to remove them from firing ranges.

2.9.1.2 Biological Resources

Bison management activities would adhere to the same protective measures for sensitive species habitats

and federally listed species that are part of the Range and Training Area Standing Operating Procedures.

Otherwise, no SCMs are included in the Proposed Action related to Biological Resources.

These procedures relevant to minimizing impacts to biological resources during bison management

include:

No injuring or harassing wildlife.


2-17

No cutting or removing vegetation.

No driving in wetlands or vernal pools.

Minimize driving through streams.

Minimize noise and impacts near nesting birds (February through September).

2.9.1.3 Public Health and Safety

Base would consider installing a bison crossing sign(s) if future evidence supports their efficacy. Signs

would be considered along Basilone Road, or in locations where bison-vehicle collisions have the highest

likelihood of occurring based upon past collisions and incidents when the game wardens have been

contacted to haze bison away from road shoulder.

2.10 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

In accordance with NEPA, this EA provides a focused analysis of the resource areas potentially affected

by implementation of the Proposed Action on training/operations and land use, biological resources, and

public health and safety. Table 2-5 presents a summary of the potential impacts to each resource area

from implementation of Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and the No-Action Alternative.

Table 2-5. Summary of Environmental Consequences

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No-Action Alternative

Training/Operations and Land Use ◑ ◑ ◑

Biological Resources

Public Health and Safety + + Notes: + = Beneficial but less than significant impacts; ◑ = Less than significant impacts; = Negligible impacts;

= Adverse but less than significant impacts.


3-1

CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

NEPA, CEQ regulations, and Navy and USMC procedures for implementing NEPA specify that an EA

should only focus on those environmental resource areas potentially subject to impacts. In addition, the

level of analysis should be commensurate with the anticipated level of impact. Accordingly, the following

resource areas are addressed in detail in this EA: training/operations and land use; biological resources;

and public health and safety. Conversely, the project team has determined that effects to the following

resource areas would be negligible or non-existent:

Air Quality. Fugitive dust would be generated locally by vehicles traveling on unpaved access roads

implementing bison herd management activities. These impacts would be minor, temporary, and

insignificant.

Cultural Resources. Although cultural resources are located within the BMA, use of the area by

existing bison has not been known to disturb those resources. Bison management activities would be

required to follow Marine Corps Installation West - MCB Camp Pendleton Range and Training Area

Standing Operating Procedures (MCIWEST – MCB CAMPENO 3500.1) (USMC 2013) to protect

cultural resources. Therefore, no impacts to cultural resources would result from the Proposed Action.

Geologic Resources. Implementation of the Proposed Action would incite grazing, which conserves

plant biomass within Base grassland, promoting moderation of soil and water transport. Grazing also

supports soil aeration and water infiltration. Modest grazing pressure from bison affects grasslands by

maintaining the litter layer, encouraging vigorous re-growth from grazed plants, and reducing soil lost

to erosion. Thus, the Proposed Action would provide minimal benefits to geologic resources.

Visual Resources. Bison, rarely visible to the public, do not contribute appreciably to the visual

character of MCB Camp Pendleton. The Proposed Action would be consistent with the existing visual

character of MCB Camp Pendleton. Therefore, impacts related to visual resources would be

negligible.

Water Resources. Bison mainly consume water resources available within the high hazard impact

area (refer to Figure 2-1). Minimal benefits to water quality and infiltration may occur from continued

grazing of bison, which can decrease stormwater runoff rates and enhance water infiltration.

3.1 TRAINING/OPERATIONS AND LAND USE

3.1.1 Definition of the Resource

The region of influence for training/operations and land use includes the area within the BMA (refer to

Figure 2-1). For the purposes of this analysis, training/operations are those actions that fulfill the mission

of MCB Camp Pendleton and land use is defined as the natural conditions and/or human-modified

activities occurring at a particular location.

The mission of MCB Camp Pendleton is to train Marines for combat and to provide an optimum

environment for that training. Its 125,000 ac (50,586 ha), 17 miles of beaches, diverse terrain, and air

space make it a valuable and indispensable base for the training of Marines. The Base is the only training

installation on the west coast for conducting amphibious operations (operations that involve the projection

and landing of U.S. forces from and onto the seashore), which is a principal mission of the Marine Corps.


3-2

MCB Camp Pendleton’s training areas and open space lands facilitate the intensive training mandated by

Marines to acquire a full range of basic and advanced combat readiness skills, weapon proficiency, and

tactical leadership skills. The Base’s natural areas are unique and irreplaceable to the Marine Corps (MCB

Camp Pendleton 2012b).

Training and Operations are guided by MCIWEST – MCB CAMPENO 3500.1 (USMC 2013) and the

Marine Corps Reference Publication 3-0C (Operations and Training Ranges Required Capabilities).

Land use within MCB Camp Pendleton is governed by the Base Master Plan (Navy 2010) and the MCB

Camp Pendleton Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) (MCB Camp Pendleton

2012b).

3.1.1.1 MCB Camp Pendleton Range and Training Regulations

MCIWEST – MCB CAMPENO 3500.1 (USMC 2013) provides guidance on the regulations and general

precautions to be taken in the firing, or other use of, live ammunition and explosives; the use of training

areas, airspace, sea space, landing and drop zones; and other range and training facilities at MCB Camp

Pendleton. The primary purpose of this order is to ensure a safe and realistic training environment.

Marine Corps Reference Publication 3-0C (Operations and Training Ranges Required Capabilities) is a

report that determines the operations and training required range capabilities for company-level live fire,

such as that which occurs at MCB Camp Pendleton. According to the report, the spatial requirement for

Base training and live fire is 166,000 ac (67,000 ha). MCB Camp Pendleton currently has approximately

101,000 ac [41,000 ha] of training space for training and live fire. To support maneuver missions, the

spatial requirement is 96,000 ac (39,000 ha). Currently, the Base has 73,000 ac [30,000 ha] of maneuver

space. The Base has already used 24,000 ac (9,800 ha) of its total 125,000 ac (50,586 ha) for required

cantonment areas (housing, industrial use, utilities, etc.). Of the remaining available space on Base, 35%

is encumbered by environmental constraints. This makes loss of training space for any non-training use an

extreme concern to MCB Camp Pendleton.

3.1.1.2 MCB Camp Pendleton Land Use Regulations

The MCB Camp Pendleton Base Master Plan (Navy 2010) contains development guidelines for

utilization of land and airspace to support the Base mission. Within the Base Master Plan is the Range

Compatible Use Zone (RCUZ) Program (USMC 2007). The RCUZ program is intended to give guidance

on creating compatible land uses related to noise and safety hazards generated by military training

activities conducted on MCB Camp Pendleton.

In support of air-to-ground weapons safety, the Marine Corps requires development of Range Safety

Zones (RSZs) within a range complex for compatible land use. RSZs provide consideration for safety for

those in flight as well as persons on the ground relative to dropped ordnance. RSZ A represents the

maximum safety hazard and RSZ C represents the minimum safety hazard (USMC 2007).

The Base Master Plan (Navy 2010) emphasizes the need to maximize and preserve open space areas on

MCB Camp Pendleton to accommodate the weapons-firing impact areas and amphibious, ground, and

aviation ranges and training areas. These are needed for MCB Camp Pendleton to meet its national

security mission of providing a realistic environment in which to train Marines. This results in the

majority of MCB Camp Pendleton development being located on the Base periphery.

The Base Master Plan (Navy 2010) identifies developed areas as cantonment and housing areas on-Base,

not including roads. Cantonment areas are areas designated on MCB Camp Pendleton maps that generally

contain infrastructure, buildings, and other permanent structures, but also can include portions of open


3-3

space used for training, recreation, and other uses. Likewise, designated training areas may contain some

buildings and infrastructure development.

The INRMP (MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b) summarizes baseline information and agreements through

which compliance with natural resource regulatory and planning processes are accomplished. The

INRMP also provides technical guidance for integrating natural resource management efforts into the

MCB Camp Pendleton planning and decision-making processes to persons planning and/or preparing

installation approvals, management actions, orders, instructions, guidelines, Marine Corps Installation

West - MCB Camp Pendleton Range and Training Area Standing Operating Procedures, and other plans.

It is not, however, intended for use by military personnel operating in the field.

The INRMP governs the management of natural resources over a 5-year period (2007 to 2012) on MCB

Camp Pendleton and is planned to evolve as mission requirements, environmental and regulatory

conditions, and natural resources management programs and initiatives change. This ongoing

development, review, and implementation involves a cross-section of land users and managers on-Base,

along with U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFW. The results of these processes and

ongoing adaptive management are reflected in modifications to the INRMP.

3.1.2 Affected Environment

3.1.2.1 Training/Operations

The area within and surrounding the BMA is primarily composed of open space designated for use as

training; support facilities; and services to active duty and reserve military units, as well as other federal,

state, and local agencies (MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b). The majority of the land within the BMA is used

for military training, including impact areas, live-fire positions, and training areas (Figure 3-1). The

remaining land consists of developed areas that include administrative, recreation and classroom facilities,

staging and parade grounds (collectively called cantonment areas), and paved and/or graded roads. The

cantonment areas are used by both civilian and military personnel to address the day-to-day operations of

MCB Camp Pendleton.

The training areas within the BMA are designated to receive live-fire ordnance (projectiles and

explosives) and serve as targeting areas for associated live-fire exercises (Figure 3-1). There are positions

designated for live-fire located around the perimeter of the impact areas that allow for firing into the

center of the impact areas. These areas are further classified as either high hazard impact areas or non-

dud-producing. High hazard impact areas support the delivery of ground-to-ground and air-to-ground

ordnance and may contain unexploded (dud) ordnance. Non dud-producing impact areas support training

activities that utilize small arms firing and the use of non-dud-producing ordnance in live-fire exercises

(MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b). The Quebec, Whiskey, and Zulu impact areas are high hazard impact

areas, and therefore are off-limits to all ground activities and personnel, unless authorized and preceded

by a safety sweep (i.e., location, detonation, and/or removal of ordnance) by an Explosive Ordnance

Disposal team. The remaining impact areas are non-dud-producing impact areas where maneuver

activities may be conducted upon request (MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b). Along with the high hazard

impact area and live-fire positions, there are also other designated training areas that are either wholly or

partially within the BMA.

CaseSprings

Las Pulgas Lake

SAN DIEGO COUNTY



Marine CorpsAir Station

Camp Pendleton

ORANGE COUNTY

Basilone Road

Jardi

neCa

nyon

Road

San Ma teo Road

SanMateo

Canyon Road

Horno Cany

onRoad

LasPulg

asRoad

Roblar Road

Talega Road

El Camino Real

Stuart Mesa Road

Case Springs Road

Fallbrook C

reek

LasF

lores

Cree

k

Sant

a Mar

garit

a Rive

r

Santa

Mar g

ar ita

River

San Mateo Creek

San Onofre Creek

LegendBison Migration Area

Training/OperationsHigh Hazard Impact AreaArtillery Firing AreaNon-dudded Impact AreaTraining AreaFiring Line

MCB Camp PendletonCleveland National ForestSurface Water

Land UseCantonment AreaDeveloped Area

Figure 3-1Training/Operations and Land Use

within the Bison Migration Area

0 1 2Miles

0 2 4Kilometers O

ORANGECOUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

MCBCamp

Pendleton

RIVERSIDECOUNTY

!"a$

!"̂$

A³E

A̧

!"̂$


Bison Management EA Final May 2015Bison Management EA Final May 2015

3-4


3-5

These areas are designated for training personnel for operational readiness and are designed to facilitate

all phases of combat readiness training. Bison are most frequently documented in the high hazard impact

areas within the high hazard impact area. This may be partially due to less ground activities and fewer

personnel in these areas (refer to Figure 2-1).

Since 2003 human/bison interactions have been tracked, documenting a total of 118 complaints related to

bison interfering with training/operations at MCB Camp Pendleton (an average of 10.7 complaints per

year from 2003 to 2013). There were a total of 92 complaints from 2003 to 2005 (an average of 30.6

complaints per year). In 2006, to address bison interference with training, new policies were implemented

allowing trainers to adjust the Marines’ direction of fire to avoid bison on ranges. As a result, between

2006 and 2013, there was a decrease in complaints with 26 interactions between personnel and bison (an

average of 3.25 complaints per year) (MCB Camp Pendleton 2014a) (Figure 3-2).

Figure 3-2 Number of Bison Complaints by Year (2003-2014)

Land Use

Human-modified land use categories include residential, commercial, industrial, transportation,

communications and utilities, agricultural, institutional, recreational, and other developed use areas.

Management plans and regulations determine the type and extent of land use allowable in specific areas

and are often intended to protect specifically designated or environmentally sensitive areas. Within the

BMA, the land is primarily undeveloped (97%) with developed areas (3%) interspersed throughout (refer

to Figure 3-1). The undeveloped areas are mainly used for training and operations with the remaining


3-6

undeveloped land made up of portions of training areas and firing ranges. The developed areas include

cantonment areas, parking areas, as well as paved and/or graded roads.

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences

The analysis of potential training/operations and land use impacts includes an examination of bison

management for consistency with training/operations and land use patterns and policies in the BMA and

surrounding areas that could be affected by implementation of the Proposed Action or the No-Action

Alternative.

3.1.3.1 Alternative 1 – Implement Bison Herd Management Plan (Preferred Alternative)

Training/Operations

Alternative 1 would implement a Bison Herd Management Plan to control and maintain the bison herd on

Camp Pendleton. The current number of animals on MCB Camp Pendleton (approximately 120 animals

as of the fall of 2011 [MCB Camp Pendleton 2015]) is considered to be compatible with the Base’s

mission. Based on the Bison Herd Management Plan, impacts to training/operations are currently

considered as effectively addressed due to procedural changes that allow trainers to adjust the Marines’

direction of fire to avoid bison on ranges. If the bison herd were to increase or the grazing or migration

patterns change, the Bison Herd Management Plan would allow for measures to slow the herd’s growth

and limit its size, so that it would effectively minimize impacts to training/operations. The Bison Herd

Management Plan would allow management of the herd before the herd size reaches 350. Alternative 1

pre-emptively establishes the bison management procedures that would avoid training impacts should

herd behavior or migration patterns change, should training needs change, or should future training

platforms become available. Based on the relatively small number of complaints (average of 3.25

complaints per year since 2006), implementation of Alternative 1 would maintain the bison-training

interactions to manageable numbers. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would result in less than

significant impacts to training/operations.

Land Use

Implementation of Alternative 1 (use of the Bison Herd Management Plan) would allow natural resources

personnel to adapt to changing conditions while addressing herd health, genetic diversity, and grazing

pressure through the use of management tools such as contraception, relocation, sharpshooting, and

hunting to sustain the herd. The Management Practices identified in Section 2.5, as well as in the Goals,

Objectives and Methods in the Bison Herd Management Plan, would provide for a management strategy

to control the herd and maintain the land within the BMA without adversely impacting land use. Impacts

to developed areas would not be expected due to a lack of historic sightings in developed areas, or the

adjacent undeveloped areas (refer to Figure 2-1). Furthermore, implementation of Alternative 1 would be

consistent with the Base Master Plan (Navy 2010) and the INRMP (MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b) and

would not conflict with existing land use policies or regulations. Therefore, implementation of Alternative

1 would result in less than significant impacts to land use.

3.1.3.2 Alternative 2 – Eliminate Bison Herd Over Time

Training/Operations

Alternative 2 would eliminate bison from MCB Camp Pendleton over time. As the bison herd is

eliminated, the frequency of training modifications needed to avoid bison would decrease. Elimination of

the herd would result in zero complaints, thereby eliminating modifications to training/operations.


3-7

Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts to

training/operations.

Land Use

Implementation of Alternative 2 (elimination of the bison herd from MCB Camp Pendleton over time)

would occur via the same techniques used in Alternative 1. With the elimination of the herd, the height of

the grasses in the BMA would likely increase as a result of a lack of grazing. This would not change the

land use in the BMA. Impacts to developed areas would not be expected due to a lack of historic sightings

in developed areas, or the adjacent undeveloped areas (refer to Figure 2-1). Furthermore, implementation

of Alternative 2 would be consistent with the Base Master Plan (Navy 2010) and the INRMP (MCB

Camp Pendleton 2012b) and would not conflict with existing land use policies or regulations. Therefore,

implementation of Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts to land use.

3.1.3.3 No-Action Alternative

Training/Operations

Implementation of the No-Action Alternative would have a potentially long-term negative impact on

training/operations by likely increasing the number of interactions between personnel and bison. While

the current number of bison is considered as manageable, resulting in a few interactions per year, the

Bison Herd Management Plan predicts that the number of bison would likely double every 11 years, to

approximately 350 animals by 2028. This would increase the number of bison and would likely increase

the number of interactions between personnel and bison as well as training modifications needed to avoid

bison. Regardless, while there would be a potential increase in the number of interactions between bison

and personnel, these would not be significant in the near term. Therefore, implementation of the No-

Action Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to training/operations.

Land Use

Under the No-Action Alternative, existing conditions as described in Section 3.1.2 would remain

unchanged. Therefore, implementation of the No-Action Alternative would result in less than significant

impacts to land use.

3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.2.1 Definition of Resource

Biological resources include plant and animal species and the habitats within which they occur. For the

purpose of this EA, the project area is defined as the entire BMA. However, the approximately 120 bison

on MCB Camp Pendleton primarily graze and roam in the two home ranges, Whiskey Impact Area

(Whiskey Home Range) and Zulu Impact Area (Zulu Home Range) in the BMA; therefore, this section

will focus on the home ranges (refer to Figure 2-1).

There are three categories of biological resources found in the BMA:

1. Vegetation and aquatic habitats include plant communities and the dominant constituent species

that occur within them and permanent and seasonally aquatic habitats that occur within the two

bison home ranges and BMA. Unvegetated, disturbed, and/or developed habitats are also

discussed in this section. These are described in Section 3.2.2.1.

2. Fish and wildlife includes the characteristic animal species that occur in the two home ranges and

BMA. Special consideration is given to bird species protected under the federal Migratory Bird


3-8

Treaty Act and EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.

These are described in Section 3.2.2.2.

3. Special status species are defined as plant and animal species that are listed, have been proposed

for listing, or are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered

Species Act (ESA), the California ESA, and other species of concern as recognized by state or

federal agencies. These are described in Section 3.2.2.3.

The MCB Camp Pendleton INRMP (MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b) serves as a reference and guidance

document for the integrated management and conservation of natural resources on MCB Camp Pendleton

in a manner that sustains the primary military mission of the Base. The Proposed Action has been planned

in accordance with policies contained in the INRMP. As described in section 3.1.2, the two home ranges

in the BMA are located in the high hazard impact area (refer to Figure 2-1). The Quebec, Whiskey, and

Zulu Training Areas are high hazard impact areas, and, as a result, are off-limits to all ground activities

and personnel, unless authorized and preceded by an explosive ordnance disposal safety sweep (location,

detonation, and/or removal of ordnance). Therefore, natural resource surveys are rarely conducted in these

areas.


3.2.2.1 Vegetation and Aquatic Habitats

Vegetation

The majority of vegetation in the BMA is native scrublands and grasslands (Figure 3-3 and Table 3-1).

Bison generally occur in grasslands, and will use wooded areas; however, they are not known to occur in

chaparral on Base (MCB Camp Pendleton 1989).

The Whiskey Home Range contains over 2,600 ac (1,050 ha) of native grassland and over 1,000 ac (400

ha) of non-native grassland. The Zulu Home Range contains over 3,000 ac (1,200 ha) of native grassland

and over 1,500 ac (600 ha) of non-native grassland for grazing (Table 3-1 and Figure 3-3). The vegetation

in the BMA has been subject to, and, in a small part, has reached its present state from almost 40 years of

grazing by the existing bison herd.

MCB Camp Pendleton game wardens conduct annual residual dry matter surveys in the fall and grassland

forage production surveys in the spring (refer to Section 2.2.3) (Appendix C) (Asmus 2010, 2011, and

2012; MCB Camp Pendleton 2015). From these surveys, the game wardens have determined that the

existing 120 bison consume approximately 1.7 million pounds of forage each year, which is

approximately 16.3% of the grazing allotment in the BMA (refer to the Bison Herd Management Plan in

Appendix B for additional details).

CaseSprings

Zulu Impact Area

Whiskey Impact Area


Jardi

ne C

anyo

n

Las Pulgas Lake

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY



409A Impact Area

Quebec Impact Area


LFAM 800Impact Area

Yankee Impact Area

X-Ray Impact Area

Basilone Road

Jardi

neCa

nyon

Road

San Mat eo Road

Las Pu

lgas R

oad

SanMate

o Canyon Road

Horno Cany

onRoad

Las Pulgas Road

Roblar Road

Talega Road

El Camino Real

Stuart Mesa Road

Case Springs Road

Fallbrook C

reek

LasF

lores

Cree

k

S an t

a Ma rg

arit a

R ive

r

San ta

Marga

rita R

iv er

San Mateo Creek

San OnofreCree

k

LegendBison Migration AreaWhiskey Home RangeZulu Home RangeMCB Camp PendletonCleveland National ForestSurface Water

Figure 3-3Vegetation within theBison Migration Area

0 1 2Miles

0 2 4Kilometers O

ORANGECOUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

MCBCamp

Pendleton

RIVERSIDECOUNTY

!"a$

!"̂$

A³E

A̧

!"̂$

Plant CommunitiesBeachCoast Live Oak WoodlandChaparralCoastal Sage ScrubDevelopedDisturbedEngelmann Oak WoodlandEucalyptus WoodlandFormer AgricultureOpen WaterValley Needlegrass GrasslandNon-native GrasslandsRiparian

Source: MCB Camp Pendleton 2014b3-9



3-10

MCB Camp Pendleton GIS data (MCB Camp Pendleton 2014b) and the MCB Camp Pendleton INRMP

(MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b) were used to document and analyze the plant communities that occur in

the BMA (refer to Figure 3-3). Plant community names and element codes developed by Holland (1986)

and updated by Oberbauer et al. (2008) for San Diego County are used to classify and categorize

vegetation types. Plant nomenclature follows The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second

Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). Table 3-1 presents the acreages of plant communities within the BMA.

Plant community descriptions are provided below.

Table 3-1. Plant Communities Acreages within the Bison Migration Area

Plant Community Home Ranges Entire

BMA Whiskey Zulu

Grasslands/Herb Vegetation

Valley Needlegrass Grassland 2,642 3,018 8,767

Non-native Grasslands 1,163 1,510 4,442

Subtotal 3,805 4,528 13,209

Scrub

Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 0 2,802 19,863

Chaparral 2,328 127 5,621

Subtotal 2,328 2,929 25,484

Oak Woodlands

Coast Live Oak Woodland 0 128 1,166

Engelmann Oak Woodland 0 1,333 2,485

Subtotal 0 1,461 3,651

Riparian

Riparian Vegetation 320 346 2,002

Open Water 6 10 89

Subtotal 326 356 2,091

Disturbed/Developed

Non-native Vegetation 0 0 648

Disturbed 0 77 622

Urban/Developed 91 297 1,155

Subtotal 91 374 2,425

TOTAL 6,550 9,648 46,860

Source: MCB Camp Pendleton 2014b.

Grassland/Herb Vegetation

Valley Needlegrass Grassland (VNG) is the dominant native grassland community on MCB Camp

Pendleton. It is dominated by the perennial, bunch-forming purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra). Native

and non-native herbs are typically present in VNG as well.

Non-native Grassland (NNG) is dominated by non-native annual grasses (Bromus species [spp.],

Avena spp., Hordeum spp.) and sometimes includes weedy broadleaf (forb) species (Erodium spp.,

Foeniculum vulgare, Conium maculatum). Areas composed of NNG typically have experienced past

disturbance or are subject to regular disturbance.


3-11

Scrub

Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) consists of sparsely to densely spaced, low-growing, drought-

deciduous shrubs. Characteristic species include coastal sagebrush (Artemisia californica), coyote

brush (Baccharis pilularis), coastal goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), California buckwheat

(Eriogonum fasciculatum), black sage (Salvia mellifera), white sage (Salvia apiana), and laurel

sumac (Malosma laurina). This community typically intergrades with grassland communities at lower

elevations and chaparral communities at higher elevations.

Chaparral primarily consists of drought tolerant species with wilt-resistant, leathery, evergreen

leaves that often have a waxy coating to prevent water loss. Characteristic chaparral species include

chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), manzanitas (Arctostaphylos spp.), scrub oak (Quercus

berberidifolia), and lilac species (Ceanothus spp.).

Oak Woodlands

Coast Live Oak Woodland is a dense woodland dominated by coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)

with a closed, or nearly-closed, canopy. Other characteristic species include toyon (Heteromeles

arbutifolia), California wild rose (Rosa californica), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), poison

oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea).

Engelmann Oak Woodland is an open woodland dominated by Engelmann oaks (Quercus

engelmannii). This community often has an understory of grassland, scrub, and/or chaparral species

and often occurs in association with coast live oak. The Engelmann oak is a California Rare Plant

Rank (CRPR) 4.2 species, restricted to southern California and adjacent Baja California (California

Native Plant Society [CNPS] 2014).

Riparian

Riparian Vegetation in the BMA includes both native and non-native shrub- and tree-dominated

habitats that typically occur along rivers, streams, and other waterways. Dominant species include

willows (Salix spp.), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa); mule-fat (Baccharis salicifolia), and

cottonwoods (Populus spp.).

Open Water includes all open, unvegetated habitats that support perennial or seasonal open water

including ponds, lakes, and river channels.

Disturbed/Developed

Non-native Vegetation includes upland areas that are dominated by non-native plant species

including filaree (Erodium spp.), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), etc.

Disturbed areas are those areas that have been physically altered to the point where no native or

naturalized vegetation association is present.

Urban/Developed areas have been constructed upon or otherwise physically altered to an extent that

native vegetation is no longer supported.


3-12

Aquatic Habitats

Aquatic habitats in the BMA include Case Springs, Las Flores Creek, San Onofre Creek, portions of the

Santa Margarita River (SMR), some small unnamed drainages, the tributaries that flow into these

drainages, and surrounding wetlands (Figure 3-4). The primary drainage in the Whiskey Home Range is

San Onofre Creek and Case Springs. Case Springs provides a year round source of water for bison. Also,

MCB Camp Pendleton provides water guzzlers for bison and other wildlife. The primary drainage in the

Zulu Home Range is Las Flores Creek. The SMR is south of the Zulu Home Range and bison have not

been observed in the vicinity of the SMR (refer to Figure 2-1).

3.2.2.2 Fish and Wildlife

A diverse assemblage of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates occurs within MCB

Camp Pendleton. In addition to hundreds of invertebrates, MCB Camp Pendleton, including the adjacent

coastal waters, has documented the presence of more than 50 mammalian, 30 reptilian, 10 amphibian, 300

avian, and 60 fish species (MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b). A high degree of wildlife diversity is likely to

occur in the BMA because of the large size of the BMA and the diversity of habitats.

Many wildlife species on MCB Camp Pendleton are residents. Other wildlife species visit MCB Camp

Pendleton seasonally, such as migratory birds. A majority (97%) of avian species on MCB Camp

Pendleton are included on the list of migratory birds (50 CFR 10.13) protected by the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act and EO 13186 (MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b). The approximately 120 bison on MCB Camp

Pendleton are the largest mammals on the Base. Table 3-2 and Figure 3-5 present the growth of the MCB

Camp Pendleton bison herd from their release in 1973 to 2011.

Table 3-2. Bison Population Data and Calculated Growth Rates at MCB Camp Pendleton

Source Year(s) Min. Pop. Size

(N)

Finite Growth

Rate (λ)

Instantaneous

Growth Rate (r) Annualized (r)

SD Zoo 1973-1979 14 N/A N/A N/A

Scientific Research

Associates Bison Report 1988 55 3.93 1.37 0.152

Bison Log 1991 57 1.04 0.04 0.012

Bison Log 1994 56 0.98 -0.02 -0.006

Helo Survey Data 1999 61 1.09 0.09 0.017

Helo Survey Data 2000 77 1.26 0.23 0.233

Helo Survey Data 2004 99 1.29 0.25 0.063

Helo Survey Data 2009 116 1.17 0.16 0.032

Helo Survey Data 2011 117 1.01 0.01 0.004

Mean Annual Growth Rate (rmean) 0.0634

Doubling Time (years) 11

Notes: Table 3-2 and Figure 3-5 illustrate the estimated rate of increase for the bison population on MCB Camp Pendleton.

Between 1979 and 2011, the bison population had an annual instantaneous rate of increase of r = 0.063. Using ln(2)/

r, the estimated doubling time is 11 years for a population growing at 6.3% annually. Data from years 2008 and 2013

were not included because the survey data were unreliable.

λ = Nt+1/N; Doubling Time = ln(2)/ rmean; r = ln(λ); Annualized r = r/( t+1-t).

Source: Asmus 2014.

CaseSprings

North Fork

San Onof

re Cany

on


Jardi

ne C

anyo

n

Las Pulgas Lake

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY




FinchTraining Area

DeltaTraining Area

EchoTraining Area



IndiaTraining Area

Alpha OneTraining Area

Basi lone Road

Jardi

neCa

n yon

R oa d

S an Mateo Road

Las Pu

lgas R

oad

Horno

Canyon

Road

SanMate

o Canyon

Road

Talega RoadBas

ilone Road

Las Pulgas Road

Roblar Road

El Camino Real

Stuart Mesa Road

Case Spr ings Road

Santa Margarita River

De L

uz C

reek

De L

uz C

reek

Fallb

rook C

reek

Fallbrook C

reek

De L

uz C

reek

De Lu

z Cree

k

Las F

lores

Cree

k

DeLu

z Cree

k

San t

a Mar

gar it

a Rive

r

S anta

Marg

arita

Rive

r

San Mateo Creek

San Onofre Creek

LegendNational Wetlands Inventory Wetland Type

Freshwater Emergent WetlandFreshwater Forested/Shrub WetlandFreshwater Pond

Ponded BasinProject AreaWhiskey Home RangeZulu Home RangeMCB Camp PendletonCleveland National ForestMain ChannelTributaries

Figure 3-4Aquatic Habitats within

the Bison Migration Area

0 1 2Miles

0 2 4Kilometers O

ORANGECOUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

MCBCamp

Pendleton

RIVERSIDECOUNTY

!"a$

!"̂$

A³E

A̧

!"̂$



3-13


3-14

Figure 3-5 Bison Herd Growth Rate on Base from 1979 to 2011

It should be noted that the doubling time of 11 years assumes that the Base’s bison population will

continue to grow deterministically at the same rate in the future (Appendix B). In reality, the bison

population grows stochastically and may not grow at the same average rate of increase in future years.

Using doubling time or the annual rate of increase to estimate future populations will produce

increasingly inaccurate results for estimates that are farther into the future.

In North America, bison have contributed to the co-evolution of other biota, including grazing adaptations

in plants, mutualistic, commensal and trophic interrelationships, and bison have functioned as a key

component of the native biodiversity in vast areas of the continent (IUCN 2010). Although bison did not

occur on MCB Camp Pendleton until 1973, pronghorn, cattle, and grizzly bears occurred in the area

historically and preformed similar ecological functions to bison. California grasslands evolved with a

variety of large grazing mammals that included now-extinct relatives of the plains bison. Modest grazing

pressure affects grasslands by maintaining the litter layer, encouraging vigorous re-growth from grazed

plants, and reducing soil lost to erosion (MCB Camp Pendleton 2015).

3.2.2.3 Special Status Species

Federally Listed Species

Twenty federally threatened, endangered, or candidate terrestrial and aquatic species are found on, transit

through, or have the potential to occur on MCB Camp Pendleton. Descriptions of all federally threatened,

endangered, and candidate species known or likely to occur on MCB Camp Pendleton are included in the

INRMP (MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b).

Based on review of MCB Camp Pendleton’s GIS data (MCB Camp Pendleton 2014b) and current site

conditions, eight federally listed species (or suitable habitat for these species) are known to occur within

or in the vicinity of the BMA. Federally listed species known to occur or potentially occurring in the

vicinity of the BMA are presented in Table 3-3 and on Figure 3-6 and are described below. MCB Camp

Pendleton is exempt from all critical habitat designations because of the protection to listed species

provided under the INRMP (MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b). Therefore, critical habitat is not discussed

further in this document.


3-15

Table 3-3. Federally Listed or Candidate Plant and Animal Species Known

to Occur or Potentially Occurring in the Bison Migration Area

Common Name Scientific Name Federal

Status Occurrence BMA

Whiskey

Home

Range

Zulu

Home

Range

Amphibian

arroyo toad Anaxyrus californicus Endangered San Onofre Creek, San Mateo Creek,

the SMR, and surrounding uplands. X X

Birds

coastal California

gnatcatcher

Polioptila californica

californica Threatened Coastal Sage Scrub. X X

least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Endangered Riparian habitat along San Onofre

Creek, Las Flores Creek, and SMR. X X

southwestern

willow flycatcher

Empidonax traillii

extimus Endangered

Potential to occur in willow

dominated riparian habitat along Las

Flores Creek and SMR.

X X

Fish

southern

steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Endangered

Potential to occur in San Mateo, San

Onofre Creek, and SMR. H H

Invertebrates

San Diego fairy

shrimp

Branchinecta

sandiegonensis Endangered Vernal pools/ponded basins. X X

Riverside fairy

shrimp

Streptocephalus

woottoni Endangered Vernal pools/ponded basins. X X

Mammals

Stephens’

kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi Endangered

Sparse coastal sage scrub and

grasslands in Kilo 1, Kilo 2, Range

408, and Range 409 Impact Area.

X X X

Plants

thread-leaved

brodiaea Brodiaea filifolia Threatened

Grasslands along San Mateo Road,

Basilone Road, and Roblar Road. X X X

Encinitas

baccharis Baccharis vanessae Endangered One location in chaparral in Delta. X X

Sources: MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b, 2014b.

Notes: X = species is known to occur in the Bison Migration Area; H = suitable migratory habitat occurs in the Bison Migration

Area.

Arroyo toad (ARTO)

The ARTO is a small toad that requires shallow, slow moving streams for breeding and early

development. ARTO use riparian habitat for foraging, resting, and dispersal up- and downstream. During

the non-breeding season, generally late fall and winter, they disperse more widely into adjacent uplands to

forage and hibernate in burrows (Sweet 1992). Breeding and larval development on MCB Camp

Pendleton typically occur between March and July before ARTO disperse into upland habitats during

winter months. Specific threats to ARTO populations include alteration of natural hydrology, increased

siltation, and decreased water quality due to increased upstream development in urban areas (U.S.

Geological Survey [USGS] 2013).

ARTO occur in the Whiskey Home Range along San Onofre Creek and Jardine Canyon; and in the

southern portion of the BMA along the SMR (USGS 2013; MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b and 2014)

(Figure 3-6). In 2008 and 2009, bison were observed in Jardine Canyon near ARTO habitat.

")

")

")")

")")")")")

")

")

")

")")")")")")

")

")")

")

")

")")")

")")

")")")

")")")")")")

")")")

")")")")")")")")")")")")")")

")")")

")

")

")

")

")")")

")

")

")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")

")

")")")")

")")")

")

")")")")")")")")")")")

")")")")")")")")

")

")")")")")")")")

")")

")

")

")")")

")")")

")")

")")

")")")")")")

")")")

")")")")")")")")")")")")

")")")")")")")")

")")")")")")")

")")")")")

")

")")")")")")

")")")")")")")")")

")")")

")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")

")")")

")

")")")

")")")")

")

")")

")")")

")") ")")")")")")")

")

")

")

")

")")")")")")")")

")

")")

")")")")")")")")")")")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")")")

")

")

")

")

")")

")")")

")")")")")")")")")")")")

")

")")

")

")

")

")")

")

")")

")")")")

")")")

")")

")

")")

")

")")")")")

")

")")")")")")

")")

")")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")") ")")")")

")")")")")")")

")")

")

")

")

")

")")")") ")")")")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")")")")")")")")")")

")

")

")

")

")

")")")

")

")

")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")

")

")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")

")")

GF

CaseSprings

Zulu Impact Area

Whiskey Impact Area

North Fork

San Onof

re Cany

on


Jardi

ne C

anyo

n

Las Pulgas Lake

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY




BasiloneRoad

409A Impact Area

Quebec Impact Area

Yankee Impact Area

X-Ray Impact Area

LFAM800

Basilone Road

Jardi

neCa

nyon

Road

SanMateo R oad

SanMate

o Canyon Road

Horno Cany

onRoad

Las Pulgas Road

Roblar Road

Talega Road

El Camino RealTalega Road

Case Springs Road

Las F

lore s

C ree

k

Sant

a Ma r

g ari t

aRive

r

Santa

Marg

arita

Rive

r

San Mateo Creek

San Onofre Creek

LegendFlora Special Species") Brodiaea filifoliaGF Baccharis vanessae

Fauna Special SpeciesStephens' Kangaroo RatArroyo Toad BufferFederally Listed Fairy ShrimpCalifornia Gnatcatcher (2010)Pacific Pocket Mouse (various surveys)Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (2011)Least Bell's Vireo (2011)Southern Steelhead Potential Habitat

Non-native GrasslandValley Needlegrass GrasslandBison Migration AreaWhiskey Home RangeZulu Home RangeMCB Camp PendletonNon-dudded Impact AreaHigh hazard Impact AreaCleveland National ForestSurface Water

Figure 3-6Federally Listed Species within the

Bison Migration Area

0 1 2Miles

0 2 4Kilometers O

ORANGECOUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

MCBCamp

Pendleton

RIVERSIDECOUNTY

!"a$

!"̂$

A³E

A̧

!"̂$



3-16


3-17

Coastal California Gnatcatcher (CAGN)

The CAGN is a small songbird that permanently resides in coastal sage scrub vegetation, but will make

limited use of adjacent habitats outside of the breeding season. The breeding season extends from 15

February through 31 August, with peak nesting activities occurring from mid-March through May

(USFWS 2007).

Although subject to large fluctuations (Naval Facilities Engineering Command [NAVFAC] Atlantic

2011), the population on MCB Camp Pendleton has expanded greatly with protective management of the

species and its habitat. As mandated by the INRMP (MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b) and Marine Corps

Installation West - MCB Camp Pendleton Range and Training Area Standing Operating Procedures

(USMC 2013), the removal of or damage to CAGN-occupied CSS is prohibited, and training activities in

the vicinity of CAGN-occupied habitat are required to remain on existing roads during the breeding

season.

CAGN occur in CSS in the southern portion of the Whiskey Home Range and along Basilone Road in the

southern portion of the BMA (NAVFAC Atlantic 2011; MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b, 2014) (refer to

Figure 3-6).

Least Bell’s Vireo (LBVI)

The LBVI is a small migratory songbird that arrives at MCB Camp Pendleton as early as mid-March and

leaves for its wintering grounds in Baja California in August. The LBVI breeding season and MCB Camp

Pendleton Special Management Season extends from 15 March through 31 August. LBVI primarily

inhabit and forage in mulefat and willow-dominated riparian habitats. Major threats to LBVI include loss

of riparian habitat and nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Lynn and Kus 2012; MCB Camp

Pendleton 2012b).

LBVI occur in the BMA in riparian vegetation along the SMR, Las Flores Creek, and the south fork of

San Onofre Creek (Lynn and Kus 2012; MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b, 2014) (refer to Figure 3-6).

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (SWFL)

The SWFL is a migratory bird that inhabits dense riparian areas along rivers, streams, and other wetlands.

Nesting flycatchers prefer willow and mulefat thickets and invariably nest near surface water or saturated

soil. Threats to the species are habitat loss and human disturbance (Howell and Kus 2012).

The small MCB Camp Pendleton SFWL breeding population occurs just south of the BMA in willow-

dominated riparian vegetation along the SMR, near Marine Corps Air Station Camp Pendleton (Howell

and Kus 2012; MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b, 2014) (Figure 3-6).

Southern Steelhead

Southern steelhead is a fish that potentially occurs in streams, rivers and other water bodies with

hydraulic connectivity to the Pacific Ocean in California from San Luis Obispo County to the Mexican

border. Potential steelhead migratory habitat to suitable off-Base breeding habitat within the Cleveland

National Forest occurs in San Mateo Creek, San Onofre Creek and the SMR within the BMA (MCB

Camp Pendleton 2012b, 2014) (refer to Figure 3-6).


3-18

San Diego Fairy Shrimp (SDFS) and Riverside Fairy Shrimp (RFS)

SDFS and RFS are fairy shrimp that occur in southern California in seasonally ponded vernal pools

following rain events. SDFS and RFS occur in ponded basins in the Zulu Home Range (MCB Camp

Pendleton 2012b, 2014) (refer to Figure 3-6).

Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat (SKR)

The SKR is a burrowing rodent that inhabits open areas with abundant patches of bare ground in

grassland, CSS, and chaparral habitats. SKR has been documented across a variety of soil types, but it is

generally less common in clay or rocky soils due to difficulty burrowing through those substrates

(USFWS 1997).

The largest populations of SKR at MCB Camp Pendleton occur within the vicinity of Roblar Road

(within and adjacent to the Zulu Impact Area), and within the 409 Impact Area (MCB Camp Pendleton

2012b). Suitable habitat conditions within portions of these areas appear to be maintained through

frequent training exercises that keep the habitat open and prevent the establishment of large stands of non-

native grasses and forbs. SKR also occurs within the Whiskey Impact Area and in areas along Basilone

Road, south of the Zulu Impact Area (MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b, 2014) (refer to Figure 3-6).

Baccharis vanessae (Encinitas baccharis)

Baccharis vanessae is a perennial deciduous shrub that occurs in chaparral plant communities. This

species only occurs in San Diego County at elevations from 200 ft (60 m) to 2,400 ft (720 m) (CNPS

2014).

Baccharis vanessae was documented in 2013 in the Delta Training Area (MCB Camp Pendleton 2014b)

(refer to Figure 3-6).

Brodiaea filifolia (BRFI) (Thread-leaved Brodiaea)

BRFI is a perennial herb that occurs in clay or clay loam soils, usually in grasslands on level to gradually

sloping sites. The elevation range of occurrence for BRFI is from 100 ft (30 m) to 2,500 ft (765 m)

(USFWS 2009a).

BRFI occurs in various locations on MCB Camp Pendleton primarily in grasslands or open CSS and clay

soils. Refer to Figure 3-6 for BRFI locations within the BMA (MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b, 2014). Only

project-specific portions of the BMA have been surveyed for BRFI.

Other Special Status Species

Other special status species, while not state or federally-listed as threatened or endangered, are species

that are recognized as rare or sensitive in California. The CNPS and CDFW assign special status to plant

and wildlife species, respectively, that warrant protection and/or special management in California. The

MCB Camp Pendleton INRMP (MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b) lists all plant species and wildlife species

that are known to occur on Base, including CNPS and CDFW special status species. Numerous other

special status wildlife and plants are likely to occur in the BMA. Table 3-4 includes special status fauna

species while Table 3-5 includes special status flora species (MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b).


3-19

Table 3-4. Non-Listed Special Status Wildlife Species Likely to Occur in the Bison Migration Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status Occurrence BMA

Whiskey

Home

Range

Zulu

Home

Range

Fish

Arroyo chub Gila orcutti SSC SMR. X

Amphibian

Western spadefoot

toad Spea hammondii SSC Ponded basins. X X X

Reptiles

Belding’s orange-

throated whiptail

Aspidoscelis hyperythrus

beldingi SSC CSS. X X X

Coast patch-nosed

snake

Salvadora hexalepis

virgultea SSC CSS and chaparral. X X X

Red diamond

rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC CSS. X X X

Blainville’s horned

lizard Phrynosoma blainvillei SSC

Sandy washes and

CSS. X X X

Two-striped garter

snake Thamnophis hammondii SSC

SMR and other

streams. X X X

Pacific (western)

pond turtle Actinemys marmorata SSC

SMR and San

Mateo Creek. X

Birds

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi WL Riparian and oak

woodland. X X X

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC Grasslands. X X X

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC Open scrub and

grassland. X X X

California horned lark Eremophila alpestris

actia SSC Grasslands. X X X

Bell’s sage sparrow Amphispiza belli belli WL CSS and chaparral. X X X

Southern California

rufous-crowned

sparrow

Aimophila ruficeps

canescens WL Chaparral. X X X

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC SMR and other

streams. X X X

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia

brewsteri SSC

SMR and other

streams. X X X

Mammals

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC Riparian. X X

Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis

californicus SSC Riparian. X

Pocketed free-tailed

bat

Nyctinomops

femorosaccus SSC Riparian. X X X

American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Grassland. X X X Notes: SSC = Species of Special Concern, WL = Watch List.

Sources: Unitt 2004; MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b; CDFW 2014, Stokes 2012, California Herps 2014.


3-20

Table 3-5. Special Status Plant Species Likely to Occur in the Bison Migration Area

Common Name Scientific Name CRPR1 Occurrence BMA

Whiskey

Home

Range

Zulu

Home

Range

Chaparral sand-verbena Abronia villosa var.

aurita 1B.1

Sandy dune habitat

along SMR. X

Engelmann oak Quercus engelmannii 4.2 Riparian, grassland

chaparral. X X

Fish’s milkwort Polygala cornuta var.

fishiae 4.3 Riparian, chaparral. X X

Ocellated Humboldt lily Lilium humboldtii var.

ocellatum 4.2 Riparian. X X

Rainbow manzanita Arctostaphylos

rainbowensis 1B.1 Chaparral. X X

San Miguel savory Clinopodium chandleri 1B.2 Riparian, grassland

CSS, chaparral. X X

Payson's jewel-flower Caulanthus simulans 4.2 CSS, chaparral. X X

Paniculate tarplant Deinandra paniculata 4.2 CSS, grassland. X X

Southern California

black walnut Juglans californica 4.2

Riparian, CSS,

chaparral. X X

White rabbit-tobacco Pseudognaphalium

leucocephalum 2B.2

Riparian, CSS,

chaparral. X X

Golden-rayed

pentachaeta Pentachaeta aurea 4.2

Riparian, grassland

CSS, chaparral. X X X

Nuttall’s scrub oak Quercus dumosa 1B.1 CSS, chaparral. X X

Notes: 1 CRPR created by the CNPS:

1B - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere

2B - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere

3 - Plants that more information is needed – a review list

4 - Plants of limited distribution – a watch list

CNPS Threat Ranks:

.1 - Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)

.2 - Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened)

.3 - Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known)

Sources: CDFW 2014, CalFlora 2014, MCB Camp Pendleton 2012b.


The following section describes the potential direct and indirect impacts on biological resources that

would result from the implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2, managing or eliminating the bison herd on

MCB Camp Pendleton. The significance of potential impacts to biological resources is based on: (1) the

importance (i.e., legal, commercial, recreational, ecological, or scientific) of the resource; (2) the

proportion of the resource that would be affected relative to its occurrence in the region; (3) the sensitivity

of the resource to proposed activities; and (4) the duration or ecological ramifications of the impact(s).

Impacts to biological resources would be significant if species or habitats of concern were adversely

affected over relatively large areas (more than 1% of habitat on MCB Camp Pendleton), or if disturbances

caused reductions in population size or distribution of a special status species. This section also describes

impacts from the No-Action Alternative.


3-21

Direct impacts are from the immediate result of project activities. Direct impacts may be either temporary

(reversible) or permanent (irreversible).

Indirect impacts are caused by or result from project-related activities, but occur later in time and can

extend beyond the immediate area.

3.2.3.1 Alternative 1 – Implement Bison Herd Management Plan (Preferred Alternative)

Under Alternative 1, the USMC would implement a Bison Herd Management Plan (Appendix B) and

tools to manage the herd include contraception, relocation, sharpshooting, and hunting. To minimize

impacts to biological resource the Marine Corps Installation West - MCB Camp Pendleton Range and

Training Area Standing Operating Procedures would be implemented during bison management (USMC

2013). These procedures relevant to minimizing impacts to biological resources during bison management

include:

No killing, injuring, or harassing wildlife.

No cutting or removing vegetation.

No driving in wetlands or vernal pools; remain on established roads.

Minimize driving through streams.

Minimize noise and impacts near nesting birds (February through September).

Since bison management activities would be required to follow Marine Corps Installation West - MCB

Camp Pendleton Range and Training Area Standing Operating Procedures (MCIWEST – MCB

CAMPENO 3500.1) (USMC 2013) to protect biological resources, impacts to biological resources from

the Proposed Action would be negligible.

3.2.3.2 Alternative 2 – Eliminate Bison Herd Over Time

Underneath Alternative 2, Bison management activities to eliminate the bison herd would be required to

follow Marine Corps Installation West - MCB Camp Pendleton Range and Training Area Standing

Operating Procedures (MCIWEST – MCB CAMPENO 3500.1) (USMC 2013) to protect biological

resources. Therefore, impacts to biological resources from the Proposed Action would be negligible.


Under the No-Action Alternative, the bison herd is likely to continue to grow. Using the results of the

MCB Camp Pendleton surveys for bison, the Base’s bison population grows at an estimated average rate

of 6.3% annually and has a doubling time of 11 years. Using the 2011 estimate of 120 bison, the Base’s

bison herd could reach 290 animals by 2025 then 350 animals by 2028 and 480 by 2033 (MCB Camp

Pendleton 2015). To evaluate the most likely effects under this alternative, it is assumed that bison density

would increase and produce more intensive effects to the existing bison home ranges.

Vegetation and Aquatic Habitats

If the bison herd continues to grow unchecked, to the extent that the animals remain within the current

area, the intensity of grazing and other direct and indirect effects would increase (refer to the Bison Herd

Management Plan in Appendix B). The estimate of 400 animals as the maximum sustainable population

that the BMA can support is based on the best available science. At greater densities, overgrazing is likely

to negatively impact grasslands by promoting the growth of non-native plants and greatly increasing the

potential for erosion in native habitats (MCB Camp Pendleton 2015; USFWS 2009b, 2012). Bison almost


3-22

exclusively consume graminoid species (grasses [Poaceae], sedges [Cyperaceae], and rushes

[Juncaceae]), and over-grazing can promote the expansion of non-native forb species at the expense of

native grasses (Coppedge and Shaw 1998). Bison tend to avoid riparian areas with extensive shrub and

tree cover; however, they will graze on sedge/rush dominated aquatic habitats and overgrazing can cause

denuding and trampling of these areas (Abel 2012, Steuter and Hidinger 1999). Non-native grasslands

would likely be the most damaged by a larger bison herd due to the increased intensity of overgrazing.

Non-native grasslands are not a sensitive habitat. The increasing numbers of bison would likely range

more widely, rather than concentrating their activities within the same areas. Therefore, less than

significant adverse impacts to vegetation and aquatic habitats would likely result with the implementation

of the No-Action Alternative.

Fish and Wildlife

Overgrazing by large herbivores can cause serious losses and/or reductions in wildlife habitat productivity

in the western U.S. (Kauffman and Kruger 1984). Unmanaged growth of the bison herd would cause

increased bison grazing pressure on grasslands, negatively impacting the wildlife species that occur in

them. Overgrazing of grasslands would likely decrease available forage and protective cover for grassland

wildlife species. In addition, although bison do not frequent riparian and other aquatic habitats, they do

forage in graminoid-dominated riparian and wetland habitats (Abel 2012, Steuter and Hidinger 1999). An

unmanaged bison herd would also increase the trampling and grazing pressure along riparian corridors

and other aquatic habitats in the BMA, thereby degrading fish and wildlife habitat in those areas.

Although fish and wildlife habitat would likely be degraded and damaged, significant adverse effects to

fish and wildlife are not anticipated. Therefore, less than significant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife

would likely result with the implementation of the No-Action Alternative.

Special Status Species

If the bison herd is allowed to grow to a population level that exceeds the grazing allotment, special status

species would likely be both adversely and beneficially impacted.

The SKR population could potentially be negatively impacted by increased grazing pressure and an

increase in non-native forb cover (USFWS 1997). However, an increase in bison numbers could also

potentially create more open grassland habitat that SKR occurs in.

The LBVI, SWFL, and ARTO are likely to experience minor and less than significant negative impacts

from the potential for individuals in a larger bison herd to walk through or rest in the shade of the riparian

habitat.

SDFS and RFS would potentially be negatively impacted by an unmanaged bison herd from increased

erosion into ponded basins and bison trampling basins. However, bison can carry and distribute cysts

among ephemeral basins creating additional habitat for SDFS and RFS.

An unmanaged bison herd would likely lead to an increase in soil disturbance along the banks of streams

while bison enter or cross streams, resulting in increased turbidity and sediment loads. They could also

urinate or defecate in the streams. However, even with an unmanaged bison herd, these events would be

localized, temporary, and inconsequential. Therefore, southern steelhead would not be impacted.

BRFI would likely experience greater grazing pressure and potential loss of habitat with an increase in the

bison herd.

Therefore, implementation of the No-Action Alternative would have less than significant adverse impacts

on special status species.


3-23

3.3 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY


The BMA comprises several military training areas, the high hazard impact area, artillery firing areas, and

live firing ranges. As such, a variety of training activities occurs throughout the area, including – from

individual basic warrior (small arms) training to larger company/battalion-sized training operations. Even

larger live-fire combined arms training evolutions that include the use of artillery and close air support are

conducted aboard the Base.

Several primary roads are encompassed within the BMA, including Jardine Canyon Road, Case Springs

Road, Roblar Road, Basilone Road, Horno Canyon Road, and Las Pulgas Road. As a result, vehicle

collisions with bison have occurred. Specifically, vehicles have collided with bison seven times on Base.

All of those collisions occurred on Basilone Road, which is a paved, major road located along the western

perimeter of the BMA (refer to Figure 1-2). The known occurrences of bison-vehicle-collision follow: 1

in 1985, 2 in 1991, 1 in 1992, 1 in 1993, 1 in 2012, and 1 in 2013. Since the first recorded collision, the

estimated number of bison on Base increased from approximately 50 animals to approximately 120

animals in 2011. In addition to the above incidents, Game Warden staff must regularly respond to

complaints of bison on or near roadways. Game wardens haze the bison away from the road and control

traffic to reduce the risk of a bison-vehicle-collision when bison are attempting to cross.

Bison can often weigh up to one ton (2,000 lbs [907 kg]) and can quickly accelerate to speeds of up to 30-

35 miles per hour (48-56 km per hour). Bison are generally non-aggressive and rarely attack humans, but

can charge and attack if provoked (National Wildlife Federation 2014). There have been no reported

attacks on MCB Camp Pendleton.


3.3.2.1 Alternative 1 - Implement Bison Herd Management Plan (Preferred Alternative)

Under Alternative 1, the USMC would implement a Bison Herd Management Plan. Management tools

would include contraception, relocation, sharpshooting, and hunting. Due to the location of the BMA

within or near high hazard impact areas, it is possible that personnel implementing management tools

would be positioned in these military training areas. When within training areas, personnel would follow

established Marine Corps Installation West - MCB Camp Pendleton Range and Training Area Standing

Operating Procedures (USMC 2013).

The Bison Herd Management Plan’s purpose is to limit the herd’s size, which would likely decrease the

potential for public health and safety hazards. By limiting the size of the bison herd, it is probable that

vehicle collisions and roadway sightings would likely be less common than if the herd size was not

managed. In addition, the Base would consider installing a bison crossing sign(s) if future evidence

supports their efficacy. Signs could be installed along Basilone Road, or in locations where bison-vehicle

collisions have the highest likelihood of occurring based upon past collisions and incidents when the

game wardens have been contacted to haze bison away from the road shoulder. Therefore, beneficial, but

less than significant impacts to public health and safety would result from the implementation of

Alternative 1.

3.3.2.2 Alternative 2 - Eliminate Bison Herd Over Time

Alternative 2 involves the complete elimination of bison from MCB Camp Pendleton using the same

techniques as Alternative 1 such as contraception, relocation, sharpshooting, and/or hunting. In addition,

the installation of roadway crossing signs indicating the presence of bison along roadways would be


3-24

considered by the Base if future evidence supports their efficacy. Signs could raise driver awareness of

the potential for bison-vehicle collisions. Over time as the size of the bison herd is reduced, the risk of

bison-vehicle collisions would also be reduced. Therefore, beneficial, but less than significant impacts to

public health and safety would result from the implementation of Alternative 2.


Under the No-Action Alternative, existing management practices such as hazing bison, herd counts,

genetic analysis, and euthanizing injured animals would continue. With the bison herd expected to double

every 11 years, there would likely continue to be traffic-related safety issues. In addition, the likelihood of

bison encounters within housing and cantonment areas may increase. Therefore, adverse, but less than

significant impacts to public health and safety would result from the implementation of the No-Action

Alternative.


4-1

CHAPTER 4

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS BY NEPA

4.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

4.1.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts

Federal regulations implementing NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) require that the cumulative impacts of a

Proposed Action be assessed. CEQ regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA define

cumulative impacts 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 non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7).”

To analyze cumulative impacts, the following must be considered:

1. The area in which the effects of the proposed project would be felt.

2. The impacts that are expected in the area from the proposed project.

3. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that have had or are expected to have

impacts in the same area.

4. The impacts or expected impacts from these other actions.

5. The overall impact that can be expected if the individual impacts are allowed to accumulate.

Consequently, the region where cumulative impacts may occur is within the vicinity of the BMA aboard

MCB Camp Pendleton. The cumulative projects summarized in Table 4-1 focus on other military and

infrastructure actions located within this region. The analysis presented in Section 4.1.3 considers

additional impacts arising from the impacts of implementing Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 combined with

the impacts of the other known past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within this region.

4.1.2 Past, Present, And Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the identified cumulative effects region are

summarized in Table 4-1 and shown in Figure 4-1.


4-2

Table 4-1. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects

Project Title1 Project Description

Past Projects

(1) Bachelor Enlisted

Quarters/Infantry

Instruction Facility, School

of Infantry West

This project is part of the Grow the Force Initiative and consists of

constructing a Bachelor Enlisted Quarters/Infantry Facility Complex

composed of a high-rise multistory Class A Student Dormitory and a low-

rise multistory Infantry Instruction Facility. The project area consists of

approximately 8.3 ac (3.4 ha).

(2) Recruit Barracks

This project is also part of the Grow the Force Initiative and consists of a

high-rise multistory open bay barracks, two company offices and two arm

rooms. The project area is approximately 4.3 ac (1.7 ha).

(3) P-614 Special Operations

Training Group Battle

Course

The project consists of the construction and operation of a 270-degree

range, control room/observation tower with environmental control, two-

story sniper house, bench canopy, target enhancements, two-story façade,

known distance target carriages, technical operating manuals, and concrete

pad (for portable toilets). The range is located northwest of Range 130.

Present Projects

(4) Grow the Force Initiative

The Marine Corps 202k Plus Up, also known as “Grow the Force” would

include an increase of approximately 3,000 personnel at MCB Camp

Pendleton and the placement and use of temporary and permanent

facilities.

(5) Basewide Utility

Infrastructure Improvements

Construction of new or upgrade of existing utility systems to provide

reliable and compliant water, wastewater, natural gas, electrical, and

communications systems to support military training and operations and

delivery of life support and quality of life services.

(6) Basewide Water

Infrastructure Improvements

Construction, operation, and maintenance of infrastructure upgrades,

expansions, and improvements on the installation water system and

replacement of a critical link in the installation roadway system. Projects

include Northern Advanced Water Treatment plant and associated facilities

(P-1044), connection of the installation’s northern and southern water

system (P-1045).

(7) North Area Waste Water

Conveyance Pipeline (P-1046)

This project involves the construction, operation, and maintenance of the

North Area Waste Water Conveyance Pipeline and a pumping station to

support increased wastewater flows. The project also includes demolition

of the existing pumping station and associated force main pipelines,

decommissioning of a Sewage Treatment Plant, and the construction of a

Tributary Area Pumping Station.

Reasonably Foreseeable Projects

(8) Repair Access Roads Repair and stabilize existing unpaved roads throughout MCB Camp

Pendleton’s training ranges.

(9) P-214 Range Development The project proposes to relocate the existing Range 214 to Wilcox; or,

upgrade the existing Range 214 at Horno without relocating it to Wilcox.

(10) Repair of Various Bridges

Perform repairs and maintenance on eight bridges to facilitate the efficient

transport of personnel, equipment, and supplies. The bridges are located

throughout MCB Camp Pendleton.

(11) Range, Training, and

Impact Area EA

The EA assesses future construction, maintenance, sustainment, and repair

within ranges, training systems, training areas, and impact areas through

MCB Camp Pendleton.

(12) Photovoltaic System

Feasibility Study

MCB Camp Pendleton and Naval Weapons Station Detachment Fallbrook

are considering the construction, ownership, and maintenance of a

photovoltaic system by a third-party owner. Two potential locations for the

proposed site are a 142-ac (57-ha) site at MCB Camp Pendleton and 200-

ac (80-ha) site at Naval Weapons Station Detachment Fallbrook. Note: 1 Numbers refer to project locations in Figure 4-1.

CaseSprings

Las Pulgas Lake

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

PAC I FI C O CE A N


Marine CorpsAir Station

Camp Pendleton

ORANGE COUNTY

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

Basi lone Ro ad

DouglasDri

ve

Jardi

neCa

nyon

Road

Coast Highway

Basilone RoadHo

rnoCa

nyon Road

Cristia

nitos R

oad

SanMate

o Canyon Road

North River Road

Talega Road

Las P

ulgas Road

El Camino Real

Roblar Road

Ammunitio

n Roa

d

San Mateo Road

El Camino Real

Stuart Mesa Road

Case Springs Road

Fallb

rook C

reek

Sand

ia Cr

eek

Las F

lores

Creek

Sa ndi a Cre ek

Fallbrook Creek

Buena Vista Creek

Santa

Marg

arita

R ive

r

San Luis Rey River

Santa Margarit

a River

DeLu

z Cree

k

San M

ateo C

reek

San Onofre Creek

12

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

910

10

11

Legend# Cumulative Project General Location

Bison Migration AreaMCB Camp PendletonCleveland National ForestSurface Water

Figure 4-1Cumulative Projects in the Vicinity


0 2.5 5Miles

0 2.5 5Kilometers O

ORANGECOUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

MCBCamp

Pendleton

RIVERSIDECOUNTY

!"a$

!"̂$

A³E

A̧

!"̂$


Map Number

1

23

456789101112

Project Title

Bachelor Enlisted Quarters/Infantry Instruction Facility,School of InfantryRecruit BarracksP-614 Special Operations Training Group Battle Course

Grow the Force InitiativeBasewide Utility and Infrastructure ImprovementsBasewide Water Infrastructure ImprovementsNorth Area Waste Water Conveyance Pipeline (P-1046)Repair Access RoadsP-214 Range DevelopmentRepair of Various BridgesRange, Training, and Impact Area EAPhotovoltaic System Feasibility Study

Past Projects

Reasonably Foreseeable Projects

Present Projects

4-3



4-4

4.1.3 Potential Cumulative Impacts by Environmental Resource Area

This section addresses the potential cumulative impacts of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 in conjunction

with the aforementioned cumulative projects. CEQ guidance states:

“A cumulative effects analysis should ‘count what counts,’ not produce superficial analyses or a

long laundry list of issues that have little relevance to the effect of the proposed action or the

eventual decisions.” (CEQ 1997).

Therefore, the cumulative impact analysis focuses on: (1) those resource areas significantly impacted by

the project; and/or (2) those resource areas currently in poor or declining health or at risk even if project

impacts would be relatively small.

As Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to any resource area, the

following cumulative impact analysis focuses on the following resource areas that could potentially

experience cumulative impacts when combined with projects mentioned in Section 4.1.2 or are currently

in poor or declining health. These resource areas include training/operations and land use; biological

resources; and public health and safety.

4.1.3.1 Training/Operations and Land Use

Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would have less than significant impacts to training/operations and land

use. Given the importance of the military mission aboard MCB Camp Pendleton, the identified

cumulative projects are required to analyze and mitigate their impact on training/operations and land use.

Therefore, when added to the impacts from other identified cumulative projects, Alternative 1 or

Alternative 2 would not result in significant cumulative impacts to training/operations and land use.

4.1.3.2 Biological Resources

Adherence to the Marine Corps Installation West - MCB Camp Pendleton Range and Training Area

Standing Operating Procedures and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act would result in negligible impacts to

biological resources under the implementation of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2. All identified cumulative

projects would also be required to adhere to Marine Corps Installation West - MCB Camp Pendleton

Range and Training Area Standing Operating Procedures and MCB Camp Pendleton’s INRMP.

Therefore, when added to the impacts from other identified cumulative projects, Alternative 1 or

Alternative 2 would not result in significant cumulative impacts to biological resources.

4.1.3.3 Public Health and Safety

Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would provide beneficial, but less than significant, impacts to public health

and safety with the reduction in risk from bison-vehicle-collisions. The identified cumulative projects are

largely infrastructure-related and are not expected to have an impact on public health and safety. Further,

any cumulative projects that would burden public health and safety services would be required to evaluate

their respective impacts on a project-by-project basis. Therefore, when added to the impacts from other

identified cumulative projects, Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would not result in significant cumulative

impacts to public health and safety.


4-5

4.2 POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE ACTION AND THE OBJECTIVES OF FEDERAL,

REGIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS

Implementation of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would be consistent with all applicable federal, regional,

state and local plans, policies, and controls to the extent required by federal law and regulation. No

potential conflicts have been identified. Table 4-2 provides a summary of environmental compliance with

implementation of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2.

Table 4-2. Status of Compliance of Alternatives 1 and 2 with

Relevant Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls

Plans, Policies, and Controls Responsible

Agency Status of Compliance

NEPA (42 USC §§ 4321-

4370h)

CEQ Regulations (Title 40

CFR 1500-1508)

Marine Corps Order

P5090.2A, Change 3,

Chapter 12

USMC

This EA has been prepared in accordance with the CEQ

Regulations implementing NEPA and USMC NEPA

procedures.

ESA (16 USC §§ 1531-

1544) USFWS

Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would not be likely to

adversely affect federally listed endangered or threatened

species. Therefore, Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would be in

compliance with the ESA.

EO 11990, Protection of

Wetlands USMC

Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would not impact wetlands and

would be in compliance with EO 11990.

EO 13045, Protection of

Children from

Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

USMC

Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would reduce risks to the

health and safety of children. Therefore, Alternative 1 or

Alternative 2 would be in compliance with EO 13045.

EO 13112, Invasive

Species and Soil and

Water Conservation Act

USMC

Alternatives 1 and 2 would not promote or introduce invasive

species and would minimize economic, ecological, and

human health impacts that invasive species cause. Thus

Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would be in compliance with

EO 13112.

EO 13186, Responsibilities

of Federal Agencies to

Protect Migratory Birds

USMC


adversely affect migratory bird populations and would be in

compliance with EO 13186.

EO 13443, Facilitation of

Hunting Heritage and

Wildlife Conservation

USMC

Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would consider hunting and

management activities of bison. Thus, Alternative 1 and

Alternative 2 would be in compliance with EO 13443.

Migratory Bird Treaty

Act (16 USC §§ 703-

712)

USMC


adversely affect migratory bird populations and would be in

compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Sikes Improvement Act

(16 USC §§ 670 – 670f) USMC

Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would be in compliance with

the Sikes Improvement Act via the MCB Camp Pendleton

INRMP.


4-6

4.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Resources that are irreversibly or irretrievably committed to a project are those that are used on a long

term or permanent basis. This includes the use of non-renewable resources such as metal and fuel, and

other natural or cultural resources. These resources are irretrievable in that they would be used for this

project when they could have been used for other purposes. Human labor is also considered an

irretrievable resource. Another impact that falls under this category is the unavoidable destruction of

natural resources that could limit the range of potential uses of that particular environment.

Implementation of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would result in an irretrievable commitment of human

labor and funds necessary for management. The irreversible and irretrievable commitment of these

resources would not be considered significant.

Implementation of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would not result in the destruction of environmental

resources such that the range of potential uses of the environment would be limited, or affect the

biodiversity of the region.

4.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND LONG-TERM

PRODUCTIVITY

NEPA requires an analysis of the relationship between a project’s short term impacts on the environment

and the effects that these impacts may have on the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term

productivity of the affected environment. Impacts that narrow the range of beneficial uses of the

environment are of particular concern. This refers to the possibility that choosing a single alternative

reduces future flexibility in pursuing other options, or that giving over a parcel of land or other resource

to a certain use often eliminates the possibility of other uses being performed at that site.

The BMA is located within MCB Camp Pendleton, which facilitates the intensive training mandated by

Marines to acquire a full range of basic and advanced combat readiness skills, weapon proficiency, and

tactical leadership skills. Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would not alter the mission of the Base or

resources therein and thus would not affect long-term productivity of the environment.

4.5 MEANS TO MITIGATE AND/OR MONITOR ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

With the integration of SCMs as presented in Section 2.9, Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would not result

in significant environmental impacts.

4.6 ANY PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED AND

ARE NOT AMENABLE TO MITIGATION

This EA has determined that the Proposed Action would not result in any significant unmitigable impacts;

therefore, there are no probable adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated.


5-1

CHAPTER 5

REFERENCES

Abel, Ted. 2012. Effects of Bison Grazing, Herbicides, and Mowing on Riparian and Wet-Mesic Plant

Communities at Prairie State Park, Barton County, Missouri. Master’s Thesis. Department of Biology

and Earth Science, University of Central Missouri. April.

Asmus, J.L. 2010. Results of 2010 Dry Matter Surveys in Finch and Echo Training Areas, MCB Camp

Pendleton. Memorandum of Record.





Asmus. J.L. 2014. MCB Camp Pendleton Bison Survey Results 1979-2013.

Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The

Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press,

Berkeley.

CalFlora. 2014. Online at: http://calflora.org/cgi-bin/species_query.cgi?where-calrecnum=604. Accessed

on 25 February 2014.

California Herps. 2014. A Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Online at:

http://www.californiaherps.com. Accessed on 24 February 2014.

Catalina Island Conservancy. 2011a. Catalina Island Conservancy. 27 January.

http://www.catalinaconservancy.org/index.php?s=support&p=bison. Accessed on 6 April 2013.

Catalina Island Conservancy. 2011b. Questions for Catalina Island Conservancy Bison Site Visit. 27

January 2013.

CDFW. 2014. State of California. The Natural Resources Agency. Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Biogeographic Data Branch. California Natural Diversity Database Special Plant and Animals GIS

Database.

CEQ. 1997. Considering cumulative effects under the National Environmental Policy Act: Council on

Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President. January.

CNPS. 2014. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). California Native Plant

Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed on 10 February 2014.

Coppedge, B. R. and J.H. Shaw. 1998. Bison Grazing Patterns on Seasonally Burned Tallgrass Prairie.

Journal of Range Management 51: 258-264.

Derr, J. 2010. Final Report on Results of Camp Pendleton Bison mtDNA Analysis. Animal Sciences

Department, Texas A&M University.

Derr, J., P. Hendrick, N. Halbert, L. Plough, L. Dobson, J. King, C. Duncan, D. Hunter, N. Cohen, D.

Hedgecock. 2012. Phenotypic Effects of Cattle Mitochondrial DNA in American Bison. Conservation

Biology. 26: 1130-1136.

http://calflora.org/cgi-bin/species_query.cgi?where-calrecnum=604


5-2

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. State

of California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. October.

Howell, S. L. and B. E. Kus. 2012. Distribution, Abundance, and Breeding Activities of the Southwestern

Willow Flycatcher at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California. 2012 Annual Report. Prepared

by U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, San Diego, CA for Environmental

Security, MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.

Irions, D.K. 2012. Pendleton’s Early Years Revisited. Marines. The Official Website of the Unites States

Marine Corps, MCB Camp Pendleton. 21 December.

IUCN. 2010. American Bison. Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines.

Kauffman, J. B. and W. C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock Impacts on Riparian Ecosystems and Streamside

Management Implications: A Review. Journal of Range Management 37:430-437.

Lynn, S. and B.E. Kus. 2012. Distribution, Abundance, and Breeding Activities of the Least Bell's Vireo

at MCB Camp Pendleton, California. U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center,

2012 Annual Data Summary.

MCB Camp Pendleton. 1989. Study of the Bison on Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base. Prepared by

SRA. 30 October.

MCB Camp Pendleton. 2012a. Photography by J.L. Asmus. Wildlife Biologist, Environmental Security,

MCB Camp Pendleton.

MCB Camp Pendleton. 2012b. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton Integrated Natural Resources

Management Plan. March.

MCB Camp Pendleton. 2014a. Personal communication via email, J.L. Asmus, Wildlife Biologist, MCI-

West Environmental Security, Game Warden Office. Information concerning bison and

Training/Operations impacts. 24 January.

MCB Camp Pendleton. 2014b. GIS Data layers. Environmental Security.

MCB Camp Pendleton. 2015. Bison Herd Management Plan. April.

National Wildlife Federation. 2014. Wildlife Safety. http://www.nwf.org/Great-American-Backyard-

Campout/Get-Ready/Tips/Wildlife-Safety.aspx. Accessed on 7 February 2014.

NAVFAC Atlantic. 2011. Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) General

Inventory and Breeding Status Assessment Study on MCB Camp Pendleton. Prepared for: NAVFAC

Atlantic. February.

Navy. 2010. MCB Camp Pendleton Base Master Plan. Final. December.

Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County.

Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California” prepared

by Robert F. Holland, Ph.D. (October 1986). March.

Robbins, Jim. 2007. Strands of Undesirable DNA Roam with Buffalo. New York Times. 9 January.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/science/09bison.html?_r=0. Accessed on 23 October 2013.

Schnabel, R. 2011. Results of Camp Pendleton Bison DNA Genotype Analysis. Personal communication

via email from R. Schnabel, Animal Sciences Department, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO to


5-3

J. L. Asmus, Environmental Security, Resource Enforcement and Compliance Branch, MCB Camp

Pendleton, San Diego County, CA. 13 January.

Steuter, A.A. and L. Hidinger. 1999. Comparative Ecology of Bison and Cattle on Mixed-Grass Prairie.

Great Plains Research, 9:329-342.

Stokes, Drew. 2012. 2010 Bat Inventory of MCB Camp Pendleton, San Diego, County. California. San

Diego Natural History Museum. February.

Sweet, S. 1992. Initial report on the ecology and status of the arroyo toad (Bufo microscaphus

californicus) on Los Padres National Forest of Southern California, with management

recommendations. Contract report to USDA, Forest Service, Los Padres National Forest, Goleta, CA.

Talwar, G.P. 1985. Immunobiology of gonadotropin-releasing hormone. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry

23:795-800.

Unitt, Philip. 2004. San Diego County Bird Atlas. San Diego Natural History Museum.

USFWS. 1997. Draft Recovery Plan for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat. Region 1. Portland, Oregon.

USFWS. 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat

for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica); Final Rule. Federal

Register 72: 72009-72213.

USFWS. 2009a. Brodiaea filifolia (thread-leaved brodiaea) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation.

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, CA. August.

USFWS. 2009b. Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges. Final

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Volume 1. March.

USFWS. 2012. Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Montana.

December.

USGS. 2013. MCBCP Arroyo Toad Monitoring Results for 2012 and Trend Analysis from 2003 to 2012.

Prepared for AC/S Environmental Security, MCB Camp Pendleton.

USMC. 2007. Range Compatible Use Zone Study: MCB Camp Pendleton. June.

USMC. 2013. Range and Training Area Standing Operating Procedures (MCIWEST – MCB CAMPENO

3500.1). November.

Wayne Getz Lab. 2005. Local Convex Hull: A k-NNCH Implementation. http://locoh.cnr.berkeley.edu/.

Accessed on 14 May 2010.

http://locoh.cnr.berkeley.edu/


6-1

CHAPTER 6

LIST OF PREPARERS

This EA was prepared by Cardno. Members of the professional staff include:

Project Management

Douglas Billings, Program Manager, 28 years’ experience

B.S., Physical Geography/Geologic Sciences

Stella Acuna, Project Manager, 25 years’ experience B.S., Environmental Design and Planning

Technical Analysts

Melissa Tu, Biologist, 15 years’ experience

B.A., Environmental Science/Biology

Todd McConchie, 14 years’ experience

M.S., Biology

Clint Scheuerman, Ecologist/Wetland Specialist, 8 years’ experience

M.A., Biological Sciences

Ian Todd, Environmental Analyst, 5 years’ experience

B.A., Environmental Studies

GIS and Graphics

Shannon Brown, GIS Analyst, 4 years’ experience

B.S., Environmental and Resource Science

Jackie Brownlow, Graphics, 5 years’ experience

B.A., Business Administration

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Mike Dungan, Senior Ecologist, 32 years’ experience

Ph.D., Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

Ryan Pingree, 18 years’ experience

M.S., Environmental Science and Management

Scott Barker, Environmental Analyst, 21 years’ experience

M.S., City Planning, Civil Engineering

Claudia Tan, Document Production Manager, 12 years’ experience

A.A., Liberal Arts and Sciences


7-1

CHAPTER 7

PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED

NAVFAC Southwest

Ryan Maynard

Community/NEPA Planner

Meghan Faye Dinkins

Natural Resources Specialist

Andrew Wastell


MCB Camp Pendleton

John Biondolillo, MCB Camp Pendleton Environmental Security (ES), Strategic Planning Section

Project Manager

Dean Levi, MCB Camp Pendleton ES, Resource Management Division

Division Head (acting)

Danielle Page, MCB Camp Pendleton ES, Cultural Resources Branch

Branch Head

Jim Asmus, MCB Camp Pendleton ES, Resource Enforcement and Compliance Branch

Wildlife Biologist

Mathew Wilson, MCB Camp Pendleton ES, Wildlife Management Branch

Game Warden

Alisa Zych, MCB Camp Pendleton ES


Other Organizations

Julie King, Senior Wildlife Biologist

Conservation Department

Santa Catalina Island Conservancy

Catalina Island, CA

Dr. James Derr, Professor of Veterinary Pathobiology

Texas A&M University

College of Veterinary Medicine

1301 West Seventh Street

Fort Worth, TX 76102

Jon Gustafson, California State Rangeland Management Specialist

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service

430 G Street

Davis, CA 95616


7-2

Dr. Jerry F. Taylor, Professor and Wurdack Chair of Animal Genomics

University of Missouri

Animal Sciences Research Center Division of Animal Sciences

Columbia, MO 65211

Dr. Robert D. Schnabel, Research Assistant

University of Missouri

Animal Sciences Research Center Division of Animal Sciences

Columbia, MO 65211

APPENDIX A

Public Participation Process Documentation

Appendix A

1

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS

The United States Marine Corps gave notice that an Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the Bison Management project through

the publication of a Notice of Intent to Prepare (NIP) an Environmental Assessment. The NIP was

published in the Union Tribune - North County (formerly known as the North County Times) and the

Orange County Register on 17, 18, and 19 January 2014. Instructions for obtaining further information

about the Proposed Action or the NEPA process were provided. Two separate comments were received

focusing on the conservation of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton bison, and on the possibility of Base

hunting opportunities, respectively.

The Public Participation Process is anticipated to conclude with the publication of a Notice of Availability

of the Final EA and decision document. Pending the results of this analysis, the decision document would

be either a Finding of No Significant Impact or a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement, as appropriate. The decision will be published in the Union Tribune - North County and the

Orange County Register.

Comments Received and Response to Comments Notice of Intent to Prepare a Bison Management Environmental Assessment

Notice of Intent – Comment 1 (Received 18 January 2014) Response -----Original Message----- From: Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 12:49 PM To: Jones CIV Donnitta J Subject: Bison Management Project We read your Notice of Intent in the paper in regards to the EA for the Bison Management Project. My husband is USMC, Vietnam Veteran, and we have base privileges. We have driven up to Case Springs and viewed the bison. It seems that you have enough property where you could give the bison their own area which would not interfere with training and/or having a vehicle collision with a bison (really?!). Culling/hunting/extermination is a severe punishment for these animals, who have roamed freely until now. Surely you have someone in charge who can come up with a less drastic alternative. Relocation is a possibility. No-Action Alternative should be analyzed at length. Please keep us posted on any decisions.

Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton's land use designation is for military training and no land is available to be set aside as exotic wild bison habitat on Base without negatively impacting military training activities. MCB Camp Pendleton is committed to handling all wildlife related actions in the most humane manner possible. The Environmental Assessment (EA) will evaluate several alternatives and the no-Action Alternative at length. Relocation is a component of the alternatives.

Notice of Intent – Comment 2 (Received 29 January 2014) Response Ms. Jones, In performing subject assessment, it is respectfully requested that the Pendleton Sportsman's Club be allowed an opportunity for input and participation if the decision is made to reduce the herd by culling. Our 100 plus members, most of whom are active duty men and women, including members of the Wounded Warriors Battalion or retirees would welcome the "chance of a lifetime" to hunt a Bison and share the bounty with Club participants. Suggestions:

Hunting is a management option considered in this EA. The EA addresses generation of specific hunting regulations should that option be selected.

1 of 2

Comments Received and Response to Comments Notice of Intent to Prepare a Bison Management Environmental Assessment

A Special Bison Permit process under the oversight of the Wildlife Biologists and/or the Camp Pendleton Game Wardens, would determine who is selected to purchase a permit for the designated count of Bison to be culled. The permit holder would be responsible for following the rules of ethical hunting and removing the Bison. It is requested that Pendleton Sportman's Club Members be considered for at least one permit and with first priority being given to Active Duty Military: Wounded Warrior and Enlisted being given preference. If additional information is required, please contact me. Aivars T. Berzins Vice President, Pendleton Sportsman's Club 760-720-3729 [email protected]

2 of 2

APPENDIX B

Bison Herd Management Plan

April 2015

Prepared by: Jim Asmus

Marine Corps Installations West, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Environmental Security

Bison Herd Management Plan Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AU animal unit

Base Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton

BVC bison-vehicle-collision

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

CI chemical immobilization

CY Comparative Yield

DWR Dry Weight Rank

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

lb(s) pound(s)

MCB Marine Corps Base

NIAC Northern Impact Area Control

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

OP-W Observation Post Whiskey

RDM Residual Dry Matter

SD Standard Deviation

SIAC Southern Impact Area Control

SNP50 Single Nucleotide Polymorphism at 54,000 loci

TA Training Area

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Bison Herd Management Plan April 2015

i

BISON HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Purpose and Need .............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND METHODS ............................................................................................. 1

2.1 Goal 1: Maintain a Small Conservation Herd of Bison Permanently on MCB Camp

Pendleton ........................................................................................................................... 1

2.1.1 Objective 1: Monitor and Minimize Bison Impacts to Training ................................. 1

2.1.2 Objective 2: Limit the Size of the Bison Herd at 300–400 Animals ........................... 3

2.2 Goal 2: Manage a Sustainable and Robust Bison Herd .................................................... 3

2.2.1 Objective 1: Measure Cattle Gene Introgression ........................................................ 3

2.2.2 Objective 2: Monitor for Diseases within the Bison Herd, Especially Bovine

Tuberculosis, Brucellosis, and Malignant Catarrhal Fever ...................................................... 4

2.2.3 Objective 3: Limit Grazing Pressure of Bison within Grasslands by Controlling Herd

Size 4

3.0 HISTORY, ECOLOGY, AND IMPLICATIONS OF MAINTAINING A BISON HERD ON MCB CAMP

PENDLETON ...................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 State of the Bison Herd and Bison Management on Base ................................................. 5

3.2 Reasons the United States Marine Corps Should Continue to Participate in Bison

Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 5

3.3 A Bison Herd on MCB Camp Pendleton is Compatible with Training ............................ 6

3.4 Risk of Bison Roadkill Accidents ..................................................................................... 7

3.5 Population Size and Growth of the Bison Herd ................................................................ 7

3.6 Limit Bison Herd at 300–400 Animals ............................................................................. 8

3.7 Grazing Forage Allotment for Bison ................................................................................. 9

3.8 Ecological Effects of Bison Grazing in MCB Camp Pendleton Grasslands ................... 10

3.9 Value of a Small Conservation Herd on Camp Pendleton .............................................. 12

4.0 METHODS FOR MANAGING THE BISON HERD .............................................................................. 12

4.1 Marking of Bison ............................................................................................................ 12

4.2 Bison DNA Collection and Genetic Monitoring ............................................................. 13

4.3 Disease Monitoring Vaccination of Bison ...................................................................... 13

4.4 Implications for not Actively Managing the Bison Herd on MCB Camp Pendleton ...... 14

4.5 Ground Based Bison Surveys .......................................................................................... 14

4.6 Methods for Limiting and Reducing the Size of the Bison Herd .................................... 15

5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 16


ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Bison Sightings within the Bison Migration Area ........................................................................ 2

Figure 2. Frequency of Bison Complaints Received by the Base Game Warden Office, 2003-2012 ....... 6

Figure 3. Bison Population Size Estimated From Ground and Aerial Surveys ........................................... 8


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This management plan describes management actions for maintaining a wild roaming herd of plains bison

(Bison bison) on Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton (Base). The animals are not native to

southern California. Fall 2011, the herd had approximately 120 bison. Bison most often choose to graze

and roam within the high hazard impact area on Base (Figure 1).

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED

This document describes the management actions required to successfully maintain a small conservation

herd of bison on Base. As the number of bison on Base continues to increase, this plan identifies the

timing and action that will be used to limit the herd’s size. Successfully implementing the steps in this

plan will promote a sustainably sized bison herd while minimizing disruptions to military training.

Maintaining a small conservation herd of bison on Base supports the United States Marine Corps’

commitment to land stewardship without impeding the training mission. Effective bison conservation

requires an interstate and multiagency effort that includes herds on federal lands. Maintaining a

sustainably sized bison herd on Base where it can provide ecological value in natural grasslands will

contribute to the broader goal of bison conservation while supporting the Base’s goals for ecosystem

management.

2.0 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND METHODS

The format of this document emphasizes adaptive management as used in the Interagency Bison

Management Plan for Yellowstone National Park and surrounding lands (National Park Service et al.

2000, 2008). The following describes goals, objectives, monitoring metrics, and triggers that require

management response. Supporting text with maps, and figures follows the management plan. This plan

will be revised as needed to incorporate new information.

2.1 GOAL 1: MAINTAIN A SMALL CONSERVATION HERD OF BISON

PERMANENTLY ON MCB CAMP PENDLETON

2.1.1 Objective 1: Monitor and Minimize Bison Impacts to Training

Metrics

Game Warden staff will track bison disruptions of traffic and bison-vehicle-strikes, if they

occur.

The Range Control Office will document reports of training conflicts with bison and the

Game Warden Office will track other wildlife conflicts that involve bison. Records of

conflicts should include location, time, date, a brief description of the conflict, training time

lost, and the action taken.

The Game Warden Office will, as needed, summarize and review bison wildlife complaints

recorded in the Code 12 database to monitor trends and patterns of disruptions.

CaseSprings

Zulu Impact Area

Whiskey Impact AreaQuebec

Impact Area


Jardi

ne C

anyo

n

Las Pulgas Lake

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

PAC IF I C OCE A N



409A Impact Area

FinchTraining Area

DeltaTraining Area

EchoTraining Area

IndiaTraining Area



Yankee Impact Area

X-Ray Impact Area

LFAM800

Alpha One!(1

!(1

!(3!(4

!(19!(4

!(5!(2

!(7

!(3

!(16!(11!(5

!(6!(8

!(2

!(1

!(4

!(1

!(1!(1

!(1

!(1

!(2

!(2!(14

!(1!(5

!(6!(24

!(1

!(1

!(1 !(2!(2

!(1!(1!(1!(1

!(1

!(1!(1!(1

!(1!(1!(1

Basilone Road

Jardine

Canyon Road

SanMa teo Road

San Mateo Canyon Road

Horno Cany

on Road

LasPulga

s Road

Roblar Road

Talega Road

El Camino Real

Stuart Mesa Road

Case Springs Road

Fallbrook C

reek

Las F

lores

Cree

k

Santa

Marg

arita

Rive

r

Santa

Marga

ritaRiv

er

San Mateo Creek

San Onofre Creek!(5!(1

!(8

!(6

!(4!(1

!(2

!(1

!(5

!(1

!(2

!(35

!(2

!(1

!(1

!(1

!(1

!(2!(1

!(1!(4!(1

!(1

!(1

!(1

!(10!(3!(3

!(1

!(4!(31

!(6

!(6

Legend 2004200820092012Artillery Firing AreaHigh Hazard Impact AreaNon-dudded Impact Area

Training AreaBison Migration AreaWhiskey Home RangeZulu Home RangeMCB Camp PendletonCantonment AreaCleveland National ForestSurface WaterFiring Line

Figure 1Bison Sightings in the Vicinity


0 1 2Miles

0 2 4Kilometers O

ORANGECOUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

MCBCamp

Pendleton

RIVERSIDECOUNTY

!"a$

!"̂$

A³E

A̧

!"̂$ 2

2

Number of Bison SightedDuring Fall Aerial Surveys


2

2


2


3

Management responses

Game Warden staff will respond to wildlife complaints of bison on ranges that are

unavoidably interfering with training. Game Wardens will haze the animals to disperse

them from training ranges.

Regardless of herd size, if bison substantially impede training with recurring interruptions

that are not effectively controlled by hazing, the Game Warden Office may decide to kill

one or more bison to ensure the usability of training lands.

2.1.2 Objective 2: Limit the Size of the Bison Herd at 300–400 Animals

Metrics

Game Warden staff will perform helicopter surveys every second year, as funding allows, to

estimate the size of the bison herd and record the locations of bison. Surveys will perform a

simple count of all bison seen on Base.

Game Warden staff will record incidental observations and reports of bison when they are

present in training areas outside the high hazard impact area including Echo, Finch and

India Training Areas. Incidental records will include age class and sex information that may

be used in describing bison herd demographics.


If the bison herd is estimated at less than 290 animals and the herd’s impact to training is

effectively minimized, allow the size of the herd to increase.

If the size of the bison herd is estimated at between 290 and 350 individuals, Game Warden

biologist will initiate contraception treatments to limit the growth of the bison herd.

If the size of the bison herd is estimated at greater than 350 animals, Game Warden

biologist will arrange to permanently remove bison from the herd using capture-relocation,

sharpshooting, and/or sport hunting. The justification for limiting the average size of the

bison herd at 350 animals is discussed in section 3.6.

2.2 GOAL 2: MANAGE A SUSTAINABLE AND ROBUST BISON HERD

2.2.1 Objective 1: Measure Cattle Gene Introgression

Metrics

Game Warden biologist will collect tissue or blood from injured or dead bison and submit

the samples to a lab for genetic testing, as funding is available.

If additional genetic samples are needed, the Game Warden biologist may collect skin

samples remotely from healthy animals and submit for genetic testing.


4


Game Warden staff will share the results of genetic testing with other organizations that

manage bison or that may want to receive translocated bison from MCB Camp Pendleton.

2.2.2 Objective 2: Monitor for Diseases within the Bison Herd, Especially Bovine

Tuberculosis, Brucellosis, and Malignant Catarrhal Fever

Metrics

If practicable, the Game Warden biologist will perform a cursory examination of any dead

or downed bison for obvious signs of reportable illnesses. The biologist will collect nasal

swab and blood samples and submit the samples to San Diego County Veterinary Services

or a California Animal Health Lab for disease screening, as funding for testing is available.


Game Warden biologist will disclose evidence of reportable diseases to San Diego County

Veterinary Services within 24 hours.

Game Warden will consult with veterinary professionals and San Diego County Veterinary

Services to respond to serious diseases that are detected by routine monitoring.

Biological or veterinary staff will vaccinate bison against disease during processing after

capture in a corral or using chemical immobilization. Consult with a veterinarian that is

experienced with bison for specific vaccination recommendations.

Game Warden staff will euthanize individual bison that are suffering from untreatable

injuries, such as a broken leg, or cannot be captured and are badly tangled in wire debris.

2.2.3 Objective 3: Limit Grazing Pressure of Bison within Grasslands by

Controlling Herd Size

Metrics

Game Warden biologist will conduct springtime forage production surveys within

grasslands adjacent to the high hazard impact area to estimate averages for annual forage

production. Calculate how much forage the bison herd will likely consume based on recent

results of herd surveys.

Game Warden Biologist will conduct residual dry matter (RDM) surveys in the fall to

estimate the relative effects of bison grazing during the recent growing season and to

monitor for signs of overgrazing.


Reduce herd size using measures listed within section 2.1.2 if estimated forage consumption

for the bison herd will exceed the grazing allotment.

Reduce herd size if results of RDM surveys indicate extensive areas of heavy grazing

pressure in grasslands outside of the high hazard impact area.


5

3.0 HISTORY, ECOLOGY, AND IMPLICATIONS OF MAINTAINING A

BISON HERD ON MCB CAMP PENDLETON

3.1 STATE OF THE BISON HERD AND BISON MANAGEMENT ON BASE

Between 1973 and 1979, 14 plains bison were gifted from the San Diego Zoo to MCB Camp Pendleton

because the zoo did not have adequate space to keep the animals. Aerial survey results from fall 2011

estimate the number of bison on Base was approximately 120 animals. The bison herd is not intensively

managed and it is one of only two bison conservation herds in California; the other herd is on Santa

Catalina Island (Gates et al. 2010). Management of bison on Base includes: monitoring the herd’s size,

growth rate, sex composition, and age structure; hazing bison away from ranges that are actively firing

and away from Basilone Road when traffic is heavy; euthanizing badly injured animals; and collecting

samples for disease and genetic screening from dead animals.

3.2 REASONS THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS SHOULD CONTINUE TO

PARTICIPATE IN BISON CONSERVATION

The conservation of plains bison, which is a species that historically occupied much of North America,

requires a coordinated, nationwide effort to restore the ecological function of the species. Congressional

legislation has proposed the bison as a national symbol for the United States (Los Angeles Times 2012),

similar to the bald eagle. Although designating bison as the Nation’s mammal would be entirely

symbolic, that status signifies the collective responsibility of all Americans, especially stewards of federal

lands, to support bison conservation.

The Sikes Act encourages military installations to cooperate with outside natural resource agencies. MCB

Camp Pendleton is managed by a single organization and bison restrict their movements to Base, which

simplifies coordination for management actions of the bison herd. It is reasonable for the Base to

participate in bison conservation given that other federal agencies participate in the effort and bison on

federally–owned land are a public resource. The Base, coincidentally, has ecological conditions that make

it suitable for bison management including spacious grasslands with little fencing that are isolated from

domestic cattle herds. Although natural resource conservation is not the Base’s primary mission, the 40

year presence of a bison herd has been compatible with military training.

The bison herd provides substantial ecological value such as grazing within a grassland ecosystem that

needs disturbance to thrive and remain ecologically robust. Bison have ably provided this service while

producing, only, infrequent wildlife conflicts. Other sources of disturbance in grasslands include fire,

mowing, or domestic grazing animals; each of those methods, however, brings substantial risk, cost, or

limitations.

Eliminating the herd from Base would be expensive and may create unfavorable publicity for the USMC.

The first animals removed, whether by capture or shooting, would likely be taken from Echo Training

Area (TA) because that area is readily accessible and bison regularly use the area. As the herd size

diminishes, the remaining animals may not reliably leave the high hazard impact area. Those animals

would need to be shot from a helicopter until repeated surveys confirmed that no cows or calves

remained. Contracted flight time would likely cost $500–$1,000 per hour.


6

3.3 A BISON HERD ON MCB CAMP PENDLETON IS COMPATIBLE WITH

TRAINING

The main mission of MCB Camp Pendleton is to train Marines for combat. The presence of a bison herd

on Base has not degraded that training mission for 40 years or during four major conflicts: wars in

Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Bison occasionally disrupt activities at firing ranges,

however, a modification to range firing procedures in 2006 greatly reduced the number and type of bison

complaint calls received at the Game Wardens Office, Figure 2. The modification allowed Marines to

adjust and restrict their direction of fire to a portion of a range if bison were present elsewhere on the

range. Formerly, bison had to be completely absent from a range before trainers could begin firing, which

required Game Wardens and Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel to visit firing ranges and move

bison away from ranges by hazing. Hazing includes using loud noises (pyrotechnics or air horns) to

frighten bison away from firing ranges. As a subset of all bison complaints between 2003 and 2006, the

ranges 218A, 407, and 407A reported the most bison conflicts with 11, 20, and 14 total complaints,

respectively.

Figure 2. Frequency of Bison Complaints Received by the

Base Game Warden Office, 2003-2014

Bison prefer to roam in the high hazard impact area, despite the regular use of powerful munitions,

because it has spacious grasslands and water available. Some may consider military bombing ranges as

not suitable for wildlife use given the frequent use of live aerial bombs or artillery and mortar rounds. The

counterintuitive reality is that areas that are too dangerous for humans to occupy can provide substantial

conservation value for wildlife and their habitats (The Economist 2010). Other areas with restricted

human access that provide conservation value include the demilitarized zone between North and South

Korea, areas surrounding the defunct Chernobyl nuclear site in Ukraine, and Rocky Flats National

Wildlife Refuge. Prior to being closed to hunting in 1980, the high hazard impact area were popular with


7

mule deer hunters on Base as it has thriving shrublands and oak savannah habitats that mule deer

preferred. The high hazard impact area includes Quebec, Whiskey, and Zulu impact areas, which provide

value as a refuge for mule deer and bison on Base. The net value of the high hazard impact area as a

refuge for bison is clearly positive, but risks of injury and mortality are ever-present. For example, Marine

pilots flying over Zulu Impact Area on 19 September 2012 discovered six bison that were killed,

incidentally, by military ordnance such as mortar or artillery. This is the only known record of bison

being directly killed by military ordnance on Base. Historic records from the Base show that bison have

been occasionally injured after becoming entangled in discarded communication wire or concertina wire.

3.4 RISK OF BISON ROADKILL ACCIDENTS

Vehicles have collided with bison 6 times on Base. All of those collisions occurred on Basilone Road,

which is a paved, major road located along the southern edge of the high hazard impact area. The known

occurrences of bison-vehicle-collision (BVC) follow: 1 in 1985, 2 in 1991, 1 in 1992, 1 in 1993, and 1 in

2012. Since the first recorded BVC, the estimated number of bison on Base increased from

approximately 50 animals to approximately 120 animals in 2011. The number of bison-vehicle collisions

did not increase as the herd size increased. The absence of bison on Base would, of course, eliminate

bison-vehicle collisions; otherwise, the risk of a BVC is not related linearly or primarily to the number of

bison on Base. Bison behavior such as moving among foraging or watering areas separated by a busy road

are important factors affecting the frequency of a BVC (Bruggeman et al. 2007). Therefore, if habitat

conditions within the high hazard impact area changed and bison began moving more frequently across

roads, the chance of a BVC would increase. Game Warden staff respond to complaints of bison on

Basilone Road that are a hazard to traffic. Game Wardens haze the bison away from the road and control

traffic to reduce the risk of a BVC when bison are attempting to cross.

3.5 POPULATION SIZE AND GROWTH OF THE BISON HERD

The number of bison on Base and the rate of population increase were estimated using records of ground

observations from Case Springs and results of aerial bison surveys, Figure 3. Tallies resulting from each

method provided a minimum number of bison on Base at the time. Undercounting was more likely with

ground surveys because the high hazard impact area could not be surveyed and it’s likely that groups of

bison were not detected. Aerial surveys greatly reduce the chance of not detecting groups of bison but

lone animals are harder to see and could still go undetected. The best population estimate to date was

provided by the 2011 aerial survey, which was performed on a single day and counted only bison. Aerial

surveys from other years were multi-day surveys designed to estimate deer density rather than count

bison. Counting bison over multiple days increases the risk of double counting animals as bison groups

move, mingle, and disperse during the survey period. The aerial survey count from 2008 of approximately

150 bison was most likely an overestimate due to double counting.

Using the results of ground and aerial surveys for bison, the Base’s bison population grows at an

estimated average rate of 6.3% annually and has a doubling time of 11 years. Using the 2011 estimate of

120 bison and a growth rate of 6.3%, the Base’s bison herd could reach 290 animals by 2025 and then

350 animals by 2028. These are deterministic estimates, which may not reliably predict the actual

increase for the bison herd (whose growth is stochastic ) in years well beyond 2011.


8

Figure 3. Bison Population Size Estimated From Ground and Aerial Surveys

3.6 LIMIT BISON HERD AT 300–400 ANIMALS

The most important considerations for identifying a sustainable size for the Base’s bison herd were (1)

conservation value of the bison herd as related to its size, (2) the amount of grazing forage allotted for

bison, and (3) how the herd size may disrupt training. The International Union for Conservation of Nature

(IUCN) report (Gates et al. 2010) stated that bison herds of greater than 1,000 animals have the best

ability to conserve genetic diversity and should not need to receive breeding animals from other herds to

supplement genetic diversity. A bison herd of this size on the Base would exceed the bison grazing

allotment and would likely cause more frequent training disruptions. Most bison conservation herds in

North America have fewer than 1,000 animals. Plains bison are not native to southern California

grassland ecosystems and the Base’s primary mission is training Marines rather than conservation.

Therefore, MCB Camp Pendleton should not be expected to support the labor and costs of maintaining a

large conservation herd. The Base should instead seek to maintain the largest bison herd that is feasible

and sustainable.

It is not known how many bison the Base could support without causing intolerable impacts to training.

Historic records of bison conflicts are likely not very useful for predicting the future impacts of a larger

bison herd because the relationship is not known and likely not linear. Just as the rate of bison-vehicle-

collisions is not a linear result of the herd’s size, bison conflicts with training will not be directly

proportional to the herd’s size. Instead, bison movement patterns due to changes in forage or water

availability are more likely to change the frequency and location of impacts to training.

Without artificial control, the bison herd would likely grow from 290 to 350 in three years. When the herd

reaches that size, assuming an annual growth rate of 6.3%, 19–22 bison would have to be removed (i.e.,

killed or relocated) from the bison herd each year, or that many reproductively–mature females would


9

need contraception. As detailed in the next section, Base biologists estimate that grasslands available to

the bison herd could sustainably provide forage to 300–400 bison without reducing the ecological services

provided by those grasslands.

Animals should be selected for removal to achieve a slightly female-biased herd and removals should as

recommended by the IUCN (Gates et al. 2010). The proportion of females estimated after the 2011 bison

survey was 62%, which should be reduced to 50–60%. If sick or injured animals are not available for

removal, younger animals would be preferred for removal. Selecting younger animals for removal

promotes the conservation of genetic diversity within the herd as diversity is not actually lost until a

mature animal is removed from the breeding population (Gates et al. 2010).

3.7 GRAZING FORAGE ALLOTMENT FOR BISON

An ecologically sustainable size for the bison herd is one that does not require supplemental feeding and

will not overgraze the available grasslands. The grazing allotment for bison is the total amount of

vegetation that bison will be allowed to consume annually. Calculation of the allotment begins by

estimating the average amount of grazing forage (pounds [lbs]/acre, dry weight) produced within

grasslands that bison use. The estimate is then reduced by 1,400 lbs/acre to conserve plant biomass in the

grasslands. The final adjustment of the grazing allotment occurs when weights are deducted for plant

species that are not useful as grazing forage. Un-grazed biomass will support ecological functions that are

performed by the native species within the Base’s grassland ecosystem. Native consumers and

decomposers including insects, birds, small mammals, fungi, and soil microbes will process living and

dead plant material into simpler forms, which contributes to nutrient cycling and encourages a robust

ecological network. Conserving plant biomass within grasslands also promotes the non-living benefits of

thatch and leaf litter, which includes moderating soil and water transport.

Forage production surveys performed on Base in 2011 and 2012 concur with forage productivity

estimates provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) through the Soil Data Mart

(Soil Data Mart 2007). The NRCS estimates range from 1,200 to 3,000 lbs/acre in unfavorable and

favorable production years, respectively, for soil types occurring on Base. Estimates of annual forage

production were 2,761 lbs/acre (SD = 935) in 2011 and 2,201 lbs/acre (SD = 521) in 2012 (Asmus

2012a). By estimating the area of grasslands likely to be grazed as 13,212 ac and calculating 1,400

lbs/acre for forage allowed, the bison grazing allotment for 2012 was approximately 10.6 million lbs of

forage. The estimated number of bison on Base was 120 in fall 2011. That many animals would consume

approximately 1.7 million lbs of forage each year, which was approximately 16.3% of the grazing

allotment. The 95% confidence interval ranging from 6.0 to 15.2 million pounds of available forage for

2012 indicated that the bison herd may have consumed as little as 11.4% or as much as 29.0% of the

available forage. Therefore, the bison herd could triple in size without exceeding the grazing allotment.

Preventing the bison herd from exceeding the grazing allotment is a primary reason to limit herd size to

approximately 350 animals.

RDM surveys measure the effect of grazing on grasslands. The Base performs RDM surveys during the

fall prior to the start of the next growing season; survey methods are described in Asmus 2011. The

surveys estimated the amount of plant biomass remaining un-grazed at the end of a growing season.

Results of RDM surveys showed light grazing pressure in Finch and Echo Training Areas from 2010–

2012. Each area had greater than 650 lbs/acre of plant biomass remaining at the end of each growing

season, which is sufficient to support ecosystem processes in grasslands and conserve soil (Bartolome et

al. 2002).


10

During the Rancho Period in the 1800s, grasslands on Base were grazed heavily by domestic cattle, which

produce more concentrated disturbance because they do not roam as much as bison. Domestic grazers

during that period also included sheep and horses. To compare historic grazing intensities from domestic

animals to that of bison, an animal unit (AU), here, is the number of acres of forage needed to support one

cow or one bison. Based on historic records and previous analysis, Minnich (2008) showed that 9 acres of

forage were allotted per animal unit of all grazers (including 13 acre per AU of cattle) at Rancho Santa

Margarita during that period. Bison grazing pressure is currently much less, and approximately 38 acres

of forage would be allotted per animal if the size of the bison herd on Base increased to 350 animals.

3.8 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF BISON GRAZING IN MCB CAMP PENDLETON

GRASSLANDS

In general, grassland ecosystems co-evolved with hoofed herbivores and need the disturbance provided by

those animals to maintain their ecological integrity. In prehistoric times, prior to 10,000 years ago,

grassland communities in California, including those on Base, were inhabited by many grazing animals

that have since gone extinct. Those large grazers included mammoths, horses, camels, antique bison (B.

antiquus), and wild oxen. In prehistoric times and recently, California grassland communities benefitted

from the activities of grazing animals which included trampling that discouraged shrub encroachment;

grazing of thatch that encouraged basal sprouting from established perennial grasses and germination of

native grass seeds between existing bunchgrasses; and recycling of nutrients onsite that otherwise may

have been lost to wind erosion, especially in semi-arid areas. The various effects of grazing combined

with effects from fire provide a diversity of disturbances within grasslands that promote structural

heterogeneity within the vegetation community, which in turn provides heterogeneous habitats for

wildlife (Edwards 1992).

Plains bison did not co-evolve recently with the endemic species inhabiting grasslands of MCB Camp

Pendleton, but they can perform ecological functions that similar to those that were previously performed

by species such as pronghorn and grizzly bears, which were extirpated from Base lands. Pronghorn

formerly roamed grasslands on Base where they grazed forbs, browsed shrubs, and, to a lesser extent, ate

grasses. In contrast to bison that graze mostly on grasses, pronghorn consume mostly forbs while feeding

in grasslands. Grazing by either species contributes to nutrient cycling, promotes new growth in grazed

plants, and their hooves turn over grassland soils, which promotes aeration and water infiltration. Bison

are free roaming on Base. They wander more than cattle, which disperses the effects of their low-intensity

grazing. Grizzly bears formerly roamed throughout California’s grasslands, including MCB Camp

Pendleton. They served as ecological engineers by turning over the soil as they foraged for ground

squirrels and plant roots, which created bare patches of soil that allowed new plant growth. Although it’s

not known how often grizzlies did this in MCB Camp Pendleton grasslands, bison may mimic this type of

disturbance when they create bare patches of soil at their dust wallows.

California grasslands evolved with fire and grazing as sources of disturbance, which work differently but

provide complementary effects. Modest grazing pressure affects grasslands by maintaining the litter layer,

encouraging vigorous re-growth from grazed plants, and reducing soil lost to erosion. In contrast, fire

scarifies seed coats, quickly releases nutrients, and promotes soil warming, all of which greatly increases

seedling production. Excessive fire and over-grazing, however, can harm grasslands by promoting the

growth of non-native plants and greatly increasing erosion. Fire is an important source of disturbance in

California grasslands, although the frequency of fire in MCB Camp Pendleton grasslands is likely higher

than historic rates of occurrence (Harrison et al. 2003, Marty et al. 2005, Vermeire et al. 2005)


11

Although bison are not native to either Santa Catalina Island or MCB Camp Pendleton, the ecological

effects of their activities are less likely to provide benefits in the ecosystems on the small, coastal island.

In contrast, grasslands on the nearby mainland, including MCB Camp Pendleton, supported pronghorn

and grizzly bears that were extirpated during the 1800s and 1900s. Catalina did not host those animals, so

bison do not offer replacement value for many lost ecological functions in the island’s ecosystems.

MCB Camp Pendleton grasslands are substantially different from those on Catalina Island, as well as

being more extensive and ecologically robust. An ecological report of bison and grazing lands on Catalina

Island listed the dominant plant species that produced forage within sampled sites. The list did not include

any native plants such as purple needlegrass, which is major species of native grass in coastal California

grasslands. Although it occurs on Catalina Island it did not rank as a primary forage producer by

comprising at least 5% of measured forage species (Sweitzer et al 2003). Whereas, MCB Camp Pendleton

grasslands purple needlegrass provides greater than 5% of forage, and at some sites it is the dominant

forage species (Asmus 2012).

Bison carcasses provide a food source for many animals that scavenge or supplement their diet with

carrion. Common animals such turkey vultures may benefit from bison carrion along with rarer animals

including badgers and golden eagles. California condors do not presently occur on MCB Camp

Pendleton, but they did historically, and condors from reintroduced populations elsewhere in California

could eventually find their way to the Base. California condors prefer to feed on large animal carcasses.

Serving as a source of large animal carcasses for scavengers is another ecological role that bison can

provide on behalf of native animals that were extirpated from the Base.

Examples of animals that may benefit directly from bison grazing include Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat, side-

blotched lizards, and ground squirrels (Fehmi et al. 2005). SKR require sparse coastal sage scrub and

grassland habitats. These habitats can be maintained by modest levels of bison grazing; although very

heavy, concentrated grazing pressure from ungulates, such as horses confined in corrals, can harm SKR

habitat (United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1997). Burrowing owls may benefit directly

and indirectly from bison grazing because they require short vegetation and open space in grasslands and

they nest in burrows created by ground squirrels. The management plan for burrowing owls on Lower

Otay Mesa in San Diego County states the benefits of grazing for burrowing owl habitat (Wildlife

Research Institute 2005). The American badger may benefit indirectly as bison grazing promotes ground

squirrel populations and directly by scavenging on bison carrion.

Thread-leaved brodiaea, California gnatcatcher, Riverside fairy shrimp, and San Diego fairy shrimp are

other federally listed species on Base that occur or may occur within the bison home range. Effects to

these species from bison grazing, if they are occur, are likely beneficial, discountable, or insignificant. For

example, the USFWS stated that domestic grazing is not a range–wide threat to the continued existence of

thread-leaved brodiaea. Bison may infrequently trample or eat Brodiaea. The below-ground bulbs,

however, are not affected, and bison grazing may reduce competition from non-native grasses, which

pose a substantial threat to brodiaea (USFWS 2009).

Bison may support some ecological invaders that are not desirable within the Base’s native grasslands

including invasive plants and brown-headed cowbirds. Bison translocate viable native and non-native

seeds in their fur and dung (Rosas et al. 2008). Researchers from University of California Davis noted

that bison hair is a significant mechanism for spreading non-native seeds on Santa Catalina Island based

on the prevalence of non-native seeds recovered from their hair clumps. They also reported that non-

native grasses and forbs dominated the vegetation plots that were sampled in grasslands on the island


12

(Sweitzer et al. 2003). Therefore, it follows that non-native plant species would dominate the types of

seeds found in bison fur collected on Catalina Island.

3.9 VALUE OF A SMALL CONSERVATION HERD ON CAMP PENDLETON

Small conservation herds of bison on Base could help retain the ecological and genetic characteristics of

the species (Gates et al. 2010). Although bison are not native to southern California, the MCB Camp

Pendleton herd can provide value to the larger bison recovery effort that spans many states within the

historic range of plains bison by serving as a source-herd for relocation and establishing new conservation

herds within the bison’s original range.

It is beneficial to have an isolated, Brucella-free bison herd located on MCB Camp Pendleton. Brucellosis

is a disease caused by Brucella bacteria and is transmissible among wild animals, domestic animals, and

humans. Transmission of brucellosis from free-roaming bison to nearby cattle herds is an important

concern for bison managers working in states such as Wyoming and Montana (National Park Service et

al. 2000). The limited testing performed on MCB Camp Pendleton bison did not find any evidence of

brucellosis. Rugged topography and dense chaparral along the north and east boundaries of the Base

restrict bison movements to grasslands on the Base (biologists once found bison dung on a firebreak

within Cleveland National Forest land immediately adjacent to MCB Camp Pendleton, although there is

no evidence that bison have escaped or regularly wander far from Base). Additionally, bison on Base are

very unlikely to encounter cattle, given that the closest cattle are animals grazed at Naval Weapons

Station Fallbrook, bison do not use lands within 3 miles of the Base boundary adjacent to Naval Weapons

Station Fallbrook, and chain-link fence separates the two installations. Bison have never entered NWS

Fallbrook. Isolation protects the MCB Camp Pendleton bison herd from other diseases that may be

transmitted between cattle and bison.

If a major disease event occurred that affected cattle and bison in the plains states, it would be very

beneficial to have an isolated, disease-free herd on Base. For an analogous example, conservation efforts

to rescue the American chestnut from the devastation of chestnut blight have benefitted greatly from

disease free trees living in areas outside of the tree’s native range (Freinkel 2007). Isolation from disease

and cattle herds, substantial genetic diversity, and relatively low cattle gene introgression make the Base’s

bison herd a good source herd that could provide animals to other bison herds.

4.0 METHODS FOR MANAGING THE BISON HERD

4.1 MARKING OF BISON

If a corral and capture pens are available, marking every bison captured with an ear tag would better

enable for bison managers to perform management tasks with the bison herd such as monitor

reproduction, estimate survival, issue contraception, immunize animals for disease, test for disease, and

collect DNA. Biologists could also use additional tools such as GPS radio collars or vaginal transmitter

implants to monitor movement patterns or timing of births.

Without a capture facility, bison can be remotely marked with oil–based paint applied using a paintball

gun. Paint marking is temporary and would be lost the next time an animal shed its fur, which happens

twice annually. Temporary marking limits the use or effectiveness of tasks such as issuing contraception,

DNA collection, estimating herd size, estimating survival, and tracking movement patterns.


13

4.2 BISON DNA COLLECTION AND GENETIC MONITORING

If bison were captured in a corral and pen facility, DNA would be routinely collected the first time an

animal was captured. A portion of the tissue collected would be tested initially for the presence of cattle

genes, and the remaining tissue samples would be saved for future analysis.

Without a corral facility, DNA could be collected remotely from bison using a DNA dart where the dart is

fired from a dart gun and collects a plug of tissue from a bison before ejecting and falling to the ground.

The first round of remote DNA collection requires that only adult animals were sampled and that they

were simultaneously marked with paintballs so that they were not sampled twice. After the paint marks

wore off of the first animals sampled, new individuals could still be reliably sampled if biologists targeted

only yearlings and successfully paint-marked each new animal sampled. Results from the DNA analysis

of animals without permanent, unique marks would limit inferences to the herd rather than individuals.

Bison on Base have genetic diversity that may not be well represented in other herds, although, genetic

testing has confirmed domestic cattle genes in bison on Base. Genetic screening used the most sensitive

test for detecting cattle introgression, which measured single nucleotide polymorphisms at over 54,000

locations (SNP50) on bison chromosomes. Limited testing of the MCB Camp Pendleton bison herd (8%

as of 2012) indicated that animals within the herd had a mean diploid rate of cattle gene introgression of

0.5% (SD 0.17%, n=10). This level is low within the range (0.5–1.0%) that is typical for bison herds in

the US that have been tested using SNP50 (Asmus 2012b). Bison managers and researchers presume that

cattle genes may reduce the ability of wild bison to survive or reproduce, e.g. lack of winter hardiness or

reduced ability to survive on poor forage. The Base will consider supplementing a small number of bison

to its herd if future genetic analyses indicate that the herd lacks sufficient genetic diversity to remain

viable.

4.3 DISEASE MONITORING VACCINATION OF BISON

The IUCN bison conservation guidelines (Gates et al. 2010) list nine diseases that are important for bison

conservation: Anaplasmosis, anthrax, bluetongue, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, bovine brucellosis,

bovine tuberculosis, bovine viral diarrhea, Johne’s disease, and malignant catarrhal fever. The California

Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA 2011) provides a list of animal diseases that are legally

reportable per Sec 9101 of the California Food and Agricultural Code and Title 9 Code of Federal

Regulations Section 161.3(f). Base biological staff will consult with veterinarians and CDFA employees

to determine which diseases should be screened based on the level of bison management actions such as

capture and relocation versus basic disease monitoring of sick and injured bison. A higher level of disease

screening is possible if bison are captured in a corral facility. Opportunities for disease screening are

fewer if testing is only performed on downed animals when they are conveniently available.

A 1997 summary written by a Base veterinarian stated that “a number of samples” were collected from

multiple bison including blood and fecal samples. All samples tested negative for either brucellosis or

internal parasites (Geertsema 1997). Ten bison were culled in 2008 for testing that included disease

screening. Nine bison were screened for heavy metals and all tested negative for lead poisoning. Two

animals were screened for infectious disease. Both tested negative for the following: Bovine herpesvirus-

1, bovine viral diarrhea, and parainfluenza virus 3. Tests for five types of Leptospira bacteria in those two

animals were all reported as contaminated (Derr 2011). Leptospira has over 180 forms and infects many

wild animals without causing the clinical disease, leptospirosis. Leptospira is not a concern for wildlife

management, except for minimizing the transmission of the bacteria to domestic animals or humans.


14

Future disease screening for bison on Base will be performed conveniently as bison are captured for

relocation, euthanized, or harvested by a hunter. If a corral facility was available, dozens of bison could

be captured and screened for disease and vaccinated by hand prior to release or relocation. Otherwise,

substantially fewer would be screened if remote delivery was used for contraception or animals were

killed within the high hazard impact area.

4.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR NOT ACTIVELY MANAGING THE BISON HERD ON MCB

CAMP PENDLETON

Some biologists discourage actively managing a bison herd, which they define as regularly capturing,

handling, moving animals among grazing areas. These activities may habituate bison to human activity

and make them less wild. Managers may also select animals for culling that are difficult to handle,

thereby altering the wild genetic composition of the herd. Some suggest handling bison infrequently or

preferably not at all (Gates et al. 2010).

If a bison corral facility was not built on Base, handling bison would be greatly limited. Chemical

immobilization (CI) would be the only practical method of capture. Researchers and veterinarians have

documented successful drug combinations and precautions that should be used when chemically

immobilizing bison (Kock and Berger 1987, Roffe and Sweeney 2002) to prevent overheating,

hypoxemia, and regurgitating rumen contents in anesthetized bison. Dr. Winston Vickers has worked with

the bison herd on Catalina Island and, after reviewing Kock and Berger 1987, and Roffe and Sweeney

2002, he agrees that CI may be safely used for bison on MCB Camp Pendleton (personal

communication). The warm climate of southern California limits the seasons when CI should be used

with bison on Base to avoid overheating. The risks of using CI with bison should be carefully weighed

against the benefits; of course, this is also true for capturing bison in a corral, which can injure animals

even when done properly. For example, CI would be justified for placing a tracking collar on an animal

but may not be justified for simply installing an ear tag. If a bison died due to CI its carcass could not be

left in place to decompose because its tissues would be toxic to scavenging animals.

If bison on Base could not be captured in a corral or with CI, some management methods would be

impractical or unusable. Without permanent individual marks, vaccination for contraception or disease

would not be reliable. Radio collars would not be used, which means the timing and movements of bison

could only be inferred through chance encounters and, infrequently, aerial surveys. Bison could not be

donated to other herds. Conversely, however, if bison were not captured, the Base’s bison management

program would be concurring with the IUCN bison conservation guidelines which discouraged actively

managing wild bison herds (Gates et al. 2010).

4.5 GROUND BASED BISON SURVEYS

Ground based surveys of the bison herd may provide useful estimates of sex ratio and age ratio for the

bison herd. Those ratios are difficult to accurately estimate during aerial surveys especially for young

animals and large groups of bison. Bias would be inherent with ground based surveys as some animals

would not reliably leave the impact areas and be visible during a survey. Animals may be occasionally

surveyed within Zulu from SIAC, along Jardine Canyon, or within Whiskey from OP-W, or within

Quebec from NIAC.


15

4.6 METHODS FOR LIMITING AND REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE BISON HERD

Limiting the size of the bison herd may be achieved through contraception, hunting, sharpshooting, and/or

capture-relocation. The Base should maintain the ability to use any or all of these methods (and future

technologies) to preserve management flexibility for the bison herd. Factors including available funding,

training conflicts, space restrictions, and bison behavior may limit the usefulness of each of the methods

listed above. Therefore, the Base should retain all practicable options for managing the size of its bison

herd.

A corral facility, temporary or permanent, would provide the best conditions for base biologists to capture

bison for relocation, administer vaccines, collect genetic samples, and install permanent marks. Dozens of

animals can be guided or lured to a corral for capture, which allows managers and biologists to work on

many animals quickly. Contracted bison workers may be hired to install a temporary corral, round-up

bison for capture, transport selected bison for relocation, and disassemble the corral. Bison captured in a

corral can walk through chutes and be loaded on cattle trucks.

A chemically immobilized bison is not practical to move or relocate. For the animal’s safety, CI may be

limited to only a few months each year due to the warm climate of southern California. If a bison died

during CI, the carcass would be difficult dispose of, but could not be left in place because it would be a

toxic hazard for wildlife. Compared to bison captured in a corral, most of the same procedures can be

performed on a bison captured with CI. CI could be used to supplement the number of animals removed

each year by hunting or sharpshooting, but it is not preferred due to difficulty in safely moving an

immobilized bison.

Capture and relocation would be expensive, but it would also best employ the conservation value of the

Base’s bison herd. Capturing dozens of bison in a corral could be performed every few years for herd

control to reduce the cost of each animal captured. Chemical contraception could be reliably administered

to permanently marked animals and better enable supplemental dosing using a dart gun for remote

delivery. The Base may get favorable publicity each time bison were relocated. If corralling were not

effective or available, the Base should use a combination of hunting, sharpshooting, and contraception

(remotely or using CI) to reduce and limit the size of the bison herd. A temporary corral may be installed

and used by a private contractor experienced with bison capture and handling. A site for a temporary or

permanent corral has not been specified or approved on Base, but Echo TA is most practicable. Captured

animals would be processed (e.g., vaccinated) prior to release or transfer to a site off Base. Bison could

be sold or donated to private or public organizations for purposes ranging from augmenting bison

conservation herds to being slaughtered for meat production. Preference will be given to organizations

that pay for the capture and relocation of bison from Base and that intend to use bison for conservation.

In contrast to corralling animals or using CI, allowing hunters or a sharpshooter to kill bison would be

much less expensive; in fact, hunting fees would off-set some of the cost of managing a bison hunting

program. Public opinion may not favor shooting bison, except for advocates of hunting. Sharpshooting

could be used with minimal coordination and logistical planning. Animals killed by a sharpshooter would

be left to decompose in place as a resource for wild scavengers. Using non-lead ammunition would not

expose wildlife to lead-contaminated carcasses. Bison killed by hunters or sharpshooters would provide

samples for genetic and disease screening. Shooting bison could be effectively used all months of the year

and would not risk being expensive and ineffective, which are risks with corralling and CI.


16

5.0 REFERENCES

Asmus, J. 2011. Results of 2011 residual dry matter surveys in Finch and Echo training areas, MCB

Camp Pendleton. Unpublished report. 26 October 2011.

Asmus, J. 2012a. Results of 2012 grassland forage production survey on MCB Camp Pendleton.

Unpublished report. 19 July 2012.

Asmus, J. 2012b. Results of SNP50 genetic testing for bison. Unpublished report. 10 Aug 2012.

Bartolome, J.W., W.E. Frost, N.K. McDougald, and M. Connor. 2002. California guidelines for residual

dry matter (RDM) management on coastal and foothill annual rangelands. ANR publication 8092.

University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Oakland, CA.

Bruggeman, J.E., R.A. Garrrott, P.J. White, F.G. Watson, and R. Wallen. 2007. Covariates affecting

spatial variability in bison travel behavior in Yellowstone National Park. Ecological Applications,

17(5):1411–1423.

CDFA. 2011. List of reportable conditions for animals and animal products. California Department of

Food and Agriculture, Animal Health Branch. March 2011.

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/ahfss/Animal_Health/pdfs/CA_reportable_disease_list_poster.pdf

Derr, J. 2011. Assessment of genetic diversity and status of domestic cattle introgression in bison from

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California. Unpublished report.

Edwards, S.W. 1992. Observations on the prehistory and ecology of grazing in California. Fremontia.

20(1):3–11.

Fehmi, J. S., S. E. Russo, and J. W. Bartolome. 2005. The effects of livestock on California ground

squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyii). Rangeland Ecology and Management. 58(4):352–359.

Freinkel, S. 2007. American chesnut: the life, death, and rebirth of a perfect tree. University of California

Press, Berkeley, California. 294 pp.

Gates, C.C., Freese, C.H., Gogan, P.J.P. and Kotzman, M. (eds. and comps.). 2010. American Bison:

Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines 2010. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Geertsema, R.S. 1997. Health status of MCB Camp Pendleton Buffalo. Memorandum, 21 Aug 1997, to

Colonel Myers, AC/S Logistics.

Harrison, S., B.D. Inouye, and H.D. Safford. 2003. Ecological Heterogeneity in the Effects of Grazing

and Fire on Grassland Diversity. Conservation Biology. 17(3):837–845.

Kock, M.D. and Berger, J. 1987. Chemical immobilization of free-ranging bison (Bison bison) in

Badlands National Park, South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 23(4):625–633.

Los Angeles Times. 2012. “Bison -- a 'symbol' of U.S. strength -- may become national mammal.” Online

article, http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-national-mammal-bison-

20120529,0,2737551.story. Accessed on 29 May 2012.

Marty, J.T., S.K. Collinge, K.J. Rice. 2005. Responses of a Remnant California Native Bunchgrass

Population to Grazing, Burning and Climatic Variation. Plant Ecology 181:101–112

Minnich, R.A. 2008. California’s fading wildflowers: lost legacy and biological invasions. University of

California Press, Berkeley, California.


17

National Park Service, US Forest Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2000. Record of

decision for final environmental impact statement and bison management plan for the state of

Montana and Yellowstone National Park.

National Park Service, USDA Animal and Plant Inspection Service, USDA Forest Service, Montana

Department of Livestock, and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2008. Interagency Bison

Management Plan, Memorandum Re: Adaptive Adjustments to the Interagency Bison Management

Plan. 17 December.

Roffe T.J., Sweeney S.J. 2002. Tolazoline reversal of xylazine in bison (Bison bison): Mitigation of

adverse effects. Proc. Wildlife Disease Association, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA July

2002.

Rosas, C.A., D.M. Engle, J.H. Shaw, and M.W. Palmer. 2008. Seed dispersal by Bison bison in a tallgrass

prairie. Journal of Vegetation Science, 19(6):769-778.

Soil Data Mart. 2007. Results of data query by soil types found on Camp Pendleton, CA.

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/, accessed on 17 December 2007.

Sweitzer, R.A., Constible, J., and Van Vuren, D.H. 2003. Population ecology and ecological effects of

bison on Santa Catalina Island. Unpublished report.

The Economist. 2010. Conflict conservation: biodiversity down the barrel of a gun. The Economist, 8

February 2010. http://www.economist.com/node/15488793. Accessed on 26 June 2012.

USFWS. 2009. Brodiaea fillifolia (Thread-leaved Brodiaea): Five year review summary and evaluation.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California. 13 August

2009.

USFWS. 1997. Draft recovery plan for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat. US Fish and Wildlife Service,

Region 1. Draft Report, April 1997.

Vermeire, L.T., D.B. Wester, R.B. Mitchell, and S.D. Fuhlendorf. 2005. Fire and Grazing Effects on

Wind Erosion, Soil Water Content, and Soil Temperature. Journal of Environmental Quality.

34:1559–1565

Wildlife Research Institute. 2005. Burrowing Owl Management and Monitoring Plan for Lower Otay

Lake Burrowing Owl Management Area. Report to City of San Diego Planning Department 202 C

Street 5th Floor MS 5A San Diego, California 92101. 31 March 2005.

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/

http://www.economist.com/node/15488793

APPENDIX C

Results of Residual Dry Matter Surveys

1

16 Nov 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD SUBJECT: RESULTS OF 2010 RESIDUAL DRY MATTER SURVEYS IN

FINCH AND ECHO TRAINING AREAS, MCB CAMP PENDLETON 1. I collected residual dry matter (RDM) samples at grassland habitats within Finch and Echo training areas (TA) on 22 and 23 October 2010, respectively. Those training areas are grazed by bison and are adjacent to the Central Impact Areas (CIA) which are off limits to biological surveys, but are where bison reside most often. Recent rains started the new growing season, so I was limited to only one day at each site for collecting RDM samples. Figures included on pages 3 and 4 show sampling point locations in each training area and prescribed burn boundaries. 2. The methods of collection conformed to those described in California Guidelines for Residual Dry matter (RDM) Management on Coastal and Foothill Annual Rangelands, publication 8092 produced by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). I randomly selected 100 sampling points each in Finch and Echo using the CreateRandomPoints tool in ArcView GIS and then I chose a subsample of those points at which to perform the RDM collections based on field conditions. I gave preference to points that were closer to the CIA because they were more likely to receive bison grazing and would, presumably, most closely resemble the grassland habitats within the CIA. Much of the area within Finch and Echo was not suitable for RDM sampling because fire crews had conducted prescribed burning earlier in 2010 which removed most of the plant material. Using aerial photos showing the sampling points, I navigated as close as possible to each point using evident landmarks and tossed two 1 ft2 sampling frames at each point. At a few sampling points, I moved the randomly selected point across a road from a prescribed burn area into an adjacent unburned area. Although the ultimate locations of the sampling frames were somewhat biased, the locations were representative of the grasslands being sampled. I clipped all residual plant matter as low as possible while excluding new green growth and plants that were not suitable as grazing forage, e.g. lupine, tarweed, dove weed, and tecalote. The RDM samples were stored indoors in separate paper bags for several days

2

before weighing. Along with collecting plant matter I performed visual surveys of the grassland habitats within Finch and Echo to assess forage species composition and evaluate bison grazing intensity compared to the reference photos provided in NRCS publication 8092. 3. The weights of 34 RDM samples from Finch TA ranged from 3.5 to 31.0 g with a mean of 10.9 g (SD = 7.1) of air-dry plant matter per square foot. Echo TA showed very similar results with 27 sample weights ranging from 3.5 to 33.0 g and having a mean of 11.4 g (SD = 7.4) of air-dry plant matter per square foot; I discarded one outlier sample from Echo that weighed 64 g. In both training areas grazing intensity was light overall with smaller, infrequent patches of grassland showing moderate grazing intensity. Likewise, I viewed R-210G through a spotting scope from OP W and I estimate that grazing intensity there was light. I did not see any sites showing heavy grazing intensity. Sampled grasslands were dominated by perennial grasses such as purple needle grass (Nassella pulchra) and annual grasses, typically wild oat (Avena fatua). Using the conversion of 96 lb/ac of residual dry matter for every gram measured per square foot, I conservatively estimated that 1,000 lbs/ac of residual dry matter were present within grassland habitats of Finch and Echo TA during October, 2010. 4. NRCS publication 8092 provides recommended amounts of RDM that should be present to conserve soil productivity and promote sustainable forage production for grazing. Recommendations for RDM in annual California grasslands vary by slope and percent woody cover. The 1,000 lbs/ac present in Echo and Finch exceeds the minimum recommended values at all levels of slope and percent woody cover. This indicates that the amount of grazing forage produced within the CIA was sufficient during 2010 to satisfy the forage demand for the herd’s current size. Presumably, bison will graze more often in grasslands adjacent to the CIA if forage production within cannot satisfy the herd’s demand. Surveys should produce lower estimates of lbs/ac for RDM and visual assessments should confirm increased grazing pressure in Finch and Echo if grazing demand exceeds production within the CIA in future years. J.L. Asmus

3

Figure 1. Finch training area, showing area of prescribed burn, sample points (highlighted = sampled) and CIA in red.

Figure 2. Echo training area, showing areas of prescribed burn, sample points (highlighted = sampled) and CIA in red.

4

Figure 3. Plot 22 in Finch training area showing light grazing pressure and 1 ft2 sampling frame.

1

26 Oct 2011


FINCH AND ECHO TRAINING AREAS, MCB CAMP PENDLETON 1. I collected residual dry matter (RDM) samples at grassland communities within Echo and Finch training areas (TA) on 11 and 12 October 2011, respectively. Those training areas are grazed by bison and are adjacent to the Central Impact Areas (CIA) which are off limits to biological surveys, but bison reside most often in the CIA. Rainfall totaling 0.43 inches in the week of 3 Oct 2011 started the new growing season. Figures 1 and 2 show the locations where I collected grass samples in each training area. Similar to last year, prescribed burns excluded many randomly selected points from being sampled. 2. The methods of collection conformed to those described in California Guidelines for Residual Dry matter (RDM) Management on Coastal and Foothill Annual Rangelands, publication 8092 produced by the UC Davis Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR). I followed the protocol detailed in the 2010 RDM results summary. Estimates of mean weights are based on averages of two subsamples collected at each point, in contrast to 2010 results that were calculated across all sub samples for each training area. I included new estimates for 2010 in this summary for comparison to the 2011 results. Averaging across plots versus subsamples reduced the SD values, but did not greatly affect mean estimates of air-dry weight. 3. The weights of 14 RDM plot samples from Finch TA ranged from 4.5 to 45.0 g with a mean of 21.0 g (SD = 13.3) of air-dry plant matter per square foot (sqft); I discarded one outlier subsample from plot 17 in Finch TA that weighed 165.5 g. In Echo TA I sampled 13 plots whose weights ranged from 5 to 38.8 g and had a mean of 15.1 g (SD = 8.7) of air-dry plant matter per sqft. Recalculated weights of air-dry plant matter per sqft for 2010 were 10.9 (SD = 5.9) and 11.8 (SD = 7.3) and for Finch TA and Echo TA, respectively. Coefficients of variation (CV, the ratio SD:mean) were similar among years and training areas ranging from 0.54 to 0.64. In both training areas grazing intensity was light or absent, based on visual assessments; I did not see any evidence of recent grazing, e.g. fresh bison dung or hoof prints, at any sampling point. Sampled

2

grasslands were dominated by perennial grasses such as purple needle grass (Nassella pulchra) and annual grasses, typically wild oat (Avena fatua) and brome (Bromus sp.). Using the conversion of 96 lb/ac of residual dry matter for every gram measured per sqft, I estimated that 2,000 lbs/ac of RDM remained in Finch TA and 1,400 lbs/ac of RDM remained in Echo TA during October, 2011. 4. ANR publication 8092 provides recommended amounts of RDM that should be present to conserve soil productivity and promote sustainable forage production for grazing. Recommendations for RDM in annual California grasslands vary by slope and percent woody cover. The amounts measured in Echo and Finch TAs exceeded the minimum recommended values at all levels of slope and percent woody cover. This suggests that the amount of grazing forage produced within the CIA was sufficient during 2011 to satisfy the forage demand for the herd’s current size. Presumably, bison would have grazed more in grasslands adjacent to the CIA if forage production within the CIA could not satisfy the herd’s demand. Surveys should produce lower estimates of lbs/ac for RDM and visual assessments should confirm increased grazing pressure in Finch and Echo if grazing demand exceeds production within the CIA in future years. Figure 1. Finch TA 2011 RDM sample plots highlighted.

3

Figure 2. Echo TA 2011 RDM sample plots highlighted.

J.L. Asmus

1

5 Feb 2012


FINCH AND ECHO TRAINING AREAS, MCB CAMP PENDLETON 1. I collected residual dry matter (RDM) samples at grassland communities within Echo and Finch training areas (TA) on 16 and 17 October 2012, respectively. Those training areas are grazed by bison and are adjacent to the Central Impact Areas (CIA), which are off limits to biological surveys. Bison reside most often in the CIA. Figures 1 and 2 show the locations where I collected grass samples in each training area. Similar to last year, prescribed burns excluded many randomly selected points from being sampled. 2. The methods of collection conformed to those described in California Guidelines for Residual Dry matter (RDM) Management on Coastal and Foothill Annual Rangelands, publication 8092 produced by the UC Davis Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR). I followed the protocol detailed in the 2010 RDM results summary. Estimated mean weights were composed of two subsamples collected at each sampling location. 3. The average weights of 13 RDM plots collected at Finch TA ranged from 3.5 to 40.3 g with a mean of 13.2 g (SD = 10.0) of air-dry plant matter per square foot (sqft). In Echo TA I sampled 10 RDM plots. Average weights of sample plots ranged from 2.5 to 12.3 g with a mean of 7.2 g (SD = 3.3) of air-dry plant matter per sqft. I discarded one outlier subsample from plot 176 in Echo TA that weighed 60 g. The coefficient of variation (CV, the ratio SD:mean) for Echo TA was 0.47, which was similar to past years; however, the CV for Finch TA was the highest yet at 0.76. In both training areas grazing intensity was light or absent, based on visual assessments; I did not see any evidence of recent grazing, e.g. fresh bison dung or hoof prints, at any sampling point. Sampled grasslands were dominated by perennial grasses such as purple needle grass (Nassella pulchra) and annual grasses, typically wild oat (Avena fatua) and brome (Bromus sp.). Using the conversion of 96 lb/ac of residual dry matter for every gram measured per sqft RDM estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 lbs. I estimated that 1,300 lbs/ac of RDM remained in Finch TA

2

and 700 lbs/ac of RDM remained in Echo TA during October, 2011. 4. ANR publication 8092 provides recommended amounts of RDM that should be present to conserve soil productivity and promote sustainable forage production for grazing. Recommendations for RDM in annual California grasslands vary by slope and percent woody cover. The amount measured in Finch TAs exceeded the minimum recommended values at all levels of slope and percent woody cover. The value of 677 lb/ac for Echo TA exceeded all recommended levels for grasslands; although, that value was below the recommended levels for grassland/hardwood ranges with less than 25% woody cover and hillsides steeper than 20% slope. I am skeptical that bison grazing caused that relatively low estimate of residual dry matter in Echo because clear signs of grazing were absent. Instead, I suspect that the low value resulted from the small sample size that produced a non-representative sample with a negative bias from Echo TA. Possibly excluding steep grassy slopes in Echo TA, The results suggest that the amount of grazing forage produced within the CIA was sufficient during 2012 to satisfy the forage demand for the herd’s current size. Presumably, bison would have grazed more in grasslands adjacent to the CIA if forage production within the CIA could not satisfy the herd’s demand. Surveys should produce lower estimates of lbs/ac for RDM and visual assessments should confirm increased grazing pressure in Finch and Echo if grazing demand exceeds production within the CIA in future years. J.L. Asmus

3

Figure 1. Finch TA 2012 RDM sample plots highlighted.

Figure 2. Echo TA 2012 RDM sample plots highlighted.

Bison Management EA · spp. species SSC Species of Special Concern SWFL southwestern willow...

Documents

Transcript of Bison Management EA · spp. species SSC Species of Special Concern SWFL southwestern willow...