Michelle Gudorf 20020430 vector polygon data none-internal NPS and USGS reort Internal report produced for USGS Biological Resources Division and Bighorn Canyon NRA Ft. Collins and Denver, CO USGS/BRD and NPS (Intermountain Region Office), Denver, CO Printed, unpublished bighorn sheep habitat suitability assessments for 12 national parks (Arches, Badlands, Bighorn Canyon, Black Canyon of the Gunnison, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, Colorado National Monument, Currecanti, Dinosaur, Glen Canyon, Mesa Verde, Theodore Roosevelt, and Zion) are on file at the NPS Denver Service Center, Technological Center. Francis J. Singer and Michelle Gudorf 1999 document U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report, Midcontinent Ecological Center, Ft. Collins, CO. 96 pp. 99-102 Ft. Collins, CO USGS First analysis for BICA is available in this document. This report has been scanned and the .jpg files are available at www.nps.gov/gis/apps.html www.nps.gov/gis/apps.html Public lands in and around Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, Wyoming and Montana were evaluated to identify summer range land areas suitable to support a minimum viable population of bighorn sheep. Summer range is defined as the buffered area of escape terrain found within the area of suitable habitat-excluding the actual area of the slopes (30 - 90 degrees). The summer range habitat was derived from an analysis of 300-500 meter buffered slopes (slopes = 30-90 degrees), distance to water (3.2 km), distance from human use areas, effects of natural and manmade barriers to routine movement, and quality of horizontal visibility. It should be used with additional datasets: 1) BICA_domestic_sheep.e00 which identifies domestic sheep grazing allotments and land areas of concern if located in too close proximity to domestic sheep; 2) BICA_bighorn_suitable_habitat_ww.e00, which identifies overall suitable bighorn habitat; 3) BICA_lambing_area, which identifies suitable bighorn lambing areas; and 4) BICA_suitable_bighorn_winter_habitat_ww, which identifies suitable bighorn winter range. This is the second of two analyses. The first analysis was conducted in 1995 and the results are found in the 1999 report issued by NPS and USGS (Singer and Gudorf). This second analysis uses current and improved vegetation data for determining horizontal visibility. This will assist management in determining where to manage vegetation to improve potential bighorn habitat. NOTE: this metadata set was developed in the NBII biological profile, and if imported into ESRI ArcCatalog, the biological profile information will be lost. Maintain along with this dataset, a copy of the metadata (.html or .txt file) found posted on the clearinghouse. For purposes of wildlife management, planning, and restoration. 2002 The publication date Complete None planned 108.6092 107.7372 45.52056 44.73222 Public lands in and around Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, WY and MT. None bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis habitat evaluation procedure habitat suitability analysis suitable habitat potential habitat mountain sheep wildlife restoration lambing habitat lambing range aspect summer range winter range winter habitat None Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Sheridan County, WY Bighorn County, WY Wyoming Montana United States North America USA National Park Service United States Geologic Survey USGS National Park Service NPS National Park System Unit Code ThesaurusBICA National Park System Unit Name ThesaurusBighorn Canyon National Recreation Area National Park Service Theme Category ThesaurusWildlife ISO 19115 Topic CategoryEnvironment none The scales of input data for this analysis varied from 1:24K to 1:100K. Suitable for regional applications only. User should understand the reason for, and scale of these data prior to their application for any other purpose. This dataset should be used in conjunction with bica_domestic_sheep_grazing.e00 dataset. NOTE: this metadata set was developed in the NBII biological profile, and if imported into ESRI ArcCatalog, the biological profile information will be lost. Maintain along with this dataset, a copy of the.html or .txt file found posted on the clearinghouse. National Park Service, Intermountain GIS Program Office GIS Coordinator/GIS Specialist Mailing and physical address

12795 West Alameda Parkway

Lakewood Colorado 80225 USA imro_gis_coordinator@nps.gov PC-ARC/INFO http://nrdata.nps.gov/bica/bicadata/bica_suitable_bighorn_summer_habitat_ww.xml Michelle Gudorf 20020430 vector polygon data none-internal NPS and USGS reort Internal report produced for USGS Biological Resources Division and Bighorn Canyon NRA Ft. Collins and Denver, CO USGS/BRD and NPS (Intermountain Region Office), Denver, CO Printed, unpublished bighorn sheep habitat suitability assessments for 12 national parks (Arches, Badlands, Bighorn Canyon, Black Canyon of the Gunnison, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, Colorado National Monument, Currecanti, Dinosaur, Glen Canyon, Mesa Verde, Theodore Roosevelt, and Zion) are on file at the NPS Denver Service Center, Technological Center. Francis J. Singer and Michelle Gudorf 1999 document U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report, Midcontinent Ecological Center, Ft. Collins, CO. 96 pp. 99-102 Ft. Collins, CO USGS First analysis for BICA is available in this document. This report has been scanned and the .jpg files are available at www.nps.gov/gis/apps.html www.nps.gov/gis/apps.html Singer, F. J., V. C. Bleich, and M. A. Gudorf 200012 Restoration Ecology Volume 8, Number 4S Malden, MA Blackwell Science Animals mammals single species bighorn sheep, mountain sheep Critical parameters of bighorn sheep habitat were processed linearly with the model of Smith et al. (1991) as modified by Johnson and Swift (2000), and Zeigenfuss et al. (2000). A binary classification of land was developed. Its categories were: 1) suitable as bighorn sheep habitat, 2) unsuitable for bighorn sheep occupation. Habitat was evaluated by a six-key criterion. Escape terrain areas (rugged relief) were identified. Rugged relief provides refuge from danger or disturbances and was considered the primary prerequisite of bighorn sheep habitat. Eliminated were areas with dense vegetation that caused poor visibility, areas not within 3200 m proximity to water, and areas with high human use. Areas too close to domestic sheep grazing allotments (proximity was delineated as 0-7 km as unsuccessful; 7-17 km as moderately successful; 17-19 km very successful) were identified. These areas were mapped separately because of their variable and manageable status. Additionally, any isolated patches of habitat not large enough to support a viable population and too far from other patches of suitable habitat were eliminated. Hughes (1997) suggests removing contiguous patches less than 100 ha for suitable habitat. He calculated these patch sizes based on the Smith et al. (1991) suggestion that a 100- hectare patch of suitable habitat will likely support no more than 4 sheep. Modifications were made to the Smith et al. habitat evaluation procedure by Johnson and Swift (2000). We incorporated most of their recommended modifications into this assessment. We did NOT use the numbers recommended by their study for total square kilometers of suitable habitat required for a minimum viable population. Instead, we used the numbers recommended by Ziegenfuss et al. 2000. They recommended 32 square km of contiguous habitat be available for a minimum viable population of bighorn sheep (125 animals). Lambing range was identified as a supplemental dataset, to be used to determine if adequate lambing range exists within the area of suitable bighorn habitat. Lambing range was determined by the criteria listed above except: the distance to perennial water was 1000m; and only southern exposures (90-270 degree aspects) of escape terrain were evaluated. Lambing habitat is defined as all suitable habitat greater than 2 hectares (to reduce vulnerability of ewes and young to predation and sensitivity to disturbance), with southern, western, and eastern aspects (90-270 degree aspects) of 30-90 degree slopes, and within 1000 m of perennial water sources. Birthing typically occurs on the steepest slopes, but lambing period habitat also encompasses areas used during the six-week postpartum period before ewes and lambs join nursery groups. Zeigenfuss et al. (2000) proposed that lambing habitat should constitute 4% or more of the suitable habitat. Summer range is defined as the buffered area of escape terrain found within the area of suitable habitat (excluding the actual area of the slopes (30 - 90 degrees). Winter range is defined as only southern aspects of slopes 30-90 degrees (135-225 degree aspects) within suitable habitat and less than 25 cm snowpack. Average snowpack data was unavailable for 80% of the study area and was not included in this analysis. none Michelle Gudorf Contractor mailing and physical address

4510 East Hill Road

Craftsbury VT 05826 USA 802-586-7589 Smith, T. S., J. T. Flinders, and D. S. Winn. 1991 model Great Basin Naturalist 51(3):205-225 Zeigenfuss, L. C., F. J. Singer, and M. A. Gudorf 200012 model Restoration Ecology Volume 8, No. 4S:38-46 Malden, MA Blackwell Science Lee G. Hughes 1997 model University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming University of Wyoming, Department of Zoology and Physiology (98 pp) Johnson, T. L. and D. Swift 200012 model Restoration Ecology Volume 8, No. 4S:47-56 Malden, MA Blackwell Science http://nrdata.nps.gov/bica/bicadata/bica_suitable_bighorn_summer_habitat_ww.jpg The attribute accuracy was evaluated by comparing the polygons from the grid generated analysis results with the vector polygon dataset generated from the grid results. The dataset was exported as vector data for use in mapping and analysis. Area size was checked for each layer to ensure that the integrity of the raster data was maintained in the final version of these data, and that all polygons were labelled. All polygons are closed, and all nodes were checked for error so that there are no dangling features. Tests of the accuracy of this habitat evaluation procedure to predict areas that bighorn sheep use are in progress. Horizontal accuracy varies depending on the source of the individual components within the data layers used for this anaysis. Data derived from USGS data (DLG's, DEMS's,) and from BLM, and USFS are assumed to meet National Map Accuracy standards. Digitized data were from various sources, often a field technicians best estimate of the location of a fenceline or locations of water sources, features that were then hand-drawn onto a 7.5 min topo quad sheet. Data digitized were registered within .5-1.0 RMSE using paper 7.5 min 1:24K topo map sheets. Note that some 90m raster vegetation data were used in a 30m raster grid for horizontal visibility criterion. Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab, The University of Montana 1998 ARC GRID export Missoula, MT Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab, The University of Montana 100000 digital database file 1998 the publication date horizontal visibility-Montana Gap Land Cover MT Gap Land Cover provided vegetation data for all areas in Montana except within Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. Horizontal visibility for this analysis was derived from this layer in combination with WY Fish and Game vegetation, BICA NRA vegetation, and WY Gap Land Cover data. Wyoming Natural Resources Gap Analysis Program 2001 raster data Sheridan WY Sheridan Region Wyoming Game and Fish Department digital database file 2001 the publication date horizontal visibility--WY Fish and Game Land Cover map WY Fish and Game Land Cover data provided vegetation data for the south eastern section of the study area falling within WY. Horizontal visibility for this analysis was derived from this layer in combination with MT Gap Land Cover, BICA NRA vegetation, and WY Gap Land Cover data. University of Wyoming, Spatial Data and Visualization Center, Laramie, Wyoming 1996 digitial data Laramie, Wyoming. University of Wyoming, Spatial Data and Visualization Center 100000 digital database file 1996 the publication date horizontal visibility--WY Gap Land Cover WY Gap Land Cover data provided vegetation data for southwestern areas of study area falling within WY. Horizontal visibility for this analysis was derived from this layer in combination with WY Fish and Game vegetation, BICA NRA vegetation, and MT Gap Land Cover data. National Park Service, Intermountain Region Office 1995 map Digitized vegetation map. Ground truthing was done, however, details have been lost. Knight, D. H., G. P. Jones, Y. Akashi, R. W. Myers 1987 document University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY University of Wyoming, Department of Botany 24000 digital database file 1996 the publication date horizontal visibility--NPS Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area vegetation map NPS BICA veg map provided vegetation data for all land area within the NPS unit (WY and MT). Horizontal visibility for bighorn sheep was derived from this layer in combination with WYFish and Game veg, MT Gap analysis Land Cover, and WY Gap Veg data. US Geological Survey EROS National Elevation Dataset 1999 raster digital data Sioux Falls, SD U.S. Geological Survey, EROS Data Center digital database file 1999 the publication date USGS DEM Slope and aspect used to determine escape terrain were derived from this grid U.S. Geological Survey or another mapping agency in cooperation with USGS 1980 map 24000 digital database file 1980 Present the publication date USGS DLG Manmade and natural barriers (roads, highways, trails, aqueducts, canals, large water bodies, rivers) and perennial water sources were derived from these data. These layers were used to identify and analyze the effects of manmade and natural barriers to routine bighorn movement. US Forest Service (Custer and Bighorn National Forests) Unknown Arc Export data Unknown US Forest Service digital database file Unknown the publication date USFS DLG and DEM Manmade and natural barriers (roads, highways, trails, aqueducts, canals, large water bodies, rivers) and perennial water sources were derived from these data. These layers were used to identify and analyze the effects of manmade and natural barriers to routine bighorn movement. Slope and aspect used to determine escape terrain were derived from these DEMs. U.S. Geological Survey or another mapping agency in cooperation with USGS 1980 map 24000 digital line graph 1980 Present ground condition perennial water sources hydrography data identifying perennial water sources US Forest Service (Custer and Bighorn National Forests) Unknown Arc Export data Unknown US Forest Service 24000 digital line graph Unknown the publication date perennial water sources Hygrography identifying perennial water sources See Methodology for complete description of each data layer used in the analysis. Analysis done in ARCINFO GRID, a raster environment. To obtain a detailed list of the ARCINFO GRID process and commands used in this analysis, contact USGS (Kate Schoenecker)-see below for contact information. All GRID (raster) data was converted to polygon data in order to easier serve the data online. horizontal visibility-data for WY and MT Gap analysis Land Cover, WY Fish and Game Land Cover, and NPS BICA veg data USGS DEM USGS DLG USFS DLG and DEM 200204 clearinghouse: bica_suitable_ bighorn_summer_habitat_ww within park : summerpatww Michelle Gudorf Contractor mailing and physical address

4510 East Hill Road

Craftsbury VT 05826 USA 802-586-7589 USGS Biological Resources Division Kate Schoenecker 4512 McMurry Avenue Fort Collins Colorado 80525 USA 970-226-9329 Field None Horizontal visibility analysis for bighorn sheep habitat vegetation density predation Horizontal Visibility; Four vegetation maps were reviewed, and a field assessment was completed by Kate Schoenecker (USGS/BRD, Ft. Collins, CO) in November 2001. From this assessment, 12 vegetation classification zones were identified to determine horizontal visibility. Zones with less than 62% horizontal visibility were considered unsuitable habitat for bighorn sheep. Horizontal Visibility for each vegetation cover type was measured using procedures established in Smith et al (1991) and are as follows: A heavy canvas 1 m square target, divided into 36 equal sections was used to determine visibility through vegetation. 10-40 sample points were measured in each cover type, depending on the variability of the type of cover. To maximize sampling efficiency, sample points were distributed among one to four transects containing five to ten points each. Transect starting points were randomly selected from all reasonably accessible areas within each cover type. From each transect starting point, a randomly selected compass bearing was followed, stopping at sample points located 28 m apart. At each sample point visual obstruction was measured by observing the target from a distance of 14 m with the observers eyes 90 cm above ground level, and recording the number of squares at least half visible. One observer made all visibility measurements. At each sample point visibility was measured using four sub-samples oriented toward the cardinal directions. These values were averaged to determine mean visibility for each point. If a sub-sample direction was blocked by a feature that a predator could not pass over or through (e.g. a cliff wall) we omitted that sub-sample and calculated the mean from the remaining values. Visibility was characterized for each cover type measured by calculating the mean percent visibility and the associated 95% confidence interval. Cover types were considered suitable when they had a minimum value of 62% visibility within the 95% confidence interval. Johnson, T. L. and D. Swift 200012 model Restoration Ecology Volume 8, No. 4S:47-56 Malden, MA Blackwell Science Lab None slope escape terrain predation potential suitable habitat Buffered Escape Terrain--Escape terrain provides protection from predators and disturbances. It is a critical habitat feature for bighorn sheep. Slopes 30-90 degrees were generated into a file using ARCINFO GRID slope and aspect commands. These slopes were then buffered 300 m and 500 m. Any intersecting areas within the 500 m buffer were included, areas of no intersection were deleted. The model considers that land areas within 300 m of escape terrain or within 1000 m, if bordered on more than two sides by escape terrain, to be close enough for bighorn to be able to seek refuge there during disturbances. These were the land areas of potential suitable habitat, and the central dataset from which all other criteria applied. Smith, T. S., J. T. Flinders, and D. S. Winn. 1991 model Great Basin Naturalist 51(3):205-225 Lab None suitable water sources perennial water sources Perennial Water Sources-- From USGS 24K and 100K hydrology data. Note that data didn't exist for 4 quads (Mexican Hill, Medicine Wheel WY and Red Pryor Mnt and Bear Canyon MT). In these areas, 1:100K DLG data were used. Additional water sources digitized from field assessments delineated on 1:24K USGS topo maps (identifying seeps and springs). BLM provided digital information showing range improvements on BLM land for water sources (guzzlers). All water sources were incorporated into one file, brought into a raster environment, and buffered 1000m. In final analysis, any buffered escape terrain falling outside of buffered water sources was classified as unsuitable habitat. Smith, T. S., J. T. Flinders, and D. S. Winn. 1991 model Great Basin Naturalist 51(3):205-225 Lab None wide rivers large water bodies vertical cliffs lakes Natural Barriers to routine bighorn movement--1:24-1:100K DLG data (hydrography) and field data delineated on 1:24K topo maps were used to identify large water bodies or fast flowing rivers that may be barriers to routine bighorn movement. These features were identified and evaluated on a case-by-case basis for determination of their hindrance to bighorn sheep occupancy of an area or movement through an area. Any areas determined a hindrance and in union with core habitat were considered unsuitable and removed from core habitat. This criterion wasn't modeled to determine suitable habitat, however, any barriers will be provided as an overlay and should be considered by managers prior to translocation. Smith, T. S., J. T. Flinders, and D. S. Winn. 1991 model Great Basin Naturalist 51(3):205-225 Lab None aquaducts manmade barriers roads highways barbed fences canals Manmade barriers to routine bighorn movement--USGS 1:24K and 1:100K DLG hydrography and transportation data were used to delineate any highways, roads, canals, and aqueducts. Fences were digitized from USGS 1:24K paper topo maps with fence lines drawn as estimated by field technician. Vector features were imported into raster (30m resolution) and the area occupied by these features (roads, canals, aquaducts) was overlayed with other criteria and systematically removed from consideration as suitable habitat. These features were identified and evaluated on a case-by-case basis for determination of their hindrance to bighorn sheep occupancy of an area or movement through an area. Any areas determined a hindrance and in union with core habitat were considered unsuitable and removed from core habitat. This criterion wasn't modeled to determine suitable habitat, however, any barriers will be provided as an overlay and should be considered by managers prior to translocation. Hughes (1997) suggests removing contiguous patches less than 100 ha for suitable habitat, 25 ha for winter habitat, and 52 ha for summer habitat in size from consideration. Hughes calculated these patch sizes based on the Smith et al. (1991) suggestion that a 100-ha patch of suitable habitat will likely support no more than 4 sheep. If the barrier divided potentially suitable habitat into polygons less than 100 ha and the polygons were further than 4600m from other potentially suitable habitat, the polygons were classified as unsuitable habitat. Lee G. Hughes 1997 model University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming University of Wyoming, Department of Zoology and Physiology (98 pp) Lab None urban areas cities towns airstrips landing strips airports buildings industrial areas heavily used trails high use areas structures Areas occupied or disturbed by human use--Urban areas were identified in vegetation maps; trails identified by USGS 1:24K DLG data. These features were imported into a raster 30m resolution environment and potential suitable habitat occupied by these features was classified as unsuitable habitat. Smith, T. S., J. T. Flinders, and D. S. Winn. 1991 model Great Basin Naturalist 51(3):205-225 Lab None exotic species domestic sheep grazing allotments disease transmission Proximity to Exotic Relatives: Areas occupied by domestic sheep. Domestic sheep (and introduced exotic populations of Ovis genus) can harbor diseases that may infect bighorn sheep. Disease transmissions from domestic sheep have caused catastrophic die-offs of bighorn sheep (Jessup 1981, Goodson 1982, Capurro 1988, Coggins 1988). However, Zeigenfuss et al. (2000) found that populations of bighorn sheep separated by less than 4.6+ or - 1.4 km were unsuccessful, populations with separations from 12.3+ or - 4.6 km as moderately successful, and populations with separations from 23.0 + or - 6.5 km as successful. Maintaining a larger distance between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep reduced the probability of disease transmission. In this analysis, this criterion wasn't modeled to exclude suitable habitat, however, the overlay provided of the domestic sheep grazing allotments and their proximity to suitable bighorn sheep habitat must be considered by managers prior to translocation. For purposes of this model, the buffer zones of domestic sheep grazing allotments range from 0-7 km (unsuccessful), 7-17 km (moderately successful), and 17-29 km (very successful). Zeigenfuss, L. C., F. J. Singer, and M. A. Gudorf 200012 model Restoration Ecology Volume 8, No. 4S:38-46 Malden, MA Blackwell Science Lab None Aspect: aspects were generated using the ARCGRID command. Only southern aspects (90-270 degrees) were selected and included as suitable habitat. Smith, T. S., J. T. Flinders, and D. S. Winn. 1991 model Great Basin Naturalist 51(3):205-225 All polygons converted from GRID (raster) environment in 30m resolution Vector Label point G-Polygon 12 .9996 -111 0 500000 0 coordinate pair 30 30 meters North American Datum of 1983 Geodedic Reference System 80 6378137 298.257 All attributes pertain to polygons representing either 1 or zero values for areas of suitable habitat. GRIDCODE = 1 represents suitable summer range; GRIDCODE = 0 represents unsuitable summer range; GRIDCODE = -9999 represent no data values. Additional attribute items are in typical ARC/INFO feature class format. none National Park Service, Intermountain GIS Program Office GIS Coordinator/GIS Specialist Mailing and physical address

12795 West Alameda Parkway

Lakewood Colorado 80225 USA imro_gis_coordinator@nps.gov bica_suitable_bighorn_summer_habitat_ww The National Park Service shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein. These data and related graphics ("GIF" format files) are not legal documents and are not intended to be used as such. The information contained in these data is dynamic and may change over time. The data are not better than the original sources from which they were derived. It is the responsibility of the data user to use the data appropriately and consistent within the limitations of geospatial data in general and these data in particular. The related graphics are intended to aid the data user in acquiring relevant data; it is not appropriate to use the related graphics as data. The National Park Service gives no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data. It is strongly recommended that these data are directly acquired from an NPS server and not indirectly through other sources which may have changed the data in some way. Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the National Park Service, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the utility of the data on another system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. This disclaimer applies both to individual use of the data and aggregate use with other data. ARCGIS 8.2 .e00 http://nrdata.nps.gov/bica/bicadata/bica_suitable_bighorn_summer_habitat_ww.e00 None Michelle Gudorf Contractor mailing and physical address

4510 East Hill Road

Craftsbury VT 05826 USA 802-586-7589 NBII Content Standard for National Biological Information Infrastructure Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998 None None 20050713 20040524 NPS CSDGM OnlineData Park BICA National Park Service, Intermountain GIS Program Office Paul Voris GIS Specialist Mailing and physical address

12795 West Alameda Parkway

Lakewood Colorado 80225 USA paul_voris@nps.gov NR-GIS Wildlife 19339