Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Bighorn Sheep Viability U PDATE TO THE D RAFT S UPPLEMENTAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT S TATEMENT Payette National Forest January - February 2010.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Bighorn Sheep Viability U PDATE TO THE D RAFT S UPPLEMENTAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT S TATEMENT Payette National Forest January - February 2010."— Presentation transcript:

1 Bighorn Sheep Viability U PDATE TO THE D RAFT S UPPLEMENTAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT S TATEMENT Payette National Forest January - February 2010

2 Briefing Objectives History and Background Updated Analyses and Models Updated Effects Analysis

3 Background March 9, 2005, the Chief of the Forest Service reverses the 2003 FP decision as it pertains to bighorn sheep and its habitat Found not compliant with NFMA for bighorn sheep viability issues Found not likely compliant with Hells Canyon NRA Act Forest Plan direction remanded for bighorn sheep

4 Appeal Direction Regional Forester conduct bighorn sheep viability analysis in the Payette NF Ensure habitat is available for a viable population of bighorn sheep Support determination of compliance with Hells Canyon NRA Act, 36 CFR , 36 CFR Amend Forest Plan to add direction that insures bighorn sheep viability

5 Viability - Requirement Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area (36CFR ) Guidance –Focus on habitats as a requisite for viability –Focus on vertebrate species –Focus on selected species: management indicator, listed species, sensitive species

6 Viability – Defined Habitat must be provided to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area. (36 CFR )

7 Analysis Foundation for Assessing Viability Bighorn Sheep Habitat Do we have it? How much do we have? Is it well distributed across the landscape? Is it connected? Bighorn Sheep Landscape Use Where are they? How far do they foray? Are herd inter-connected? Domestic Sheep Allotment Use Where are the allotments? When are they on the allotments? Where do they trail?

8 Draft SEIS Released Document – October month Comment Period 14,000+ Comments Content Analysis of the Comments

9 Comments on DSEIS Save Bighorn Sheep Save Domestic Sheep Grazing Keep risk for contact near zero Provide for Treaty Rights Use the Science Conduct Economic Analyses

10 Process for Update to Draft SEIS Developed Source Habitat Model Core Herd Home Range Analysis Contact Analysis Disease Spread Model Community and Regional Economic Impact Model Analyzed Effects Bighorn Sheep as a Sensitive Species Rangeland Resources Tribal Rights and Interests Socio-Economics Environmental Justice Cooperator Status for States and Tribes

11 Sensitive Species “Those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trend in population numbers, or habitat capability that reduce a species existing distribution.” (FSM ). Objectives for sensitive species include “special management emphases to ensure viability and to preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for Federal listing” (FSM )

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 Foray Distances and Frequencies

21

22

23

24 Disease Model Utilizes the contact rate from the analysis based on foray behavior Predicts the probability of disease spread through the rest of the bighorn sheep population To determine persistence of the population over time.

25 Population trajectories for 3 herds (Imnaha, Sheep Mountain, & Wenaha)

26 Disease Inputs Herd-to-herd contact probability matrix Combined BHS/DS-to-BHS transmission Outbreak probability Initial herd infection status Disease outbreak impact Extended infectious duration Extended adverse effect duration

27 One Possible Outcome from the Disease Model

28 Models & Analyses Summary Offers multiple quantitative ways to display habitat, population, and potential movement patterns of bighorn sheep relative to landscapes and interactions with domestic sheep Compares alternatives relative to risks for bighorn sheep Logical and consistent with our understanding of bighorn and domestic sheep interactions

29 Expanded Economic Analyses Agricultural Economics –Community and Regional Impact Models –Grazing Fee Impacts –Production Value Non-market/Recreation Economics –Value of Bighorn Sheep Hunts

30 2008 Gross Income from Sheep and Lamb Production in Selected Regions RegionSheep/LambsMeatWoolTotal Idaho County2,300$193,484$19,075$212,559 Washington County16,000$1,345,974$132,698$1,478,672 Total Two Counties18,300$1,539,458$151,773$1,691,231 Southwest Agriculture District + Idaho County54,800$4,609,963$454,490$5,064,453 Idaho State Total235,000$19,769,000$1,949,000$21,718,000 Source: 2009 Idaho State Agricultural Statistics Bulletin

31 State Level Expenditures and Visitation for Wildlife Watching and Hunting IdahoOregonWashington Wildlife-watching Total Wildlife-watching expenditures$265,383,000$776,414,000$1,502,311,000 Trip related expenditures (food, lodging, transportation, and other) $193,468,000$262,425,000$441,652,000 Wildlife watching participants754,0001,484,0002,331,000 Percent of wildlife associated recreation participation75%81%85% Total days wildlife watching5,165,0008,162,0009,104,000 Average trip per day expenditure$37$32$49 Hunting Total Hunting expenditures$259,718,000$373,613,000$313,134,000 Trip related expenditures (food, lodging, transportation, and other) $100,218,000$116,690,000$74,233,000 Total hunting participants187,000237,000182,000 Percent of wildlife associated recreation participation19%13%7% Total days hunting2,117,0002,759,0002,126,000 Average trip per day expenditure$47$42$35 (Source: U.S. Department of Interior and Department of Commerce 2006

32 Recreation Economic Impact Area Industry Employment Distribution

33 Tribal Rights and Interests Directly tied to: 1. Viability and persistence of the bighorn sheep population over time –Provides for a subsistence lifestyle and maintains Tribal traditions 2. How much area is identified as not suited for domestic sheep grazing –Allows for hunting in traditional areas and areas that are culturally important

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43 Protected Summer Source Habitats for Bighorn Sheep, and Remaining Suited Rangeland for Domestic Sheep and Contact Rates Alternative Protected BHS Summer Habitat (Acres) Suitable Range Acres Suitable Range Percent Upper Hells Canyon Foray Contact Main Salmon & South fork Foray Contact 1b, 2, 5, % , 4, % E %0.00 7G % L % M % N % O % P %

44 Probability of Extirpation for Upper Hells Canyon Upper Hells Canyon Effective Contact Rates Alt_ Alt_ Alt_7G Alt_7L Alt_7M Alt_7N Alt_7O Alt_7P No Allotments000000

45 Probability of Extirpation for Main Salmon and South fork Main Salmon South Fork Effective Contact Rates Alt_ Alt_ Alt_7G Alt_7L Alt_7M Alt_7N Alt_7O Alt_7P No Allotments000000

46 Contact Rates by Source Habitat and Suited Grazing Lands

47 Extirpation Probability by Contact Rate by Alternative at 100% EC

48 Extirpation Probability by Contact Rate by Alternative at 25% EC Probability of Extirpation Contacts per year

49 Extirpation Probability by Different Effective Contact Rates

50 Comparison of Outputs of Community Models to Regional Model Total Jobs Per Scenario Includes the direct, indirect, and induced impacts City Alts 1B, 2, 5, 7 Alts 3, 4, 6Alt 7EAlt 7GAlt 7LAlt 7MAlt 7NAlt 7OAlt 7P Riggins Weiser Wilder Community Model Total Regional Model Difference

51 Comparison of Outputs of Community Models to Regional Model Total Earnings Per Scenario Includes the direct, indirect, and induced impacts City Alts 1B, 2, 5, 7Alts 3, 4, 6Alt 7EAlt 7GAlt 7LAlt 7MAlt 7NAlt 7OAlt 7P Riggins$40,519$38,866-$6,061$15,753$8,532$6,815$76$6,839 Weiser$442,589$405,253-$212,656$337,889$289,869$225,332$199,740$302,253 Wilder$188,527$188,473-$83,745$152,566$88,427$92,447$77,475$92,447 Community Model Total$672,635$632,592-$302,462$506,208$386,828$324,594$277,291$401,538 Regional Model$1,252,729$1,181,103-$535,726$910,650$684,851$575,912$478,836$706,409 Difference$580,094$548,511-$233,263$404,442$298,023$248,318$201,545$304,871

52 O&G Employment and Labor Income Effects per Alternative 100 percent effective contact10 percent effective contact AlternativeEmploymentLabor IncomeEmployment Labor Income 1b, 2, 5, 7 6.5$118,3958.1$146,976 3, 4, 6 6.8$123,8478.3$150,307 7E 10.5$191, $191,311 7G 7.6$137,6559.3$169,236 7L 7.5$135,9599.3$169,248 7M 7.8$141,0529.7$175,325 7N 8.3$151, $182,768 7O 8.7$158, $185,311 7P 8.0$144,9079.8$178,539

53 Area Potentially Available for Tribal Harvest

54 Update to the Draft Forest Plan Direction Maintain Separation Monitor for Bighorn Sheep Presence Adapt if an Effective Vaccine is Developed Implement emergency Actions if Bighorn Sheep are Detected near Domestic Sheep Graze Domestic Sheep Only if Separation can be Maintained Domestic Sheep Grazing is Permitted if Bighorn Sheep Monitoring is Conducted

55 Timeline 45-Day Comment Period on Update –Ends March 22, 2010 Content Analysis of the Comments Issue the Final SEIS and Decision –May 2010

56 Summary Updates to the DSEIS –Habitat Model –Core Herd Home Range Analysis –Quantitative Contact Analysis –Disease Spread Model –Regional Socio-economic Analysis –Environmental Justice Analysis


Download ppt "Bighorn Sheep Viability U PDATE TO THE D RAFT S UPPLEMENTAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT S TATEMENT Payette National Forest January - February 2010."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google