Upload
bunny
View
36
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Bighorn Sheep Viability Update to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Payette National Forest January - February 2010. Briefing Objectives. History and Background Updated Analyses and Models Updated Effects Analysis. Background. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Bighorn Sheep Viability UPDATE TO THE DRAFT
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
Payette National Forest
January - February 2010
Briefing Objectives
• History and Background
• Updated Analyses and Models
• Updated Effects Analysis
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
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 219.19, 36 CFR 292.48
• Amend Forest Plan to add direction that insures bighorn sheep viability
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 219.19)
• Guidance– Focus on habitats as a requisite for viability– Focus on vertebrate species– Focus on selected species: management
indicator, listed species, sensitive species
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 219.19)
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?
Draft SEIS
• Released Document – October 2008
• 5-month Comment Period
• 14,000+ Comments
• Content Analysis of the Comments
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
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
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 2670.5).
• 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 2672.1)
Foray Distances and Frequencies
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.
Population trajectories for 3 herds (Imnaha, Sheep
Mountain, & Wenaha)
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
One Possible Outcome from the Disease
Model
0100200300400500600700800900
1000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Her
d siz
e (n
o. o
f ani
mal
s)
Time (years)
Herd nameAsotin Big Canyon Big Creek
Black Butte Imnaha Lick Creek
Little Salmon Lostine Main Salmon South Fork
McGraw Mountain View Muir
Myers Quartz Red Bird
Sheep Mountain Upper Main Salmon Wenaha
0100200300400500600700800900
1000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Her
d siz
e (n
o. o
f ani
mal
s)
Time (years)
Herd nameAsotin Big Canyon Big Creek
Black Butte Imnaha Lick Creek
Little Salmon Lostine Main Salmon South Fork
McGraw Mountain View Muir
Myers Quartz Red Bird
Sheep Mountain Upper Main Salmon Wenaha
0100200300400500600700800900
1000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Her
d siz
e (n
o. o
f ani
mal
s)
Time (years)
Herd nameAsotin Big Canyon Big Creek
Black Butte Imnaha Lick Creek
Little Salmon Lostine Main Salmon South Fork
McGraw Mountain View Muir
Myers Quartz Red Bird
Sheep Mountain Upper Main Salmon Wenaha
0100200300400500600700800900
1000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Her
d siz
e (n
o. o
f ani
mal
s)
Time (years)
Herd nameAsotin Big Canyon Big Creek
Black Butte Imnaha Lick Creek
Little Salmon Lostine Main Salmon South Fork
McGraw Mountain View Muir
Myers Quartz Red Bird
Sheep Mountain Upper Main Salmon Wenaha
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
Expanded Economic Analyses
• Agricultural Economics– Community and Regional Impact Models– Grazing Fee Impacts– Production Value
• Non-market/Recreation Economics– Value of Bighorn Sheep Hunts
2008 Gross Income from Sheep and Lamb Production
in Selected Regions
Region Sheep/Lambs Meat Wool Total
Idaho County 2,300 $193,484 $19,075 $212,559
Washington County 16,000 $1,345,974 $132,698 $1,478,672
Total Two Counties 18,300 $1,539,458 $151,773 $1,691,231
Southwest Agriculture District + Idaho County 54,800 $4,609,963 $454,490 $5,064,453
Idaho State Total 235,000 $19,769,000 $1,949,000 $21,718,000
Source: 2009 Idaho State Agricultural Statistics Bulletin
State Level Expenditures and Visitation for Wildlife
Watching and Hunting
Idaho Oregon WashingtonWildlife-watching Total Wildlife-watching expenditures $265,383,000 $776,414,000 $1,502,311,000Trip related expenditures (food, lodging, transportation, and other)
$193,468,000 $262,425,000 $441,652,000
Wildlife watching participants 754,000 1,484,000 2,331,000 Percent of wildlife associated recreation participation 75% 81% 85%Total days wildlife watching 5,165,000 8,162,000 9,104,000 Average trip per day expenditure $37 $32 $49HuntingTotal Hunting expenditures $259,718,000 $373,613,000 $313,134,000Trip related expenditures (food, lodging, transportation, and other)
$100,218,000 $116,690,000 $74,233,000
Total hunting participants 187,000 237,000 182,000 Percent of wildlife associated recreation participation 19% 13% 7%Total days hunting 2,117,000 2,759,000 2,126,000 Average trip per day expenditure $47 $42 $35
(Source: U.S. Department of Interior and Department of Commerce 2006
Recreation Economic Impact Area Industry Employment
Distribution
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
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, 7 0 100310 100.00% 0.15 1.01
3, 4, 6 33918 93082 92.79% 0.15 1.01
7E 368641 0 0.00% 0.00 0.00
7G 263338 38468 38.35% 0.09 0.35
7L 315715 64311 64.11% 0.13 0.31
7M 338934 43245 43.11% 0.05 0.19
7N 337532 38392 38.27% 0.03 0.08
7O 346696 31592 31.49% 0.03 0.04
7P 332372 46106 45.96% 0.05 0.12
Probability of Extirpation for Upper
Hells Canyon
Upper Hells CanyonEffective Contact Rates 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Alt_1257 0.527 0.777 0.952 0.994 0.999 1Alt_345 0.489 0.726 0.94 0.995 0.999 1Alt_7G 0.297 0.512 0.801 0.957 0.989 0.995Alt_7L 0.367 0.588 0.881 0.987 0.995 1Alt_7M 0.165 0.323 0.633 0.834 0.932 0.967Alt_7N 0.093 0.174 0.402 0.673 0.806 0.891Alt_7O 0.084 0.151 0.375 0.635 0.796 0.89Alt_7P 0.145 0.294 0.587 0.84 0.931 0.97No Allotments 0 0 0 0 0 0
Probability of Extirpation for Main
Salmon and South fork
Main Salmon South Fork
Effective Contact Rates 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Alt_1257 0.417 0.694 0.933 0.995 0.999 1
Alt_346 0.376 0.645 0.931 0.995 0.999 1
Alt_7G 0.148 0.282 0.558 0.818 0.931 0.973
Alt_7L 0.151 0.257 0.532 0.793 0.918 0.958
Alt_7M 0.076 0.176 0.369 0.605 0.754 0.861
Alt_7N 0.034 0.074 0.203 0.334 0.501 0.594
Alt_7O 0.022 0.04 0.129 0.211 0.292 0.393
Alt_7P 0.051 0.12 0.251 0.481 0.616 0.728
No Allotments 0 0 0 0 0 0
Contact Rates by Source Habitat and
Suited Grazing Lands
Extirpation Probability by Contact Rate by
Alternative at 100% EC
Extirpation Probability by Contact Rate by
Alternative at 25% EC
Prob
abili
ty o
f Exti
rpati
on Contacts per year
Extirpation Probability by Different Effective
Contact Rates
Comparison of Outputs of Community Models to
Regional Model
Total Jobs Per ScenarioIncludes the direct, indirect, and induced impacts
City
Alts 1B, 2, 5, 7
Alts 3, 4, 6 Alt 7E Alt 7G Alt 7L Alt 7M Alt 7N Alt 7O Alt 7P
Riggins 3.95 3.79 0.00 0.59 1.54 0.83 0.66 0.01 0.67
Weiser 24.86 22.72 0.00 11.92 18.94 16.25 12.63 11.20 16.94
Wilder 8.40 8.40 0.00 3.73 6.80 3.94 4.12 3.45 4.12Community Model Total 37.22 34.9 0.00 16.24 27.3 21.0 17.4 14.7 21.7Regional Model 45.71 43.1 0.00 19.55 33.2 25.0 21.0 17.5 25.8
Difference 8.5 8.2 0.00 3.3 5.9 4.0 3.6 2.8 4.1
Comparison of Outputs of Community Models to
Regional Model
Total Earnings Per Scenario
Includes the direct, indirect, and induced impacts
CityAlts 1B, 2, 5, 7 Alts 3, 4, 6 Alt 7E Alt 7G Alt 7L Alt 7M Alt 7N Alt 7O Alt 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 $92,447Community Model Total $672,635 $632,592 - $302,462 $506,208 $386,828 $324,594 $277,291 $401,538Regional 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
O&G Employment and Labor Income Effects per
Alternative
100 percent effective contact 10 percent effective contact
Alternative Employment Labor Income EmploymentLabor Income
1b, 2, 5, 7 6.5 $118,395 8.1 $146,976
3, 4, 6 6.8 $123,847 8.3 $150,307
7E 10.5 $191,311 10.5 $191,311
7G 7.6 $137,655 9.3 $169,236
7L 7.5 $135,959 9.3 $169,248
7M 7.8 $141,052 9.7 $175,325
7N 8.3 $151,213 10.1 $182,768
7O 8.7 $158,681 10.2 $185,311
7P 8.0 $144,907 9.8 $178,539
Area Potentially Available for Tribal
Harvest
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
Timeline
• 45-Day Comment Period on Update– Ends March 22, 2010– [email protected]
• Content Analysis of the Comments
• Issue the Final SEIS and Decision– May 2010
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