Good Morning (Afternoon) Ladies and Gentlemen. Thank you for joining us for a briefing from the Intermountain Region of the Forest Service regarding

Transcription

1 Good Morning (Afternoon) Ladies and Gentlemen. Thank you for joining us for a briefing from the Intermountain Region of the Forest Service regarding its Domestic Sheep/Bighorn Sheep Management Framework. Our presenter today is Danielle Chi, the director of Natural Resources in the Intermountain Region. Lee Jacobson, who is the region s threatened and endangered species program manager; Martina Barnes, who is the capitol city coordinator liaison for this project; and I am Rosann Fillmore, the public affairs specialist for this project. Please be sure your phones are on mute. Danielle, we are ready to begin. 1

2 Good Morning (afternoon) ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to our briefing. At the end of our discussion we will have time to take questions. Let me start with a little background. In 2003 the Payette National Forest completed revision of the 1988 Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The plan was appealed asserting it failed to adequately address the risk of disease transmission between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep. The Chief of the Forest Service agreed and instructed the Payette to reanalyze this risk to understand potential impacts of domestic sheep grazing on bighorn sheep viability on the forest. In 2010 the Payette National Forest issued a final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision that outlined a phased out approach that would reduce domestic sheep grazing on the Payette NF to ensure the forest was maintaining habitat to support viable populations of BHS as required by regulation. On March 25 th of this year, the Circuit Court upheld the Payette s Environmental Impact Statement. 2

3 In 2011, following the Payette Decision, Joel Holtrop the Deputy Chief for the National Forest System directed national forests with bighorn sheep populations to address the potential for disease transmission from domestic sheep and goats to bighorn sheep. To do this the forests were to conduct a bighorn sheep risk assessment using a 4-step analytical process. In 2012, a second letter reiterated the critical importance conducting a risk of contact assessment and a bighorn sheep viability analysis This direction coupled with recent litigation prompted Region 4 to develop a Domestic Sheep Bighorn Sheep Management Framework. 3

4 The Intermountain Region of the Forest Service believes that with careful study and management it can manage habitats to sustain and conserve viable populations of bighorn sheep on our national forests, while retaining opportunities for domestic sheep grazing. 4

5 The region developed the management framework to rely on the best available science and emphasize both providing habitat to maintain viable populations of bighorn sheep while retaining grazing opportunities for domestic sheep. At the foundation of the framework is a risk of contact assessment that will identify areas where domestic and bighorn sheep may interact. A viability analysis will be conducted using the information from the risk assessment to determine which allotments are putting the forests at greatest risk of not meeting their viability requirement. Based on the results of the viability analysis, forest supervisors, regional managers, and other employees will explore various management options for managing bighorn sheep and domestic sheep in ways that reduce risk of contact on the national forests of the Intermountain Region. It is important to note that this not a decision process, but provides the tools that can be used to make the most well-informed decisions. 5

6 The Payette National Forest, which has already been through this process, will not be included in the framework. Those districts of the Humboldt Toiyabe that are home to Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep will not be included. The Sierra-Nevada Bighorn Sheep are listed as an endangered species and are managed as such. The Domestic Sheep/Bighorn Sheep Management Framework is Region 4 s approach to implementing the 2011 Washington Office letter of direction. Other regions in the Forest Service will develop their own methods for obtaining information to assist them in managing domestic and bighorn sheep. 6

7 We have a suite of people involved in the Framework. The project lead for this effort A core team with members from forests across the region. They have been chosen for their expertise in working with data, rangeland and wildlife issues. The states of Idaho, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming are working with us to assure we have the most scientifically defensible data they can give us regarding bighorn sheep populations and habitat. A second team of federal experts will be assembled to conduct a bighorn sheep viability analysis with input from state experts. The Forest Supervisors, Region Managers and additional staff will work together to develop various management options to address the risk of contact issues, once they are identified. 7

8 Let s look at the three prongs of the framework. The risk assessment relies on data collected by state agencies on habit, movement and populations of bighorn sheep. We are currently working with states to interpret their data. Concurrently, we have been updating and confirming the forests data on allotment boundaries, status of allotments, and the type of use. This will tell us whether allotments are vacant or in use, and whether they are being used by sheep, goats, or cattle. These two sources of data will be applied to a risk of contact model, which will tell us where the highest risk of contact occurs between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep. 8

9 This map provides an example of what the results of a risk of contact model might look like. Allotments are indicated by these lined polygons. The yellow points are telemetry locations of bighorn sheep which are used to designate the core herd home range, this oval shaped blue and green area in the center of the map. The pink donut shows where rams are most likely to wander outside their home range. The darker the pink, the higher the probability of foray. Where the allotments overlap the core herd home range and these foray areas are where there is a risk of contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep. 9

10 When the risk of contact assessment is complete, the Region will convene a team of federal employees with expertise on bighorn sheep. Working closely with state experts, they will evaluate the information to determine which herds on specific forests are putting the Forests most at risk of not meeting their viability requirement. 10

11 Need the language in the regulations The viability analysis will consider age-class structure, population size, incidents of disease, risk of contact results, and reintroduction status. This is necessary to infer the likelihood of retaining species on the forest. The viability analysis will be peer reviewed by experts. The individual forest is the required level for this analysis, because that is the area of our responsibility. We have no authority or responsibility on state and private lands. This means we will not be conducting the analysis on single allotments. It is also more effective and efficient to analyze a forest than individual allotments. 11

12 This work will set the stage for exploring and creating a variety of options that Forest Supervisors can use as they make decisions regarding management of bighorn sheep and domestic sheep on their forests. 12

13 Developing a variety of management options that helps the Region obtain its goal of maintaining viable bighorn sheep populations while providing opportunities for domestic sheep grazing is vital. One single management tool does not take into consideration the various conditions on the landscape. Although the discussion will be based on the data and occur once all the information is gathered and interpreted, some ideas are already being tossed around. I would like to emphasize once again that this will not be a decision-making process, but is a part of the information gathering and analysis that will help Forest Supervisors and District Rangers make better decisions. 13

14 The team has been working with the states since mid-march. We expect to have the Risk of Contact Assessment completed by August. We will conduct the viability analysis from September through November, and consider management options from December thru February. Decision making regarding bighorn sheep/domestic sheep management will occur on the individual forests as needed. 14

15 The Intermountain Region is the first region to approach implementation of the WO direction using for the gathering and analysis of data regarding bighorn and domestic sheep. Although other regions are under the same direction to analyze the risks to bighorn sheep, they are not bound to follow the framework for analysis and management options that the Intermountain Region has developed. We are stepping out in front because we have the added pressure of the court settlement that requires us to re-evaluate NEPA analysis on numerous grazing allotments in the region. We believe a regional approach to the analysis will result in greater consistency, eliminate multiple approaches to the states, and alleviate the burden for analysis from the individual forests. 15

16 16

17 Rosann: Ladies and Gentlemen, Thank you for joining us today. We hope you feel like you have a better understanding of the Domestic Sheep Bighorn Sheep Management Framework that is being carried out in the Intermountain Region. If you have further questions, feel free to contact any of the people listed in this slide. If you would like to download the power point, just navigate to the top of the page, click on the small icon that looks like pages, and follow the directions. We will leave the meeting site available for a few minutes after the webinar to allow you time for downloads. Good Day. 17