Region States Forest Stakeholder engagement Status and timeline 1 ID Nez Perce- Clearwater & ID Panhandle

Transcription

1 Appendix A. Compilation of responses from Forest Service Regions The agencies are directed to complete risk of contact analyses using appropriate data sources, such as from the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and to share the findings with the public. What is the status of Risk of Contact Analyses and how have findings been shared? Region States Forest Stakeholder engagement Status and timeline 1 ID Nez Perce- Clearwater & ID Panhandle Data sources have been obtained from ID Department of Fish and Game and shared with public. This was part of work being done in the No timeline or discussion has started to determine when the Risk of Contact (ROC) model will be assessed for this portion of Region 1 1 MT, ND, SD All 2 CO San Juan, Rio Grande ID portion of Region 4. In the past, USFS and state wildlife agencies have discussed potential overlap with bighorn sheep and domestic sheep allotments. Risk of contact analyses have been conducted for 3 landscape projects. Data sources for these analyses have been developed in collaboration with Colorado Parks and Wildlife and other subjectmatter experts. Public engagement has been through typical NEPA processes via public comment periods and targeted outreach to potentially interested parties (e.g., Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Colorado Wool Growers Association, permittees). 2 WY Shoshone Risk of contact was assessed during revision of the Forest s Land No timeline or discussion has started to determine when the ROC model will be assessed for Region 1 In 2013, the Rio Grande NF issued a decision that vacated one domestic sheep grazing allotment (Fisher-Ivy-Goose); the affected permittee was permitted on 2 other allotments and operations were not impacted. The Rio Grande and San Juan National Forests each have NEPA analysis underway for 2 grazing projects (Snow Mesa EA and Weminuche Landscape Grazing EIS, respectively), with decision notices or draft Records of Decision Expected in Record of Decision for the revised Land Management Plan was signed in 2015.

2 Region States Forest Stakeholder engagement Status and timeline Management Plan. The forest relied on typical outreach strategies, public meetings, public comment, and targeted outreach. 2 CO, WY, SD, KS, NE All others 3 NM Carson BHS Risk of Contact analysis conducted for the Santos Allotment and reviewed with NMDGF and grazing permittee. 4 UT Ashley, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti- LaSal, and Uinta- Wasatch- Cache BHS data sources were obtained from Utah Division of Wildlife (UDWR) Resources and source habitat information and core herd home ranges were developed with UDWR. Tri-State Woolgrowers Meeting Park City, Utah. Nora Rasure, Regional Forester, Terry Padilla Regional Range Team Lead The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre & Gunnison NF (GMUG) and White River NFs may begin a risk of contact analysis during 2016, and the Bighorn NF may revisit an existing analysis conducted~5 years. No risk of contact analysis is anticipated in the immediate future for other units within Region 2. Possible on GMUG and White River NF in year or two. NEPA analysis is on-hold indefinitely on the Santos Allotment. Only 2 other R3 domestic sheep allotments (Apache Complex and Beaverhead Grief Hill Driveway) are in close proximity to BHS populations. Neither is currently being analyzed for new NEPA decisions, which will include risk of contact assessments. The Forest Service Intermountain Region began creating a risk of contact analysis framework in The Region has completed a bighorn sheep/domestic sheep risk of contact analysis for National Forests in Utah. Using the risk of contact assessment, the Ashley and Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest are considering if domestic sheep management options are needed to reduce the threat of disease transmission to BHS. The Forests are working 2

3 Region States Forest Stakeholder engagement Status and timeline provided an update on the status of the analysis and indicated the Regional Allotment Disposition Map would be available soon. (November 2015). with Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) to assess the status of BHS herds. The risk of contact assessment did not indicate potential conflicts on the Fishlake, Dixie, and Manti-LaSal Forests. No allotment management changes have been proposed at this time as a result of the risk of contact assessment. 4 WY Bridger- Teton, Caribou- Targhee State-wide Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group, Lander WY (December 9, 2014.) BHS data sources were obtained from Wyoming Game and Fish (WGF) and source habitat information and core herd home ranges developed with WGF review (June 11, 2015). Risk of contact assessment update given to Tri-State Woolgrowers meeting in November Analysis results and allotment maps released to public. State-wide Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group, Lander WY (December 8, 2015). The Forest Service Intermountain Region began creating a risk of contact analysis framework in Since then, the Region has completed a bighorn sheep/domestic sheep risk of contact analysis for National Forests in Wyoming. No allotment management changes have been proposed at this time as a result of the risk of contact assessment. 3

4 Region States Forest Stakeholder engagement Status and timeline Memorandum of Understanding for the Management of Bighorn Sheep between Forest Service Intermountain and Rocky Mountain Regions and the State of Wyoming (January, 2016). 4 ID Payette The Chief remanded the Payette Forest Plan (2003) because of bighorn sheep viability concerns, related to disease transmission between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep on the Forest. The Payette NF developed a risk of contact and disease transmission model and published the Bighorn Sheep Viability Analysis and Forest Plan Amendment (July 2010). The amendment establishes guidance for the management of domestic sheep in proximity to bighorn sheep populations. As a result of the decision, the Forest closed 70% of its domestic sheep allotments to grazing. The decision was upheld in the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2014 and is currently under appeal. 4 ID Boise, Caribou- Targhee, Sawtooth, Salmon- Challis BHS data sources were obtained from Idaho Department of Fish and Wildlife (IDFG) and source habitat information and core herd home ranges developed with IDFG (February 2015). The Forest Service Intermountain Region began creating a risk of contact analysis framework in The Region is currently working with IDFG and the Idaho Forest to finalize the assessment for in Idaho. 4

5 Region States Forest Stakeholder engagement Status and timeline Idaho Fish and Game technical review of draft BHS herd home ranges, Jerome, ID (February 16, 2015). BHS update and Model description to Idaho Fish and Game and ID forests (December 14, 2015). Review of BHS framework and model results with National Forests in Idaho: Sawtooth, Salmon- Challis, Caribou-Targhee, Boise, and Payette National Forests (February, 2016). No allotment management changes have been proposed at this time as a result of current state wide risk of contact assessment. 4 NV Humboldt- Toiyabe 5 CA Inyo & H- TNF The Region is beginning the risk assessment process for Nevada. The Region is working with the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) to obtain and clean BHS data, verify source habitat maps, and core herd home ranges. (June 15, 2015). Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Team consisting of: USDA Forest Service; California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); sheep producers The Forest Service Intermountain Region began creating a risk of contact analysis framework in Since then, the Region has recently begun the analysis for the forest in Nevada. No allotment management changes have been proposed at this time as a result of the risk of contact assessment. Risk assessments have been completed by the CDFW with on-going updates: FINAL, Jan 2009 (Revised 2010): A process for Identifying and Managing Risk of Contact between Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep & Domestic Sheep. 5

6 Region States Forest Stakeholder engagement Status and timeline (F.I.M. Corp., Echenique Livestock); Wild Sheep Foundation (WSF); environmental organizations; and the Sierra Nevada BH Sheep Recovery Science Team. Public reviews and comments for the grazing allotment EA also was completed for the 2009 grazing allotment EA, as well as other nearby forest restoration projects. 5 CA San Bernardino, Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres 6 OR & WA Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa- Whitman NF s 6 WA Okanogan Wenatchee NF The U.S. Forest Service works closely with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on BHS risk assessments, surveys, and management on USFS lands within the range of desert bighorn subspecies. Extensive public engagement through the Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision Process. Limited. Previous domestic sheep allotments within high and moderate risk zones for BHS were closed: Bloody, Alger, McGee. Five other allotments were either partially closed (June Lake and Rock Creek); or relocated from high risk to lower risk allotments. Specifically, the White Mtn. Research Station has requirements specific to domestic sheep research (i.e., maintain barrier to keep domestics segregated.) A Domestic Sheep Escape Mgmt. Plan is currently in place. The CDFW has conducted preliminary risk assessments of desert bighorn sheep subpopulations in the San Bernardino, Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres NF. There are no sheep grazing allotments within USFS lands within national forests in the subspecies ranges of desert bighorns in those national forests. On-going reviews occur every year of risk potential. Earlier version of ROC model ran by 6 th field HUC in 2011, not by allotment. ROC for all allotments pending. ROC completed in draft format in December of 2015, report should be finalized mid-february

7 2. The Service is expected to engage the Agricultural Research Service to ensure the best scientific understanding of where disease transmission occurs and the degree of that risk and to assist the Forest Service with identifying all allotments that are suitable for sheep grazing. Status of allotment identification Region States Forests Stakeholder engagement Status and timeline 1 All All No direct engagement has been N/A made to date. With all future work, the region will use the best science, including working with the ARS. 2 All All R2 consistently engages state Ongoing as needed. wildlife agencies when assessing risk of disease transmission and consider science developed by ARS and others in our application of best available science. Suitability of allotments for sheep grazing is assessed by FS staff. 2 CO San Juan, Rio Grande For the ongoing risk analysis and for future NEPA, R2 will continue to rely on science developed by ARS and reach out to ARS staff for input. No comments were received on these 2 projects during scoping or public comment, though others providing comments have referenced ARS science. Ongoing with decisions expected during AZ, NM, OK, TX All R3 Forests and Grasslands No ARS engagement needs have been identified. N/A/ 7

8 4 UT, NV, WY, ID 5 CA Inyo, San Bernardino, Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres All Forests Agricultural Research Service. The Forest Service is working with Drs. Margaret Highland and Don Knowles, with the Agricultural Research Service, to increase scientific understanding of where disease transmission occurs and to assess the degree of risk posed by allotments with domestic sheep grazing. Timeline: ongoing as needed. USFS WO Office. Collaboration with the Agricultural Research Service will be conducted through the US Forest Service Washington Office to provide for nationallevel review and consistency. 6 ARS has not been engaged in any of the bighorn sheep analyses in Region The Service and Bureau of Land Management also are directed to identify and implement actions to resolve issues on allotments with a high risk of disease transmission, including, if agreeable to the directly affected stakeholders, the re location of domestic sheep to allotments with a low risk, pending any site-specific environmental analysis. Management Action and Status Region States Forest Stakeholder engagement Action and timeline 1 ID Nez Perce- Clearwater Information collected during the Salmon River Bighorn Sheep Study has involved BLM, ID Department of Fish and Game, USFS and Nez Perce Tribe. Future Forest Plan revision will engage all interested publics and state wildlife agencies. Data showed overlap of bighorn sheep and domestic sheep on the Allison-Berg Allotment. The Forest Service asked the permittee to remove domestic sheep in The current status of the allotment is Non-use for Resource Protection. The Forest plans to permanently change the status of the allotment to unsuitable during current Forest Plan Revision. 8

9 1 MT, ND, SD 2 CO, WY 2 CO, WY 3 AZ, NM, OK, TX All San Juan, Rio Grande, Shoshone All other units All R3 Forests and Grasslands Forests engages with state wildlife agencies and other interested publics during allotment renewal and Forest Plan revisions. Efforts have been made on all activities to engage stakeholders and implement management actions to minimize risk while supporting multiple uses. The degree to which each unit has interacted with affected stakeholders has varied based on timing of NEPA the analysis and implementation of decisions. For units with existing bighorn/domestic sheep management, efforts are consistently made to work with permittees to implement project design criteria (based on the WAFWA recommendations) to help maintain separation between bighorn and domestic sheep. Various design criteria are available ranging from including multiple herders to removal of stray bighorn sheep and/or domestic sheep when not economically viable for the permittee to retrieve strays. In R3, this issue is being evaluated during the Forest Plan revision process. Desired condition language and guidelines to prevent Region 1 is in the process of revising several Forest Plans across the region and will update during that process. Forests consider alternative allotments as backups for domestic sheep in areas where risk may be high, per our national guidance, within the context of appropriate EA/EIS. Implementation of project design criteria is ongoing for domestic sheep allotments that include or are in proximity to occupied bighorn sheep habitat. One R3 Forest has completed their Forest Plan revision, four will sign decision this year, and six are working on 2012 Planning Rule assessments or just beginning the revision process. 9

10 4 UT, WY, ID, NV interactions between domestic sheep and goats and bighorn sheep have been included in 4 revised Forest Plans. One Forest has no BHS and did not include these guidelines. Six Forests are either in assessment stage or just beginning to revise their Forest Plans. WO and Regional direction are coordinating with all Forests in the Region. 5 CA Inyo California Dep. of Fish and Wildlife; Permittees, USFWS, WSF; BLM, Humboldt Toiyabe NF. 5 CA San Bernardino, California Department of Fish and Wildlife; WSF; USFWS, BLM. Results from completed risk of contact analyses are being used, in collaboration with permittees, to resolve issues on allotments with a high risk of contact. Numerous management options, especially those outlined in state Bighorn Sheep Plans, are considered, including the relocation of domestic sheep to allotments with low or negligible risk. Previous domestic sheep allotments within high and moderate risk zones for BHS were closed: Bloody, Alger, McGee. Five other allotments were either partially closed (June Lake and Rock Creek); or relocated from high risk to lower risk allotments. Specifically, the White Mtn. Research Station has requirements specific to domestic sheep research to maintain barrier to keep domestics segregated. A Domestic Sheep Escape Management Plan is currently in place. There are no sheep grazing allotments (or high risks for BHS) within national forests in the 10

11 Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres 06 OR/WA Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa- Whitman NF s Scoping and public meetings as part of the plan revision process, all affected permittees, state and federal government organizations and NGO s. 06 WA OKWEN Permittees Washington Department Fish and Wildlife Yakama Nation Conservation Northwest Livestock Industry Tapash Collaborative. subspecies ranges of desert bighorns in the San Bernardino, Angeles, Cleveland, or Los Padres NF. The California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife has conducted, and continues to assess of BHS risks from USFS lands. To date, no high risks have been identified. Range NEPA was completed for the Umatilla NF in the mid 2000 s. As part of plan revision an updated analyses will be conducted over the next few months. The results of the draft ROC model results have not yet been shared with stakeholders. Meetings will begin being set up for beginning in February 2016 to brief on results. 4. Together, the agencies are encouraged to convene a meeting of stakeholders interested in collaborating on strategies and solutions to address the risk of disease transmission and to report to the Committees on implementation of these directives within 60 days of enactment of this Act. Stakeholder engagement Region States Forest Description Status and timeline 1 MT, All No stakeholder meetings To be determined. SD, ND have been scheduled. 2 WY All More than a decade ago, the Wyoming Game and Regions 2 and 4 are active participants in the working group, which meets annually. 11

12 Fish Department convened a Statewide Bighorn / Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group. This group brings together state wildlife agency staff and other state groups, federal land managers, livestock permittees and producers, bighorn sheep advocates, members of academia, and others to seek collaborative understanding and solutions to bighorn sheep and domestic sheep interaction issues. 2 WY All Regions 2 and 4 along with the State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department have recently entered into an MOU regarding bighorn sheep and domestic sheep interactions and management. The recommendations developed by the Statewide Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group provide the core management strategy referenced in the MOU. MOU was signed in January, 2016 and expires in

13 2 CO All MOU s are in place with the Colorado Wool Growers Association and with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to establish general expectation regarding coordination on bighorn/domestic sheep issues. 2 CO All Discussions are underway with Colorado Parks and Wildlife and other key stakeholders regarding establishing a working group similar to Wyoming s successful working group. Colorado Parks and Wildlife is 3 AZ, NM, OK, TX All R3 Forests and Grasslands expected to lead this group. No formal stakeholder meetings have been convened in R3 to collaborate on this topic. The topic has been discussed locally with State wildlife agency personnel during meetings of the Catalina Bighorn Advisory Committee in Tucson, AZ, and among State and Federal wildlife program leaders. MOU s in place. Early discussions on forming a working group show promise, though no steps have yet been taken by Colorado Parks and Wildlife to establish the group. Ongoing. 13

14 4 WY, ID, UT, NV Bridger- Teton NF, Caribou- Targhee NF, Uinta- Wasatch- Cache NF, Sawtooth, Salmon- Challis NF, Caribou- Targhee NF, Boise NF, and Payette NF The Intermountain Region continues to convene meetings of stakeholders interested in collaborating on strategies and solutions to address the risk of disease transmission. The process of identifying solutions will continue as analyses are completed and refined. November 7, 2014 Tri-State Woolgrowers Meeting Park City, Utah. Provided briefing of status of analysis and answered questions from the audience of a panel discussion. December 9, 2014 State-wide Bighorn/Domestic Sheep. Interaction. Working Group, Lander WY. February 16, 2015 Idaho Fish and Game technical review of draft BHS herd home ranges, Jerome, ID. March 23, 2015 Review of BHS framework and model with Bridger-Teton NF and Caribou-Targhee NF, Jackson, WY. April 2015 Palisades District Ranger and staff discussed implementation of BMPs with potentially affected grazing permittees. Permittees agreed to work together to develop and implement actions that would reduce risk of contact. April 30, 2015 Review of BHS framework and model results with Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF, Park City, UT. June 11, 2015 Data and herd home range review with WY Game and Fish and Department of Agriculture, Jackson WY. June 15, 2015 Data call with Nevada Department of Wildlife. August 6, 2015 Data review with Bridger-Teton NF and Caribou-Targhee NF, Jackson, WY. September 22, 2015 Data meeting with NV Department of Wildlife, Reno, NV. November 2015 Tri-State Woolgrowers Meeting Park City, Utah. Nora Rasure, Regional Forester provided an update on the status of the analysis and the regional range allotment disposition map. November 23, 2015 Finalizing data output and management options with Bridger-Teton NF and Caribou- Targhee NF. 14

15 5 CA San Bernardino, Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres Region 5 conducts ongoing communication (monthly) with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for BHS and BHS risks, such as population updates, population locations, and potential management issues. December 8 th, 2015 Analysis results and range allotment maps for WY released to public. State-wide Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group, Lander WY. December 14, 2015 BHS update and Model description at Idaho Fish and Game and Department of Agriculture coordination meeting with ID forests. December 16, 2015 Final signatures of Memorandum of Understanding for the Management of Bighorn Sheep between Forest Service Intermountain and Rocky Mountain Regions and the State of Wyoming. December 29, 2015 Conference call with Drs. Don Knowles and Margaret Highland, Agricultural Research Service. January 8, 2016 BHS update to Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Executive Oversight Committee, San Diego, CA. February, 2016, TBD Review of BHS framework and model results with National Forests in Idaho: Sawtooth, Salmon-Challis, Caribou-Targhee, Boise, and Payette National Forests. Current & ongoing. 15

16 Other on-going assessments of populations and management occur with other stakeholders such as WSF; USFWS; BLM; and the public on a case-by-case basis. 4, 6 WA, OR, ID 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6 WA, OR, CA, AZ, NM, NV, UT, ID, MT, WY, CO, Wallowa- Whitman, Umatilla, Payette All forests inhabited by bighorn sheep Acting Full Curl Program Lead represents the FS on the Hells Canyon Bighorn Sheep Restoration Initiative committee. Committee is comprised of representatives from WA, OR, and ID state wildlife agencies, Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, BLM, Wild Sheep Foundation and chapters from OR, WA, and ID. Acting Full Curl Program Lead serves on the WAFWA Wild Sheep Working Group. Working Group is comprised of representatives from all western state wildlife agencies, BLM, NPS, and provincial departments On-going. Two in-person meetings each year that are open to partners and the public. Regular coordination via phone and . On-going. Two in-person meetings each year, and regular communication via phone and . 16

17 TX, SD, ND, NE 6 OR/WA Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa- Whitman NF s, Okanogan- Wenatchee NF from BC, Yukon, and Alberta. Past engagement has occurred with permittees, interested state (WDFW) and federal agencies, NGO s and Tribal Governments (Yakima Nation). Additional engagement with these stakeholders will occur after model results have been finalized. Meetings are being established for communication between the Forest Service and interested stakeholders later this winter and spring (2016) after model results have been finalized. 17