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– payettebighorn@fs.fed.us

• 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