DOCSLIB.ORG

1 of 8 Casey Mcquiston, Resources Staff Officer Shoshone National Forest 808 Meadowland Ave. Cody, Wyoming 82424 August 2, 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 of 8 Casey Mcquiston, Resources Staff Officer Shoshone National Forest 808 Meadowland Ave. Cody, Wyoming 82424 August 2, 2017 Casey McQuiston, Resources Staff Officer Shoshone National Forest 808 Meadowland Ave. Cody, Wyoming 82424 August 2, 2017 Purpose: BRG’s Official Comments For the Record to the Supplemental Draft EIS (Use of Domestic Sheep, Goats, and Pack Goats) Dear Mr. McQuiston, The Bighorn Restoration Group’s (BRG) mission is to advance the conservation and restoration of bighorn sheep throughout the southern Wind River Mountains. BRG therefore would like to offer the following official comments for the record to the Supplemental Draft EIS (Use of Domestic Sheep, Goats, and Pack Goats). If, as stated in the July 28th public meeting, the SNF chooses to extend the deadline for comments past the current August 10th deadline to define other possible alternatives to the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS), BRG may also submit additional comments at that time. July 28th, 2017 Public Meeting Outcomes BRG especially appreciates the Washakie Ranger District (WRD) of the Shoshone National Forest (SNF) hosting the public meeting on July 28th, 2017—complete with hired mediator—to aid the U.S. Forest Service and other interested parties in better understanding the complex concerns involved in this issue from the point of view of all interested parties in attendance. BRG was very pleased with the win/win dynamics and cooperative, collaborative, and accommodating tone of the meeting. We also appreciated and concur with the willingness of all parties involved to pursue and promote a final decision that seeks to formulate an agreeable ruling, which integrates and maximizes all stakeholder concerns and interests. This meeting was very informative, useful, and enlightening with the following notable findings: The disease transfer science between domestic animals and wild bighorn sheep is complicated and imperfect. All diverse interested parties in attendance were able to describe their motivations and needs. The current SDEIS, as is currently written, is constrictive with a win/lose or even a lose/lose dynamic. The interested parties attending the meeting are willing and committed to jointly move forward to create a new alternative, which assimilates the various 1 of 8 central needs of all involved in the spirit of the win/win dynamics promoted in the meeting. BRG’s Current Concerns The SDEIS as now written—especially the preferred alternative (Alternative 2)—is not a win/win for all parties, nor does it meet the goal of the SDEIS of reducing the risk of transfer of disease between domestic livestock and wild bighorn sheep. In fact, the SDEIS’ preferred alternative is a BIG LOSE for the Temple Peak Bighorn Sheep Herd (TPBSH), offering absolutely no concessions or protections for this bighorn sheep herd from the possible transfer of diseases from domestic livestock in direct contradiction to the stated goal of the SDEIS and the win/win dynamics advanced at the July 28th public meeting. BRG has been exceedingly troubled with the SNF’s noticeable callous indifference, apparent neglect of, and conspicuous dismissal of the importance of the TPBSH as presented in the SDEIS. U. S. Forest Service and SNF policy lists bighorn sheep as a “sensitive species” on the Forest. Our organization strongly believes that the more than 120 individuals in the TPBSH herd (not counting lambs born this spring) should be treated as such. BRG desires and expects that the WRD and the SNF will adopt the win/win tone of the July 28th 2017 meeting to correct their inexplicable and perplexing insensitive treatment of the TPBSH in the SNF’s final decision on this issue. The TPBSH herd has in the past, and continues to be, a celebrated and important aesthetic, economic, and recreational resource to the Lander area. BRG admonishes the SNF to discontinue their callas disregard and inattention of this herd and desires that the SNF will resolve to aid this important bighorn sheep herd. The U.S. Forest Service’s sensitive species manual and other U.S. Forest Service policies make no distinction between “native” and “reintroduced” populations of bighorn sheep—all bighorn sheep are required to be aided and protected. Many other National Forests are aiding bighorn sheep herds with reintroductions, habitat enhancements, and other supporting projects on behalf of wild bighorn sheep herds. The WRD and the SNF has a duty to adopt a similar stance. As pointed out in the SDEIS the Temple Peak Bighorn Sheep Herd has, during the past two or three years, shown a striking population growth, thus increasing its aesthetic, economic, and recreational potential and importance. The recent increase in the herd’s numbers has further enhanced and amplified the herd’s value to the Lander and Fremont County area. This trend can and likely will continue, if the WRD and the SNF do their part in aiding this herd to thrive in the spirit of the win/win dynamics promoted at the July 28th meeting. This bighorn sheep herd deserves the SNF’s and the WRD’s continued proactive involvement, support, and protection. The current blatant indifference and dismissal of the TPBSH as presented in the SDEIS is unacceptable and inconsistent with the goals of the U.S. Forest Service, SNF policy, and even the SDEIS goal of minimizing the disease transfer risk from domestic sheep and goats to bighorn sheep on the SNF. 2 of 8 BRG believes there are several statements made throughout the SDEIS that are likely erroneous and/or in need of being updated or corrected prior to the final EIS being published. They include: 1) On page 8 of the SDEIS is the following statement: “Five of the six core native (bighorn) herds are connected to one another (Whisky Mountain being the exception), and together form the Absaroka metapopulation.” On page 12 the SDEIS also states that: “The Whisky Mountain herd is isolated from the other herds on the Shoshone Nation Forest.” In fact, Whisky Mountain Bighorns regularly cross Highway 287/26 both near Jakey’s Fork, near Red Rocks, and likely at several other locations. Individuals crossing the highway find themselves in the habitat of the so named “Dubois Badlands Bighorn Herd. ” The Dubois Badlands Bighorn Sheep, in turn, have been shown to then interact with both the Younts Peak Herd and Francs Peak Herd to the north. This fact has been well documented as far back as the 1960’s and 1970’s when the Wyoming Game & Fish Department placed collars of various colors on diverse bighorn sheep sub-herds wintering in the Dubois area. Subsequent bighorn movement observations subsequently documented individuals traveling and interacting with individuals from both the Wind River Mountains and the Absaroka Mountains. 2) On page 13 of the SDEIS while discussing the TPBSH there are statements that should be clarified, i.e., “the herd has “never recovered” (from the 1992 all age die off). While this herd’s population numbers have not yet recovered to the totals present prior to the all age die-off in 1992, recent counts, as stated in the SDEIS, show the herd continuing to increase in numbers. As this trend continues, the herd is well on its way to recovering, both in numbers and location of habitats used prior to the die-off. The SNF’s policies support a duty- bound obligation to support the continued increase and habitat use of this recovering bighorn herd. BRG’s contacts with the public overwhelmingly indicate that the public strongly supports the recovery of the TPBSH. 3) A statement on page 13 of the SDEIS reads as follows: “Suitable bighorn sheep habitat within and near the domestic sheep allotments on the SNF is very limited due to its forested nature. In addition, a large portion of the land between the allotments occupied habitat is forested, which essentially precludes bighorn sheep forays to these allotments.” Also see similar language on page 15 of the SDEIS. These statements can easily be refuted by those familiar with bighorn sheep habits on the SNF. The Whisky Mountain bighorn herd for example, as well as bighorn populations residing in the Absaroka Mountains near Cody regularly utilize forested habitat in which to migrate through and as routine habitat. Large numbers of well-utilized bighorn sheep “beds” can be found throughout heavy timber in many locations of the SNF. The TPBSH—prior to the die-off—were also documented as frequently utilizing timbered habitat in the Freak Mountain area and several other areas, as well as utilizing long distance timbered migration routes from winter to summer ranges and back again. Recent GPS 3 of 8 data also clearly shows this herd continues to travel through and utilize timbered areas as important habitat. Additionally, the SNF has several projects in which the NEPA process has been completed and are ready for implementation. These projects would dramatically improve bighorn sheep habitat. 4) Also stated in the SDEIS concerning the TPBSH is: “This herd’s current occupied range is very confined, suggesting that the herd is no longer a migratory herd…” GPS location data collected in 2016 and to date in 2017 from the 21 radio collared individuals from the TPBSH shows that individuals in this herd show extensive annual migrations from low elevation winter ranges to high elevation summer ranges on the SNF, up to and even over the continental divide onto lands administered by the Bridger/Teton National Forest and then back down to low-elevation winter ranges along the eastern front of the southern Wind River Mountains. 5) On page 14 of the SDEIS is the following statement: “The closest domestic sheep grazing on the SNF is about 29 km southeast of the Temple Peak Herd.” NOLS and The Nature Conservancy employees during the past three years have reported sightings of individuals from the TPBHS in the Little Popo Agie Canyon near Wolf Point and on the Red Canyon Ranch in Red Canyon, a very short distance from SNF domestic sheep allotments.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wild & Scenic River
    APPENDIX 2-E WILD & SCENIC RIVER ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST Background Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Congress declared that there are certain rivers in the nation that possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, and cultural values that should be preserved in a free-flowing condition. These rivers and their environments should be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. During forest plan revision, a comprehensive evaluation of the forest‘s rivers is required to identify those that have potential to be included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Forest planning must address rivers that meet one of these criteria: Are wholly or partially on National Forest System lands Were identified by Congress for further study Are in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) Have been identified as a potential Wild and Scenic River by inventory conducted by the agency. The BTNF identified 31 river segments as potential Wild and Scenic Rivers during an inventory in 1991-1992; a number of additional eligible segments have been identified since and they have been added to the total list of __ river segments and __ miles in each of the following categories. In order to be considered eligible rivers must be essentially free flowing and have one or more outstandingly remarkable values. Rivers identified as eligible will be managed to maintain eligibility until suitability is determined. Rivers determined to be eligible were given a tentative classification as wild, scenic, or recreational according to their proximity to development and level of access.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Locatable Mineral Reports for Colorado, South Dakota, and Wyoming provided to the U.S. Forest Service in Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997 by Anna B. Wilson Open File Report OF 97-535 1997 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. CONTENTS page INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1 COLORADO ...................................................................... 2 Arapaho National Forest (administered by White River National Forest) Slate Creek .................................................................. 3 Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Winter Park Properties (Raintree) ............................................... 15 Gunnison and White River National Forests Mountain Coal Company ...................................................... 17 Pike National Forest Land Use Resource Center .................................................... 28 Pike and San Isabel National Forests Shepard and Associates ....................................................... 36 Roosevelt National Forest Larry and Vi Carpenter ....................................................... 52 Routt National Forest Smith Rancho ............................................................... 55 San Juan National
    [Show full text]
  • Sensitive and Rare Plant Species Inventory in the Salt River and Wyoming Ranges, Bridger-Teton National Forest
    Sensitive and Rare Plant Species Inventory in the Salt River and Wyoming Ranges, Bridger-Teton National Forest Prepared for Bridger-Teton National Forest P.O. Box 1888 Jackson, WY 83001 by Bonnie Heidel Wyoming Natural Diversity Database University of Wyoming Dept 3381, 1000 E. University Avenue University of Wyoming Laramie, WY 21 February 2012 Cooperative Agreement No. 07-CS-11040300-019 ABSTRACT Three sensitive and two other Wyoming species of concern were inventoried in the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges at over 20 locations. The results provided a significant set of trend data for Payson’s milkvetch (Astragalus paysonii), expanded the known distribution of Robbin’s milkvetch (Astragalus robbinsii var. minor), and relocated and expanded the local distributions of three calciphilic species at select sites as a springboard for expanded surveys. Results to date are presented with the rest of species’ information for sensitive species program reference. This report is submitted as an interim report representing the format of a final report. Tentative priorities for 2012 work include new Payson’s milkvetch surveys in major recent wildfires, and expanded Rockcress draba (Draba globosa) surveys, both intended to fill key gaps in status information that contribute to maintenance of sensitive plant resources and information on the Forest. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS All 2011 field surveys of Payson’s milkvetch (Astragalus paysonii) were conducted by Klara Varga. These and the rest of 2011 surveys built on the 2010 work of Hollis Marriott and the earlier work of she and Walter Fertig as lead botanists of Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. This project was initially coordinated by Faith Ryan (Bridger-Teton National Forest), with the current coordination and consultation of Gary Hanvey and Tyler Johnson.
    [Show full text]
  • Reviewing Officer for Thomas Tidwell, Chief of the U. S. Forest Service
    Reviewing Officer for Thomas Tidwell, Chief of the U. S. Forest Service Attn: EMC Administrative Reviews 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mailstop 1104 Washington, DC 20250-1104 Dear U. S. Forest Service Chief Thomas Tidwell FOREST SERVICE COMMENTS Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed Shoshone National Forest Plan and addendum Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). As a native of Wyoming and long-time rancher and back country outfitter the Shoshone has been of great personal importance to me and my family. My mother and father, an early physician in the Cody country since 1940, acquired the 7D Ranch in Sunlight Basin in the 1950s. And I personally own a working cattle ranch located on the Greybull River upstream of its junction with the Wood River. My comments center on 5 areas: 1. Motorized use in Francs Peak and Wood River. 2. Illegal mountain bike trail in the Dunoir Special Management Unit 3. The need for recommendations in the plan for additional wilderness designations 4. Wild & Scenic Rivers 5. Enforcement 1. Proposed motorized use in the Wood River and Francs Peak area. This critical high country habitat gives protection for the Grizzly, Mountain Sheep, bird life including blue grouse, ptarmigan, lynx and even the possibility of expanded range for elusive wolverine. Francs Peak itself is the highest of all mountains in the Absaroka Range. The trails proposed the the local ORV organization for year-round motorized vehicles would impact 37,000 acres in the Wood River and 5,900 acres in Francs Peak for winterized use. The new motorized management areas that the Forest Service proposes would significantly impact the vast majority of the Wood River roadless area and roughly a third of the Francs Peak roadless area.
    [Show full text]
  • Bighorn Sheep 2015 Bighorn Sheep 2006
    TABLE I BIGHORN SHEEP HARVEST STATEWIDE BY TOTAL HUNTERS 2015 NUMBER TOTAL VALID ACTIVE HARVEST REC. HUNTER DAYS/ LICENSES* HUNTERS RAM EWE LAMB TOTAL DAYS SUCCESS HARVEST STATE TOTAL 196 193 154 0 0 154 1,831 79.8% 11.9 RESIDENT 143 140 106 0 0 106 1,553 75.7% 14.7 NONRESIDENT 53 53 48 0 0 48 278 90.6% 5.8 *Equals licenses sold per regulations through the draw and medical carryover (MCO) adjustments, governor licenses, supertag, trifecta licenses and refunds. TABLE II BIGHORN SHEEP TEN-YEAR COMPARISON OF STATEWIDE HARVEST 2006 - 2015 YEAR 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 VALID LICENSES* 219 238 242 251 263 258 271 220 220 196 RESIDENT 160 177 178 186 194 191 202 166 163 143 NONRESIDENT 59 61 64 65 69 67 69 54 57 53 NUMBER ACTIVE HUNTERS 219 237 242 251 263 249 249 213 217 193 RESIDENT 160 176 178 186 194 180 180 157 160 140 NONRESIDENT 59 61 64 65 69 69 69 56 57 53 TOTAL HARVEST 186 201 194 196 211 181 212 187 169 154 RESIDENT 135 151 141 141 150 125 147 134 119 106 NONRESIDENT 51 50 53 55 61 56 65 53 50 48 TOTAL RECREATION DAYS 1,654 2,225 2,230 2,032 1,867 2,029 2,152 1,609 1,889 1,831 RESIDENT 1,323 1,739 1,799 1,728 1,595 1,548 1,800 1,223 1,513 1,553 NONRESIDENT 331 486 431 304 272 481 352 386 376 278 DAYS/HARVEST 8.9 11.1 11.5 10.4 8.8 11.2 10.2 8.6 11.2 11.9 RESIDENT 9.8 11.5 12.8 12.3 10.6 12.4 12.2 9.1 12.7 14.7 NONRESIDENT 6.5 9.7 8.1 5.5 4.5 8.6 5.4 7.3 7.5 5.8 ACTIVE LICENSE SUCCESS 84.9% 84.8% 80.2% 78.1% 80.2% 72.7% 85.1% 87.8% 77.9% 79.8% HARVEST METHOD FIREARM 99.9% 99.0% 100.0% 99.0% 98.1% 99.4% 98.6%
    [Show full text]
  • Bighorn Sheep Disease Risk Assessment
    Risk Analysis of Disease Transmission between Domestic Sheep and Goats and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Prepared by: ______________________________ Cory Mlodik, Wildlife Biologist for: Shoshone National Forest Rocky Mountain Region C. Mlodik, Shoshone National Forest April 2012 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Bighorn Sheep Disease Risk Assessment Contents Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Bighorn Sheep Distribution and Abundance......................................................................................... 1 Literature
    [Show full text]
  • RI 2019 Welcome Faqs.Pdf
    Yellowstone National Park, the world’s first national park, is named after the Yellowstone River. Welcome Yellowstone National Park is as wondrous as it is complex. The park has rich human and ecological stories that continue to unfold. When Yellowstone was established as the world’s first national park in , it sparked an idea that influenced the creation of the National Park Service and the more than ­ sites it protects today across the United States. Yellowstone National Park also forms the core of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. At ­, square miles, it is one of the largest, nearly intact temper- ate-zone ecosystems on Earth. The park continues to influence preservation and science, and we are pleased to share its stories with you. Many people have dedicated their lives and careers to • The park newspaper distributed at entrance studying Yellowstone and the park has a long history gates and visitor centers. of research and public interest. The park hosts more • Site bulletins, published as needed, provide than 150 researchers from various agencies, univer- more detailed information on park topics such sities, and organizations each year. They produce as trailside museums and the grand hotels. Free; hundreds of papers, manuscripts, books, and book available upon request from visitor centers. chapters on their work annually—a volume of infor- • Trail guides, available at all visitor centers. mation that is difficult to absorb. This compendium A $1 donation is requested. is intended to help you understand the important concepts about Yellowstone’s many resources and Second Century of Service contains information about the park’s history, natural On August 25, 2016, the National Park Service and cultural resources, and issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Weather and Climate Inventory National Park Service Greater Yellowstone Network
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado Weather and Climate Inventory National Park Service Greater Yellowstone Network Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/GRYN/NRTR—2006/001 ON THE COVER Mt. Moran—Grand Teton National Park Photograph copyrighted by David Simeral Weather and Climate Inventory National Park Service Greater Yellowstone Network Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/GRYN/NRTR—2006/001 WRCC Report 06-02 Christopher A. Davey, Kelly T. Redmond, and David B. Simeral Western Regional Climate Center Desert Research Institute 2215 Raggio Parkway Reno, Nevada 89512-1095 July 2006 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the National Park Service conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. The Natural Resource Technical Reports series is used to disseminate the peer-reviewed results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service’s mission. The reports provide contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations. Current examples of such reports include the results of research that addresses natural resource management issues; natural resource inventory and monitoring activities; resource assessment reports; scientific literature reviews; and peer reviewed proceedings of technical workshops, conferences, or symposia.
    [Show full text]
  • MONTANA Clark Fork Meagher Orofino Rosebud Helena White Sulphur Clearwater R
    A 116º B 114º C 112º D 110º E 108º F 106º G 104º H CANADA 1 1 Kintla Peak Crosby Chief Mountain Frenchman R. 3079 3190 2768 Mount Cleveland Mount Merritt Milk R. Willow Ck. Lodge Ck. Plentywood Mount Wilbur 3049 Glacier Whitewater Ck. Daniels Scobey West Fork Bonners Ferry Kootenai R. 2841 Sage Ck. Mount Gould Going-to-the-Sun Mountain Liberty Sheridan 2912 2939 Cut Bank Ck. Toole Mount Jackson Triple Divide Peak Cut Bank Chinook Lincoln 3064 Havre Lewis2444 Range Hill Nelson Porcupine Ck. Poplar R Mount Stimson Valley Medicine L Rising Wolf Mountain Shelby Chester Reservoir 3091 Libby 2900 Sandpoint Flathead Mount Saint Nicholas Big Muddy Ck 2858 Milk R. Milk R. Marias R. Malta Lake Elwell Roosevelt Williston Cabinet Mts. Kalispell Pondera Glasgow Pend Oreille Lake Blaine Wolf Point 48º Conrad 48º Chouteau Phillips Missouri R. Lake Sakakawea Richland Flathead Teton River Fort Peck Lake Lake Choteau Teton Sidney Polson Fort Benton Thompson Sanders McCone Falls Flathead R. Lake Missouri R. Wallace Fergus Saint Maries Yellowstone R. Mineral Rocky Mountains Great Falls Circle Dawson Kings Peak 1044 Jordan Cascade Judith R. NORTH Smith R. DAKOTA Superior Garfield Glendive Missouri River Stanford Lewis and Petroleum Wibaux 2 2 Missoula Clark River Musselshell Lewistown Prairie Beach Medora Little BeltJudith Mts. Basin Winnett Missoula Terry Wibaux Powell Big Belt Mts. MONTANA Clark Fork Meagher Orofino Rosebud Helena White Sulphur Clearwater R. Granite Powder River Springs Little Missouri R. Crazy Mountains Golden Valley Baker Canyon Ferry Harlowton Roundup Musselshell R. Lochsa River Deer Lodge Lake Miles City Philipsburg Broadwater Musselshell Nezperce Hysham Fallon Hamilton Townsend Wheatland Ryegate Custer Boulder Forsyth Selway River 46º Anaconda 46º Ravalli Treasure Grangeville Jefferson Butte Crazy Peak Yellowstone River Deer Lodge 3417 Ekalaka Bitterroot MountainsTrapper Peak Gallatin Park Sweet Grass Yellowstone 3096 Silver Bow Stillwater Big Hole R.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Ungulates
    Chapter 5 Genetic Attributes and Research Interests Elizabeth P. Flesch, Tabitha A. Graves, Robert A. Garrott, Sarah R. Dewey, and Carson J. Butler THE GENOMICS REVOLUTION AND YELLOWSTONE Genetic research and engineering have infiltrated our daily lives in countless ways. New advances due to genomics are in the news almost every day. Genomics involves identifying the structure and function of genomes, which consist of the genetic infor- mation in individuals. Prior to the 1980s, scientists had a limited ability to study genetic material called DNA, which is short for deoxyribonucleic acid. Unlike today, they could not identify criminals using forensics, diagnose certain medical conditions and inherited diseases, or genetically modify plant crops for resistance to diseases and drought. In 1985, scientists invented an approach to make many copies of a small amount of genetic material. Scientists called this replication a polymerase chain reaction (PCR). A microorganism, Thermus aquaticus, discovered in a Yellowstone hot spring, provided the critical ingredient, Taq polymerase, to make this reaction possible. Taq polymerase assists in the steps necessary to replicate DNA and can withstand the heat necessary for the procedure. Today, laboratories produce many versions of this enzyme for a wide range of studies and applications. The technology that emerged from studying a Yellowstone hot spring now helps us understand, manage, and conserve the web of life in the Yellowstone area and throughout the world. 88 Greater Yellowstone’s Mountain Ungulates WHAT IS DNA AND HOW DO WILDLIFE BIOLOGISTS USE IT? Just as in people, DNA provides the instruction book for life within bighorn sheep and mountain goats.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior Miscellaneous Field Studies United States Geological Survey Map Mf-1597-A Pamphlet Mineral Resource P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MISCELLANEOUS FIELD STUDIES UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP MF-1597-A PAMPHLET MINERAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL OF THE NORTHERN PART OF THE WASHAKIE WILDERNESS AND NEARBY ROADLESS AREAS, PARK COUNTY, WYOMING By John C. Antweiler, Douglas W. Rankin, Frederick S. Fisher, Carl L. Long, and J. David Love, U.S. Geological Survey and Carl L. Bieniewski and R. Craig Smith, U.S. Bureau of Mines STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Under the provisions of the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577, September 3, 1964) and related acts, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines have been conducting mineral surveys of wilderness and primitive areas. Areas officially designated as "wilderness," "wild," or "canoe" when the act was passed were incorporated into the National Wilderness Preservation System, and some of them are presently being studied. The act provided that areas under consideration for wilderness designation should be studied for suitability for incorporation into the Wilderness System. The mineral surveys constitute one aspect of the suitability studies. The act directs that the results of such surveys are to be made available to the public and be submitted to the President and the Congress. This report discusses the results of a mineral survey of the northern part of the Washakie Wilderness and nearby roadless areas, Shoshone National Forest, Park County, Wyo. The area was established as a wilderness by Public Law 88-577, September 3, 1964. The nearby roadless areas were classified as further planning areas during the Second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations 2010
    Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations 2010 Report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team Photo courtesy of Steve Ard Data contained in this report are preliminary and subject to change. Please obtain permission prior to citation. To give credit to authors, please cite the section within this report as a chapter in a book. Below is an example: West, K. 2011. Observation flights. Pages 17–19 in C.C. Schwartz, M.A. Haroldson, and K. West, editors. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2010. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana, USA. Cover: Elk Fork drainage, 17 Jul 2010. Photo courtesy of Steve Ard. YELLOWSTONE GRIZZLY BEAR INVESTIGATIONS Annual Report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2010 U.S. Geological Survey Wyoming Game and Fish Department National Park Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks U.S. Forest Service Idaho Department of Fish and Game Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game Department Edited by Charles C. Schwartz, Mark A. Haroldson, and Karrie West U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey 2011 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 This Report ............................................................................................................................................. 1 History and Purpose of the Study Team ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]