DOCSLIB.ORG

Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (Plan) Was First Adopted in 2005 and Updated in 5 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (Plan) Was First Adopted in 2005 and Updated in 5 2010 Working Copy of April 2017 Draft Wolf Plan Update (11/17/2017) 1 2 OREGON 3 WOLF CONSERVATION AND 4 MANAGEMENT PLAN 5 (DRAFT) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF 13 FISH AND WILDLIFE 14 15 DRAFT, APRIL 2017 16 Working Copy (11/17/2017) Working Copy of April 2017 Draft Wolf Plan Update (11/17/2017) 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 (November 2017) 3 4 The Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (Plan) was first adopted in 2005 and updated in 5 2010. This update, which began in March 2016, is the result of a yearlong evaluation of the Plan. 6 Some of the changes contained within this Plan are general updates and reorganization of content. 44 Deleted: proposed 7 Other changes are more substantive in nature, and include management improvements based on 45 Deleted: initial draf 8 information gained over years of wolf management in Oregon. In general, changes made in this Plan 9 include: 1) updates to base information (i.e., status, population, distribution, etc.), 2) new science 46 Deleted: . This Draft Plan may undergo additional changes 47 and reorganization as it goes through the public involvement 10 related to the biology and management of wolves, and 3) management improvements based on 48 process. 11 information gained through years of wolf management in Oregon. Chapter II (Wolf Conservation 49 Deleted: initial draft of the 12 and Monitoring) includes detailed information on the three phases of wolf management and 13 discusses the state’s two wolf management zones. Chapter III (Wolf as Special Status Game 14 Mammal) addresses the definition and conditions of the Chapter IV (Wolf-Livestock Conflicts) 50 Deleted: III 15 includes information on the use of non-lethal deterrents, the use of controlled take in certain 16 situations, and expands livestock producer options for investigating potential wolf depredations of 17 livestock. 18 19 Readers should note that while some sections of earlier versions of this plan are condensed or 20 combined, earlier versions of this Plan will continue to be made available on the ODFW wolf 21 website at http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/index.asp. 22 23 The Plan’s goal remains the same: 24 25 To ensure the conservation of gray wolves as required by Oregon law while protecting the 26 social and economic interests of all Oregonians. 27 The 2005 Plan was originally crafted using an adaptive approach that requires periodic and formal 28 evaluation using information gained through the actual management of wolves. The Oregon 29 Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) considered the following principles while reviewing and 30 updating the plan. 31 Adhere to the factors included in the 2015 delisting analysis when considering any proposed 32 changes. 33 Maintain conservation focus for wolves in all population phases. 34 Maintain flexible management options of the 2005 Plan when addressing conflict as the wolf 35 population increases. 36 Address ODFW personnel and budget limitations when evaluating future commitments. 37 Develop an effective workload sharing program with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 38 (USFWS) to monitor expanding wolf populations and address wolf-livestock conflicts in the 39 federally listed portion of Oregon. 40 41 Gray Wolves (Canis lupus) were listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act 42 (ESA) and the state ESA when the Plan was updated in 2010. Gray wolves were establishing their 43 populations in northeastern Oregon at that time; today, the status of wolves in the state is more DRAFT Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan Page | ii Working Copy of April 2017 Draft Wolf Plan Update (11/17/2017) 1 complex. In 2011, the USFWS delisted the gray wolf from the federal ESA east of Oregon 2 Highways 395, 78, and 95 as part of the larger Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population 3 Segment; wolves west of this boundary remained federally listed. In January 2015, the Oregon 4 conservation population objective was reached. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission 5 (Commission) initiated a biological status review to determine if the species required continued 6 listing under the Oregon ESA. That review led to the delisting of wolves in Oregon in November 7 2015. While these changes represent landmarks in the modern history of the gray wolf, this Plan 8 strives to provide continued conservation and effective management of wolves into the future. 9 The objectives and strategies contained within this Plan are intended to serve multiple functions into 10 the future – they provide management guidance to address wolf-livestock conflicts, monitor wolf 11 population and health factors, evaluate wolf interactions with native ungulate and other carnivore 12 populations, conduct wolf-related research, and address wolf-human interactions. The Plan also 13 identifies potential conservation threats for managers to consider when considering a number of 14 management activities. While Oregon’s wolf population is predicted to continue to grow and 15 expand its distribution, it is unclear at this time what the population and specific distribution will be. 16 This Plan contains strategies which direct ODFW to develop a detailed and predictive population 17 model which will improve understanding of potential occurrence, habitat suitability, potential wolf 18 range, and will inform the development of future population and distribution goals. 19 Wolves have reached Phase III population levels in eastern Oregon, but the states wolf population is 20 still relatively small at this time. Wolves occur in both eastern Oregon forested areas, and the forests 21 of the Cascade Mountains. However, the extent they will successfully expand into the Oregon coast 22 range is undetermined. This Plan strives to provide a framework by which the management of this 23 species may, at some point in the future, transition to a management approach similar to other 24 wildlife in Oregon, while continuing to recognize the unique history of the species. 25 26 DRAFT Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan Page | iii Working Copy of April 2017 Draft Wolf Plan Update (11/17/2017) 1 OREGON WOLF CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 Table of Contents 3 I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1 4 A. Background ....................................................................................... 1 5 B. History of Wolves in Oregon ............................................................ 1 6 C. Biology and Ecology ......................................................................... 3 7 E. Legal Status ....................................................................................... 5 8 F. Wolf Plan Development and Update ................................................ 6 9 II. WOLF CONSERVATION AND MONITORING ......................... 8 10 A. Wolf Distribution ............................................................................... 8 11 B. Population Objectives and Management Phases ........................... 13 12 C. Potential Conservation Threats ...................................................... 18 13 D. Monitoring Wolf Populations ......................................................... 27 14 E. Coordination with Other Governments, Agencies, and 15 Organizations ............................................................................................ 28 16 III. WOLVES AS SPECIAL STATUS GAME MAMMALS ................. 31 17 A. Hunter/Trapper Certification ........................................................ 32 18 B. Other Considerations ...................................................................... 33 19 IV. WOLF-LIVESTOCK CONFLICTS ............................................... 34 20 A. Livestock Depredation and Other Effects ...................................... 34 21 B. Working Dog and Pet Depredation ................................................ 37 22 C. Tools for Minimizing Livestock Depredation ................................ 38 23 D. Strategies to Address Livestock Conflict ........................................ 44 24 E. Agency Response to Wolf Depredation .......................................... 52 25 F. Livestock Producer Assistance ....................................................... 54 26 V. WOLF-UNGULATE INTERACTIONS, AND INTERACTIONS 27 WITH OTHER CARNIVORES .................................................... 51 28 A. Potential Effects of Wolf Predation on Oregon’s Ungulates .............. 51 29 B. Elk and Mule Deer Populations since Wolf Re-establishment ..... 58 30 C. Big Game Wildlife Management Units and Management 31 Objectives .................................................................................................. 60 32 D. Wolf Interactions with other Carnivores – Multiple Predator 33 Systems ..................................................................................................... 65 34 E. Strategies to Address Wolf-Ungulate Interactions ......................... 68 35 VI. WOLF-HUMAN INTERACTIONS .............................................. 71 36 A. Human Safety .................................................................................. 71 DRAFT Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan Page | iv Working Copy of April 2017 Draft Wolf Plan Update (11/17/2017) 1 B. Interactions with the Public ............................................................ 72 2 C. Hunters, Trappers and Wolves ....................................................... 73 3 D. Dogs and Wolves ............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Bill to Designate Certain National Forest System Lands in the State of Oregon for Inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and for Other Purposes
    97 H.R.7340 Title: A bill to designate certain National Forest System lands in the State of Oregon for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Weaver, James H. [OR-4] (introduced 12/1/1982) Cosponsors (2) Latest Major Action: 12/15/1982 Failed of passage/not agreed to in House. Status: Failed to Receive 2/3's Vote to Suspend and Pass by Yea-Nay Vote: 247 - 141 (Record Vote No: 454). SUMMARY AS OF: 12/9/1982--Reported to House amended, Part I. (There is 1 other summary) (Reported to House from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs with amendment, H.Rept. 97-951 (Part I)) Oregon Wilderness Act of 1982 - Designates as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System the following lands in the State of Oregon: (1) the Columbia Gorge Wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest; (2) the Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest; (3) the Badger Creek Wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest; (4) the Hidden Wilderness in the Mount Hood and Willamette National Forests; (5) the Middle Santiam Wilderness in the Willamette National Forest; (6) the Rock Creek Wilderness in the Siuslaw National Forest; (7) the Cummins Creek Wilderness in the Siuslaw National Forest; (8) the Boulder Creek Wilderness in the Umpqua National Forest; (9) the Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness in the Umpqua and Rogue River National Forests; (10) the Grassy Knob Wilderness in and adjacent to the Siskiyou National Forest; (11) the Red Buttes Wilderness in and adjacent to the Siskiyou
    [Show full text]
  • Stewardship Contracting on the Malheur National Forest
    Stewardship Contracting on the Malheur National Forest February 2018 In September 2013, a ten year stewardship contract was awarded to Iron Triangle to complete restoration work on the Malheur National Forest in eastern Oregon’s Blue Mountains. The contract was awarded largely in response to the imminent closure of a mill in the town of John Day, a local crisis that created an unlikely alliance of industry and environmentalists. Ultimately, state and federal government officials intervened to save the mill through an innovative stewardship contract. In order for the mill to remain operational, they needed assurance of a consistent and long term supply of wood. While stewardship contracts have been used by the Forest Service since 1999, this contract is significant for its ten year commitment and the benefit it brings to the local community. Implementation After sending out a request for proposals, when the mill was saved, new opportunities Malheur National Forest awarded a ten were created locally because the contract year Integrated Resource Service Contract could assure enough supply to sustain (IRSC) to Iron Triangle, a contractor based businesses Residents report an increase in out of John Day. Under the IRSC, Iron help wanted signs around the town of John Triangle implements approved thinning Day, and an estimated 101 new jobs were projects on the Malheur NF and sells the supported in the first year of the contract.2 logs to Malheur Lumber Company and other sawmills. Iron Triangle also Blue Mountain Forest Partners subcontracts part of the restoration work to local contractors such as Grayback Forestry After several years of informal conversation and Backlund Logging, who have done between environmentalists and the timber much of the pre-commercial thinning and industry, Blue Mountain Forest Partners (BMFP) was formed in 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Tourism in Wallowa County and the Zumwalt Prairie: In-Person Survey Results Summer 2012
    Copyright: Rick McEwen Tourism in Wallowa County and the Zumwalt Prairie: In-Person Survey Results Summer 2012 November 2013 Brittany Heller Intern Environmental Sciences Oregon State University Bruce Sorte Extension Economist Department of Applied Economics Oregon State University John Williams County Leader Agricultural and Natural Resources Wallowa County Extension Oregon State University Kasey Erm Intern Applied Economics Oregon State University Acknowledgments The authors appreciate the Wallowa County visitors and residents who graciously responded to the survey and welcomed us to their Maxville Heritage Gathering, Chief Joseph Days and Hells Canyon Mule Days. Funding for this study was provided by the Nature Conservancy/Wallowa Resources and the OSU Extension Service. 1 Introduction Wallowa County, Oregon, located in Northeast Oregon, is known for its natural amenities and, as the USDA Economic Research Service describes it, “landscape and climate have shaped the geography of rural growth and decline over the past 40 years. The rural outdoors has become a major asset for rural communities.”1 One of the notable natural amenities in the County is the Zumwalt Prairie (Prairie). “Its rolling hills run from bright green in the spring and early summer to shades of yellow and brown as the season progresses. With little sign of human habitation other than a few cattle ranches and plenty of abandoned farmsteads, the place is alive with wildlife including 3,000 elk, black bears, wolves, cougars, bighorn sheep and over 48 varieties of butterflies. The prairie is home to one of North America’s highest concentrations of breeding raptors (golden eagles, prairie falcons, northern harriers, kestrels and numerous varieties of hawks) as well as grassland songbirds.”2 Question The County has long been a tourist destination.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring Historical Forest Conditions in a Diverse Inland Pacific
    Restoring historical forest conditions in a diverse inland Pacific Northwest landscape 1, 1 2 1 JAMES D. JOHNSTON, CHRISTOPHER J. DUNN, MICHAEL J. VERNON, JOHN D. BAILEY, 1 3 BRETT A. MORRISSETTE, AND KAT E. MORICI 1College of Forestry, Oregon State University, 140 Peavy Hall, 3100 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, Oregon 97333 USA 2Department of Forestry and Wildland Resources, Humboldt State University, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, California 95521 USA 3Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, Colorado State University, 1472 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 USA Citation: Johnston, J. D., C. J. Dunn, M. J. Vernon, J. D. Bailey, B. A. Morrissette, and K. E. Morici. 2018. Restoring historical forest conditions in a diverse inland Pacific Northwest landscape. Ecosphere 9(8):e02400. 10.1002/ecs2.2400 Abstract. A major goal of managers in fire-prone forests is restoring historical structure and composition to promote resilience to future drought and disturbance. To accomplish this goal, managers require infor- mation about reference conditions in different forest types, as well as tools to determine which individual trees to retain or remove to approximate those reference conditions. We used dendroecological reconstruc- tions and General Land Office records to quantify historical forest structure and composition within a 13,600 ha study area in eastern Oregon where the USDA Forest Service is planning restoration treatments. Our analysis demonstrates that all forest types present in the study area, ranging from dry ponderosa pine-dominated forests to moist mixed conifer forests, are considerably denser (273–316% increase) and have much higher basal area (60–176% increase) today than at the end of the 19th century.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing a Conceptual Scientific Framework for Conservation in the Arid West
    DEVELOPING A CONCEPTUAL SCIENTIFIC FRAMEWORK FOR CONSERVATION IN THE ARID WEST Aridlands Grazing Network, Workshop 1 Medano-Zapata Ranch, Colorado April 11–13, 2001 TNC’s Mission Statement The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. Conservation Vision The Nature Conservancy’s vision is to conserve portfolios of functional conservation areas within and across ecoregions. Through this portfolio approach, we will work with partners to conserve a full array of ecological systems and viable native species. Conservation Goal for 2010 By 2010, The Nature Conservancy and its partners will take direct action to conserve 600 functional landscape--500 in the United States and 100 in 35 countries abroad. The Conservancy also will deploy high-leverage strategies to ensure the conservation of at least 2,500 other functional conservation areas--2,000 in the United States and 500 in other countries. Copies of this summary are available on the Landscape Conservation Network Web Site: www.tnc-ecomanagement.org Or contact: Bob Unnasch Monitoring and Adaptive Management Program 1109 Main Street, #333 Boise, ID 83702 208-343-8826; [email protected] Important concepts were outlined in three EXECUTIVE guest presentations: SUMMARY · Bruce Runnels, Vice President of TNC’s Rocky Mountain Division, provided an andscape Conservation Networks overview of grazing within the Conser- (LCNs) are a promising new vehicle vancy and touched on some of the Lfor catalyzing the development and biodiversity challenges unique to the implementation of innovative, landscape- American West.
    [Show full text]
  • John Day - Snake River RAC October 7, 2016 Boardman, Oregon
    John Day - Snake River RAC October 7, 2016 Boardman, Oregon Meeting called to order at 8:05 a.m., October 7, 2016. Designated Federal Officials begin their respective reports: • Vale, BLM • Umatilla National Forest 1. Jim Reiss: Concerns over water rights pertaining to mining-what happens to water pools from mining activities once the operations have concluded? a. Randy Jones: It is generally left to evaporate. 2. Randy Jones: How can the John Day- Snake River RAC interact with the land management agencies in terms of providing comments and suggestions related to the Blue Mountain Forest Resiliency Plan? a. Gen Masters: The RAC can recommend increased budgetary support for the Umatilla National Forest as well as encourage public support of upcoming and ongoing projects. Also, the Umatilla National Forest will be bringing projects to the John Day- Snake RAC for review in the near future. • Prineville, BLM 1. Jim Reiss: Pertaining to potential State Park establishment, what is the anticipated use of the park? a. Carol Benkosky: Use of the roads to access the area are different than anticipated-users are preferring to access the river via Starvation Lane. 2. Jim Reiss: How are grazing permits being managed? a. Carol Benkosky: Grazing is currently being managed by Western Rivers, as a private contract. The land is being leased and if the land becomes federal land, grazing will continue per federal grazing regulations. 3. Bryan Sykes: It sounds like the goal of acquiring these lands is to maintain public access? a. Carol Benkosky: Yes. There are also maintenance concerns with the area, so a plan will be required to be developed.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Oregon Big Game Hunting Outlook Conditions for Big Game and Hunters Are Looking Much Better Than They Were a Year Ago
    2016 Oregon Big Game Hunting Outlook Conditions for big game and hunters are looking much better than they were a year ago. Back in August of last year, 100 percent of Oregon was in severe drought and 50 percent in the even worse category of “extreme drought.” While parts of NE and SE Oregon are still experiencing a severe drought, conditions have improved across the state. “We had normal winter precipitation and a wet spring,” says Autumn Larkins, ODFW Assistant District Wildlife Biologist for Harney County. “Water availability is much better this year.” It’s a similar story in northeast Oregon. “The weather is much better suited to deer and elk production as opposed to last year’s record drought,” said Mark Kirsch, ODFW District Wildlife Biologist in Umatilla County. The increased water also better distribute animals during hunting season, rather than cluster them around fewer water sources. It should help distribute early season hunters, too— especially those pronghorn and bowhunters who crowded around the few water holes to set hunting blinds in recent years. The conflict between hunters over blind placement has gotten so bad that ODFW and BLM recently put together a flyer reminding hunters of the rules and good etiquette Now wildlife biologists are crossing their fingers for rains in September. These early fall rains green up forage and help big game put on weight, so animals head into breeding season in good body condition and fit to reproduce. Despite the increased moisture, fire is still a threat throughout Oregon. Most forestlands will have restrictions (such as no campfires) during fire season, and some private lands will be closed to public access entirely.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife-Habitat Relationships of the Grande Ronde River
    Wildlife-Habitat Relationships of the Grande Ronde River by Aryn E. Hayden ABSTRACT In selecting habitat animal species require food, water and adequate cover. When these criteria are taken into account it appears that habitats utilized by terrestrial wildlife along the Grande Ronde River change longitudinally from mixed conifer forests to ponderosa pine forests in the headwaters and middle reaches to grassland and shrub-steppe in the lower reaches. Species diversity of mammals, birds and reptiles within these habitats will also decrease towards the lower reaches to some degree as habitat changes along the Grande Ronde River. A potential decrease in species diversity as habitat changes may indicate that habitat specialist species are more likely to be found in the headwaters of and middle reaches while habitat generalists are likely to be found in the middle and lower reaches of the Grande Ronde River. This concept of decreasing species diversity in a downstream gradient indicates that the River Continuum Concept, traditionally an aquatic hypothesis, may have some applicability to distributions of terrestrial wildlife in the context of riverine ecosystems. Species diversity of terrestrial wildlife is also heavily influenced by the presence of riparian vegetation along the river. Riparian vegetation is likely to be found within the headwaters and middle reaches of the Grande Ronde River and in patches pertaining to locations of physical complexity along the river such as confluences with tributaries. Riparian vegetation provides complex habitat for mammals and birds that live along the river and those that utilize riparian habitat for foraging, water requirements, migration or other activities necessary for survival.
    [Show full text]
  • Wallowa Co. Campgrounds Tent/ Tent Elevation to DO Campground Trailer Only (Feet Above Sea Level) Toilet Water Fee 1
    THINGS Wallowa Co. campgrounds Tent/ Tent Elevation TO DO Campground trailer only (Feet above sea level) Toilet Water Fee 1. Umatilla Forks 6 6 2,800 X X $10 2. Target Meadow 16 2 4,800 X X $12 Continued from page 21 3. Woodland Park 6 5,120 X $8 21. Watch the Fourth of July fireworks 4. Jubilee Lake 48 5 4,820 X X $17 show at the lake. 5. Mottet 5 1 5,125 X X $8 A spectacular setting for a professional 6. Coyote Spring 8 21 5,050 X — pyrotechnics show. Water reflects the colors, and the blasts echo off the surrounding 7. Dougherty Spring 8 5,125 X — mountains. 8. Vigne 6 3,760 X X $6 22. Visit the grave of Old Chief Joseph. 9. Buckhorn 5 5,260 X — Stop and pay your respects to this legendary, peaceful icon. The sacred burial ground is 10. Saddle Creek 7 6,610 X — located near the foot of Wallowa Lake. 11. Blackhorse 16 4,000 X $8 23. Sign up kids to be in Chief Joseph 12. Ollokot 12 4,000 X $6 Days Kiddie Parade. 13. Lick Creek 5 7 5,440 X $6 Dress your kids up as Old West or other pioneering folk and compete for prizes. 14. Twin Lakes 8 6,480 X — 24. Go shopping in Joseph. 15. Hidden 3 10 4,450 X $6 Shop for locally crafted items and artwork. 16. Coverdale 2 9 4,250 X $6 Souvenir shops and outdoor dining add to 17.
    [Show full text]
  • May-June 2021
    $3.95 May- June OREGON 2021 NEW TRAIL CAM PHOTO HUNTER CONTEST! Bear photo Essay: Let ‘er Buck! Facts State capitol: Why later is greater for Gun control, spring hunts Coyote contest Ban bills on turkey fast track well you’re invited done to oha banquets aim for a higher & convention level of hunt 21-Gun salute! win 1 of these Oregon Afield: great guns! • turkey • Badger tree-stand tips Get 6 issues a year of Oregon Hunter delivered blackpowder blacktails to you when you join OHA! CELEBRATING TEN YEARS Under the leadership of our founder Jason Hairston, KUIU launched a new line of Ultralight Performance Hunting gear that changed the direction of the hunting industry forever. The vision to push the boundaries of what’s possible in engineering the world’s most innovative hunting gear lives on everyday as uncompromising hunters around the world trust KUIU to perform in the toughest conditions. GUIDE JACKET ATTACK PANT CHUGACH RAIN GEAR ULTRA MERINO PELOTON INNOVATION NEVER RESTS — SETTING THE STANDARD FOR ULTRALIGHT HUNTING GEAR PRO PACKS SUPER DOWN PRO KENAI ULTRA KUTANA AXIS A DECADE OF BEST SELLERS GUIDE JACKET ATTACK PANT CHUGACH RAIN GEAR ULTRA MERINO BASE LAYERS PELOTON BASE LAYERS PRO PACKS SUPER DOWN PRO KENAI ULTRA KUTANA PANT AXIS JACKET Only at KUIU.COM LIFETIME WARRANTY ON ALL OUR GEAR BASE LAYERS | INSULATION | OUTERWEAR | PACKS | SLEEP SYSTEMS | BOOTS | ACCESSORIES KUIU_2pg_Ad_KUIU Ten_Year_OregonHunter_May_June_21.indd 1 3/18/21 8:23 AM CELEBRATING TEN YEARS Under the leadership of our founder Jason Hairston, KUIU launched a new line of Ultralight Performance Hunting gear that changed the direction of the hunting industry forever.
    [Show full text]
  • Malheur National Forest 431 Patterson Bridge Rd, John Day, OR, 97845 Contact: Pattie Hammett – 541.575.3144 April 8, 2013
    Malheur National Forest 431 Patterson Bridge Rd, John Day, OR, 97845 www.fs.usda.gov/malheur Contact: Pattie Hammett – 541.575.3144 April 8, 2013 10-Year Stewardship Timber Contract Announced JOHN DAY, OR – The Malheur National Forest will offer a 10-year timber contract that will provide a predictable and sustainable volume of timber, employ local people and assist the local economy while getting crucial restoration work done on the land, Forest officials announced today. The stewardship authority the Forest will use allows the agency to fund forest restoration activities with revenue from timber sales – traditional timber sale revenue goes directly to the Treasury. By retaining these receipts, the Forest will be able to have additional restoration projects, which also means additional employment. A 10-year contract would allow the ability to treat large landscape areas providing much needed restoration. “After careful consideration, I made the decision that the volume in the contract will be 70 – 80 percent of our total volume offered each year,” said Malheur National Forest Supervisor, Teresa Raaf. “This amount will guarantee the awardee of the contract a consistent, sustainable amount of volume which will also offer benefits to local communities by providing a stable economic environment that would support local businesses in Grant and Harney counties.” The Malheur expects to offer 55 million board feet of timber this year, and increase that amount to 75 mmbf by 2015. Timber firms would have to bid on and win the contract in competition with others. Local mills play an important role in Grant and Harney counties as they have the ability to harvest material from the Forests at a reasonable cost.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Recovery Plan for Silene Spaldingii (Spalding’S Catchfly)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Draft Recovery Plan for Silene spaldingii (Spalding’s Catchfly) Silene spaldingii/Edna Rey-Vizgirdas; Inset/Gina Glenne Draft Recovery Plan for Silene spaldingii (Spalding’s Catchfly) Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon Approved: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Draft Recovery Plan for Silene spaldingii ! October 2005 DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and protect listed species. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, publish recovery plans, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, Tribal agencies, and other affected and interested parties. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific actions and may not represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in recovery plan formulation, other than our own. They represent our official position only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Recovery plans are reviewed by the public and submitted to peer review before we adopt them as approved final documents. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions. Please check for updates or revisions at the website below before using. Notice regarding use of proprietary data: All plant locations given are approximate. Exact plant locations are proprietary data of the NatureServe/Heritage programs of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, and cannot be redistributed by the U.S.
    [Show full text]