Helicopter landings in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos wilderness areas to capture and collar mountain goats and bighorn sheep Project

Transcription

1 for the Helicopter landings in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos wilderness areas to capture and collar mountain goats and bighorn sheep Project USDA Forest Service Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake and Pleasant Grove Ranger Districts, Salt Lake and Utah Counties, Utah 1. INTRODUCTION The environmental assessment (EA) discloses the environmental impacts of a proposal by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) to land helicopters and drop materials from helicopters to collect biological samples and collar bighorn sheep and mountain goats in the Twin Peak, Lone Peak and Mount Timpanogos wilderness areas within Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The EA has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) , the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) implementing regulations, including transition language at 36 CFR , and the Revised Forest Plan for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (USDA, 2003), which provides direction for the Salt Lake Ranger District, and the 2003 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Uinta National Forest (USDA, 2003a), which provides direction for the Pleasant Grove Ranger District. Formal scoping for this project was initiated on May 25, 2016 with a legal notice in the Provo Daily Herald and The Salt Lake Tribune. The initial proposal included the capture and collaring of mountain goats. That proposal was modified by UDWR and expanded to also include bighorn sheep because of concern of disease transfer from one species to another. A revised legal notice was published in both newspapers on February 9, BACKGROUND Based on aerial monitoring, UDWR has become concerned about the mountain goat and bighorn sheep populations found between Big Cottonwood Canyon and Provo Canyon, primarily in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak and Mount Timpanogos Wildernesses. UDWR s findings indicate that mountain goat populations have declined by 40 percent since 1999 (UDWR Big Game Annual Report 1999 and 2015), and bighorn sheep populations have not shown growth since their re-introduction in 2000 despite the availability of suitable habitat (Shannon, 2014). Both populations have experienced poor herd performance for more than 15 years. Bighorn sheep, and in some cases mountain goats, are susceptible to respiratory disease, notably pneumonia, which often results in subsequent die-off and poor juvenile recruitment. Pneumonia related pathogens have been documented in mountain goat populations located in other parts of Utah, but to date, no negative effects have been recorded (UDWR unpublished data). However, different strain types of December 2017, Page 1

2 pathogens express varying levels of virulence. The mountain goat population in the Wasatch Mountains has shown a steady decline for approximately 15 years, and the presence of disease is likely a contributing factor. Furthermore, there is increasing concern that bighorn sheep and mountain goats can spread disease across species, and infection of bighorn sheep populations almost always leads to a major mortality event. To date, no information is available on the presence and types of disease (including specific strain of pathogens) present within the bighorn sheep and mountain goat populations occupying the Wasatch Mountains. 3. PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of this project is determine if the Forest Service should authorize UDWR to land and to drop people and materials from helicopters in the Mount Timpanogos, Lone Peak and Twin Peaks Wilderness areas for the purpose of capturing, taking biological samples and GPS radio collaring mountain goats and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. This would allow UDWR to try to understand the decline in the mountain goat population and the lack of growth in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep population. UDWR s need is to understand the potential for disease spread between the two populations and to monitor and maintain meaningful data regarding current health status, survival, causes of mortality, year-round habitat use, migration/movements within and to and from the three wilderness areas. Based on the information gathered from this study, UDWR may be able to adjust management actions to conserve and protect these wildlife populations and maintain the natural quality of the wilderness character. 4. DECISION My decision is to authorize the request by UDWR described in Section of the EA. My rationale is based on the scientific analysis provided in the EA and project record. The analysis that was utilized is derived from the best available science, considers responsible opposing views, and acknowledges incomplete or unavailable information. 5. RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION In making my decision, I have reviewed the existing environmental conditions and the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for all of the alternatives analyzed in detail. I have also considered comments from the public. I have given careful consideration to how well the alternatives met the purpose and need for the project and how well each addressed public comments and the issues they raised. Additionally, I have carefully reviewed the following information regarding the jurisdiction of both UDWR and the USFS as it pertains to this project. UDWR has the following jurisdiction and responsibility for managing wildlife in the State of Utah: Section of the Utah Code vests the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) with all the functions, powers, duties, rights, and responsibilities to protect, propagate, manage, conserve, and distribute protected wildlife throughout the state. Wilderness Act 1964, Section 4(d)(7), Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the several States with respect to wildlife and fish in the national forests. Utah Wilderness Act 1984, Section 302(c), [N]othing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the State of Utah with respect to wildlife and fish in the national forests in Utah. December 2017, Page 2

3 MOU between the State of Utah, Division of Wildlife Resources and the USDA, Forest Service Intermountain Region (FS Agreement No, 2013-MU ) June 6, 2013: Forest Service shall recognize UDWR as the agency with primary authority, jurisdiction, and responsibility to manage, control, and regulate fish and wildlife populations on NFS lands. The USFS has the following jurisdiction and responsibility: The USFS must ensure that any state wildlife management activities in wilderness, including research, are conducted in a manner that preserves wilderness character. These uses and activities may be authorized by the USFS only where necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of the Wilderness Action and applies only where the otherwise-prohibited activity is necessary for the preservation and protection of wilderness lands in their natural, untrammeled state (Wilderness Act, 1964). Forest Service Manual: Policy makes clear that the use of motorized equipment and mechanical transport in wilderness cannot be authorized to facilitate research "unless the research is essential to meet minimum requirements for administration of the area as wilderness and cannot be done another way. (FSM (4)). Additionally, [r]esearch methods that temporarily infringe on the wilderness character may be used, provided the information sought is essential for wilderness management and alternative methods or locations are not available. (FSM (1)) Additionally, a Minimum Requirements Analysis (MRA) was completed to determine if administrative action is necessary within designated Wilderness, and if so, determine the minimum necessary action. The MRA found the action (study of mountain goats and bighorn sheep to determine if disease is contributing to poor herd performance and if so, what specific pathogens are present) necessary for the administration of the area for the purposes of the Wilderness Act. Furthermore, the MRA determined the selected alternative to be the minimum necessary action to preserve wilderness character while minimizing negative effects. The MRA is posted to the project website for public review. 6. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 6.1 Alternatives Analyzed in Detail In addition to the selected alternative, the No Action Alternative was developed and analyzed in detail in the EA (Section 2.2.1). The discussion below summarizes my rationale for not selecting the No Action Alternative. Alternative A (No Action) - NEPA requires consideration of a No Action alternative. The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline to analyze the environmental effects of the action alternatives. The No Action Alternative would not permit UDWR to land helicopters in the Twin Peak, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos wilderness areas. This alternative would not meet the objectives of the purpose and need. The No Action Alternative s potential long term effect of either bighorn sheep or mountain goats being lost in these Wildernesses is considered a greater impact to Wilderness character than the numerous short term effects that were identified in the action alternative. December 2017, Page 3

4 6.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA require that federal agencies explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives to a proposed action, and to briefly discuss the rationale for eliminating any alternatives that are not considered in detail. Some alternatives may be outside the scope of the project or may not meet the purpose and need. In addition to alternatives considered in detail, I also considered other management approaches in the EA in response to concerns identified through preparation of the minimum requirements analysis. These alternatives, which were considered but eliminated from detailed study, are described in Chapter 2 of the EA and include: 1. Net trapping using helicopter with ground support (EA, Section ) 2. Net trapping ground crew only (EA, Section ). 3. Chemical immobilization ground or aerial using dart gun (EA, Section ). 4. Net gunning using helicopter reduced helicopter landings in wilderness areas (EA, Section ). 5. Collect harvested animals within the wilderness area (EA, Section ). 7. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT In May 2016 and February 2017, two separate 30-day scoping periods took place for a proposal from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) to the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest to land helicopters in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos wilderness areas. The 2016 scoping period included a request to capture and collar mountain goats. The 2017 scoping period was revised to include bighorn sheep. Over 2,400 comments were received during both scoping periods. A Final Scoping Report is included as Appendix A of the EA and is posted to the project website. The scoping process is intended to gather comments on key issues that should be analyzed and any alternatives that should be considered. Comments received during scoping were used to develop the draft EA which was made available for public comment in July Approximately 150 comments were received and reviewed by the interdisciplinary team. The team reviewed the comments and revised the Minimum Requirements Analysis, Wildlife Report, and the EA in response to the comments received. 8. FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY AND OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS My decision is consistent with the forest plans for both the Wasatch-Cache planning area (USDA, 2003) and the Uinta planning area (USDA, 2003a). My decision complies with all appropriate federal and state laws and regulations including the NEPA, Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA). My decision is also consistent with the following key laws, regulations, and requirements: Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. My decision will have no adverse effects to floodplains and therefore complies with this executive order. December 2017, Page 4

5 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. My decision will have no adverse effects to wetlands and therefore complies with this executive order. Executive Order 12898, Economic Justice. No minorities or low-income populations were identified during public involvement activities that would be affected by this decision. Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species. This executive order directs federal agencies not to authorize any activities that will increase the spread of invasive species. My decision includes noxious weed management to effectively reduce the spread of existing and new infestations of noxious weeds and invasive plant species. Therefore, my decision is consistent with this order and will not increase the spread of invasive plant species. Executive Order 13186, Protection of Migratory Birds. Based on information disclosed in the final EA, I have determined that my decision will have no adverse effect to migratory birds. National Environmental Policy Act. This act requires public involvement and consideration of potential environmental effects. This decision notice complies with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1500 to 1508) for implementing NEPA. The effects of the alternatives were analyzed and disclosed in the EA, which was available for public review. Clean Water Act of My decision will not affect the existing any water flowing through the area. Endangered Species Act of This act directs that all federal departments and agencies need to conserve endangered and threatened (and proposed) species of fish, wildlife, and plants. This obligation is further clarified in a National Interagency Memorandum of Agreement (dated August 30, 2000) that states our shared mission to enhance conservation of imperiled species while delivering appropriate goods and services provided by the lands and resources. Based on information disclosed in the final EA and in the project record, I have determined that my decision will have no adverse effects to populations of endangered, threatened, and candidate species of fish, wildlife, and plants. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study for National Forest System lands in Utah and forest plan amendments did not recommend any rivers or segments within the analysis area as suitable for inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers system. Therefore, there will be no effect and my decision is in compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. American Antiquities Act of 1906 and the National Historic Preservation Act of The proposal does not involve any ground disturbance activities, no modification of structures that are over 50 years in age, and will have no direct or indirect effect on cultural resources. Prime Farmland, Rangeland and Forest Land. There is no prime farmland or grazing allotments affected by the project. Civil Rights Act of There will be no adverse effects to groups or individuals protected under the federal Civil Rights Act. My decision does not violate any federal, state or local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. December 2017, Page 5

6 9. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT I have reviewed the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for significance (40 CFR ) and have determined that this decision is not a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, either individually or cumulatively. Preparation of an environmental impact statement pursuant to Section 102 (2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required. This determination is based on the following factors as outlined in 40 CFR The selected alternative will be limited in geographic application [40 CFR (a)]. Activities associated with my decision will be confined to the project area, which is restricted to areas located within the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos wilderness areas. While the project area encompasses approximately 52,000 acres, the actual scope of federal action is very restrictive. As defined in the purpose and need and the proposed action, my decision is restricted to permitting landing in the three wilderness areas and the actual landings by helicopter is restricted to approximately 60 landings. The area of landing and collaring is a mere fraction of the project area and limits the geographic application of my decision. 2. My decision will not result in any significant beneficial or adverse effects [40 CFR (b)(1)]. The analysis documented in Chapter 3 of the EA did not identify any individually or cumulatively significant impacts resulting from implementation of the selected alternative (EA Chapter 3). The project record contains additional technical reports. 3. The selected alternative will not result in substantive effects on public health or safety [40 CFR (b)(2)]. Aerial net gunning and capture of big game is a usual and accustom wildlife management application utilized throughout the State of Utah. 4. My decision will not result in any significant effects on any unique characteristics of the geographic area, historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas [40 CFR (b)(3)]. The analysis documented in the EA discloses that the selected alternative will not result in any significant effects on roadless resources, cultural or historic resources, wetlands, or wild and scenic rivers (EA Appendix B). Effects to wilderness character are described elsewhere in the my decision; however, while I am keenly aware of the impacts to wilderness character, my decision is the minimum necessary and although negative would not result in significant effects to wilderness character (EA, Section 3.1.1). 5. The selected alternative will not result in any effects that are likely to be highly controversial [40 CFR (b)(4)]. Controversy in this context refers to situations where there is substantial dispute as to the size, nature, or effect of the federal action, rather than opposition to its implementation. The scientific basis for the analysis is contained in the project record and summarized in the EA. Standard analysis techniques and models were used. Literature supporting the use of these models and qualitative discussions, as used in this analysis, is contained in the project record (EA Chapter 3). December 2017, Page 6

7 6. The effects associated with the Selected Alternative will not result in any highly uncertain, unique, or unknown risks [40 CFR (b)(5)]. The environmental analysis, including the EA and resource reports contained in the project record, determined that the selected alternative will not involve any highly uncertain or unknown risks (EA, Chapter 3). The management activities associated with my decision are typical of those successfully implemented in the past on National Forest System lands outside of wilderness. 7. My decision does not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor does it represent a decision in principle about a future consideration [40 CFR (b)(6)]. Implementing my decision will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor does it represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. Should a formal proposal in the project vicinity be received at some future point, a separate environmental analysis, with comprehensive public involvement will be conducted for that proposal, and that proposal will be analyzed on its own merit, including a minimum requirements analysis for the wilderness resource. Each project proposal received by the UWC is analyzed on a project-specific, case-by-case basis would be independently analyzed. This project would not have any impact or influence on future analysis. 8. The analysis documented in the EA discloses that my decision will not result in any significant short-term, long-term, or cumulative effects [40 CFR (b)(7)]. Section 3 of the EA discloses that the selected alternative will not result in any known significant temporary, short term, long term, or cumulative effects. 9. My decision will not adversely affect sites or objects listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, nor will it cause the loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historic resources [40 CFR (b)(8)]. My decision was made following review of previous cultural resource surveys completed in the area and found that no effects to cultural resources would occur as a result of my decision (EA - Appendix B). My decision will not result in any adverse effects on cultural or historic resources (EA - Appendix B). 10. My decision will not adversely affect threatened or endangered species or their habitats [40 CFR (b)(9)]. As described above in section 8, my decision will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat. 11. My decision is consistent with Federal, State, and local laws and requirements imposed for the protection of the environment [40 CFR (b)(10)]. Consistency with laws or requirements imposed for protection of the environment is discussed above in section 8 and in Chapter 4, Section 4.3 of the EA. 10. OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT This project is subject to the objection process described in 36 CFR 218, subparts A and B. Only persons or organizations who have submitted specific written comments during either of the two scoping periods or the comment period are eligible to file an objection (see 36 CFR 218.5). If an objection is December 2017, Page 7

8 submitted on behalf of a number of individuals or organizations, each individual or organization listed must meet the eligibility requirement of having previously submitted specific written comments. Names and addresses of objectors will become part of the public record. Incorporation of documents by reference in the objection is permitted only as provided for at 36 CFR 218.8(b). Minimum content requirements of an objection (36 CFR 218.8) include: 1. Objector s name and address with a telephone number if available; with signature or other verification of authorship supplied upon request; 2. Identification of the lead objector when multiple names are listed, along with verification upon request; 3. Name of project, responsible official, national forest/ranger district of project, and 4. Sufficient narrative description of those aspects of the proposed project objected to, specific issues related to the project, and suggested remedies which would resolve the objection. Written objections, including any attachments, must be sent via regular mail, fax, , hand-delivered, or express delivered to: Objection Reviewing Officer USDA-Forest Service Intermountain Region th Street Ogden, UT within 45 days following the publication date of the legal notice in The Salt Lake Tribune. Hours for submitting hand-delivered objections are: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic objections must be submitted in a format such as an message,.pdf,.txt,.rtf,.doc, or.docx to objections-intermtn-regional-office@fs.fed.us. Faxed objections should be sent to (801) Objectors are responsible for ensuring that their objection is received in a timely manner (36 CFR ). The publication date in The Salt Lake Tribune, which is the newspaper of record, is the exclusive means for calculating the start of the 45-day objection period. Persons wishing to object should not rely on information provided by any other source. Objections must be received or postmarked by the end of this 45-day objection period. Extensions of the objection period are not permitted. When the objection filing period has ended and responses have been made to all objections by the reviewing officer, the responsible official may make a final decision on the proposed project. The reviewing officer shall issue a written response to objectors within 45 days following the end of this objection filing period. When no timely objections are filed, a decision can be made on the fifth business day following the close of the filing period. Implementation may begin immediately following the signing of this decision notice pursuant to 36 CFR December 2017, Page 8

9 11. CONTACT For additional information about this decision or about the objection process, contact Deputy Forest Supervisor, Chad Hudson, (801) , David C. Whittekiend Forest Supervisor Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Date In accordance with federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. December 2017, Page 9