Helicopter Landings in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos Wilderness Areas to Capture and Collar Mountain Goats

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Helicopter landings in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos wilderness areas to capture and collar mountain goats and bighorn sheep project Environmental Assessment

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake and Pleasant Grove Ranger Districts, Salt Lake and Utah Counties, Utah December 2017

Environmental Assessment

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

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake and Pleasant Grove Ranger Districts, Salt Lake and Utah Counties, Utah

Lead Agency: U.S. Forest Service

Responsible Official: David C. Whittekiend, Forest Supervisor 857 West South Jordan Parkway South Jordan, UT 84095

For Information Contact: Pamela Manders, Forest Wildlife Program Manager 857 West South Jordan Parkway South Jordan, UT 84095

Cover Photo: Photo by Rusty Robinson.

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) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. 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 http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html 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) 632-9992. 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. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... 3 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need ...... 4 1.1 Introduction ...... 4 1.2 Project Area ...... 4 1.3 Background ...... 5 1.3.1 Existing Condition ...... 6 1.4 Proposed Action ...... 8 1.5 Purpose and Need ...... 9 1.6 Forest Plan Consistency ...... 9 1.7 Public Involvement and Consultation ...... 11 1.7.1 Scoping/Comment Period ...... 11 1.7.2 Comment Period on Environmental Assessment ...... 11 1.8 Decision Framework ...... 12 1.9 Project Record ...... 12 1.10 Issues ...... 12 1.10.1 Key Issues ...... 13 1.10.2 Issues Addressed but not Analyzed in Detail ...... 13 Chapter 2: Alternatives ...... 15 2.1 Introduction ...... 15 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 15 2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 15 2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 15 2.2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 16 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences ...... 19 3.1 Introduction ...... 19 3.1.1 Wilderness Resources ...... 19 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination ...... 28 4.1 Preparers and Contributors...... 28 4.2 Consultation and Coordination ...... 28 4.3 Laws and Regulations ...... 28 Appendix A: Scoping Report ...... 32 Appendix B: Issues Addressed but not Analyzed in Detail ...... 37 Appendix C: Design Criteria & Mitigation Measures ...... 42 Appendix D: References ...... 44

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

This Environmental Assessment (EA) discloses the environmental impacts of landing helicopters and dropping 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 the Wasatch and Uinta National Forests. The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache (UWC) National Forest received this proposal from the Utah Department of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) as part of UDWR’s mission of conserving and managing protected wildlife populations. The biological samples enabled by the authorization of helicopter landings and drops would allow UDWR to test for disease and evaluate disease spread between the two species. The collaring enabled by the authorization of helicopter landings and drops would allow UDWR to monitor the two species’ interactions and movements in this area.

This document has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 40 CFR 1500-1508, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) implementing regulations of, including transition language at 36 CFR 219.14, and the 2003 Wasatch-Cache (WCFP) and Uinta (UFP) National Forests Revised Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) (USDA 2003 and 2003a). Formal planning for this project was initiated on May 25, 2016 with a legal notice in the Provo 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 after this change on February 9, 2017.

1.2 Project Area

The project area falls within the UDWR’s Wasatch Mountains Management Unit, the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan’s Central Wasatch, and the Uinta Forest Plan’s American Fork and Lower Provo Management Areas. The size of the project area is defined by the alpine habitat of mountain goats located on National Forest System (NFS) lands and where populations of mountain goat and bighorn sheep overlap. The southern boundary is Provo Canyon and the area extends north along the spine of the Wasatch Mountain Range and is bounded to the north by Big Cottonwood Canyon. Three National Wilderness Preservation System areas make up a majority of the habitat for mountain goat and include Mount Timpanogos, Lone Peak and Twin Peaks Wilderness areas. The east and west boundaries of the project areas are defined by the Uinta and Wasatch National Forest boundaries. See Figure 1 below.

Helicopter landings in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos wilderness areas to capture and collar mountain goats and bighorn sheep Project Environmental Assessment Salt Lake and Pleasant Grove Ranger Districts, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest 4

Figure 1. Project area map for the bighorn sheep and mountain goat capture project on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Northern Utah adjacent to Salt Lake City, Utah.

1.3 Background

Bighorn sheep have been protected wildlife in Utah since 1896, and mountain goats have been protected wildlife in Utah since 1919. UDWR is charged by the Utah State Legislator to manage Utah’s wildlife resources and to assure the future of protected wildlife for its intrinsic, scientific, educational, and recreational values for the people in the State of Utah.

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, 2016), and bighorn sheep populations have not shown growth since their re-introduction in 2000 despite the availability of suitable habitat (Shannon, 2014). The term "stagnant" as defined by UDWR describes a population that exhibits no clear growth trend and shows poor population performance relative to a population objective or what the surrounding habitat can sustain. 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 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.

According to aerial spatial data, approximately 90 percent of the mountain goat population, and approximately 40 percent of the bighorn sheep population is found within three wilderness areas located in the proposed project area (Personal Communication, Robinson 2017). Since the Wasatch mountain goat population rarely leave the wilderness areas, UDWR’s proposal is to capture the desired number of animals within the wilderness. Capture work may occur outside of wilderness area, as the opportunity exists, but these activities have already been authorized through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)(USDA, 2013) between the UDWR and Forest Service.

1.3.1 Existing Condition

1.3.1.1 Wildlife – Bighorn Sheep

Bighorn sheep are native to Utah. Archeological evidence indicates they were well known to the prehistoric inhabitants of Utah, since bighorns are depicted in pictographs and petroglyphs more than any other form of wildlife. Historical records of the first settlers in the state also confirm the presence of bighorns. Father Escalante noted in his journal as he crossed the Colorado River in Utah, “through here wild sheep live in such abundance that their tracks are like those of great herds of domestic sheep” (Rawley 1985).

Native populations of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep were nearly extirpated following pioneer settlement. A few scattered sightings of bighorns persisted in northern Utah as late as the 1960's. Factors contributing to their demise included competition with domestic livestock for forage and space, vulnerability to domestic livestock-borne diseases, habitat conversions away from native grasslands towards shrub lands due to excessive grazing and fire suppression, and unregulated hunting (Shields 1999).

Bighorn sheep were first reintroduced onto Mt. Timpanogos in January of 2000. Five releases have occurred in Grove Creek Canyon at the base of Mount Timpanogos totaling 82 bighorns. In January 2000, 25 bighorns were reintroduced from Rattlesnake Canyon, Utah. This herd included six rams, 16 ewes, and three lambs. Then, in January 2001, two rams and eight ewes were translocated from Hinton, Alberta, Canada. In February 2002, three rams and six ewes were reintroduced from Sula, Montana. In January 200, 20 ewes were brought and released again from Sula, MT followed by a release from Alamosa, CO in March 2007 consisting of 17 ewes and one ram. Despite UDWR’s management efforts to establish this population to a minimum size of 125 animals, the Mt. Timpanogos herd reached a high of 65 individuals in 2007 but typically hovers between 30 and 40.

Commingling with domestic sheep and bighorns has been observed in the past on Mt. Timpanogos. Disease is suspected as a factor in poor population performance, but data regarding immunological, etiological, and pathogen strain typing have not been collected. Other documented causes of mortality are predation and vehicle collisions (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 2013a).

It is believed, that as bighorn sheep interact across the population’s range exposure of bighorn sheep to other bighorn sheep carrying different strains of bacterium occurs. Therefore, proximity of bighorn sheep to domestic sheep grazing areas and the connectivity of habitats between other bighorn sheep herd’s seasonal ranges play a critical role in management of respiratory disease (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 2013a).

Bighorn sheep are uniquely adapted to inhabit some of the most remote and rugged areas in Utah. They exist in some of the most hostile climatic conditions ranging from the hot, dry canyonlands of southern Utah to the cold, snowy alpine regions of Utah’s northern mountains. Bighorns are sometimes referred to as a wilderness species because of the naturally remote and inaccessible areas they inhabit. Bighorns prefer open habitat types with adjacent steep rocky areas for escape and safety. Habitat is characterized by rugged terrain including canyons, gulches, talus cliffs, steep slopes, mountaintops, and river benches. The diet of mountain sheep is comprised primarily of grasses and forbs, although sheep may also utilize shrubs depending on season and availability. Most Rocky Mountain bighorns have seasonal migrations with established winter and summer ranges, whereas desert bighorns generally do not migrate. Extensive historical bighorn habitat occurs throughout Utah, however, not all habitat is currently suitable for reestablishment of bighorn populations. Vegetative changes, human encroachment, and continued domestic sheep grazing make some areas unsuitable for bighorn restoration (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 2013a).

Habitat management practices include conversions of domestic sheep grazing permits, vegetative treatments, and water developments. Habitat utilization distribution of bighorn sheep in the Mt. Timpanogos population stretches the Wasatch front from Provo Canyon on the south to Corner Canyon on the north, and includes Mt. Timpanogos, Mahogany Mtn., the areas of Dry Canyon, Battle Creek, and Grove Creek, Box Elder Peak, White Baldy Peak, American Fork Canyon, and Box Elder, Smooth, Preston, Willow, and Wadsworth Canyons (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 2013a).

Bighorn sheep are a sensitive species for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Bighorn sheep are managed as an once-in-a-lifetime species in Utah by the UDWR. The first hunt for bighorn sheep in Utah was held in 1967 for the desert subspecies on the San Juan Unit. Since the initial hunts, bighorn sheep permits have generally been increasing.

1.3.1.2 Wildlife – Mountain Goats

Mountain goats are native to the North American continent and the Northern Rocky Mountains. The first documented report of mountain goat found in Utah was in a census report created by the U.S. Forestry Department, which displayed game conditions for Utah’s National Forests. This report was referred to in the twelfth biennial report of the Fish and Game Commissioner of the State of Utah, for the years 1917- 1918. There are no confirmed sightings of mountain goat in Utah since 1918, until they were transplanted in the Lone Peak area in 1967.

Mountain goats (Oreamnos amreicanus) are not true goats as the name suggests, but share the family Bovidae with true goats (Capra spp.), gazelles (Gazella spp.) and cattle (Bos spp.). They are in the

subfamily Caprinae along with 32 other species including sheep (Ovis spp.) and muskoxen (Ovibos spp.). Mountain goats are the only living species in the genus Oreamnos.

Mountain goats are obligate occupants of the highest alpine environments in Utah. Elevations of up to 13,000 feet are frequented in summer, and winter habitat may be high as 12,000 feet on windblown ridges of some units. Exposed, precipitous cliffs are an essential component of mountain goat habitat. Mountain goats typically prefer sites that are close to escape terrain with an intermediate slope typically between 20 and 50 degrees (Gross, 2002). Suitable sites encompass most aspects of mountain goat habitat needs including escape terrain, feeding sites, and birthing and nursery areas.

Mountain goats currently inhabit several mountain ranges in Utah including numerous peaks along the Wasatch Front, Uinta Mountains, La Sal Mountains, Mt. Dutton and Tushar Mountains. All populations are the result of transplants; the first of which occurred in 1967 when six mountain goats (two billies, four nannies) were released in the Lone Peak area. Initial transplants used mountain goats from Olympic National Park in Washington as the source herd. After those transplanted herds became established, they became source herds for future transplants. The Tushar Mountains population has been the most common Utah source herd because of its rapidly growing population and relative ease of accessibility (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 2013).

UDWR has reported a total of six transplants. One in Lone Peak area, two in the Mount Olympus area, one in the Mount Timpanogos area and two in the Provo Peak area. A total of 42 animals have been released over the past 50 years with no releases occurring in the past 27 years (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 2013b).

In Utah, mountain goat populations are surveyed via helicopter every two to three years. During these flights, biologists survey all potential mountain goat habitat in August or September and classify all observed animals as billies, nannies, or kids. Previous studies have shown that sightability is usually around 80 to 85 percent for mountain goats. In addition to the helicopter surveys, most biologists conduct ground-based or fixed-wing classification counts on units during years when they are not surveyed with a helicopter. This provides biologists with data on annual production and greatly improves UDWR’s population models for those units (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 2013b).

1.4 Proposed Action

UDWR proposes to capture up to 20 mountain goats and 10 bighorn sheep across the project area with the focus placed on the individuals inhabiting the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mt. Timpanogos Peak Wilderness areas using the helicopter net-gun method. The Federal action requiring NEPA is the Forest Service decision to authorized the landing of helicopters to dropping off people and supplies to capture mountain goats and bighorn sheep per 36 CFR 261.18, 251.50, 261.1(b), and 261.1a. Landing helicopters or dropping material from helicopters without authorization is prohibited. Authorizing the activity is a “federal action” which triggers NEPA requirements.

UDWR’s proposal is to use a helicopter in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak and Mt Timpanogos Wilderness areas to capture, take biological samples for disease testing, and GPS collar up to 20 mountain goats and 10 Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. The capture effort would take place from September through November. A net would be shot from the helicopter to capture the animals. It is estimated that it would take about 30 hours to capture the desired number of animals using this method.

UDWR’s proposal also includes helicopter staging areas. Specific locations have not been identified but would be located outside of the wilderness areas along public roads or at the Forest Service Silver Lake Flat and Timpooneke trailheads and Snowbird. UDWR would need to obtain separate approvals for staging areas not located on NFS lands.

1.5 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 Wilderness Character.

1.6 Forest Plan Consistency

This document is consistent with the 2003 Wasatch-Cache National Forest LRMP, as amended and the Uinta National Forest LRMP, as amended (USDA 2003 and 2003a). Information from the Forest Plans, the Forest Plan amendments, the Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared in concert with the plans and all associated appendices has been referenced and incorporated into this document. Management direction in the Forest Service Directive System, including the Forest Service Manual (FSM) and the Forest Service Handbook (FSH), is part of Forest Service management direction and is not repeated in the Forest Plan itself.

The Forest Service Manual states, “The allowance for management of wildlife in wilderness is set forth by manual direction and a formal Memorandum of Understanding. The first group of policies (a) indicate guidance from the Forest Service Manual for Wilderness management. The second group (B) describes guidance from the Forest Service manual for wildlife management. The third group of policies (C) pertain to guidance from other sources. a. Forest Service Manual Direction for Management of Wildlife within Wilderness 2323.3- Management of Wildlife and Fish 2323.31 Objectives 1. Provide an environment where the forces of natural selection and survival rather than human actions determine which and what numbers of wildlife species will exist. 2. Consistent with objective 1, protect wildlife and fish indigenous to the area from human caused conditions that could lead to Federal listing as threatened or endangered. 3. Provide protection for known populations and aid recovery in areas of previous habitation, of federally listed threatened or endangered species and their habitats. 2323.32 Policy 1. Recognize that States have jurisdiction and responsibilities for the protection and management of wildlife and fish populations in wilderness. Cooperate and work closely with State wildlife and fish authorities in all aspects of wildlife and fish management. Base any Forest Service

recommendation to the State wildlife and fish agencies on the need for protection and maintenance of the wilderness resource. 2. Recognize wilderness protection needs and identify any needed requirements in coordination efforts and in cooperative agreements with State agencies. 3. Wildlife and fish management programs shall be consistent with wilderness values. 4. Discourage measures for direct control (other than normal harvest) of wildlife and fish populations. 5. Apply the “Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in Wilderness and Primitive Areas,” developed jointly by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) in a practical, reasonable, and uniform manner in all National Forest wilderness units. Use the guidelines as a foundation for or as addendums to State or individual wilderness cooperative agreements.”

Additionally, the desired future condition for wildlife resources in the WCFP states, “Management activities move habitat conditions toward historic range of variability, contribute to recovery of listed species and maintain or improve conditions for sensitive species (Bighorn sheep).” (USDA 2003a p.4-6).

Table 1: Summary of management prescriptions by Forest Plan within the project area. Management Management Emphasis GIS Acres Prescription within Analysis Area Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan revised 2003 includes all of Twin Peaks Wilderness and the northern portion of Lone Peak Wilderness located in Salt Lake County and managed by the Salt Lake Ranger District 1.1 Opportunity Class I: This area in existing wilderness is characterized by an 17,594 unmodified natural environment. Human induced change is temporary and minor. Outstanding opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation are available for visitors, who travel in small groups, practice excellent wilderness ethics and spend extra effort to leave no trace. Encounters with others are rare. 1.2 Opportunity Class II: This area in existing wilderness is characterized by 1,620 predominately unmodified natural environment. Human induced change is evident but will recover (slowly in higher elevation areas). Outstanding opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation exist. Encounters with others are more frequent than Class I. 1.3 Opportunity Class III: This area in existing wilderness is characterized by 1,914 predominately unmodified natural environment, but impacts could persist from year to year. During peak season and in popular areas concentrated use is more common and opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation more limited. Uinta Forest Plan revised 2003 includes the southern portion of Lone Peak Wilderness located in Utah County and Mount Timpanogos Wilderness managed by the Pleasant Grove Ranger District 1.4 Wilderness: These areas are managed consistent with the Wilderness Act of 31,349 1964 and the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 with no delineation for condition class or recognition of varying levels of opportunities for solitude. These areas are managed to allow natural processes to prevail. Vegetation management is limited to wildland fire use and noxious weed treatments that do not employ mechanized or motorized means. Prescribed fire use is allowed only when necessary to promote or maintain wilderness characteristics or integrity. No timber harvest is allowed. Grazing will continue to be allowed per the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984. Recreation

Management Management Emphasis GIS Acres Prescription within Analysis Area developments such as pit toilets may exist where necessary to accommodate high visitor use.

1.7 Public Involvement and Consultation 1.7.1 Scoping/Comment Period

Public involvement has been extensive throughout the planning and analysis process leading to this document. Formal planning and the comment period per 36 CFR 218 for this project were first initiated on May 25, 2016 when a legal notice was published in the Salt Lake Tribune and Provo Daily Herald. A scoping letter was mailed to individuals and organizations on the Salt Lake and Pleasant Grove Ranger District mailing lists. Thirty-four comments were received and reviewed by the interdisciplinary team.

Following a revised proposal from UDWR in January of 2017, a second legal notice was published in the Salt Lake Tribune and Provo Daily Herald on February 9, 2017 and ended on March 9, 2017. A scoping letter was mailed to the same list of individuals and organizations. Approximately 2,400 comments were received and reviewed by the interdisciplinary team.

A summary of how all scoping comments were addressed is included in the scoping report which was included in detail as Appendix A in the draft EA. The scoping report has been retained in this final EA as Appendix A, however, the detailed responses table has been removed for ease of reviewing the EA. The responses table is included as an attachment to the Final Scoping Report which is available for review on the project website.

Commenters voiced a variety of concerns including, but not limited to, potential adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat and wilderness character. The comments were used to develop the key issues to be carried forward for analysis described below in Section 1.10.

1.7.2 Comment Period on Environmental Assessment

On July 12, 2017, a legal notice was published in The Salt Lake Tribune and Provo Daily Herald initiating a 30-day comment period on the draft environmental assessment (EA). Because the text of the legal notice was not posted to the project website until July 24, 2017, to be consistent with 36 CFR 218.24(c)(3) an additional 12 days were added to the comment period. 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 and have made these documents available for public review on the project website.

This final EA is being released for a 45-day objection period along with a draft decision notice and finding of no significant impact (FONSI).

1.8 Decision Framework

The purpose of this document is to disclose the effects and consequences of alternatives being considered in detail. Based on information disclosed in this EA, its associated planning record, and public feedback, the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Forest Supervisor (Responsible Official) will make a decision as to whether or not to approve the project and issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) if no significant impacts are found.

Based on the analysis documented in the EA, the decision to be made is whether or not the Forest Service should authorize the use of mechanized equipment (helicopter) in designated wilderness areas along with the associated staging areas.

The approval would allow UDWR to helicopter net gun capture, take biological samples and GPS radio collar mountain goats and bighorn sheep in wilderness areas and obtain disease profiles to determine if these populations have been exposed to various pathogens and/or transfer disease between the species in this area. This decision only covers the work within the designated Wilderness areas given that UDWR is permitted to conduct wildlife operations outside of wilderness, on Forest Service lands, based on 2012 Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region and the State of Utah, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (USDA Intermountain Region of the Forest Service and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 2012).

1.9 Project Record

This environmental assessment hereby incorporates by reference all appendices and the project record. The project record contains specialists’ ancillary documentation and technical documentation used to support the analysis and conclusions in this environmental assessment. Relying on specialist reports and the project record helps implement the Council on Environmental Quality regulations’ provision that agencies should reduce NEPA paperwork (40 CFR 1500.4). The objective is to furnish enough site- specific information to demonstrate a reasoned consideration of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and how these impacts can be mitigated, without repeating detailed analysis and background information available elsewhere. The project record is available for review at the Supervisor’s Office in South Jordan, Utah.

1.10 Issues

Scoping is used to identify issues that relate to the effects of the proposed action. An issue is an unresolved conflict or public concern over a potential effect on a physical, biological, social or economic resource as a result of implementing the proposed action and alternatives to it. An issue is not an activity; instead, the projected effects of the proposed activity create the issue. Issues are generated by the public, other agencies, organizations and Forest Service resource specialists and are in response to the proposed action. Issues provide focus for the analysis of environmental effects and may influence alternative development, including development of project design criteria. In this document issues are tracked and are used to display differing effects of the proposed action and the alternatives. A complete issue identification summary is in the project record files, including issues eliminated from detailed study along with the rationale for their elimination.

The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: key issues and non-key issues. Key issues were defined as issues identified during public scoping that suggested an alternative to meeting the purpose and need for action.

Letters submitted during the public scoping/comment period and Forest Service consideration of those letters is included in the project record which is located at the Supervisor’s Office in South Jordan, Utah. A summary of these comments is also included in Appendix A – Scoping Report.

1.10.1 Key Issues

After reviewing the public comments received during scoping the Forest Service did not identify any key issues that would drive the development of an additional action alternative. Wilderness was identified as the only key issue that would be carried forward for detailed analysis. A summary of detailed analyses associated with the issue are presented in Chapter 3 of this document. Indicators are listed for use in comparing how the different alternatives affect that issue. Numerous concerns were raised during internal and external scoping processes and while these concerns were valuable, they did not raise unresolved conflicts.

1.10.1.1 Wilderness and Other Undeveloped Lands

The key issue carried forward for wilderness resources is whether or not the proposed federal action activities connected with the proposed federal action could result in a downward trend in wilderness character qualities of Untrammeled, Undeveloped, Natural, Outstanding Opportunities – (Solitude and Primitive and Unconfined Recreation), and Other Features of Value.

Specific indicators include: • Untrammeled - Would the intentional proposed management actions directly control or manipulate the components or processes of ecological systems inside wilderness? • Undeveloped - Would motor vehicles, motorized equipment or mechanical transport Activities Adversely Affect the undeveloped quality of wilderness? • Natural - Would activities adversely affect the natural environment of plants, animals, air, water and ecological process? • Outstanding Opportunities - o Solitude - Would seeing or hearing the signs of modern civilization activities adversely Affect opportunities to experience solitude? o Primitive - Would activities adversely affect recreationist self-reliance and skills in wilderness travel? o Unconfined Recreation – Would activities adversely affect recreationist sense of discovery, and mental challenge where one can travel and explore unique and unknown environments? • Other Features of Value - Would activities negatively affect unique geological, paleontological, or other features integral to wilderness character?

1.10.2 Issues Addressed but not Analyzed in Detail

Non-key issues were identified as those that are either: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the project or its resources; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence; or 5) have been addressed by eliminating any potential effects through alternative design, design criteria, and/or

mitigation measures. There is no detailed discussion of these concerns in Chapter 3. Appendix B discusses issues that were considered but not analyzed in detail and their rationale for not analyzing them. Issues that were dismissed from further analysis include; air quality, botany, climate change, cultural resources, socioeconomics, fire and fuels, fisheries and aquatic resources, noxious weeds, range, recreation, transportation, scenic values, silviculture, soils, and water resources. Impacts to wildlife were reviewed by the wildlife biologist and were dismissed as a key issues. Detailed information supporting this conclusion can be found in the Wildlife Report.

Chapter 2: Alternatives

2.1 Introduction This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Project. Two alternatives are analyzed in detail in this chapter: Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). This chapter includes a description of each alternative considered. This chapter also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between the alternatives and providing a clear basis for choice among options to be considered by the decision maker.

As disclosed in Chapter 1 of this document, one issue was identified during the scoping process and comment periods per 36 CFR 218. The effects to wilderness character could not be resolved, nor could anticipated impacts be mitigated to a point where landing would not occur. Other potential alternatives were evaluated within the Minimum Requirements Analysis (MRA) located in the project record to determine the potential of an alternative to be the minimum necessary and still respond to the issue. Other alternatives developed through the MRA were not considered the minimum necessary, would not meet the objectives identified in the purpose and need, and/or were eliminated from detailed study.

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail 2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)

The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline to analyze the environmental effects of the action alternatives. The No Action Alternative would mean that the Forest Service would not authorize helicopter landings and drop-offs in Wilderness. No federal action is required for proposed wildlife study activities that do not involve helicopter landings and drop-offs in wilderness. Under this alternative, UDWR would continue monitoring mountain goats and bighorn sheep in their Wasatch Mountain Unit once every other year to obtain population estimates and juvenile recruitment by conducting aerial surveys and collecting data from hunter participation surveys.

An aerial survey involves approximately six flight hours above wilderness only (no landings in wilderness). At their discretion, UDWR could opt to increase the frequency of aerial surveys, but doing so would impact the staffing and funding resources available for other important programs. Also at their discretion, UDWR could opt to capture and collar animals located outside of wilderness (USDA intermountain Region of the Forest Service and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 2012). Low-level aerial surveys affect wilderness character with noise and disturbance. However, since the Forest Service does not regulate air traffic and policy direction permits State wildlife agencies to conduct aerial flights for wildlife surveys, there are no limitations on the extent to which UDWR may conduct over flights for aerial surveys.

2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Under this alternative, the Forest Service would authorize the landing of helicopters and drop-offs from helicopters for UDWR to capture, take biological samples for disease testing, and collar mountain goats and bighorn sheep in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak and Mt. Timpanogos wilderness areas. Capture locations would be based on where mountain goat and bighorn sheep are observed during flights and from previous

aerial surveys and historic data. It is estimated that the proposed method would take 30 hours of operations to complete the necessary number of captures.

In addition to Forest Plans standards and guidelines designed to mitigate impacts, design features would also apply and are included in Appendix C.

The three staging areas that would be approved for use in this alternative on NFS lands are: Timpooneke Trailhead Parking Lot, Silver Lake Flat Parking Lot and Snowbird. Since the USFS does not have authority to permit actions on private lands, UDWR would be required to obtain permission from the respective landowners. All staging sites are outside of the wilderness areas. These areas would be used for the helicopter staging and access into the wilderness. These sites would also be used for refueling the helicopter and staff support as needed.

The UDWR plans to capture up to 20 mountain goats and 10 bighorn sheep across the project area using the helicopter net-gun method. This was identified as the minimum number of animals needed for the study. Once an animal is net gunned from the helicopter, the helicopter touches down to offload one to two personnel for processing the animal. Processing the animal includes taking a blood sample, placing a collar on the animal and then releasing it. While one crew is processing the first captured animal, the helicopter proceeds to find another animal to capture and offload the second crew to process the second animal. The pilot then returns to retrieve the first capture crew.

In order to capture 30 animals, UDWR anticipates an estimated 60 landings would be required. The landings would occur over 2-4 days which may not be consecutive days. Additional landings may occur to pick up nets if a net is shot and misses a target animal (less than ten percent of shots), but landings would be kept to a minimum, and no unnecessary landings would take place. Multiple captures would occur each day with the objective to capture a representative sample based on group size and distribution of animals.

Animals would be processed at the capture site by the helicopter crew. GPS radio collars and biological sampling kits would be used by capture crew on each captured animal. Animals that are injured, in poor health or compromised during the capture and processing phase may be slung to the staging area. Net gunning is the safest capture method available for animal wellbeing. (Krausman et al. 1985). The GPS radio collars would not be equipped with a drop-off mechanism but would transmit a mortality signal when an animal dies and transmit a signal when the collar falls off. Therefore, in the event of a mortality the collar can be retrieved. The collars are retrieved by biologists on foot so no additional landings would be required after the initial capture.

2.2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). In addition to the alternatives evaluated in this document, other alternatives were considered by the Interdisciplinary Team in response to concerns generated from internal and external scoping and comment. These alternatives, which were not considered in detail, are described in this section along with an explanation of why the alternatives were not considered further.

2.2.3.1 Net trapping using helicopter with ground support

This alternative was addressed in the Minimum Requirements Analysis (MRA) but eliminated from further analysis due to the fact that under this alternative, there would be similar if not greater impacts to wilderness values than under the proposed action. Under this alternative helicopter touchdowns would still be required to support a ground crew. A proposal to provide helicopter support to fly in all materials to build, maintain, and bait multiple traps would require a comparable number of helicopter landings over a longer duration than under the proposed action.

2.2.3.2 Net trapping – ground crew only

Under this alternative, the Forest Service would authorize extended stays for ground crews and would also allow the number in a crew to be larger than what is currently allowed in wilderness. The Forest Service would not authorize the use of mechanized equipment in any of the three wilderness areas. UDWR has provided the following information to indicate that the ground crew only alternative is not feasible. • While bighorn sheep and mountain goats can certainly be captured by drop net, it is typically only effective in areas that animals are already frequenting on a regular basis. UDWR has attempted the use of drop nets to capture bighorn sheep in the past with mixed results. Usually baiting is required for two weeks or more and sometimes animals ultimately avoid the area with the bait and trap. Personnel have attempted setting up a bait site once without a net (using hay and apple mash). The sheep were seen daily less than 100 yards from the bait and never approached it in two weeks. • Drop nets are dangerous for mountain goats, which can gore each other when multiple goats are caught in the same trap (Festa-Bianchet and Cote 2008). • Approximately ten different trap sites would be required to set-up, bait, monitor, and trigger a drop net which would require a length of time that vastly exceeds UDWR’s narrow capture window of September to November. The probability of being successful at every site so that biological sampling is distributed proportionally throughout the population is unlikely. • Processing times may increase with the use of a drop net as multiple animals must be processed at once and could add stress to the animals.

Because this alternative would not meet the minimum requirements for an effective study and does not meet the needs of UDWR, it was eliminated from further review.

2.2.3.3 Chemical Immobilization – ground or aerial using dart gun

This alternative was addressed but eliminated from further analysis for two reasons. First, bighorn sheep and mountain goats would be at greater risk. Using this technique from a helicopter would not allow for recovery of the immobilized animal in enough time for crew to retrieve the mountain goat or bighorn sheep. Once the animal is darted there is a 5-15 minute induction period, the terrain is difficult and more important the animal could fall to its death before capture (Feldhamer, George, Thompson, Bruce, Chapman, Joseph, 2003) (National Park Service, 1995). Second, it is not possible for UDWR personnel to approach the animals close enough to permit effective use of dart guns, especially from the ground.

2.2.3.4 Net gunning using helicopter – reduced helicopter landings in wilderness areas

This alternative was not analyzed further because the number of estimated landings needed to capture the necessary 20 mountain goats and 10 bighorn sheep to produce sufficient data for the study has already been minimized in alternative 2. Net gunning in and of itself is considered a landing since materials are

being dropped and the nature of aerial net capture requires personnel to be on site as soon as the animal is captured to avoid potential injury and over-stress.

2.2.3.5 Collect harvested animals within the wilderness area

This alternative considers collecting animals that have been harvested in the project area and collecting the biological samples. If the UDWR used harvested animals there would be a limited distribution and no guarantee of commingling between both of the species. Sampling would not be distributed across the unit and would be biased towards males. For this past year only 1 bighorn and 5 mountain goats are recommended to be harvested for the project area. This number is insufficient to acquire the necessary biological samples and would not meet the purpose and need.

Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the project area and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in the alternatives chapter. The analysis is based on a thorough review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty and risk. Chapter 3 complies with the implementing regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for analytic and concise environmental documents (40 CFR 1500-1508).

The scientific integrity of the discussions and analyses presented in this chapter are based on best available science, which includes discussion of the methodology used in the analysis; scientific sources that are relied upon and referenced; relevant literature that is reviewed; scientific literature that is cited by the public and which is considered when shown to be relevant; opposing views that are discussed when they are raised by the public or other agencies; and the disclosure of incomplete or unavailable information.

The current condition of each resource is described only to the extent needed to provide a baseline to compare the changes (direct, indirect and cumulative effects) that would occur under each alternative. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects occur later in time as a result of the action, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present and ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes the action. Activities proposed under the alternatives are described in Chapter 2 of this document.

The methodology used to describe and predict effects (indicators and measures of change) is available in project record (i.e., specialists’ ancillary documentation (consistency with the standards, legal requirements or other policies), and other technical documentation). Spatial and temporal boundaries set the limits for selecting the actions most likely to contribute to cumulative effects (FSH 1909.15, 15.2). In addition, the applicable regulatory policies and guidance are discussed; the Forest Plan identifies standards designed to meet these regulations. Incomplete and/or unavailable information is identified where appropriate. If it is not identified, there is no incomplete or unavailable information for that particular resource.

3.1.1 Wilderness Resources

3.1.1.1 Wilderness Act of 1964

The Wilderness Act of 1964 mandates that “each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area (Section 4(b)).”

Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act defines wilderness:

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act

an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserves its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.”

The Wilderness Act identifies five qualities of wilderness. (Landres, et al, 2015) defined of these qualities as: • “Untrammeled” – wilderness is unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation. This quality is degraded by modern human activities or actions that control or manipulate the components or processes of ecological systems inside the wilderness. • “Natural” – wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization. According to ACNWTC (2016), preserving this quality ensures that indigenous species, patterns and ecological processes are protected and allows us to understand and learn from natural features. • “Undeveloped” – wilderness is substantially without permanent improvements or modern human occupation. This quality is degraded by the presence of structures, installations, habitations, and by the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport that increases people’s ability to occupy or modify the environment. • “Outstanding opportunities” – wilderness provides opportunities for people to experience solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, including the values of inspiration and physical and mental challenges. This quality is degraded by settings that reduce these opportunities, such as visitor encounters, signs of modern civilization, recreation facilities, and management restrictions on visitor behavior. • “Other features of value” - “may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical use.” Some of these features, such as the presence of threatened and endangered species, are also part of the natural quality of a wilderness. Other features, such as the presence of important geological formations, cultural resources, historical sites, or paleontological localities, may be significant or integral to the wilderness area and do not fit easily into one of the other four qualities of wilderness character.

Together, the five qualities of wilderness character are commonly used to assist wilderness managers with the management of wilderness. They mutually reinforce each other and together can comprise an approximation of wilderness character for the purposes of assisting monitoring and management efforts on these lands (Landres et al. 2008).

In addition to the five qualities of wilderness character defined above, the Wilderness Act mentions societal benefits to wilderness that go beyond recreational use. These “non-use values” are, for the most part, not observable and marketable (Cordell et al. 2003). These values can include, but are not limited to: 1) the contributions of wilderness to individual and social well-being such as air and water quality; 2) cultural and historic preservation; 3) scenic beauty and immensity of an area; 4) opportunities for self- discovery, self-reliance, and challenge; 5) a sense of connection with nature and mental and spiritual restoration in the absence of urban pressures; 6) existence value – the satisfaction felt by knowing a wild place exists; and 7) bequest value – the value derived from being able to give wilderness to future generations (ACNWTC Undated; Walsh et al. 1984; Cordell et al. 2003; Schuster et al. 2005; Landres et al. 2008).

Wilderness character may be either preserved or degraded by the actions or inactions of managers. The challenge of wilderness stewardship is that decisions and actions taken to protect one aspect of wilderness character may diminish another aspect (Landres et al. 2008). The Wilderness Act does not specify how to resolve potential conflicts between actions or between uses. Nor does the Wilderness Act address how to resolve conflicts between public or administrative uses of wilderness and the mandate to preserve wilderness character. We are to look at wilderness as a whole, “an enduring resource of wilderness” (Wilderness Act, Section 2(a)).

Section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act permits a number of specific uses in wilderness:

“Wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.”

Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act prohibits certain uses and also allows exceptions to some of the prohibitions provided they are the minimum necessary to administer the area for the purposes of the Wilderness Act:

“Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.”

3.1.1.2 Affected Environment

Approximately 52,000 acres of the three wilderness areas that are within the project area of this EA, offer extensive undeveloped natural environments and opportunities to experience varying qualities of wilderness character. The three wilderness areas are islands of primitive landscapes characterized by large cirque basins and exposed rocky ridges that are surrounded by built environment of civilization. Each wilderness is bounded on its northern and southern flanks by State and National Forest Scenic Byways and Backways whose designation benefit from the picturesque rugged terrain of high peaks and slopes in framed by a tapestry of mountain shrub, aspen and conifer forests. Their western slopes provide a spectacular backdrop to the growing urban areas of the Wasatch Front of both Salt Lake County and Utah County residences and businesses. Easterly views from the upper most spine of the these three wilderness areas overlook seven major ski areas, resort development and communities like Park City and the rural landscapes of Heber Valley. The recreational use of these wilderness areas is based in the complexity of the accent to their highest points, basins, lakes and waterfalls. Given the fact that the wildernesses are adjacent to private lands and urban development, the sights and sounds of humanity are easily visible and audible from many wilderness vantage points.

The southern end of the project area is Mount Timpanogos Wilderness and was designated by Congress in 1984 as part of the 1984 Wilderness Act. The Wilderness area consists of 10,527 acres located on the Uinta National Forest and is managed by Pleasant Grove Ranger District. Situated between Provo Canyon and American Fork Canyon with a summit of 11,753 feet which is the highest peak in the Southern Wasatch Mountain range. Mount Timpanogos Wilderness is rugged embellished by waterfalls, steep topography descends towards the cliff shelf canyons and Utah Valley on the west and Heber Valley on the east. The headwaters for streams and rivers too many communities on both sides start in this

wilderness. There are outstanding glacial cirques and moraines that are framed in blooming high alpine meadows. Below the tree line are forests of aspen, Douglas fir, subalpine fir, limber pine, Gambel oak, maple, and chokecherry. There is an abundance of wildlife, viewing mountain goat, bighorn sheep, elk, birds and other species is not unusual. The summit is accessed by trails from Timpooneke and Aspen Grove, which are very popular trailheads. There is high use on Saturdays and holidays where it is not uncommon to have over 2,000 hikers on these weekend from July through mid-September. There are no trails in the high mountain basins on the north, south and west faces of the wilderness.

In the mid portion of the project area is Lone Peak Wilderness. It covers 30,577 acre and was designated to be part of the National Wilderness Preservation System by United States Congress in 1978. The Lone Peak Wilderness area is divided between the Uinta and Wasatch National Forests and is managed by both the Pleasant Grove Ranger District on its south side and Salt Lake Ranger District on the north (Figure 1). Among the highest peaks are the Little Matterhorn at 11,326 feet and Lone Peak at 11,253 feet, where snow often can remain until midsummer. Much of the higher elevation is alpine, with large, open cirque basins and exposed rocky ridges. The region is geologically complex. You'll see sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous rock formations in dramatic relief, as well as colorful bands stretching for great distances across mountainsides. A few small lakes add to the scenic beauty of the area. Douglas fir, subalpine fir, and aspen grow in isolated patches on north-facing slopes. Dense mountain brush and grass dominates the lower altitudes. State Highway Route 92 follows the American Fork Canyon and with the short stretch of State Highway Route 144, it forms the southern-southeastern boundary of the wilderness and provides access to trailheads and campgrounds. State Highway Route 210, along Little Cottonwood Creek Canyon, which also provides access, forms the northern boundary and separates Lone Peak Wilderness from Twin Peaks Wilderness just to the north. Several of the trails are easy to follow, but many require advanced navigation and route finding skills. Many people from the Salt Lake City area visit this wilderness area all year long. There are about six system trails totaling approximately 14 miles in the Lone Peak Wilderness area on the Salt Lake Ranger District side and eight system trails totaling approximately 32 miles on the Pleasant Grove Ranger District side.

Popular destinations in the Lone Peak Wilderness are Silver Lake in Utah County where weekends and holidays the parking lot at Silver Lake Flat is full and people expand the parking along FS road 08 to access Silver Lake that is in the wilderness (Butler, 2017). On the Salt Lake County side of the wilderness Red Pine Lake connects many visitors to Lone Peak’s high alpine environment. Red Pine Trail shares the first part of the trail with White Pine trail. The trailhead is full with as many as 200 vehicles parking down the highway. (Lane, 2017)

The Twin Peak Wilderness is at northern end of the three wildernesses. It was designated by Congress in 1984 as part of the 1984 Wilderness Act and consists of 11,432 acres. It is part of the dramatic backdrop of the southeast boarder of the Salt Lake Valley. Carved by glaciation and remodeled by erosion, this wilderness consists of narrow canyons and high peaks (including Twin Peaks, Superior Peak, and Dromedary Peak) that combine to form a rugged and spectacular imperious formation over the communities of Alta and Snowbird. Elevations range from just under 5,000 feet to 11,319 feet on Twin Peaks. Much of the higher terrain is classified as alpine and characterized by large cirque basins and exposed rocky ridges. Dense mountain brush mixed with oak/maple and grass dominates the vegetation at lower elevations. The canyons that are on both of the wilderness have streams that have cascades and pools that provide refreshment excellent scenic photo opportunities. Along the Scenic Byways recreationist can find trailheads that access the grandeur of the wilderness areas. Trails are often steep and strenuous. Trails are limited as the Twin Peaks Wilderness has only five system trails totaling approximately ten miles. Crowds of people can be common on these trails, especially on weekends. Use

is primarily day-use, although there is some overnight backpacking opportunities in the Lake Blanche area. The wilderness is within the Salt Lake City Watershed and has restrictions on dogs, horses and swimming.

Lake Blanche trail into the Twin Peaks Wilderness high use and high visitor encounters on weekends and holidays. While Broads Fork, Cardiff Pass and Ferguson trails have much less documented use and visitor encounters. (Lilly, 2016)

Wilderness Character Qualities are similar in all three wilderness areas. • Untrammeled – A number of trammeling actions have occurred and continue to occur in these wilderness areas. Due to the proximity of all three wildernesses to urban areas, natural fire is often suppressed. Despite these common trammeling actions, the untrammeled quality of these areas has remained relatively stable since their designation. Additional discussion of past actions is found the cumulative effects section. o Activities that took place before designation are not considered trammeling actions. . “Past actions that manipulated the biophysical environment before an area was designated as wilderness are not considered trammeling actions because the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act do not apply to an area prior to designation.” (Landres, et al., 2015) • Undeveloped –Helicopter flights are not uncommon and are utilized in emergency situations, most commonly for search and rescue operations. There is also some infrastructure that predates designation including structures associated with the Salt Lake City Watershed. • Natural – These three wilderness areas generally retain a similar degree of naturalness as they had at designation. Ecological processes continue to function and a wide range of habitats, flora and fauna exist these areas. Large ungulates such as bighorn sheep are an important component of naturalness. These native animals have been reintroduced and this may have improved naturalness. There is professional disagreement on whether or not mountain goats are native to these wilderness areas, but they are native to the Northern Rocky Mountains. For the sake of this analysis, they will be considered part of the natural conditions present at the time of wilderness designation. Heavy visitor use in some areas may be causing minor localized changes to naturalness, but over all there is no measurable change since designation. • Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation o Solitude – Infrastructure in these wilderness areas is mostly associated with visitor use. There are a number of heavily used trails as well as bridges and signs. Remoteness from the sights and sounds of human activity along high use trails during some weekdays and almost all weekends and holiday during the summer season is limited. Off and away from these main trails, visitors (Feldhamer, George, Thompson, Bruce, Chapman, Joseph, 2003) can find areas of solitude. Visitor use has increased over the years, but most is along trails and opportunities for solitude still exist in many areas of these wildernesses. o Primitive or unconfined recreation – Facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation are associated with the high use trails in these wilderness, such as bridges and trail mitigation structures to reduce erosion. Regulations are in effect to limit group size, camping, stock and dogs (in the Salt Lake City Watershed). Opportunities continue to be available however for primitive recreation.

Other Features of Value – This quality typically refers to something specifically referred to in legislation or something unique or of high value that is not covered by the other qualities of wilderness character. While these wilderness areas provide spectacular scenery, glacial geology, mountain lakes and a variety

of alpine and sub-alpine settings, nothing has been identified as a feature of value for these wilderness areas as pertains to this project.

3.1.1.3 Environmental Consequences In considering effects to Wilderness Resources, a qualitative discussion of how each alternative could affect the qualities of wilderness character (untrammeled, undeveloped, natural, outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation) is the basis for analysis. Likely intensity and duration of effects is considered.

Alternative 1 – No Action The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline to compare the effects of the action alternatives to wilderness character. UDWR would continue aerial monitoring of mountain goats and bighorn sheep in the UDWR Wasatch Mountain Unit once every other year to obtain population estimates and juvenile recruitment. Some data would also be collected from hunter participation surveys.

• Untrammeled – In the context of the Wilderness Act, an untrammeled area is where human influence does not impede the free play of natural forces or interfere with natural processes in the ecosystem (FSM 2320.5). No action would have no effect to untrammeled quality. • Undeveloped – Undeveloped is defined by the Wilderness Act as “…retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation…” Preserving this quality keeps areas free from “expanding settlement and growing mechanization” and “with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable” as required by the Wilderness Act. There would be no effect to undeveloped quality from the no action alternative. • Natural –The Wilderness Act describes wilderness as an area “… which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions...” If no action is taken, there is legitimate concern that populations of these species would continue to decline and this important aspect of the natural quality of wilderness could be impacted. The population of the bighorn sheep within the three wilderness areas may continue to be stable but below UDWR’s population objective or the population could decline rapidly due to disease spread. While no domestic sheep are permitted on the Forest in Salt Lake, Utah, or Summit Counties within the project area, some potential for disease transmission from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep still exists due to the presence of domestic sheep on private land or outside the project area. Transmission of disease to bighorn sheep and mountain goats inside the wilderness areas from individuals that have interacted with domestic animals is a primary concern and likely cause of the underperformance of bighorn sheep and mountain goats in the Wasatch. Whether or not the underperformance of these herds is a natural process or if it is being caused by disease from domestic livestock or something else would not be understood if no action is taken. If no action is taken, the effect to the natural quality could range from minor to catastrophic (loss of one or both of the herds) with potential significant and long-duration effects. • Opportunities for solitude and primitive or unconfined recreation – If no action is taken there would not be any effect on the ability of wilderness visitors to find solitude or recreate in these wilderness areas.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action This alternative would include a onetime capture in the fall. Captures may occur in September, October and/or November to minimize conflicts with hunting and other recreational activities. It is estimated that the proposed method would take 30 capture hours (2-4 capture days, which may not occur consecutively). Helicopter net-gunning would be used to capture, take biological samples for disease testing, and GPS

radio collar 20 mountain goats and 10 bighorn sheep in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak and Mt. Timpanogos wilderness areas within the months of September through November.

Once an animal is net-gunned from the helicopter, the helicopter touches down to off-load one to two people to process the animal. Processing the animal includes taking a blood sample, placing a collar on the animal and then releasing it. While one crew is processing the first captured animal, the helicopter proceeds to find another animal to capture and off-load the second crew to process the second animal. The pilot then returns to retrieve the first capture crew.

In order to capture 30 animals, UDWR anticipates an estimated 60 landings with approximately 30 hours of flight time. Additional landings may occur to pick up nets if a net is shot and misses a target animal (less ten percent of shots), but landings would be kept to a minimum. Multiple captures would occur each day with the objective to capture a representative sample based on group size and distribution of animals. Once the sample quota is reached, helicopter operations would cease within the three wilderness areas. Animals that are injured, in poor health or compromised during the capture and processing phase may be slung to a staging area. The GPS radio collars would transmit a mortality signal when an animal dies and transmit a signal when the collar falls off. Collars would be retrieved on foot or horseback. Capture and study of animals may occur outside of wilderness areas, as the opportunity exists, but these opportunities are limited, especially with mountain goats.

• Untrammeled: In this alternative, one aspect of the action would have a negative effect to untrammeled quality. o Capturing animals: Animals would be captured by shooting a net from helicopter and then personnel would secure the net. This is a very clear trammeling action as human intervention occurs to capture and manipulate the animals. The intensity and duration of the effect is not known as pertains to each specific animal, but 20 mountain goats and 10 bighorn sheep would be captured. The actual trammeling action is high intensity, of short duration and has no lasting effects beyond the one-time action to capture animals. • Undeveloped: In this alternative, three components of the action have a negative effect to undeveloped quality. o Transporting personnel: Personnel would be transported using a helicopter. There is an estimated 60 landings over 2-4 days which may not be consecutive days. The presence of a helicopter is a relatively intense effect to undeveloped quality, though the duration is short and not permanent. o Capturing animals: Discharging a net from a helicopter also effects the undeveloped quality since Forest Service regulations prohibit dropping of materials or supplies from aircraft in Wilderness (36 CFR 293). Based on the project objectives to capture 30 animals, there could be up to 33 drops (considering a 10 percent miss rate). However, since the net and personnel are dropped off simultaneously, there would no additional effect beyond what is described for transporting personnel to the capture sites. o Processing animals: Affixing GPS radio collars affect the undeveloped quality because they are scientific installations that represent visible evidence of human activity. Because the collars fall off after a few years, they are considered temporary installations. A small percent of the population would have radio collars, thus the effect would be low intensity and of moderate duration. • Natural: In this alternative, one component of the action may have potentially negative effects to Natural quality, while two components would have positive effects to Natural quality.

o Capturing animals: Nets are shot from helicopter and animals are secured for health check, blood draw and collaring. This could have negative effects to natural quality if animals are injured or killed. In similar activities approximately three percent of captured animals are injured and some injuries lead to mortality. Although specific animals could be injured or killed, the effect to natural quality is high intensity, but short duration with no lasting effects to the population. o Processing animals: Drawing blood samples would provide UDWR the opportunity to understand what is causing poor heard performance. This is potentially very important information for preservation of both species in the wilderness areas. Understanding the potential for disease spread between bighorn sheep and mountain goat populations, monitoring and maintaining meaningful data regarding current health status, survival, and causes of mortality would inform future management actions and potentially have long term positive effects to the natural quality of wilderness character. o Retrieving collars: Similarly, data obtained from radio collars would allow UDWR to track movements and interactions of these species which would help inform the understanding of the potential for spread of disease within and between species as well as provide information about year-round habitat use and movement/migration patterns. Data from animals that die (transmit a mortality signal) would provide important information on specific cause of death. Positive effects to natural quality could range from minimal to substantial and long lasting. • Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Two components of this action have negative effects to this quality of wilderness character. o Transporting personnel: The sights and sounds of up to 60 helicopter landings would have a negative effect on solitude and the sense of isolation from the sounds and sights of modern civilization. Wilderness visitors would likely notice the helicopters and this can intrude on their wilderness experience. Because activity is planned for the fall when there is less recreation and the helicopter operation is expected to last 2-4 days, this effect is reduced but still exists. The negative effect would likely be moderate to intense, of short duration, with no lasting effect. o Capturing animals: In addition to the presence and landing of helicopters, the net gunning and capture of animals has a potential negative effect if observed by wilderness visitors. The sights and sounds of the actual operation of netting, capturing and processing the animals could be very intense, though the effect would be of short duration.

3.1.1.4 Cumulative Effects

To analyze cumulative effects to wilderness character related to this project, similar past management actions are considered. It is evident from news reports and Forest Service records that helicopters are used each year in response to emergencies in each of the three wilderness areas. Results of web searches using “helicopter rescue” and the name of each wilderness indicate there were numerous articles regarding the use of helicopters in the three wilderness areas for emergency purposes. Approximately four to five flights occur in wilderness each year as a result of search and rescue operations with one to two of those actually touching down on the ground. Forest Service wilderness program records indicate 26 reported search and rescue actions using helicopters over the last ten years. It is reasonable to expect based on the past and present actions, helicopter use for search and rescue operations would continue into the reasonably foreseeable future. Additionally helicopters and aircraft are periodically used in fire

suppression efforts. Wilderness program records indicate helicopter use was approved and used for 4 fires over the last ten years. Additionally these records indicate motorized use was authorized for a dam stabilization project, flood repairs, and fish stocking. The proposed action of an estimated 60 helicopter landings over a two to four day time period would have a minimal cumulative effect when combined with the ongoing emergency and authorized use of helicopters. These past, present and future helicopter landings have an ongoing negative effect to the undeveloped quality of wilderness character, but this effect is not permanent and does not leave a lasting impression on the landscape.

Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination

4.1 Preparers and Contributors Table 3: Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team Name/ Area of Expertise Resource Area Pamela Manders Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Leader and Wildlife Fish and Wildlife Program Manager Lee Rackham Aviation Aviation Manager Jana Leinbach Botany/Noxious Weeds Botanist Tom Flanigan Cultural Resources Archeologist Renee Flanagan Engineering Engineer Guy Wilson Fuels Fuels Specialist Darcy Stock GIS GIS Coordinator Elisha Hornung NEPA NEPA Planner Renae Bragonje Range Range Conservationist Dave Hatch/Landscape Architect Recreation/Wilderness Daniel Morris/Wilderness Specialist Linda Merigliano/Intermountain Region Wilderness Program Leader (Acting) Paul Gauchay Safety Safety Officer Stacey Weems Soils Soil Scientist Brendon Waterman Watershed Hydrologist

4.2 Consultation and Coordination

An invitation to provide scoping/comments was sent to the district mailing lists for the Salt Lake and Pleasant Grove Ranger districts. These lists include federal, state, local and tribal governments. These same groups were notified when the EA was available for review and will be notified of the 45-day objection period.

4.3 Laws and Regulations

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Executive Order 12875, Executive Order 13007, Executive Order 13175, and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Public Law No. 95-341, 92 Stat. 469 (Aug. 11, 1978) (commonly abbreviated to AIRFA), is a United States federal law and a joint resolution of Congress that

was passed in 1978. AIRFA was enacted to protect and preserve the traditional religious rights and cultural practices of American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and native Hawaiians. Executive Order 13175 established a requirement for regular and meaningful consultation between federal and tribal government officials on federal policies that have tribal implications. Executive Order 12785 was enacted in order to reduce unfunded mandates upon State, local, and tribal governments; to streamline the application process for and increase the availability of waivers to State, local, and tribal governments; and to establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with State, local, and tribal governments on Federal matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities. Executive Order 13007 was enacted in order to protect and preserve Indian religious practices. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act provides a process for museums and Federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items, such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, to lineal descendants, and culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations.

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

The purpose of this Act is “…to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population; to initiate and accelerate a national research and development program to achieve the prevention and control of air pollution; to provide technical and financial assistance to State and local governments in connection with the development and execution of their air pollution prevention and control programs; and to encourage and assist the development and operation of regional air pollution prevention and control programs.”

While the proposed action would increase particulates helicopter emissions in the area, it would not have measurable impacts on air quality in any Class I or II areas identified above or at monitoring sites, given the distance and dilution that would occur as particles and air mix over distance.

Clean Water Act, The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-500) as amended in 1977 (PL 95-217) and 1987 (PL 100-4)

The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA), is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters by preventing point and nonpoint pollution sources. This Act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects to be accomplished through planning, application, and monitoring of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Identification of BMPs is mandated by Section 319 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 (also referred to as the Clean Water Act), which states, “It is national policy that programs for the control of nonpoint sources of pollution be developed and implemented.” As described in Section 3.1.1, this project would have little or no potential to impact water resources.

Endangered American Wilderness Act 1978 - Public law 95-237 (2/24/1978)

To designate certain endangered public lands for preservation as wilderness, and for other purposes.

This public law also includes the following wilderness area(s): Chama River Canyon Wilderness, Golden Trout Wilderness, Gospel-Hump Wilderness, Hunter-Fryingpan Wilderness, Kalmiopsis Wilderness, Lone Peak Wilderness, Manzano Mountain Wilderness, Mount Hood Wilderness, Pusch Ridge Wilderness, Sandia Mountain Wilderness, Santa Lucia Wilderness, Savage Run Wilderness, Three Sisters Wilderness, Ventana Wilderness, Welcome Creek Wilderness, Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness, and Wild Rogue Wilderness.

Endangered Species Act (ESA, 16 USC 35 §§1531 et seq. 1988)

The Endangered Species Act provides for the protection and conservation of threatened and endangered plants and animal species. All alternatives were assessed to determine their effects on threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provides a list of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species to consider in project planning. The current list identifies threatened species as western yellow-billed cuckoo and Canada lynx, Ute ladies’ tresses, and Jones cycladenia (USFWS 2017). Additional information on effect determinations can be found in the wildlife and botany specialist reports in the project record.

Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898)

Executive Order 12898 (59 Fed. Register 7629, 1994) directs federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations. Based upon the analysis disclosed in the project record, the project is in compliance with Executive Order 12898.

Invasive Species (E.O. 13112)

Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species directs that federal agencies should not authorize any activities that would increase the spread of invasive species. This project includes design features and mitigation measures to limit the spread of invasive species (Appendix C) and incorporates those applicable Uinta and Wasatch-Cache Forest Standards and Guidelines (USDA 2003a Uinta 2003b).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act decreed that all migratory birds and their parts (including eggs, nests, and feathers) were fully protected. Under the Act, taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds is unlawful. The original intent was to put an end to the commercial trade of birds and their feathers that had wreaked havoc on the populations of many native bird species. On January 17, 2001, President William Clinton signed an executive order directing executive departments and agencies to take certain actions to further implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FR Vol. 66, No.11, January 17, 2001).

Migratory birds occupy all source habitats found in the analysis area. If new requirements or direction result from subsequent interagency memorandums of understanding pursuant to Executive Order 13186, this project would be reevaluated to ensure that it is consistent.

Migratory birds as a group encompass a broad array of avian taxa, including, but not limited to, the following:

The mechanism of effect on birds is the auditory and visual disturbance created by helicopter landings and the activity on the ground that would take place when mountain goat and bighorn sheep are collared. There should be no impact to birds during the breeding season when displacing tending adults from a nest containing eggs or young could reduce the chance of reproductive success via exposure to predation or the elements. Consequently, the project would result in no adverse impacts to migratory birds resulting from the proposed action.

The proposed action would not result in ‘take’ of any migratory birds.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

The NFMA guides development and revision of National Forest Land Management Plans and contains regulations that prescribe how land and resource management planning is to be conducted on Forest Service lands to protect National Forest resources. The different alternatives for this project were developed to comply with NFMA and represent varying degrees of resource protection.

National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 is the principle guiding statute for the management of cultural resources on Forest Service lands. Section 106 of NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their activities and programs on historic properties. Historic Properties are any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included or eligible for inclusion, in the National Register of Historic Places maintained in the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria. [36cfr800.16 (l)(1)]. The criteria for National Register eligibility and procedures for implementing Section 106 of NHPA are outlined in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Parts 60 and 800), respective.

Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 - Public law 98-428 (9/28/1984)

To designate certain national forest system lands in the state of Utah for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System to release other forest lands for multiple use management, and for other purposes. This public law also includes the following wilderness area(s): Ashdown Gorge Wilderness, Box-Death Hollow Wilderness, Dark Canyon Wilderness, Deseret Peak Wilderness, High Uintas Wilderness, Mount Naomi Wilderness, Mount Olympus Wilderness, Mount Timpanogos Wilderness, Pine Valley Mountain Wilderness, Twin Peaks Wilderness, and Wellsville Mountain Wilderness.

Wilderness Act of 1964, Endangered American Wilderness Act of 1978 and Utah Wilderness Act of 1984

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577; 16 U.S.C. 1131) (amended in 1978) was enacted by Congress to “secure for the American people, an enduring resource of wilderness for the enjoyment of present and future generations”. This act was passed “in order to ensure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition...”(Section 2 [a]). The Wilderness Act contains provisions for conducting operations to meet the minimum requirements for administration that include: “Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area” (Section 4 [c]). Additional provisions in the Act and effects are described in the Wilderness Resources section, Chapter 3.

Appendix A: Scoping Report

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE

UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES (UDWR) PROPOSAL TO CAPTURE AND COLLAR MOUNTAIN GOATS AND BIGHORN SHEEP ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PUBLIC AND AGENCY SCOPING REPORT

USDA Forest Service Supervisor’s Office 857 West South Jordan Parkway South Jordan, Utah 84095

July 2017

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background Information In May of 2016, a 30-day scoping period took place for a proposal from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) to the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest land helicopters in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos wilderness areas to capture and collar mountain goats. The scoping process is intended to gather comments on key issues that should be analyzed and any alternatives that should be considered. In January of 2017, the UDWR met with Forest Service to discuss revising the project to add bighorn sheep to the proposal. The bighorn sheep population on the Wasatch Mountains has remained stagnant since the year 2000, and the mountain goat population in this area has significantly declined since 1999. The term "stagnant" as defined by UDWR describes a population that exhibits no clear growth trend and shows poor population performance relative to a population objective or what the surrounding habitat can sustain. UDWR has determined that in order to conserve and manage these protected species, the best course of action would be to take biological samples for disease testing from both species populations and to monitor their movements to better understand their interactions. It is believed that the information collected from these efforts would help UDWR understand what is causing species specific mortality and population decline. 1.2 Purpose of the Project 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 Wilderness Character. 1.3 Document Organization This document contains summary descriptions of the following: • Description of public outreach and opportunities for comment • The scoping content analysis process, including how individual letters and comments were reviewed and organized • Preliminary issues, concerns, and opportunities to be addressed in the analysis As part of the NEPA process, all comments are given equal consideration, regardless of the method of their transmittal. 2.0 Description of Public Outreach and Opportunities for Comment Members of the public and representatives of agencies were afforded several methods for providing comments. A public notice initiating a 30-day comment period was published in the Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, and Provo Daily Herald on May 25, 2016. A letter was also emailed to the project mailing list for

the Salt Lake and Pleasant Grove Ranger Districts. During the May 2016, 30-day scoping period, email comments could be sent to the following dedicated email address: comments-intermtn-wasatch-cache- [email protected] and individual letters could be mailed to Salt Lake Ranger District, 6944 South 3000 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84121. The Forest Wildlife Program Manager was also listed with a telephone number. A second public notice initiating a 30-day comment period was published in the Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, and Provo Daily Herald on February 9, 2017. A letter was also emailed to the project mailing list for the Salt Lake and Pleasant Grove Ranger Districts. During the February 2017 30-day scoping period, email comments could be sent to the following dedicated email address: comments- [email protected] and individual letters could be mailed to Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, 857 W. South Jordan Parkway, South Jordan, UT 84095. The Forest Wildlife Program Manager was also listed with a telephone number. 3.0 Scoping Content Analysis During the May 2016 scoping comment period, the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache received 34 unique comments from individuals and organizations. These comments were compiled in a spreadsheet and were given a unique comment number from 001 to 034. Comments were assigned a category based on the content of the comment. Categories included; Alternatives, request for MRDG, Analysis and alternatives, Botany, General opposition, General opposition - wilderness character, General support, General support - request for info, Request for Info, Request for project detail, Timing of analysis, Wilderness Act, Wilderness character, Wildlife, and Wildlife - status of species. During the February 2017 scoping comment period, approximately 2,395 comments were received including 1,710 form letters, 547 form letters with additional comments, and 138 unique comments. Each of these comments was reviewed by an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists and categorized based on the response. Categories included; Alternatives, Budget, Frequency of helicopter landings, General opposition, request for information, Hunting and viewing opportunities, Noise, Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Safety, USFS Decision, Wilderness Act, Wilderness Act (Idaho Court Case), Wilderness character, Wildlife, Wildlife management for wilderness character. Many of the responses included similar issues and were summarized accordingly. Table A-1* includes the table of summarized responses, the categories used to sort the comments, and how the comments have been, or will be addressed as we move forward. 4.0 Preliminary Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities Based on the summary responses provided in Table A-1*, the Forest Service did not identify any key issues that would drive the development of an additional action alternative. Wilderness was identified as they only key issue that would be carried forward for detailed analysis. A summary of detailed analyses associated with the issue are presented in Chapter 3 of the environmental assessment. Indicators are listed for use in comparing how the different alternatives affect that issue. Numerous concerns were raised during internal and external scoping processes and while these concerns were valuable, they did not raise unresolved conflicts. Wilderness and Other Undeveloped Lands The key issue carried forward for wilderness resources is whether or not the proposed federal action activities connected with the proposed federal action could result in a downward trend in wilderness

character qualities of Untrammeled, Undeveloped, Natural, Outstanding Opportunities – (Solitude and Primitive and Unconfined Recreation), and Other Features of Value. Specific indicators include:

• Untrammeled - Would the intentional proposed management actions directly control or manipulate the components or processes of ecological systems inside wilderness? • Undeveloped - Would motor vehicles, motorized equipment or mechanical transport Activities Adversely Affect the undeveloped quality of wilderness? • Natural - Would activities adversely affect the natural environment of plants, animals, air, water and ecological process? • Outstanding Opportunities - o Solitude - Would seeing or hearing the signs of modern civilization activities adversely Affect opportunities to experience solitude? o Primitive - Would activities adversely affect recreationist self-reliance and skills in wilderness travel? o Unconfined Recreation – Would activities adversely affect recreationist sense of discovery, and mental challenge where one can travel and explore unique and unknown environments? • Other Features of Value - Would activities adversely affect unique features, and or iconic plant or animal species? 5.0 Opportunities for Future Comment The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest has determined that an environmental assessment (EA) will be prepared for this project. The draft EA will be released for a 30-day public comment period.

*Please note that for ease of reviewing the EA, Table A-1 “Summary of scoping comments received and responses”, has been removed from this document and is included in the Final Scoping Report which is available for review on the project website.

Appendix B: Issues Addressed but not Analyzed in Detail

The following section discusses issues that were considered but not analyzed and their rationale for not analyzing them. These issues were those that were: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the project or its resources; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence; or 5) have been addressed by eliminating any potential effects through alternative design, design criteria, and/or mitigation measures (described in Appendix C).

B1. Air Quality

While the proposed action would increase exhaust pollutant emissions in the immediate area, it would not have measurable impacts on air quality given the distance and dilution that would occur as particles and air mix over distance and is therefore not analyzed in detail in this EA.

B2. Botany

The project is not anticipated to have any lasting effects to vegetation and botany resources. The proposed action alternative is not anticipated to change alpine habitat conditions for vegetation or for sensitive species, (for which there are known occurrences located within the analysis area and potential habitat).

Only low intensity, short-term activities are anticipated to occur with the landing, capture and processing of animals during this project, (very minimal impact). The proposed action may have some temporary, and minor, (little to no measurable impacts), effects to a very limited amount of vegetation, which would be expected to recover, (due to the low intensity of the project activities). It is also very unlikely that any known sensitive plant sites would be impacted as known sites would be avoided, and many are very unlikely to be impacted at all due to habitat location anyway. If any sensitive plant species were inadvertently impacted (landed on or trampled), it is expected there would be no long lasting and little to no measurable effects that would occur. No change in trend or in duration of trend is expected for sensitive plant species due to this project.

Many of the Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive, (TES) plant species reviewed do not occur in the three wilderness areas due to lack of habitat; some occur in habitat in which project activities are not likely to occur, (riparian, wet areas, timbered, etc.,); there are limited locations of known sensitive plant species sites and mitigation for known locations applies; In addition, the proposed limited number of helicopter landings would also occur between the fall and early winter months of September and November when most plants are dormant, underground, and have already flowered and set seed.

Also use of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, (RHCAs), as landing zones would be avoided and fueling mitigations would also help protect sensitive plant species. The potential to impact riparian plant habitats is extremely low. Also, Best Management Practices, (BMPs), would be implemented. The helicopter also would not be stationary very long at any location. It is also expected that dust from rotor wash when landing and taking off should be very minimal, (to none), in the moister alpine habitats in general and particularly due to time of year of proposed project activities. There would also be no modifications, (cutting of brush, trees, etc.), for landing sites and the project does not involve any ground disturbing activities.

Implementation of this project is not likely to contribute to or cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of population viability for any of the Forest Service R4 Sensitive plant species.

Sensitive Plant Species

Forest Service Sensitive plant species which would not be impacted by the proposed action include: Wheelers Angelica, Dainty moonwort, Slender moonwort, Wasatch fitweed, Brownie lady's slipper, Lesser yellow lady’s slipper, Wasatch Shooting Star, Wasatch Draba, Burkes Draba, Rockcress draba, Maguire whitlow-grass, Santaquin draba, Cronquist's daisy, Garrets fleabane, Logan buckwheat, Utah ivesia, Wasatch Jamesia, Wasatch pepperwort, Garrett's bladder pod, Alpine poppy, Cache penstemon, Cottam cinquefoil, Uinta Greenthread, Barneby woody aster and Frank Smith's violet.

Species at Risk

Multiple other plants, “Species at Risk” and/or Wasatch-Cache “Watch List” plant species were also evaluated as part of this process, and it is expected that the project would not have any lasting impact on these species.

B3. Climate Change

The project would not have any measurable direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on climate change. This level of carbon dioxide emissions is low enough as to be discountable and no direct or indirect effects to climate change would be expected.

B4. Cultural Resources

The proposed mountain goat and bighorn sheep capture and collar in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos Wilderness Areas, has no potential to affect historic properties.

The proposal to capture and collar wildlife via a net gun and helicopter operations for a limited duration of time (approximately 30 hours), does not involve any ground disturbance activities, no modification of structures that are over 50 years in age, and would have no direct or indirect effect on cultural resources.

Due the fact that the nature of the proposed action has no potential to affect historic properties, the USDA Forest Service, UWCNF, has made the determination of No Historic Properties Affected as per 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1), and recommends that the project proceed from a cultural resources perspective.

B5. Socioeconomics

Socioeconomic effects are limited in this case or measurable effects meaningful to the analysis are detailed with other resource discussions. The creation of jobs or economic returns associated with the permitting of mechanized equipment in wilderness is extremely limited.

B6. Fire and Fuels

The proposed mountain goat and bighorn sheep capture in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos Wilderness Areas has no potential direct affect the fire and fuels program.

B7. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

The proposed Mountain goat and Bighorn sheep capture and collar in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos Wilderness Areas has no direct or indirect effects or impacts to fisheries or aquatic species resources.

Based on the nature or helicopter capture of ungulates and the normal habitat occupation of Bighorn sheep and mountain goats, potential to impact fish and amphibian occupied habitats is extremely low. Further, the absence of known Threatened/Endangered aquatic species within the capture area and limited low elevation distribution of Forest Sensitive species, likelihood of overlap is minimal.

B8. Noxious Weeds

Introduction and/or spread of invasive and/or noxious weeds into and/or throughout or between each of the three wilderness areas. There are no ground disturbing activities being proposed as part of this project. With the Forest Plans, (Wasatch-Cache and Uinta), standards and guidelines being adhered to, as well as project design criteria and mitigation measures being implemented to reduce or prevent undesirable effects to the wilderness areas from noxious and invasive weed invasion and spread, it is anticipated that there would be very little, to no opportunity for weeds to invade or be spread as a result of this project work. In general, high elevation plant communities with cooler temperatures are also more resistant to weed invasion and spread than those at lower elevations on the forests, which also minimizes the chance for weed species to become established in the wilderness areas. Another factor is the relatively short duration, of the project, (number of hours estimated to complete), and very minimal impact of the project work itself. The staging areas are located at lower elevations, but are hard surface locations and again with standards and guidelines, design criteria and mitigation measures being adhered to, there should be very little to no impacts as well. It is anticipated that the project would not have any measurable direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to noxious and invasive weed spread.

B9. Recreation

See Section 3.1.1, Wilderness Resources, for the analysis of the direct and indirect effects on Recreation inside the three wilderness areas. Impacts to recreation outside the three wilderness areas recreation was not carried forward because of timing of the proposed action during September-November and that the activities would not occur on weekends or holidays. Based on this criteria there would be little to no effect to recreationists that could occur at the two developed recreation sites as a result of staging operations.

B10. Range

There are no prime farmlands or rangelands located on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Therefore, no effects to prime farmland or rangeland would occur with implementation of any alternative.

B11. Scenic Values

There are no direct or indirect effects to the landscape resulting in changes to the visual quality and/or landscape integrity of the area. Since there is no direct or indirect effects to the visual quality objectives (VQOs) and/or scenic integrity objective (SIOs) resulting from the proposed action would be anticipated, there would be no cumulative impacts.

B12. Silviculture

There would be no timber resources removed from the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Therefore, no effects to timber resources would occur with implementation of any alternative.

B13. Soils and Water Resources

Due to the lack of ground disturbing activities and development of project specific design features to eliminate impacts from helicopter landing and refueling (Appendix C), there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to soil and water resources.

B14. Wildlife (Terrestrial)

Terrestrial Threatened and Endangered Species

There are three threatened species listed for the forest the Gray wolf, Canada lynx and Western yellow billed cuckoo. There is very limited habitat on the forest for all three species and the species are not found within the project area.

Terrestrial Sensitive Species

USDA Forest Service Sensitive terrestrial species evaluated in the EA include American Peregrine Falcon, American three-toed woodpecker, bald eagle, bighorn sheep, boreal owl, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, fisher, flammulated owl, greater sage-grouse, great gray owl, northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, spotted bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Table B-1). Of the sixteen species, eleven of them have potential habitat or may occur within the project area, but would not be impacted by the proposed action.

Table B-1: Forest Plan Consistency Forest Plan Consistency/Other Key Items Alt A Alt B Activities Result in Forest Plan Amendment? No No Activities Increase Potential Spread of Noxious Weeds? No No Activities Compliant with National Historic Preservation Act and Yes Yes Archaeological Resources Protection Act? (See Appendix B) Activities Result in Measureable Effects Air Quality? (See Appendix B) No No Activities Consistent with ROS Designations? (See Appendix B) Yes Yes Activities would result in effects to soil or hydrologic resources? (See No No Appendix B) Activities consistent with VQO/SIO Designations? (See Appendix B) No No Would activities result in effects to socio/economic resources? (See No No Appendix B) Would activities result in effects to transportation facilities? (See No No Appendix B) Would activities likely result in a fuel spill? (See Appendix C) No No Would activities result in meaningful inputs of emissions contributing to No No climate change? (See Appendix B) Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species Alt. A Alt. B Wildlife Species NE NE Plant Species NE NE Fish Species NE NE Sensitive and Candidate Species Alt. A Alt. B Bighorn sheep NI BI Gray wolf (Rocky Mtn DPS) NI NI Fisher NI NI Townsend's Western big-eared bat NI NI Spotted bat NI NI Bald eagle NI NI Boreal owl NI NI Greater sage-grouse NI NI Peregrine falcon NI NI Flammulated owl NI NI Three-toed woodpecker NI NI Great gray owl NI NI Columbian sharp-tailed grouse NI NI Northern goshawk NI NI Columbia spotted frog NI NI Boreal toad NI NI Plant Species NI NI Fish Species NI NI

Focal Species Alt. A Alt. B Bonneville Cutthroat Trout NI NI Northern Goshawk NI NI

Appendix C: Design Criteria & Mitigation Measures

Design features are incorporated to reduce or prevent undesirable effects to the Forest resulting from proposed management activities.

C1. Design Criteria proposed by UDWR

• In addition to Forest Plans standards and guidelines designed to mitigate impacts, the following design features would also apply. They are incorporated to reduce or prevent undesirable effects to the Forest resulting from proposed management activities.

• Use existing unimproved openings for capture areas; no cutting of vegetation within the wilderness area.

• All equipment, including the camping and nets, and clothing are to be free from weeds or dirt.

• UDWR would notify Northern Utah Interagency Fire Center (NUIFC) 801-495-7600 on days that the flights

• The authorization would be in place after Labor Day through the end of November to minimize conflicts with other recreational activities within the three wilderness areas.

• The number of people needed to safely and efficiently handle each animal would be minimized.

C2. Mitigation Measures required by UWC

• Avoid use of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA) as landing zones to remove potential of and for downstream transport of impacts to fish and amphibian habitats.

• Fuel storage is prohibited (Standard Aqua-7) within RHCAs in the Uinta planning area should be applied as a project design feature within the Wasatch-Cache planning area given the importance of water quality protection in Little Cottonwood Canyon (municipal watershed). “Fuel storage” in this case is the parking of the fuel truck while it is not actively refueling the helicopter. Refueling should be done outside of the RHCA unless a safe landing can’t be completed outside of the RHCA. If refueling must occur in the RHCA, spill containment measures should be employed at the refueling site and the fuel truck should leave the RHCA upon completion of refueling.

• Landing of helicopter and/or netting of animals, at known mapped sites of sensitive plant species, should be avoided as possible, [particularly Garrett's bladder pod, (Lesquerella garrettii)]. Species at Rist plant species, with known locations, within the three wilderness areas, should also be avoided as possible, [particularly, Wasatch rockcress, (Arabis lasiocarpa); and Broadleaf penstemon, (Penstemon platyphyllus.

• Noxious and invasive weeds, (in addition to following all Forest Plan noxious and invasive weed standards and guidelines):

o Ensure all equipment, (boots, clothing, nets, camping gear including tents, vehicles and helicopter), used for the project work are cleaned and noxious and invasive weed free, (avoid bringing in soil or other material contaminated with weed seeds or plants from other locations).

o Avoid walking or driving through, camping on or landing helicopter in any areas with existing noxious or invasive weed infestations, (weeds would most likely have set seed by the period of planned operations and could easily be spread further if not avoided).

o Both the Salt Lake and Pleasant Grove Ranger Districts have issues with roadside, and trailhead weeds in a variety of locations, avoid parking vehicles in infested locations.

o Coordinate with the Forest Service to ensure noxious and invasive weed treatments of any existing weed infestations, at the staging areas, occurs prior to the start of the project.

o If noxious weed infestations are located in the wilderness, map and provide location to the FS.

o Follow up monitoring should occur at the staging area locations for a minimum of 3 years post project, to detect and immediately treat any new invading noxious or invasive weed species.

o Treat any existing noxious or invasive weed infestations that remain, for 3 years post project, (or longer, depending on the weed species, as length of seed viability in the soil, can vary by species).

o If any unforeseen ground disturb occurs, reseed the disturbed area using only certified noxious weed free seed mix, post project, prior to snowfall.

o Follow all State of Utah regulations related to noxious weeds in the state, and obtain the new list of Utah State listed noxious weeds for their use, (noxious weed booklets can be obtained from Utah State University, Office of Research, Logan Utah, Online, or at the Pleasant Grove Ranger District.)

Appendix D: References

Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center. Undated. What is wilderness character? Interagency document in the Wilderness Character Toolbox at http://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/documents/WC/FWS%20610%201.13,1.14,1.17.pdf. Accessed June 07, 2017

Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center. (2016). Minimum requirements decision guide instructions. December 15, 2016 version.

Besser TE; Cassirer EF; Potter KA; Lahmers K; Oaks JL, et al. (2014) Epizootic Pneumonia of Bighorn Sheep following Experimental Exposure to Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae. PLoS ONE 9(10): e110039. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110039

Butler, C. (2017, April 05). Pleasant Grove Ranger District Trails and Wilderness Manager. (D. Hatch, Interviewer)

Cordell, H. Ken; Tarrant, Michael A.; Green, Gary T. (2003). Is the Public Viewpoint of Wilderness Shifting? International Journal of Wilderness Volume 9, Number 2

Feldhamer, George; Thompson, Bruce; Chapman, Joseph. (2003). Wild Mammals of North America, Biology, Management, Conservation. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Festa-Bianchet, M. and S. D. Cote. (2008). Mountain Goats. Island Press, Washington DC, USA.

Gross, J. K. (2002). GIS-Based Habitat Models for Mountain Goats. Journal of Mammalogy, 218-228.

Krausman, Paul R.; Hervert, John J.; Ordway, Leonard L.; Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), Vol. 13, No. 1 (Spring, 1985), pp. 71-73, Capturing Deer and Mountain Sheep with a Net-Gun

Landres, P., C. Barns, J. Dennis, T. Devine, P. Geissler, C. McCasland, L. Merigliano, J. Seastrand, and R. Swain. (2008). Keeping it wild: an interagency strategy to monitor trends in wilderness character across the National Wilderness Preservation System. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-212. Fort Collins: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Landres, Peter; Barns, Chris; Boutcher, Steve; Devine, Tim; Dratch, Peter; Lindholm, Adrienne; Merigliano, Linda; Roeper, Nancy; Simpson, Emily. (2015). Keeping it wild 2: an updated interagency strategy to monitor trends in wilderness character across the National Wilderness Preservation System. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-340. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Lane, M. (2017, April 06). Heber-Kamas Ranger District Natural Resource Specialist and prior Salt Lake Ranger District Trails and Wilderness manager. (D. Hatch, Interviewer)

Lilly, R. B. (2016). Opportunities for Solitude in Salt Lake Ranger District Wilderness Areas; Wasatch National Forest. University of Utah, Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Tourism, Salt Lake City, Utah.

National Park Service. (1995). Mountain Goat Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement Olympic National Park. Moorhead: Olympic National Park.

Rawley, E. V. (1985). Early records of wildlife in Utah. Publication number 86-2. Division of Wildlife Resources, Department of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

Resources, U. D. (2013). Utah Mountain Goat Statewide Management Plan. Salt Lake City: Department of Natural Resources.

Robinson, Rusty, Bighorn Sheep/Mountain Goat Biologist, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Email conversation. March 6, 2017

Robinson, Rusty, Bighorn Sheep/Mountain Goat Biologist, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Email conversation. March 16, 2017

Schuster, R. M., H. K. Cordell, and B. Phillips. (2005). Understanding the cultural, existence, and bequest values of wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness 11(3): 22.

Shannon, J. W. (2014). Population response of reintroduced bighorn sheep after observed commingling with domestic sheep. Salt Lake City: Springer.

Shields, W. (1999). Rocky Mountain bighorns - Utah. Pages 108–111 in D. E. Toweill and V. Geist, editors. Return of Royalty - Wild Sheep of North America. Boone and Crocket Club and Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, Missoula, Montana, USA.

USDA Forest Service (2003). Uinta National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

USDA Forest Service (2003a). Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

USDA Intermountain Region of the Forest Service and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. (2013). Memorandum of Understanding between USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region and the State of Utah, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Ogden, Utah, United State of America.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. (2017, April 12). 2015 Utah Big Game Report. Retrieved from Utah Department of Wildlife Resources Big Game Report: https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting-in- utah/hunting-information/big-game/61-hunting/hunting-permits/1697-annual-and-harvest- reports.html

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. (2013a). Utah Bighorn Sheep Statewide Management Plan. Salt Lake City: Utah Department of Natural Resources.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. (2013b). Utah Mountain Goat Statewide Management Plan. Salt Lake City: Utah Department of Natural Resources. Walsh, R. G., J. B. Loomis, and R. A. Gillman. (1984). Valuing option, existence, and bequest demands for wilderness. Land Economics. Vol. 60, Number 1. February 1984.

Wolff, Peregrine; Cox, Mike; McAdoo, Caleb; Anderson, Chris A. (2016). Disease Transmission between Sympatric Mountain Goats and Bighorn Sheep. Oral presentation under review.