Southwestern Region United States Department of Agriculture Publication No. MB-R3-12-03 Forest Service August 2014

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness Tonto National Forest, Gila, Maricopa, Pinal, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper – August 2014

Contents

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Location and Description of Project Area ...... 1 History of Arizona’s Bighorn Sheep Population Management ...... 3 Existing Condition ...... 7 Desired Future Condition ...... 9 Purpose of and Need for Project ...... 9 Proposed Action ...... 11 Decision Framework ...... 11 Public Involvement ...... 11 Tribal Involvement ...... 11 Issues and Concerns Raised During Scoping ...... 12 Chapter 2. Alternatives ...... 15 Development of Alternatives ...... 15 Alternatives Considered in Detail...... 15 Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 15 Proposed Action ...... 15 Monitoring Captures...... 21 Translocation Captures ...... 21 Mitigation Measures and Design Features ...... 23 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated ...... 24 Non-motorized, Ground-Based Capture Alternative ...... 24 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 26 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 29 Cumulative Effects ...... 29 Past Actions ...... 29 Current Actions ...... 30 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 31 Legal and Regulatory Compliance ...... 31 Plant and Wildlife Habitat Resources ...... 31 Affected Environment ...... 32 Environmental Effects ...... 39 Bighorn Sheep Management ...... 41 Affected Environment ...... 41 Environmental Effects ...... 43 Visitor Experiences and Recreation Opportunities...... 47 Affected Environment ...... 47 Environmental Effects ...... 48 Wilderness Characteristics ...... 49 Affected Environment ...... 49 Environmental Effects ...... 50 Socioeconomics Associated with Big Horn Sheep Management ...... 60 Affected Environment ...... 60 Environmental Effects ...... 65 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination ...... 69 Preparers and Contributors ...... 69 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 69 Tribes ...... 69 Agencies ...... 69

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness i Chapter 1-Introduction Organizations...... 69 References ...... 71 Appendix A: Laws, Regulations, and Policies ...... 77 Tonto National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan ...... 78 Forest Service Manual ...... 78 Arizona Game and Fish Department Bighorn Sheep Management Guidelines ...... 85 Tables

Table 1: Occupied Bighorn Sheep Habitat within Tonto National Forest ...... 8 Table 2: Percent of Bighorn Sheep Survey Locations (GPS) within Designated Wilderness ... 9 Table 3: Maximum Number of Helicopter Landings and Days for Both Monitoring and Translocation Captures of Bighorn Sheep within Wilderness Areas ...... 16 Table 4: Comparison of Alternatives by Effects on Wilderness Character Indicators ...... 26 Table 5: Comparison of Alternatives by Bighorn Sheep Indicators ...... 27 Table 6: Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, and Proposed Species within the Project Area 32 Table 7: Critical Habitat for Federally Listed Species within the Project Area ...... 33 Table 8: Species of Greatest Conservation Need within the Project Area ...... 33 Table 9: Species Determinations within Action Area ...... 41 Table 10: Terminology used in Wilderness Characteristics Analysis ...... 51 Table 11: Summary of Effects from the No Action...... 55 Table 12: Summary of Effects from the Proposed Action ...... 60 Table 13: Hunt Applicants and Permits Issued for GMU on Tonto National Forest in 2011 .. 62

Figures

Figure 1: Map of Tonto National Forest and Wilderness Areas Proposed for Authorization of Helicopter Landing ...... 2 Figure 2: Map of Proposed Capture/Helicopter Landing Areas for the Four Peaks and Superstition Wilderness Areas ...... 17 Figure 3: Map of Proposed Capture/Helicopter Landing Areas for the Hellsgate Wilderness Area ...... 18 Figure 4: Map of Proposed Capture/Helicopter Landing Areas for the Mazatzal Wilderness Area ...... 19 Figure 5: Map of Proposed Capture/Helicopter Landing Areas for the Salt River Canyon Wilderness Area ...... 20

ii Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Introduction The Tonto National Forest proposes to authorize the use of helicopters by the Arizona Game and Fish Department within designated wilderness on the Tonto National Forest for the purposes of bighorn sheep management. Management of bighorn sheep in Arizona is a responsibility of the Arizona Game and Fish Department while authorization to land a helicopter in designated wilderness areas on the Tonto National Forest resides with the Forest Service.

Location and Description of Project Area The Tonto National Forest covers approximately 2,964,308 acres in central Arizona and is the fifth largest national forest in the National Forest System. Helicopters would be used to capture bighorn sheep within portions of the Tonto National Forest including the Four Peaks, Hellsgate, Mazatzal, Salt River Canyon, and Superstition Wilderness Areas. These wilderness areas occur within the Cave Creek, Globe, Payson, Pleasant Valley, Mesa, and Tonto Basin Ranger Districts in Gila, Maricopa, Pinal, and Yavapai counties. This action is necessary for the Arizona Game and Fish Department to meet the state’s bighorn sheep management objectives.

The project area encompasses approximately 296,225 acres of bighorn sheep habitat on the Tonto National Forest that includes portions of five designated wilderness areas: Four Peaks, Hellsgate, Mazatzal, Salt River Canyon, and Superstition Wilderness Areas. Approximately 56 percent (189,325 acres) of the project area is within designated wilderness. It ranges from the northern boundaries of the Tonto National Forest near the East Verde River to the southern boundaries of the Tonto National Forest at the Superstition Mountains (Figure 1). The project area includes a variety of vegetation communities varying from 1,500 to 6,500 feet, including, 1) upland Sonoran desertscrub, 2) semidesert grassland, 3) interior chaparral, and 4) pinyon-juniper. Optimal bighorn sheep habitat is visually open and contains steep, generally rocky, slopes (U.S. Department of Interior, 2007).

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 1

Figure 1: Map of Tonto National Forest and Wilderness Areas Proposed for Authorization of Helicopter Landing

2 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

History of Arizona’s Bighorn Sheep Population Management

Arizona’s bighorn sheep population, consisting of both Rocky Mountain and desert subspecies, is currently estimated at about 5,000 animals—a significant reduction from the numbers thought to once be present at the turn of the last century. The causes for this decline, which occurred primarily between 1860 and 1920, are thought to be from unregulated hunting and exposure to livestock-borne parasites and diseases. Throughout North America, numbers of wild bighorn sheep have declined over the last century. Beuchner (1960) estimated that in the early 1800’s there were approximately 1.5 million sheep in North America. The first reference to abundance in the United States was made by Franciscan missionaries traveling in Arizona during the period 1687-1710, at which time bighorn sheep were an important part of the diet of the Pima and Papago Native Americans in the southern part of the state. Today it is estimated that bighorn numbers have declined to less than 25,000 (deVos, 1983).

In Arizona, the decline has been equally dramatic. Early explorer James O. Pattie reported wild sheep occurred in most areas where he traveled (Davis, 1982). In the late 1800s, Merns (1907) found that bighorn were scarce; however, sheep were still found on the San Francisco Peaks and in the Verde Valley, both of which have no bighorn today. At that time, commercial harvest was still occurring in two mountain ranges in the southeastern part of the State. Russo (1956) found that wild sheep in the State had, with the exception of a few remnant populations, been extirpated from the southeastern and central portion of Arizona. He found sheep distribution to be primarily limited to mountainous areas of southern and southwestern Arizona, northward along the Colorado River into the Grand Canyon.

Now, thanks to better knowledge through scientific research and an aggressive bighorn sheep management program that has included over 100 bighorn sheep translocations since 1957, bighorn sheep numbers are gradually edging upward. In 2007, the Department conducted its one hundredth bighorn sheep transplant, having moved some 1,874 bighorn sheep (Wakeling, 2007). The beginning of modern bighorn sheep management in Arizona began with John Russo’s study in the summer of 1950 and continued for five years. Russo’s major contribution was to pave the way for legalized hunting and the eventual implementation of a trapping and transplant program. The first bighorn sheep hunt in Arizona took place in January 1953. The Arizona Game and Fish Department conducted its first bighorn sheep translocation in 1957.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department has also supported other western states bighorn sheep restoration efforts by transplanting 81 bighorn sheep to Colorado, 58 to New Mexico, 36 to Texas and 46 to Utah. The endeavor to restore the populations of these animals over the decades has required a cooperative effort between many partners and volunteers, including several federal land management agencies. Since that first bighorn sheep translocation in 1957, information, skills, and knowledge have led to advances in bighorn sheep capture techniques and identified the use of a helicopter and net gun as the preferred technique. Use of this technique has reduced morbidity and mortality resultant from the stress placed on the individual animal during capture1.

1 Arizona Game and Fish Department (2014, May 13). New! FAQs: Gaining an understanding of extirpations; evaluating release sites/habitat; and monitoring for effects of translocations on source populations. Retrieved from www.azgfd.gov/w_c/bhsheep/FAQs_CatBHS.pdf

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 3

The public’s ability to hunt this species intensified as interest in bighorn sheep management among the state’s sportsmen and brought public attention to the species’ needs (Lee, 1986). Totally protected by the territorial legislature in 1893, bighorn sheep were not legal to hunt in Arizona until 1953, when it was determined that the limited, regulated hunting of rams might be the only way to save these animals. Two limited hunts of 20 permits each were authorized, and 20 bighorn sheep rams were taken. Since then, permit numbers, the number of game management units open to hunting, the number of bighorn sheep rams taken, and hunt success have gradually increased. In 1984, Arizona began offering Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep as well as desert bighorn sheep hunts. Between 80 and 100 hunt permits are authorized each year, mostly desert bighorn sheep, with hunt success ranging between 90 and 95 percent. This number would only increase, however, when the disease problem and other limiting factors affecting bighorn sheep are brought under control (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2012a). More than 33 percent of the hunting permits offered in Arizona today are for populations reestablished through translocations (Wakeling et al., 2009).

Hunting for desert bighorn sheep in Arizona is often seen as an “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunity and the demand for bighorn sheep hunting exceeds the allowable harvest. In 2005, the odds of drawing a permit were 1:137 statewide. Hunting has been used as a population management tool for many species. Bighorn sheep hunters typically select the largest, hence the oldest, rams in the herd. In Arizona, bighorn sheep are currently harvested under a general, male-only open season. Hunters can take only one bighorn sheep of each subspecies in their lifetime and hunters must personally check out within three days following the close of the season.

All bighorn sheep that occur on the Tonto National Forest are a result of the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s bighorn sheep management program including aggressive reintroduction efforts into historic bighorn sheep habitat on the Tonto National Forest. Historically, desert bighorn sheep occupied many of the mountain ranges around the greater Phoenix area and the Tonto National Forest but most of the bighorn sheep disappeared at the turn of the century with the arrival of settlers and livestock.

Bighorn Sheep Population Management within Tonto National Forest Wilderness Areas

Four Peaks Wilderness In 1980 and 1981, the Arizona Game and Fish Department successfully reintroduced approximately 30 desert bighorn sheep at the southern end of the Mazatzal Mountains near the Four Peaks Wilderness Area, north of Apache Lake and Goat Mountain on the Tonto National Forest. This reintroduction was successful at restoring bighorn sheep into this historical habitat and in 1986, the first bighorn sheep hunting permit was authorized as the population continued to expand its range. The population peaked in 1994 at approximately 200 animals and appeared to sharply decline through 2009. Since 2009, the population has once again grown and is currently estimated at approximately 200 animals with three hunting permits authorized by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission.

Superstition Wilderness Reintroduction of desert bighorn sheep into the Superstition Mountains began in 1983 with the first release of 32 bighorn sheep at Horse Mesa. Subsequent releases were at Millsite Canyon (30

4 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

sheep, 1984), Tortilla Mountain (30 sheep in 1987; 30 sheep in 1989), and again at Horse Mesa (25 sheep in 1992). Bighorn sheep for these releases originated from the Kofa Wildlife Refuge and Plomosa Mountains of southwestern Arizona. In 1995 a supplemental release of 12 bighorn sheep took place through the use of a drop net near the shore of Canyon Lake. Bighorn sheep for this translocation originated from the Four Peaks Wilderness and marked the first time desert bighorn sheep were captured from a previously translocated population for release into another area. By 2001, bighorn sheep surveys in the Superstition Mountains indicated that the population was stable and had reached a level where the harvest of one ram was recommended for the 2002 hunting season. A significant increase in the number of bighorn sheep observed during surveys occurred in 2009 and again in 2012. In 2013 the estimated number of bighorn sheep in the Superstition Mountains was 184, and a total of four bighorn sheep permits were authorized for the 2013 hunting season.

Salt River Canyon Wilderness Since the late 1990s, the Arizona Game and Fish Department began getting reports of bighorn sheep residing near the Salt River Canyon Wilderness Area that were thought to be of the Rocky Mountain subspecies. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep have been in Arizona since at least 1971. In 1964, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep from Alberta were translocated to New Mexico along the New Mexico-Arizona border (Larsen, 1971; Ogren, 1957). Some of these animals moved west into Arizona as early as 1971(Apache County Independent News, 1971). The Arizona Game and Fish Department later supplemented this population with additional Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in 1979 and 1980 (Heffelfinger et al., 1995). Through genetics, Latch et al’s (2006) demonstrated that these Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep moved west along the Salt River drainage in south-central Arizona into the Salt River Canyon Wilderness Area during the last 30- 40 years. Population status appears to be stable at approximately 50 bighorn sheep although had reached a peak of an estimated 80 animals in 2004.

Matzatzal Wilderness and Hellsgate Wilderness From 2005-2007, the Arizona Game and Fish Department in cooperation with the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Phelps Dodge Mine, and other interested parties, captured and translocated 78 Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep to the West Clear Creek drainage from the mine near Morenci, Arizona. Of the 78 bighorn sheep released, 29 were released with Telonics (MOD- 500 VHH) radio-collars (Telonics, Mesa, AZ) to facilitate monitoring of their status, location, and survival. All of the bighorn sheep were fitted with colored ear tags in their right ear. Ear tag colors differed by year and radio-collar frequencies and ear tag color and numbers were recorded along with the estimated age and sex of each bighorn sheep. Post reintroduction monitoring results, citizen reports, and Arizona Game and Fish Department observations revealed that Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep from this reintroduction effort established populations in the northern end of the Mazatzal Wilderness Areas and the Hellsgate Wilderness Area (McCall, et al. 2011). Population status and estimates for these populations are unknown.

Arizona Game and Fish Department Game Management Program The goal of the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s game management program is to protect, restore, and manage game populations and their habitats; to maintain the natural diversity of Arizona; and to provide wildlife-oriented recreational opportunities for all present and future generations. Below are some of the core principles for Arizona’s game management program:

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 5

• Wildlife is held in the public’s trust • science is the basis for management • regulate hunting for sustainability and management • public has a voice in wildlife management decisions

These principles are the basis for North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, considered one of the most successful wildlife management models. Sustainable use of wildlife through hunting and angling are cornerstones of this model, and these activities are the primary funding source for wildlife conservation in North American, including Arizona.

Specifically, the use of hunting as a wildlife management and wildlife conservation tool arose out of a movement, led by prominent hunters near the turn of the last century, to stop over- exploitation of wildlife by market hunters and the desire to have wildlife accessible to all people. Since then, hunters have contributed billions of dollars to wildlife management that benefit countless wildlife species. These funds support wildlife management agencies which manage all wildlife species, not just those that are hunted. This unique and successful conservation paradigm is responsible for supporting a wide variety of conservation activities, including law enforcement, research, information and education, habitat management and acquisition, as well as wildlife population restoration and management. The importance of hunting to wildlife conservation in the broad sense is not tied simply to population control. Game populations are renewable resources that literally pay the bills for a far-reaching, comprehensive system of sustainable wildlife conservation that has proven itself superior to any other widely implemented model (Heffelfinger, 2013; Mahoney, 2013).

Management of Bighorn Sheep Populations Management and research of bighorn sheep depends on gathering information on habitat use and vital rates that determine population dynamics through the placement of Very High Frequency (VHF) and Global Positioning System (GPS) collars on individual bighorn sheep, as well as augmenting populations of bighorn sheep and reintroducing animals into currently unoccupied portions of their historic range. These actions require the use of helicopters in capturing and transport efforts due to the locations that bighorn sheep inhabit; remote, steep terrain with extreme seasonal temperature variations. Wilderness is designated by Congress and management of wilderness areas differs from the general forest portions of National Forest System Lands. Wilderness is a unique and vital resource; offering opportunities for primitive recreation, for scientific and educational uses, as a benchmark for ecological studies, and for the conservation of historical and natural features.

These activities are necessary for the Arizona Game and Fish Department to meet bighorn sheep management objectives. Helicopter-supported capture of bighorn sheep with net guns would occur to support both bighorn sheep population monitoring and translocation activities. Captures would include affixing VHF/GPS radio collars onto bighorn sheep allowing movements of these bighorn sheep to be monitored remotely. Translocation captures would allow for bighorn sheep to be moved into currently occupied habitat (augmentations) or into historical, unoccupied habitat (reintroductions).

In order to accomplish these actions, bighorn sheep need to be handled to take blood samples, to affix new or repair old VHF and GPS collars, and translocate selected bighorn sheep to new or existing locations. In order to capture bighorn sheep, the landing of a helicopter is needed. In this

6 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

case, helicopter activities includes the firing of hand-held net guns from the helicopter by capture specialists and brief landings to allow the capture crews to restrain and prepare the bighorn sheep for transport, and to release the bighorn sheep following data collection. Captures would be conducted at times of the year (typically during the month of November) in order to minimize the impacts to the animals both physically and socially. Some captures may occur outside of this time period if a disease outbreak is detected or to repair/replace VHF/GPS, or investigate mortalities of bighorn sheep.

Data gathered on genetic diversity, presence of disease, and overall health and reproductive status during these captures informs Arizona Game and Fish Department management decisions on which animals are suitable for translocations. Captures are needed to allow Arizona Game and Fish Department to employ an adaptive management strategy in which data collected from both collared and uncollared bighorn sheep are used to determine the best possible options in bighorn sheep population management. Sampling a representative portion of the population is required to allow monitoring of population size, vital rates, habitat use, health, and cause specific mortality. GPS and VHF collars as well as colored ear tags are used to mark those representative individuals.

Existing Condition Existing conditions describe the current management situation and environmental conditions within the project area. Additional information about existing conditions related to specific resources can be found in Chapter 3 of this document.

The United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tonto National Forest is committed to cooperating with state agencies to inventory, protect, manage, research, and plan for wildlife species found on Forest system lands (Forest Service Manual 2671.1) including designated wilderness areas. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Arizona Game and Fish Department and United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southwestern Region (2010) and the Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness (2006) provides the basic framework for statewide coordination, collaboration and cooperation between the United States Forest Service, Southwestern Region and Arizona Game and Fish Department. Guidance for project implementation including those requiring approval by the Federal administering agency are described in the Policies and Guidelines for fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness. Generally, projects requiring approval in designated wilderness may be authorized through the application of the Minimum Requirements Decision Process.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Statewide Action Plan outlines strategies and conservation actions aimed at promoting partnerships and coordinating efforts among all who hold a stake in conserving Arizona’s wildlife. While the plan addresses the full array of wildlife and habitats, it focuses on identifying and managing the wildlife and habitats that are in the greatest need of conservation. The Statewide Action Plan lists the desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana) as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The Forest Service utilizes a

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 7

list of Management Indicator Species that serve as a barometer for species viability at the forest level2.

Two unique subspecies of bighorn sheep occur on the Tonto National Forest; desert bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis mexicana) and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis canadensis). Each subspecies is unique with distinct genetic and morphological traits relative to other North American wild sheep. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep on the Tonto National Forest inhabit semi- desert grassland and pinyon-juniper habitat at elevations ranging from 3,000 feet to 6,500 feet in elevation. Desert bighorn sheep inhabit the lower Sonoran desert and semi-desert grassland habitat at elevations ranging from 1,500 feet to 4,500 feet in elevation. On the Tonto National Forest, approximately 56 percent (189,325 acres) of the occupied habitat for both subspecies is within designated wilderness areas and is not accessible by road. Table 1 displays each affected wilderness area on the Tonto National Forest and the acres of occupied bighorn sheep habitat within and outside of wilderness.

Table 1: Occupied Bighorn Sheep Habitat within Tonto National Forest

Tonto National Acres of Occupied Acres of Occupied Percent of Occupied Forest Bighorn Sheep Habitat Bighorn Sheep Bighorn Sheep Wilderness Area Outside of Wilderness Habitat Within Habitat Within Wilderness Wilderness Four Peaks 9,577.23 22,378.84 70.03 Hells Gate 158.97 7,671.89 97.97 Mazatzal 5,536.89 43,375.54 88.68 Salt River Canyon 15,384.77 19,588.57 56.01 Superstition 69,570.24 96,310.16 58.06 Parker Creek* 6,673.09 0 0 Total 106,901.19 189,325 56.46 *Parker Creek is not a designated wilderness area

Existing bighorn sheep management on the Tonto National Forest includes aerial (helicopter) population surveys, population monitoring through the use of GPS collars and remote cameras, mortality investigation, disease surveillance and monitoring through public reports and testing of captured animals, translocations, maintenance of bighorn sheep water developments, coordination with domestic sheep grazing permittees, regulated hunting, and watchable wildlife opportunities.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department has gathered bighorn sheep location information on the Tonto National Forest since bighorn sheep were reintroduced in the early 1980s. For the purposes of this analysis, only location information from 2009 to current is included as it is assumed to best represent existing condition. During the aerial surveys, GPS locations are taken of all groups of bighorn sheep that are observed and the information is recorded on a datasheet and subsequently entered into a database. From 2009 through 2012, approximately 332 bighorn sheep survey

2 The 1982 regulations implementing National Forest Management Act require that “fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area” (36 CFR 219.19).

8 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

locations have been documented on the Tonto National Forest, of which many (61 percent) occur within the designated wilderness identified (Table 2).

Table 2: Percent of Bighorn Sheep Survey Locations (GPS) within Designated Wilderness

Tonto National Number of Number Of Bighorn Percent of Bighorn Forest Bighorn Sheep Survey Locations Sheep Survey Wilderness Area Survey Locations within Wilderness Locations within Wilderness Four Peaks 122 95 78 Mazatzal 9 9 100 Salt River Canyon 37 20 54 Superstition 164 79 48 Total 332 203 61

Desired Future Condition Desired condition describes the future goals of land management on the Tonto National Forest according to the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The desired condition for wilderness is to manage for wilderness values while providing livestock grazing and providing recreation opportunities that are compatible with maintaining wilderness values and protecting resources.

The proposed actions respond to the goals and objectives outlined in the Tonto National Forest Land Management Plan (Forest Plan) which set forth desired future conditions to meet these goals and objectives. The overarching goal is that “wildlife and fish habitat elements will be recognized in all resource planning and management activities to assure coordination that provides for species diversity and greater wildlife and fish populations through improvement of habitat. Ensure that fish and wildlife habitats are managed to maintain viable populations of existing native vertebrate species. Improve habitat for selected species. Cooperate with appropriate State Fish and Wildlife agencies” (U.S. Forest Service, 1985, p. 20).

The Forest Plan includes Standards and Guidelines that are applicable to this proposal:

• Using Desired Future Condition as a guide, optimize wildlife outputs in all management units by coordination of other resource activities and direct habitat improvement projects. The goal will be to meet projected future demand for consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife use (p. 41); and • Maximize coordination with the Arizona Game and Fish Department regarding State listed species and their habitats (p. 42)

Purpose of and Need for Project The purpose of this project is to authorize the Arizona Game and Fish Department to land helicopters designated wilderness areas on the Tonto National Forest to capture bighorn sheep on the Tonto National Forest.

The need for the authorization of helicopter landings in designated wilderness areas is to create an efficient process for the Arizona Game and Fish Department to meet state population

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 9

management objectives that are tied to Arizona Game and Fish Department Bighorn Sheep Management Guidelines (2011), Arizona Game and Fish Department Final Project Implementation Priorities (2012b), the Arizona State Wildlife Action Plan (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2012c), the master Memorandum of Understanding between the Southwestern Regional Forester and the Arizona Game and Fish Department (2013), and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (2006). This direction includes:

1. Maintain the existing range of all subspecies of bighorn sheep in Arizona, and repopulate historical range through translocations. In order to meet bighorn sheep management objectives statewide, bighorn sheep need to be introduced into other identified suitable locations in the state as determined by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Translocation captures are needed to achieve bighorn sheep distribution required for a sustainable population. Bighorn sheep are naturally slow to disperse and colonize new habitat (U.S. Department of Interior, 2007). These areas are geographically isolated from current bighorn sheep populations and existing barriers to bighorn sheep movements indicate a low likelihood of natural colonization unless management action is taken to introduce bighorn sheep in these historically occupied habitats. 2. Establish self-sustaining populations of bighorn sheep at all new translocation sites. Placement and maintenance of VHF and GPS collars on captured bighorn sheep. Placement and subsequent monitoring of VHF and GPS collars on bighorn sheep is critical to gathering pertinent temporal and spatial information, seasonal movements and travel corridors, identification of lambing areas, and identification of potential barriers to movements all of which inform bighorn sheep research and management decisions. This location information also provides information related to risk of potential disease transmission between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep as the Heber-Reno domestic sheep driveway is adjacent to some bighorn sheep populations in the project area. 3. Evaluate and pursue translocation sites for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and implement further translocations as appropriate. Augment bighorn sheep populations within and near Hellsgate, Mazatzal, and Salt River Canyon Wilderness Areas. The Hellsgate, Mazatzal, and Salt River Canyon have been colonized by bighorn sheep in the last 30 years and have subsequently been identified by the Arizona Game and Fish Department as potential sites for bighorn sheep augmentations. 4. Cooperate with land management agencies, property owners, and lessees to reduce adverse effects of interactions between bighorn sheep, feral animals, domestic livestock, and predators; manage from a landscape perspective. The Arizona Game and Fish Department is an active participant in the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Wild Sheep Working Group that focuses attention on the transmission of respiratory disease from domestic sheep to wild sheep. The Working Group published “Recommendations for Domestic Sheep and Got Management in Wild Sheep Management” in July 2012. The Arizona Game and Fish Department continues to coordinate with the Tonto National Forest to minimized threats from the Heber-Reno domestic sheep driveway within and adjacent to this project area. 5. Investigate disease outbreaks whenever they occur; implement prompt action to mitigate disease transmission. All translocated sheep are tested for common bighorn sheep diseases to identify or prevent outbreaks.

10 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Proposed Action The Tonto National Forest proposes to authorize the use of helicopters by the Arizona Game and Fish Department for landing within portions the Four Peaks, Hellsgate, Mazatzal, Salt River Canyon, and Superstition Wilderness Areas for a minimum of 10 years within the Tonto National Forest. Additional information about the Proposed Action can be found in Chapter 2.

Decision Framework Given the purpose of and need for the project, the deciding official would provide a review of the proposed action and the other alternatives in order to determine whether or not to authorize helicopter landings by the Arizona Game and Fish Department within designated wilderness areas for the purposes of managing bighorn sheep.

The authority to allow an otherwise prohibited act in a wilderness area lies with the land management agency that administers the wilderness area: the Forest Service.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department has authority to manage wildlife in the public trust for the State of Arizona. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has asked for authorization from the Tonto National Forest to land helicopters in wilderness areas for the purposes of bighorn sheep management as described in the Proposed Action. The laws, regulations, and policies guiding these authorities are further explained in Appendix A.

Public Involvement On March 28, 2014 the Tonto National Forest released the proposed action and a notice of the project was published in the Arizona Capitol Times; a newspaper of general circulation. The scoping letter was also placed on the Tonto National Forest website under Schedule of Proposed Actions. Fifteen letters were sent to interested and affected parties. In addition, 22 letters were sent to different individuals representing the Yavapai-Apache Nation, Hopi Tribe, San Carlos Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Yavapai-Prescott Tribe, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Tonto Apache Tribe, and the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation. Comments to the proposed action were accepted through email, mail, fax, and hand-delivery.

The Tonto National Forest received 11 replies back from the public. Three replies were supportive of the proposed project. One supportive response encouraged the Tonto National Forest to work closely and collaboratively with the Arizona Game and Fish in bighorn sheep management similar to other western states. Comments were both supportive and critical of the proposed action. Many of the comments fell outside of the scope of the project, which is to authorize Arizona Game and Fish Department to land helicopters within designated wilderness areas on the Tonto National Forest. Concerns were raised about the relationship of the authorization of helicopter landings and the integrity of wilderness areas.

Tribal Involvement The White Mountain Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, and Hopi Tribe responded and indicated that the proposed project would not have an impact on the tribe’s historic properties and/or traditional cultural properties. Those tribes requested that if project planning and implementation resulted in the discovery of human remains and/or funerary objects that such remains and/or objects be treated with respect and handled accordingly until such remains are repatriated to the

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 11

affiliated tribe. The Tonto Apache Tribe also responded that the Tribe would be opposed to a total depopulation of bighorn sheep and insisted that a healthy population be left on site. The San Carlos Apache Tribe responded and requested that the Arizona Game and Fish Department notify the Tribe of any proposed helicopter flight dates and paths with sufficient time to allow the Tribe to determine whether there would be any disruption to ongoing hunts on tribal lands and if there were determined to be conflicts that the Arizona Game and Fish Department consider alternative flight paths.

Issues and Concerns Raised During Scoping An issue is a statement of cause and effect. Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed action and alternatives, giving opportunities during the analysis to reduce adverse effects and compare trade-offs for the decision maker and public to understand. Issues help set the scope of the actions, alternatives, and effects to consider in our analysis (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15.12.4). An overwhelming concern expressed in scoping comments was that there are no significant adverse effects as a result of action implemented under this project. The comments received during scoping pertained to three resource areas: Wilderness, Wildlife, and Recreation. Several comments requested analysis in an environmental impact statement. An Environmental Impact Statement is required for “a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment”, as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality. This environmental assessment was prepared by the Forest Service to determine whether implementation may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.

Comments from the public and other agencies submitted during the scoping period were used to formulate issues concerning the proposed action. An issue is a point of dispute or disagreement with the Proposed Action based on some anticipated environmental effect. The Tonto National Forest separated the issues into two groups: significant and non-significant. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the Proposed Action. Nonsignificant issues were identified as those:

• Outside the scope of the proposed action; • Already decided by law, regulation, policy, the forest land and resource management plan, or other higher level decision; • Irrelevant to the decision to be made; or • Conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence.

The Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations explains this delineation in Sec. 1501.7. “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review…” (Sec.1506.3).

Additionally, according to NEPA “Agencies may prepare an environmental assessment on any action at any time in order to assist agency planning and decisionmaking” (Sec.1501.3). In the case of this environmental assessment, the federal action, for which the analysis is being conducted, is the authorization to land helicopters in designated wilderness areas within the Tonto National Forest.

12 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Concerns were raised during scoping regarding the effects of the proposed action on wilderness quality characteristics, including: natural, untrammeled, undeveloped, and opportunities for solitude, primitive, and unconfined recreation.

Several indicators are used to compare the effects of the alternatives on wilderness character: 1) The number or amount of historic bighorn sheep occupied in each wilderness area; 2) The duration of a capture event and the duration of the handling of captured bighorn sheep; 3) The number of helicopter landings; and 4) The number of days over which helicopter landings would occur. Effects of the alternatives on wilderness qualities are disclosed in Chapter 3 and the Minimum Decision Requirements Guide.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 13

Chapter 2. Alternatives

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the authorization of helicopter landings for bighorn sheep management by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative (i.e., helicopter landings versus no helicopter landings) and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social, and economic effects of implementing each alternative.

Development of Alternatives There are two types of bighorn sheep captures that were analyzed and are common to both alternatives presented in this Environmental Assessment; monitoring captures and translocation captures.

Monitoring Captures - Monitoring captures include those which involve locating bighorn sheep, affixing VHF/GPS collars, and obtaining health information on individual bighorn sheep before the bighorn sheep is released on site.

Translocation Captures - Translocation captures include those captures for the purpose of augmenting existing herds or reintroducing bighorn sheep into currently unoccupied historic range and requires both the capture of individual bighorn sheep from a source population, and the transport and release of those bighorn sheep into a different area.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative 1 (No Action) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations require the no action alternative to be included as a baseline for comparison to all action alternatives. This alternative proposes no change to the existing management of bighorn sheep and no change to the authorization process for the Arizona Game and Fish Department to land helicopters in designated wilderness areas on the Tonto National Forest. In 2010 and 2012 the Arizona Game and Fish Department sought authorization to land helicopters in the Four Peaks and Superstition Wilderness Areas and the Forest Service granted such authorization through application of the Minimum Requirements Decision Process. After authorization in 2012, the Tonto National Forest indicated the need to complete an Environmental Assessment should additional helicopter landings in wilderness be necessary for bighorn sheep management. Under this alternative, the Tonto National Forest would not authorize the Arizona Game and Fish Department to land helicopters in wilderness areas, limiting the ability for the Arizona Game and Fish Department to meet bighorn sheep management objectives.

Proposed Action The Tonto National Forest proposes to authorize the use of helicopters by the Arizona Game and Fish Department within the Tonto National Forest, including landing and takeoff, in designated

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 15

wilderness areas, for the purposes of bighorn sheep management over a minimum of 10 years. Helicopters would be used to capture bighorn sheep within portions of the Four Peaks, Hellsgate, Mazatzal, Salt River Canyon, and Superstition Wilderness Areas on the Tonto National Forest. Up to 60 landings may occur in November and up to 30 landings during other times of the year; however, translocation projects typically do not occur during consecutive years. Although the number of captures and the number of helicopter landings can vary in any given year, they would not exceed 450 landings in wilderness for the 10 year duration of this project, with a maximum of 90 landings occurring per year (Table 3).

Table 3: Maximum Number of Helicopter Landings and Days for Both Monitoring and Translocation Captures of Bighorn Sheep within Wilderness Areas

Wilderness Area and Maximum Number of Helicopter Maximum Number of Days Type of Capture* Landing in any Given Year in any Given Year Four Peaks (T) 30 3 Hells Gate (M) 10 3 Mazatzal (M) 10 3 Salt River Canyon (M) 10 3 Superstition (T) 30 3 Combined Maximum for any 90 15 Given Year Combined Maximum for the 450 75 Project (10 years)^ *M = Monitoring, T = Translocation ^ Captures would not occur annually. Captures may occur at an interval of every other year in any given wilderness due to limitations on funding and conservative biological constraints for removing bighorn sheep from any one population.

The area within the Tonto National Forest wildernesses where helicopter landings could be authorized are approximately 315,861 acres total. Based on bighorn sheep survey data gathered by Arizona Game and Fish Department from 2009 to 2012, approximately 56 percent (189,325 acres) of the occupied bighorn sheep habitat occurs within wilderness areas, which would be the area that the Department is seeking authorization to land helicopters. Figure 2 through Figure 5 shows the wilderness areas and where bighorn sheep populations overlap, requiring the helicopter landing authorization.

16 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Figure 2: Map of Proposed Capture/Helicopter Landing Areas for the Four Peaks and Superstition Wilderness Areas

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 17

Figure 3: Map of Proposed Capture/Helicopter Landing Areas for the Hellsgate Wilderness Area

18 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Figure 4: Map of Proposed Capture/Helicopter Landing Areas for the Mazatzal Wilderness Area

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 19

Figure 5: Map of Proposed Capture/Helicopter Landing Areas for the Salt River Canyon Wilderness Area

20 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Monitoring Captures

Monitoring captures would include:

• Affixing new or repairing/replacing old VHF and GPS collars; • Collecting blood samples; • Monitoring individual bighorn sheep health (age, presence of diseases, pregnancy, etc.); and/or; • Bighorn sheep mortality investigations.

The captures would occur within the Hells Gate, Mazatzal, and Salt River Canyon Wilderness Areas. Monitoring captures may occur in the Four Peaks and Superstition Wilderness Areas if potential disease is detected. Monitoring captures would be conducted at times of the year (during the month of November) that minimizes the impact to the animals both physically and socially. Occasionally monitoring captures may occur at other times of the year should potential disease be detected, VHF/GPS collars fail prematurely, or mortality investigations warrant more immediate response to inform management decisions.

Helicopter landings would be planned based on current weather conditions and needs. The need for monitoring captures is based upon the repair and replacement schedule of VHF/GPS collars (the average collar life is two years). Not all wilderness areas would receive monitoring captures every year, as the needs for monitoring captures can change from year to year and depend on available funding, equipment, personnel, and weather conditions. In any given year the maximum number of days spent on monitoring capture work for all wilderness areas is nine days (three days for each wilderness) and the approximate number of helicopter landings, in any given year is 30 landings (ten collars each in Hells Gate, Mazatzal, and Salt River Canyon) (Table 3).

Translocation Captures

These captures are for population augmentation and reintroductions, and include the following

• Conduct captures in Four Peaks and Superstition Wilderness areas and; • Move captured bighorn sheep to other areas in the state as determined by the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Translocations would only occur in years where population size supports the removal of animals; therefore translocation captures may not occur every year, and may not occur in the same wilderness area every year. In any given year, a maximum of 60 helicopter landings would occur over a maximum of six days for translocation captures (Table 3).

Helicopter landings would occur when bighorn sheep are captured from the source population (Four Peaks and Superstition Wilderness Areas) and transported by helicopter to a staging area with road access which allows animals to be transported to the release site by vehicle outside of designated wilderness.

Translocation captures would be conducted typically during the month of November and would focus on a predetermined ratio of males to females. Captures would be planned based on current weather conditions and the availability of source stock. Capture periods within these source

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 21

populations would occur over a total of a one-week period, with work occurring over a one to three day period within each wilderness area. The maximum number of animals removed per year from a single source population would be approximately 30 animals.

Description of Capture Methods

Helicopter net-gun: Bighorn sheep would initially be located from a helicopter and captured by using a net gun fired from the helicopter at close range. Pursuit of any individual bighorn sheep by helicopter would be limited to no more than five minutes. Immediately after firing the net, the helicopter would land nearby and one or two crew members would exit the helicopter and restrain the bighorn sheep. No chemical immobilization is required for this technique. Captured bighorn sheep would either be transported via helicopter, using internal or external rigging, to a staging area on the Tonto National Forest or Arizona State Trust Lands (located outside of designated wilderness) or would be processed at the capture site by the capture crew and the animal would be released on site after processing. Once a bighorn sheep is captured it receives a physical examination; age and body condition (i.e., body fat) would be measured, and blood and fecal samples would be collected to survey herd health by screening for exposure to diseases and parasites loads. An Arizona Game and Fish Department wildlife health specialist would participate in all captures and translocations and would ensure the health of all animals and attend to any health concerns. Select captured bighorn sheep would be fitted with VHF or VHF/GPS collars and marked with numbered and colored ear tags. Since VHF collars have a lifespan of approximately three years and can be active for as long as five years, they would likely be on animals for the remainder of their lives. VHF/GPS collars currently in use by the Arizona Game and Fish Department are programmed to drop off automatically after two to three years. Care would be taken to ensure that the collars are fit snugly and do not slide up and down the animal's neck.

After handling is complete at the off-site processing site for translocation captures, bighorn sheep would be transported via vehicle and a specialized transport trailer to their release location, where a crew would be waiting to release the animals. After the bighorn sheep are released, the crew leaves the area. During the monitoring capture method, the processing is completed at the capture site by the capture crew and the animal is released on site after processing. Capture time for each method is approximately one to three days in each wilderness area depending on the number of bighorn sheep to be captured.

Although the number of captures and the number of helicopter landings can vary in any given year, they would not exceed the 450 landings in wilderness for the duration of this project. All monitoring and translocation captures are dependent upon multiple variables which only allow for best approximations or averages for a maximum number of landings and days spent on captures annually and over the ten year authorization period (Table 3). Population growth rates, collar condition and functionality, weather conditions, and stochastic events (collar failures, disease outbreaks, etc.) may affect the number and type of captures conducted, as would the availability of funds, equipment, and personnel. The maximum numbers presented for days and landings are based on the best information available at this time, including projected population growth rates, collar replacement schedule and Arizona Game and Fish Department experience from past capture events.

22 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Mitigation Measures and Design Features

The following criteria would be followed to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to bald and golden eagle, Mexican spotted owl and Morafka’s desert tortoise. Flights outside of the month of November would be routed to avoid any areas occupied by bald or golden eagles. At a minimum, a 2,000 foot buffer would be utilized to eliminate /minimize disturbance to bald and golden eagle breeding and/or foraging areas from December 1 through June 30. Crew and pilot would pay close attention to detect any bald or golden eagle in flight and provide any sighting information to Bald and Golden Eagle Program Managers and Forest Service District Biologist(s) and avoid near in flight misses with aircraft. Due to bald and golden eagles ability to establish new nests sites from year to year, any flights between December 1 and June 30 will be coordinated with An Arizona Game and Fish Department Nongame Raptor Management Program to ensure a 2,000 foot buffer is maintained between aircraft and bald eagle breeding and foraging areas, and golden eagle nest sites. Current species location data will help ensure a 2,000 foot buffer is achieved. Mexican spotted owl (MSO) protected activity center and other updated MSO information would be provided to the pilot and crew. Flights outside the month of November would be routed to avoid any areas occupied by MSO. At a minimum, a quarter-mile buffer would be utilized to eliminate / minimize disturbance to MSO protected activity centers. Helicopter landings would be outside of designated MSO critical habitat areas. During landings, safe helicopter operations would be utilized to include landing in areas with large amounts of bare ground to minimize potential conflicts with tortoise(s).

The following design features were created to help minimize potential adverse effects to wilderness qualities:

• Captures would be scheduled for weekdays, but in the event weather conditions or equipment and personnel availability postpone or require quick response, helicopter flights and landings may occur on a weekend. • When safe to do so and operationally feasible, flight paths would avoid trail corridors. When conducting capture activities care would be taken to avoid areas with high visitation. • Nets that miss bighorn sheep would be collected to prevent adverse effects on wilderness character and or the safety of wildlife and visitors. The helicopters would land immediately after a bighorn sheep is netted, but the helicopter would not park (i.e. turn the engine off). • Helicopters would land on bare ground whenever possible to avoid disturbing vegetation at the site. • Bighorn sheep would be processed and fitted with VHF/GPS collars outside of wilderness to avoid additional helicopter landing time in wilderness unless the intent of the capture is to release the bighorn sheep on site for monitoring purposes. • All equipment including helicopter and nets would be inspected prior to use. Any weeds, seeds, or soil will be removed prior to the project activities. • All fueling activities would occur outside wilderness areas and riparian areas, and if within the Tonto National Forest, would comply with the USDA Forest Service 2012 National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1, National Core BMP Technical Guide FS-990a.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 23

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated The National Environmental Policy Act requires Federal agencies 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). Public comments received in response to the proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of this analysis, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, one alternative was considered but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below.

Non-motorized, Ground-Based Capture Alternative This alternative was developed in response to scoping comments provided by the public regarding potential adverse effects to wilderness qualities. In order to reduce effects from motorized use within wilderness areas, this alternative would only allow for non-motorized, ground-based captures within wilderness areas.

The Tonto National Forest recognizes that the Arizona Game and Fish Department maintains the authority and management responsibility for managing bighorn sheep; therefore, may manage bighorn sheep within wilderness boundaries with the use of management tools that may or may not require authorization for prohibited uses (i.e., helicopter landings). In order to fully compare the effects of these capture methods on wilderness quality and wildlife, this alternative describes what activities Arizona Game and Fish Department may conduct in designated wilderness areas, if they are not permitted to land helicopters associated with helicopter net-gun captures of bighorn sheep.

Monitoring and translocation captures would be conducted with the use of chemical immobilization darts (dart gun) or drop-net methods as described below. The feasibility of using chemical immobilization dart (dart gun) or drop-net methods is dependent upon: capture areas being located adjacent to roads so capture crews can easily access the site, ensuring the capture area is being used by bighorn sheep, length of time each method would take in capturing bighorn sheep, and the number of bighorn sheep captured during each capture event. Chemical immobilization darts and drop-net captures would occur from June through December, and although they would take several weeks, would cease before lambing season (January - March). Captures may occur in each wilderness identified in Chapter 1 every two years over a ten-year period.

There are two methods of capturing bighorn sheep proposed under this alternative; these include chemical immobilization dart (dart gun) and drop-net methods. Each capture method would include the same techniques in gathering data once a bighorn sheep is captured. This involves: each bighorn sheep receiving a physical examination; age and body condition (i.e., body fat) would be measured, and blood and fecal samples would be collected to survey herd health by screening for exposure to diseases and parasite loads. An Arizona Game and Fish Department wildlife health specialist many not be able participate in all captures and translocations. Captured bighorn sheep would be fitted with VHF and/or GPS collars and marked with numbered and colored ear tags. VHF and GPS collars have a lifespan of approximately two years and care would be taken to ensure that the collars are fit snugly and do not slide up and down the animal's neck.

24 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Chemical immobilization Dart (dart gun): The capture method involves the use of chemical immobilization drugs and equipment to capture bighorn sheep. Supplies and equipment would be transported along roads adjacent to capture locations.

Generally, this capture method is associated with capturing individual animals for safety reasons or herd specific information such as disease testing. It may not be feasible to reach remote areas of a wilderness because of rugged terrain. Careful selection of the proper age and sex cohort of bighorns may not be possible with this capture method. Stress and mortality rates of bighorn sheep are generally higher with the use of chemical immobilization drugs. The distance the animal moves after darting can be significant and hazardous, especially in bighorn sheep habitat. Only one bighorn sheep can be captured at one time; therefore, the ability to capture multiple animals may take several weeks or months. This time would include time between locating the target animal, determining if that animal could be reached, and if immobilized, the time to transport each animal for recovery and release on site or for transport for translocation.

Drop net: Drop net captures involve catching groups of bighorn sheep by dropping a net on them after luring into a specific area. Supplies and equipment would be transported along roads adjacent to capture locations or by helicopter in remote locations.

A crew of ten to twenty-five people is needed to set up the drop net station and conduct the capture. The crew may be present within each drop net station area for a few days at a time while they set up the station and conduct the capture. At least three crew members would visit the drop- net station, daily, to observe bighorn activity and replace bait. The net station is established for approximately six weeks. Capture success is often dependent on bighorn sheep being concentrated in a specific area, either due to water or artificial feed. Usually, this is during the hottest time of the year (June-August) when bighorn sheep, if under stress, can be lured to water or feed. Carefully selecting the proper age and sex cohort of bighorns is not possible and stress and mortality rates to bighorns are higher. Baiting bighorn sheep to a specific site to place a drop net requires weeks and sometimes months of conditioning bighorn sheep to visiting a specific location for food.

The drop net capture area is approximately 20 feet by 20 feet. Some vegetation may be trimmed or removed to allow for nets to effectively capture bighorn sheep (i.e. nets completely touch the ground when released). Bait consists of hay, which would be certified weed free. After bighorn are observed using the area, the net is suspended above the bait by poles. The crew then waits a few days more for the bighorn sheep to use the area again once they are used to the presence of the net. Once the crew determines the bighorn sheep are comfortable with the presence of the drop net station the net is dropped on top of the sheep. Once caught in the net, the bighorn sheep would be restrained, health data collected, and then fitted with VHF and/or GPS collars and marked with numbered and colored ear tags. After processing the bighorn sheep would be released at the capture site or transported for translocation and all capture equipment would be taken down and removed from the site. This constant activity and placement of a drop net would have a relatively long-term adverse effect on wilderness. A road, use of helicopters, or some other means must still be used to transport the bighorn sheep form the capture area.

Rationale for Elimination Although these capture methods would reduce motorized use within wilderness areas, this alternative would not meet Arizona Game and Fish Department’s game management objectives:

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 25

• The ability to capture specific bighorn sheep for the purposes of replacing collars would be difficult. • The ability to capture the amount of animals needed for a successful translocation would not be met. • Bighorn sheep population reintroductions would be unreasonably limited as there would not be a safe method for transporting bighorn sheep out of some wilderness areas. • The total cost of the project would be prohibitive (Arizona Game and Fish Department would not be able to fund the number of needed personnel to be able to meet bighorn sheep management objectives regarding the distribution and population numbers within a reasonable time period). • The risk of injury or mortality to bighorn sheep is higher if using only drop nets as more animals may be captured than personnel can handle safely. • Arizona Game and Fish Department requires having a wildlife health specialist present during capture events and a large number of personnel are required to conduct drop-net captures (5-20); these personnel may not be available during the time (a few days to six weeks) when capturing would occur, limiting the time period during which captures could occur and reducing the ability to capture all animals necessary to meet project objectives.

Comparison of Alternatives This section compares the alternatives by indicators for wilderness qualities. Wilderness indicators included quantifiable data for effects to the four qualities of wilderness character (Table 4). Information in the following table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 4: Comparison of Alternatives by Effects on Wilderness Character Indicators

Wilderness Quality Analysis Indicator No Action Proposed Action Natural Quality Number of bighorn sheep 0 5 populations augmented or reintroduced Untrammeled Quality Duration of capture event that 1-6 weeks 1-3 days manipulates or controls bighorn sheep annually per wilderness area

Duration of individual bighorn 30 - 130 30 minutes sheep being handled minutes

Undeveloped Quality Number of helicopter landings per 0 90 per year year Duration of capture event in given 1-6 weeks for 1-3 days for wilderness area each capture each capture event event

26 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Wilderness Quality Analysis Indicator No Action Proposed Action Outstanding opportunities for Number of days helicopter 0 15 maximum solitude or a primitive and landings would occur per year unconfined type of recreation Duration of capture event in a 1-6 weeks for 1-3 days for given wilderness area each capture each capture event event

Alternatives are also being compared to show their ability to meet Arizona Game and Fish Department population objectives (Table 5).

Table 5: Comparison of Alternatives by Bighorn Sheep Indicators

Project Objective (Indicator) Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Helicopter Capture Maintaining VHF/GPS collars on bighorn sheep populations in select wilderness areas. Percentage of bighorn sheep 0 10% collared (currently 10% collared) over 10-year period Augmentations to previously identified bighorn sheep populations in the state Number of animals placed over 10- 0 Up to 150 (Five captures of 30 year period bighorn sheep) Reintroductions to historic bighorn sheep populations in the state Number of animals placed over a 0 Up to 150 (Five captures of 30 10-year period bighorn sheep)

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 27

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This chapter summarizes the physical, historic, cultural, ecological, social, and economic effects of the alternative actions on the natural and human environment. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are disclosed by resource area. The resource areas analyzed in this chapter are Wilderness, Recreation, Wildlife, and Cultural Resources. Effects to other resources are insignificant. Each section in this chapter provides a summary of the project-specific reports, assessments, and input prepared by Forest Service resource specialists that are incorporated by reference in this Environmental Assessment. A Minimum Decision Requirement Guide along with this Environmental Assessment was created to analyze the effects of helicopter landings in wilderness.

The Affected Environment section for each resource topic describes the existing or baseline condition against which environmental effects are evaluated and from which progress toward the desired condition can be measured. The Environmental Consequences section for each resource topic discusses direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, and applicable mitigation measures. Effects can be neutral, beneficial, or adverse. Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives through compliance with standards set forth in the 1985 Tonto National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended, with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976. The Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources section is at the end of this chapter.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative effects are considered for all alternatives and are presented for each issue.

The Cumulative Effects Area (CEA) was established for each resource and varies between resources. The analysis considers present and reasonably foreseeable future actions which occur within the same temporal and spatial scale and which have the same type of effect as described in direct and indirect effects as the alternatives. The time frame for the analysis is focused on the fall (November) months over the minimum ten year authorization period.

Past Actions In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects.

The following past activities are described in detail because they have similar direct and indirect effects to bighorn sheep and wilderness qualities and occur during the same timeframe as the

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 29

proposed action and are located within portions of the Four Peaks, Hellsgate, Mazatzal, Salt River Canyon and Superstition Wilderness areas.

Bighorn sheep captures on the Tonto National Forest (1995-2012) - Arizona Game and Fish Department bighorn sheep management actions have led to increases in the population and distribution of bighorn sheep on the Tonto National Forest since the 1980’s when populations were reintroduced into several areas (Goat Mountain, Mazatzal Mountains, Painted Cliffs, and Superstition Mountains). Over the past several decades, through the use of management and research tools, such as capturing with helicopters and drop nets, bighorn sheep have expanded to several distinct populations distributed widely throughout historic ranges within the Tonto National Forest. Subsequent bighorn sheep population monitoring has allowed the Arizona Game and Fish Department to further understand bighorn sheep habitat use, population distribution, and genetic diversity between each subpopulation. This knowledge informs management decisions regarding translocation and reintroduction efforts.

For a more detailed description of past bighorn sheep management actions conducted by Arizona Game and Fish Department in these wilderness areas see Chapter 1.

Current Actions Actions which are occurring or have the potential to occur within portions of the Four Peaks, Hellsgate, Mazatzal, Salt River Canyon, and Superstition Wilderness areas throughout each year are described below.

Arizona Game and Fish Department Bighorn Sheep Management- Arizona Game and Fish Department would continue to monitor bighorn sheep populations, animal health, habitat use and identify movement corridors primarily through the use helicopter surveys and GPS/VHF radio telemetry tracking collars. Secondary monitoring may be conducted through the use of telemetry by ground surveys, fixed-wing aircraft, and helicopter flights, surveys and captures. Ground telemetry monitoring may occur throughout the year when weather conditions allow and by aircraft flights typically in the fall through spring when equipment and funding are available. Over the next ten years, Arizona Game and Fish Department has planned management activities as detailed within this environmental assessment.

Currently, GPS/VHS telemetry radio tracking collars are attached to three (3) bighorn sheep within the Hellsgate Wilderness and are primarily monitored through downloadable data via satellite transmissions.

Past and current threats to bighorn sheep populations include mountain lion, coyote, bobcat and eagle predation, human disturbance, and the potential for disease transmission from domestic sheep. Past and current use of the Heber-Reno Sheep Driveway continues to pose a threat of contact (and subsequent disease transmission) between domestic and bighorn sheep in portions of the project area. Selective mountain lion control has occurred in some areas to reduce predation.

In addition to the primary threats above, poaching, roadkills, and capture-related deaths have resulted in individual bighorn sheep mortality. Even though the mortality events from these threats have not resulted in substantial effects to the population of bighorn sheep on the Tonto National Forest, Arizona Game and Fish Department anticipates that additional time to reach viable, self-sustaining bighorn sheep populations and achieving management objectives may be

30 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

increased and additional actions and regulatory mechanisms may need to be in place to ensure continued conservation.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Actions which have the potential to occur within the portions of the Four Peaks, Hellsgate, Mazatzal, Salt River Canyon and Superstition Wilderness areas during select years are described below.

Hellsgate Wilderness Area Bighorn Sheep Research and Monitoring Project: In November 2012, GPS/VHS telemetry radio collars were affixed to three (3) bighorn sheep within Hellsgate Wilderness Area and are currently monitored through downloadable data via satellite transmissions. Funding has been secured by the Arizona Game and Fish Department to affix up to eight (8) additional GPS/VHF radio telemetry tracking collars on bighorn sheep within portions of the Mazatzal and Hellsgate Wilderness areas in November 2014 and potentially additional years dependent on need for further data collection and research.

Salt River Canyon Wilderness Area Bighorn Sheep Study Project: Bighorn sheep populations within and adjacent to the Salt River Canyon Wilderness in Game Management Units 23 and 24A have been documented by Arizona Game and Fish Department and private parties for approximately 30 years. During 2004, the Arizona Game and Fish Department captured and affixed VHF radio telemetry collars on four bighorn sheep within this area to gather information on movement corridors and habitat use. Helicopter surveys performed since 2006 have shown a steady decrease in the estimated bighorn sheep population in this area and further research is needed. A more comprehensive approach is desired, utilizing modern technology to determine the health and viability of the bighorn sheep herds in this area. Pending approval and funding over the next ten years, the Arizona Game and Fish Department plans further research to outfit bighorn sheep with GPS/VHF tracking collars within this area.

Other Bighorn Sheep Translocation, Research, and Monitoring Projects: Additional projects that may occur within the foreseeable future may include: capture efforts within the Four Peaks and Superstition Wilderness areas to translocate bighorn sheep according to the “Evaluation of Bighorn Sheep Habitat in Arizona” (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2000) and also described in “The Desert Bighorn Sheep in Arizona” (Cunningham, 1989).

Legal and Regulatory Compliance The National Environmental Policy Act directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with …other environmental review laws and executive orders” (40 CFR 1502.25(a)). Each resource section includes a list of applicable laws, regulations, policies, and executive orders that are relevant to that resource. Surveys, analyses, and findings required by those laws may also be addressed in each of those sections.

Plant and Wildlife Habitat Resources This section summarizes existing conditions and effects from all alternatives to threatened and endangered species, critical habitats and critical habitats considered, Forest Service sensitive species, other animal species considered, management indicator species, and migratory bird priority species that may occur or may have habitat within the project area.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 31

Affected Environment Federally listed species are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1974. The goal of this act is to protect imperiled species from extinction. Forest Service’s objective is to achieve species recovery objectives, so that special protection measures provided under the Endangered Species Act are no longer necessary. Candidates are those species for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has enough information on file to propose listing as threatened or endangered but listing has been precluded by other agency priorities. A proposed species includes any species proposed in the Federal Register to be listed under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. Critical habitat is a term defined and used specific to geographic areas that contain features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. The federally listed, candidate, proposed species, and critical habitats within the wilderness areas identified within the project area on the Tonto National Forest are shown Table 6 and Table 7.

Table 6: Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, and Proposed Species within the Project Area

Within Project Common name Scientific name Status* Area Flycatcher, southwestern No Empidonax traillii extimus E willow

Owl, Mexican spotted Strix occidentalis lucida T Yes

Rail, Yuma clapper Rallus longirostris yumanensis E No

Sucker, razorback Xyrauchen texanus E No

Topminnow, Gila Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis E No

Gartersnake, narrow-headed Thamnophis rufipunctatus PT No

Gartersnake, northern Thamnophis eques megalops No PT Mexican

Cuckoo, western yellow-billed Coccyzus americanus occidentalis P No

Lithobates chiricahuensis T No Frog, Chiricahua leopard

Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. No Cactus, Arizona hedgehog arizonicus E

Cyprinodon macularius No Pupfish, desert E

Tortoise, Sonoran desert Goperus morafkai C Yes

Chub, Headwater Gila nigra C No

Chub, Roundtail Gila robusta C No

* E—endangered; T—threatened; C—Candidate; P—proposed

32 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Table 7: Critical Habitat for Federally Listed Species within the Project Area

Common name Scientific name

Flycatcher, southwestern willow Empidonax traillii extimus

Owl, Mexican spotted Strix occidentalis lucida

Gartersnake, narrow-headed Thamnophis rufipunctatus

Gartersnake, northern Mexican Thamnophis eques megalops

Minnow, Loach Tiaroga cobitis

Spikedace Meda fulgida

Sucker, Razorback Xyrauchen texanus

Frog, Chiricahua Leopard Lithobates chiricahuensis

Other Species Considered

The Arizona Game and Fish Department operates under the State Wildlife Action Plan that provides a comprehensive vision for managing Arizona’s fish, wildlife, and wildlife habitats. The State Wildlife Action Plan is unlike existing recovery plans and other regulatory documents in that it builds on and complements existing plans and wildlife conservation projects that are already underway. The plan outlines strategies and conservation actions aimed at promoting partnerships and coordinating efforts among all who hold a stake in conservation Arizona’s wildlife. The plan focuses on identifying and managing the wildlife and habitats that are in the greatest need of conservation. The plan is a living document that incorporates a system to integrate data in a centralized relational database of over 400 geospatial data layers, a number of complex spatial models displayed by HabiMap Arizona. Table 8 lists brief descriptions and locations of the species of greatest conservation need (includes Forest sensitive species), excluding those already included previously (threatened, endangered, candidate, proposed) within the identified wilderness areas within the project area on the Tonto National Forest.

Table 8: Species of Greatest Conservation Need within the Project Area

Common name Scientific name

Eagle, bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Eagle, golden Aquila chrysaetos

Sucker, desert Catostomus clarkii

Sucker, Sonora Catostomus insignis

Falcon, American peregrine Falco peregrinus anatum

Frog, lowland leopard Lithobates yavapaiensis

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 33

Common name Scientific name

Snapdragon, Mapleleaf false Mabrya acerifolia

Goshawk, northern Accipiter gentilis

Alum Root, Eastwood Heuchera eastwoodiae

Bat, Pale Townsend’s big-eared Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens

Indian Mallow, Pima Abutilon parishii

Fleabane, Mollogon Erigeron anchana

Vetch, Alamos Deer Lotus alamosanus

Mexican Spotted Owl The historic range of the Mexican spotted owl extended from the southern Rocky Mountains in Colorado and the Colorado Plateau in southern Utah, southward through Arizona, New Mexico, and far western Texas, through the Sierra Madre Occidental and Oriental, to the mountains at the southern end of the Mexican Plateau. The present range is thought to be similar to the historic range.

In Arizona the species is patchily distributed in forested mountains statewide, along with steep canyons on the Colorado Plateau including the Grand Canyon. They have been found in the following counties: Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2005).

Habitat Requirements They primarily breed in dense old growth mixed-conifer forests located on steep slopes, especially deep, shady ravines. These sites have high canopy closure, high basal area, many snags, and many downed logs. For foraging, multistoried forest with many potential patches is desirable. In Arizona, they occur primarily in mixed-conifer, pine-oak, and evergreen oak forests; also occurs in ponderosa pine forest and rocky canyonlands. In Arizona, they generally foraged more than or as frequently as expected (based on availability) in virgin mixed-conifer forests. Range size for single owls in Arizona averages 1,600 acres and combined home ranges occupied by pairs averages 2,000 acres.

MSO nest and roost primarily in closed-canopy forests or rocky canyons. In the northern portion of the range (southern Utah and Colorado), most nests are in caves or on cliff ledges in steep- walled canyons. Elsewhere, nests appear to be in trees. Nest trees are usually large in size, whereas roosting occurs in both large and small trees. Nest tree species vary somewhat among areas and habitat types, but available evidence suggests that Douglas-fir is the most common species of nest tree (HDMS, 2005).

Status of the Species in the Action Area The Four Peaks and Mazatzal Wilderness contains known documented occurrences and designated critical habitat of Mexican spotted owl. The most recent documented occurrence of the owl in the Mazatzal Wilderness was recorded in 2003. Six protected activity areas occur within

34 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

the designated critical habitat within the Mazatzal wilderness boundary. The documented occurrence within the Four Peaks Wilderness was last recorded in 1994. One protected activity center occurs within the designated critical habitat within the Four Peaks wilderness boundary. One protected activity center occurs in the Superstition Wilderness.

The other wilderness areas identified in the proposed action do not contain occurrences and/or critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl.

Morafka’s Desert Tortoise The distribution of the desert tortoise covers the broadest range of latitude, climate, habitats, and biotic regions of any North American tortoise. The tortoise ranges from northern Sinaloa north to southern Nevada and southwestern Utah, and from south central California east to southeastern Arizona. The desert tortoise is divided into 2 populations for purposes of the Endangered Species Act: the threatened Mojave population occurs north and west of the Colorado River, and the candidate Sonoran population occurs south and east of the Colorado River.

In Arizona the Sonoran desert tortoise (SDT) population includes those tortoises south and east of the Colorado River, from locations near Pearce Ferry in Mohave County, to the south beyond the International Boundary, and at many scattered locations in between. The northeastern-most SDT records in Arizona occur along the Salt River near Roosevelt Lake in Gila County, although populations here have not been confirmed with recent observations. The middle San Pedro River drainage in Cochise County harbors the eastern-most substantial SDT populations. Desert tortoise observations have been confirmed in extreme southeastern Cochise County, but most probably represent released captives (pets). Sonoran desert tortoises have been found as far southwest as the Barry M. Goldwater Range, Yuma Proving Ground, and the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge.

Habitat Requirements Adequate shelter is one of the most important habitat features of tortoises in the Sonoran Desert (Averill-Murray et al., 2002). Tortoises escape extreme temperatures in shelters, which stay cooler in the summer and warmer in winter than outside temperatures. Tortoises require loose soil in which to excavate (usually shallow) burrows below rocks and boulders, but they may also use rock crevices which they may or may not be able to modify. Tortoises occasionally burrow under vegetation, less often dig soil burrows on more or less open slopes, and also use caliche caves in incised wash banks. They will also rest directly under live or dead vegetation without constructing a burrow.

Activity begins in the spring as temperatures warm, then decreases as the season moves into the summer drought in May and June (Averill-Murray et al., 2002). Much more time is spent inactive in shelters where they conserve water and energy. The onset of the summer monsoon season signals the beginning of peak tortoise activity, with tortoises responding to summer rains to rehydrate and establish positive moisture and energy balances, dramatically rising in early August and peaking during August-September (Averill-Murray et al., 2002). Activity decreases sharply after mid-October, as tortoises withdraw to winter hibernacula, which are similar shelters to those they use during activity seasons (Averill-Murray et al., 2002). Even during the winter, some individuals may bask, move, or even forage on warm winter days. Females may terminate hibernation as early as late February, while some males may remain inactive through the entire spring (Bailey, 1992; Martin, 1995; Vaughan, 1984).

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 35

Males typically reach larger sizes than females throughout the Sonoran Desert and sexual maturity is attained at sizes as small as 176 mm. Various carnivores, including mountain lion (Puma concolor), coyote (Canus latrans), kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), and bobcat (Felis rufus), may prey on hatchlings, juveniles, or eggs, or kill adults by chewing exposed limbs. Other potential predators of smaller tortoises include golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and the common raven (Corvus corax).

Status of the Species in the Action Area Documented occurrences and suitable habitat occurs within the Four Peaks, Mazatzal, and Superstition Wilderness areas.

Bald Eagle Historically, the bald eagle was widespread across North America, mainly Canada and the United States of America. Post European settlement, the species began a significant decline in the late 1800s. The subsequent use of the insecticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) nearly brought the species to extinction before it was banned as a pesticide in the United States in 1973. After decades of conservation and management, the species is now common throughout much of the species’ historic range.

In Arizona before the 1970s, there was little information about the size and condition of the bald eagle breeding population. With the exception of two breeding areas, nesting bald eagles occur within one mile of water. Currently, nesting areas are located along: Burro, Canyon, Cibecue, Oak, Pinal, Tangle, Tonto, and Walnut creeks; Alamo, Apache, Bartlett, Crescent, Greer, Horseshoe, Lower Lake Mary, Luna, Lynx, Pleasant, Roosevelt, Saguaro, San Carlos, Talkalai, and Woods Canyon lakes or reservoirs; and the Agua Fria, Bill Williams, Little Colorado, Gila, Salt, San Carlos, San Francisco, and Verde rivers. Wintering populations of bald eagles occur statewide (Corman, 2005).

Habitat Requirements Breeding bald eagles are found near lakes, reservoirs, and perennial rivers throughout central Arizona where they perch in large riparian trees, pines, or on cliffs. Occupied breeding areas typically contain inaccessible substrates in which to construct their nests and nearby foraging areas with an abundance of prey items. Sixty-eight percent of Arizona’s bald eagle breeding areas were located along lowland desert riparian corridors irregularly dominated by cottonwoods, willows, or sycamores. Many of these were near large reservoirs. An additional 20 percent were in pinyon pine/juniper-dominated areas and 12 percent were in ponderosa pine forests (Corman, 2005).

Status of species in the action area • 27 bald eagle breeding areas occurred on the Tonto Forest in 2014 (McCarty, 2014) • Wintering bald eagles occur within the Verde / Salt Rivers and Tonto Creek. • 2013 documented occurrences of eagles were recorded in the Verde and East Verde Rivers within the Mazatzal Wilderness boundary. • 2013 documented occurrences of eagles were recorded on the Salt River, Apache and Canyon Lakes bordering the Four Peaks Wilderness boundary.

36 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

• 2013 documented occurrences of eagles were recorded in the Salt River within the Salt River Canyon Wilderness. • 2012 occurrences were documented just southeast of Hellsgate Wilderness within Tonto Creek. • 2013 documented occurrences were recorded on the northwest corner of the Superstition Wilderness boundary at Canyon Lake.

Golden Eagle Braun et al. (1975) proposed as many as 100,000 individuals in North America in the 1970s. Olendorff et al. (1981), using data from USFWS aerial transect surveys in 1974-1978 and other data sources, estimated the wintering population of golden eagles in the western U.S. at 63,242 birds, with a potential 20,500 North American breeding pairs. Watson (1997) estimated the number of breeding pairs at 20,000-25,000 in North America. In 2003 the USFWS contracted with Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) to complete golden eagle aerial line transect surveys across much of the species’ range in the western United States, with an estimated 27,392 golden eagles within the entire study area (Good et al. 2004; 2007). More recently, the surveys were expanded and repeated in 2006-2011, and estimates ranged from 18,858 to 24,206 total golden eagles within the study area (Nielson et al,. 2012). Millsap et al. (2013) presented a composite analysis using the transect data in conjunction with Breeding Bird Survey data. Their results yielded similar population size estimates and further analyses indicated a generally stable population across the western U.S. over the past 40 years.

In Arizona, information on breeding golden eagles is limited. Studies have reported on golden eagle productivity in west-central Arizona (Millsap, 1981), prey remains in nests (Eakle and Grubb, 1986), and nest structure (Grubb and Eakle, 1987). The Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas (Corman and Wise-Gervais, 2005) found possible, probable, or confirmed evidence of breeding golden eagles in 187 of 1,834 (10.2 percent) priority blocks. Additional data was gathered during a 2006 Arizona Game and Fish Department survey effort, which found 14 occupied nests among 85 surveyed locations that had been identified as historic or current breeding areas. The Arizona Game and Fish Department December 2013 NGTR 277: Golden Eagle Nest Survey 2013 Page 2

2006 survey protocol, however, was limited to only 2 visits, in mid-April and mid-June, so occupancy-only and early failures were likely missed (Arizona Game and Fish Department, unpublished data).

Intensive statewide nest surveys began in 2011, when the Bureau of Land Management funded Arizona Game and Fish Department to conduct a two-year baseline inventory of potential nest sites primarily within and adjacent to proposed wind and solar energy project areas. In 2011- 2012, Arizona Game and Fish Department surveyed suitable cliff-nesting golden eagle habitat via helicopter in western, northern, central, and southeastern Arizona, visiting 85 breeding areas (BAs) or historic BAs, and finding 67 new BAs and 305 potential BAs (McCarty and Jacobson, 2011, 2012). Additional funding was provided by Bureau of Land Management for aerial occupancy surveys in 2013-2014 of known and potential BAs, and by the U.S. Forest Service for a nest inventory in 2013 of the Tonto National Forest.

The 2013 golden eagle occupancy and nest survey effort totaled 122.9 hours (7,374 minutes) over 26 days, and included the examination of 75 breeding areas (BAs), 10 historic BAs, 114 potential BAs, and new suitable cliff nest habitat throughout Arizona. Surveys occurred in the northwest,

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 37

central, and north central regions of the state. Significant findings included 101 total occupied BAs including 57 new BAs, and 62 new potential BAs with 84 large nests. Also, 45 active nests were opportunistically followed either to failure or through the early nestling stage, and 21 of these were confirmed failed (46.7 percent). All but one of the failures occurred after onset of incubation but prior to detection of hatching.

Of 75 BAs examined, 42 (56.0 percent) were found occupied by golden eagles and 33 (44.0 percent) were unoccupied. Among the occupied sites, 39 were active. When these breeding attempts were last observed, four were documented as successful (four nestlings seen at 80% of fledging age), 25 were still active, and 10 failed. All of the failures occurred after incubation was observed but prior to detection of hatching. Six other BAs were only checked once and were not included in summaries (two visits minimum to determine occupancy status).

Of 10 historic BAs examined, 2 (20.0 percent) were found occupied by golden eagles and 8 (80.0 percent) were unoccupied. Final status was not determined at the two active historic BAs, however at least 1 nestling hatched and reached 7 weeks of age. Five other historic BAs were only checked once and were not included in summaries (two visits minimum to determine occupancy status).

Of 114 potential BAs examined, 37 (32.5 percent) were found occupied by golden eagles and 77 (67.5 percent) were unoccupied. Among the occupied sites, 31 were active. When these breeding attempts were last observed, one was documented as successful (one nestling fledged), 20 were still active, and ten (32.3 percent) failed. All but one of the failures occurred after incubation was observed but prior to detection of hatching.

Of 20 newly discovered occupied BAs, 19 were active. When these breeding attempts were last observed, one was documented as successful (one nestling fledged and one foster-fledged), 17 were still active, and one (5 percent) failed prior to detection of hatching.

Habitat Requirements They are usually found in open country, in prairies, arctic and alpine tundra, open wooded country, and barren areas, especially in hilly or mountainous regions. They nest on rock ledges, cliffs or in large trees. The pair may have several alternate nests and they may use the same nests in consecutive years or shift to alternate nest used in different years. In Arizona they are found in mountainous areas and are virtually vacant after breeding in some desert areas. (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2011.)

The Golden Eagle’s territory size in several areas of the western U.S. averaged 22 to 55 square miles (57 to 142 square kilometers). Northernmost populations withdraw southward for the winter (some individuals may remain in the north) and they return to their northern breeding areas in March through April. They tend to vacate hot deserts during the summer. They can dive at tremendous speeds at a prey animal or in play, traveling in its stoop at an estimated speed of 150 to 200 miles per hour. Their flight speed during gliding and flapping is 28 to 32 miles per hour.

Status of the Species in the Action Area • 32 golden eagle breeding areas occurred on the Tonto Forest in 2014 (McCarty, 2014). • An additional 49 potential golden eagle breeding areas occurred on the Tonto Forest in 2014 (McCarty, 2014).

38 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Environmental Effects

Mexican Spotted Owl The 2012 Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) Recovery Plan provides the following account of potential noise disturbance:

Infrequent, noise-producing activities are generally assumed to have relatively little long-term impact on spotted owls. However, owls will react to noise disturbances by changing behavior and/or flushing from their perches (Delaney et al., 1999a; Swarthout and Steidl 2001, 2003). These behavioral responses may alter nesting and roosting activities, thus increasing vulnerability to predators and heat-related stress. Variables such as distance to and frequency of a noise disturbance, habitat type, topography, and sound source may influence spotted owl responses (Delaney and Grubb, 2004).

For example, noises close to nests are likely to be more disruptive than those far from nests (Delaney et al., 1999a) and noise disturbances close (96 m [315 ft]) to owl nests may have affected prey delivery rates Delaney et al. (1999b). Also with respect to distance and noise levels, Delaney et al. (1999a) determined that the proportion of owls flushing was negatively related to distance (owls flushed more often to closer sounds) and positively related to noise level (owls flushed more often to louder sounds). Pater et al. (2009) quantified this in part by determining that noises great than or equal to 80 dBO (i.e., decibels weighted for middle sound frequencies where owl hearing is the most sensitive), had a greater than 0.60 probability of causing an owl to flush). This noise level (80 dBO) is roughly equivalent to 69 dBA (i.e., decibels weighted for human hearing) or approximately twice as loud as ordinary conversation. The origin or type of noise may also be a factor in disturbing owls. Mexican spotted owls in forested environments reacted more to chainsaws (operated out of sight of owls) than to the sound of helicopters at the same distance (Delaney et al., 1999a).

While little research is available comparing the relative impact of various noise types, it is likely that persistent noises are more disruptive than infrequent disturbances, and intensity of disturbance is proportional to noise level (i.e., sound volume). There is also the potential for noise pollution (i.e., consistent noise-causing activities as opposed to the sporadic noise disturbances discussed above) to impact spotted owl nocturnal breeding and foraging habits. Because owls are active at night when it is difficult or impossible to see other owls, audio communication is a critical component of the owl’s social system (Frid and Dill, 2002; e.g., territorial defense, pair bonding and maintenance, feeding nestlings, and post-fledging activities). Further, owls depend heavily on sound to locate and capture prey in near darkness (Payne, 1971; Martin, 1986; Norberg, 1987). No studies have been conducted on the influence of habitat type (canyon versus forest) on noise disturbance to owls. While both forest- and canyon-dwelling owls respond to human presence, potentially disruptive interactions between humans and owls may be more likely in canyons because canyons can amplify noises (especially in caves) and provide limited escape routes for owls. In addition, the number of sites in canyons that afford spotted owls adequate thermal protection for nesting and roosting may be more limited than in forested environments. Finally, canyons may lack visual barriers between owls and noise sources that are common in dense forests, and this also may influence owl responses. Noise impacts are most likely to occur at the level of individual owls and/or PACs, and they may be important to small isolated populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, 2012).

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 39

Up to 60 flights may occur during the month of November, prior to breeding and incubation. Up to 30 flights may occur any other time of the year. Conservation measures described for MSO are intended to minimize potential effects of helicopter flights and landings. MSO protected activity centers and other updated MSO information will be provided to the pilot and crew. Flights outside the month of November will be routed to avoid any areas known to be occupied by MSO. At a minimum, a ¼ mile buffer will be utilized to eliminate / minimize disturbance to MSO protected activity center. Flights will occur only during daylight hours which would not impact the species nocturnal breeding, foraging habits or audio communication. Additionally, no landings will be conducted in designated MSO Critical Habitat further reducing potential effects to the species. Aircraft avoidance of designated MSO Critical Habitat will help ensure minimization of potential negative effects due to noise. Avoidance of critical habitat is a result of incomplete species survey data throughout designated Critical Habitat within analysis area.

No additional effects from the proposed action are anticipated.

Morafka’s Desert Tortoise Aircraft and associated personnel may conduct bighorn sheep management activities within suitable and / or occupied tortoise habitat. The majority of flights would occur during November and to a lesser extent, other times of the year and may temporarily cause individuals to avoid the affected area due to wind, noise, and human presence. Operations would be of limited duration and would occur in open areas. Conservation measure designed to minimize potential impacts to tortoise involves safe helicopter operations including landing in areas with large amounts of bare ground which will allow the crew and pilot clear view of the landing area and route to capture area. Although habitat for bighorn sheep and tortoises overlap, preferred habitat for both species differ, thus minimizing potential helicopter landing impacts, supporting bighorn sheep management.

No additional effects from the proposed action are anticipated.

Bald Eagle The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services codified the definition of “disturb” under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection. Disturbance includes an action that “causes, or is likely to cause…injury to an eagle” or interference with “normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior” causing a decrease in productivity or nest abandonment (USFWS, 2007a&b).

Up to 60 flights may occur during the month of November, prior to breeding and incubation. Up to 30 flights may occur any other time of the year. Conservation measures described for bald and golden eagles are intended to minimize potential effects and provide a 2,000 foot perimeter buffer for helicopters conducting bighorn sheep work from December 1 through June 30. The buffer is recognized by the Federal Aviation Administration and is sufficient to reduce effects from aircraft (Driscoll, 2006). It is expected that flight paths will vary depending on the mission and location of sheep. Therefore, it is likely that flight paths outside the month of November will vary, reducing potential negative effects to the species.

In addition, any flights between December 1 and June 30 will be coordinated with Arizona Game and Fish Department Nongame Raptor Management Program to ensure a 2,000 foot buffer is maintained between aircraft and golden eagle nest sites. Current species location data will help

40 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

ensure a 2,000 foot buffer is achieved (Jacobsen, 2014). The buffer only applies to active nest sites. No additional effects are expected to occur.

Golden Eagle The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services codified the definition of “disturb” under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection. Disturbance includes an action that “causes, or is likely to cause…injury to an eagle” or interference with “normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior” causing a decrease in productivity or nest abandonment (USFWS, 2007a&b).

Up to 60 flights may occur during the month of November, prior to breeding and incubation. Up to 30 flights may occur any other time of the year. Conservation measures described for bald and golden eagles are intended to minimize potential effects and provide a 2,000 foot perimeter buffer for helicopters conducting bighorn sheep work from December 1 through June 30. The buffer is recognized by the Federal Aviation Administration and is sufficient to reduce effects from aircraft (Driscoll, 2006). It is expected that flight paths will vary depending on the mission and location of sheep. Therefore, it is likely that flight paths outside the month of November will vary, reducing potential negative effects to the species.

In addition, any flights between December 1 and June 30 will be coordinated with Arizona Game and Fish Department Nongame Raptor Management Program to ensure a 2,000 foot buffer is maintained between aircraft and golden eagle nest sites. Current species location data will help ensure a 2,000 foot buffer is achieved (Jacobsen, 2014). The buffer only applies to active nest sites. No additional effects are expected to occur.

Summary of Effects Table 9 shows the determinations for each of the species present in the project area.

Table 9: Species Determinations within Action Area

Species Determination

Mexican Spotted Owl May Affect, Not Likely To Adversely Affect (MANLAA)

Morafka’s Desert Tortoise No Effect, Not Likely To Trend Toward Federal Listing

Bald Eagle Not Cause Disturbance or Violate the Bald & Golden Eagle Act

Golden Eagle Not Cause Disturbance or Violate the Bald & Golden Eagle Act

Bighorn Sheep Management

Affected Environment

The Arizona Game and Fish Department’s State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) outlines strategies and conservation actions aimed at promoting partnerships and coordinating efforts among all who hold a stake in conserving Arizona’s wildlife. While the plan addresses the full array of wildlife

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 41

and habitats, it focuses on identifying and managing the wildlife and habitats that are in the greatest need of conservation. The State Wildlife Action Plan identifies bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) as a species of greatest conservation need. As icons of the Desert Southwest, bighorn sheep are recognized as an important wildlife resource in the State of Arizona and throughout the rest of their natural range. Establishing and maintaining healthy populations of all subspecies of bighorn sheep is the Department’s statewide bighorn sheep management objective. In order to achieve this objective, helicopters are commonly used to capture, release, translocate, monitor populations, and conduct research of bighorn sheep populations. On the Tonto National Forest, many of the bighorn sheep populations exist within designated wilderness areas, and the following activities would be performed:

• Take (capture, handle, mark, collect biological samples, radio-collar, survey, translocate, and release) bighorn sheep in conjunction with surveys and the collection of biological information for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

Mitigations in regards to the above authorized activities include:

• Minimizing disturbance to bighorn sheep by minimizing the frequency and duration of all survey and capture activities. • Methods used for captures shall be conducted using net-guns from helicopters, trucks, or on the ground; chemical immobilization darting, and drop-nets. These are methods that have been proven to reduce the potential for injury to sheep given the specific set of circumstances during capture and processing. Capture techniques are described in “The Desert Bighorn Sheep in Arizona” (Remington and Fuller, 1989). • Only authorizing chemical immobilization darting when netting methods are not feasible or safe because of terrain, location, or other reasons, or when this method would have desired results. • All possible precautions shall be taken to avoid injuring bighorn sheep during the capture process. • Net-gun capture operations shall minimize the probability of injuring or killing bighorn sheep to the greatest extent practicable. Once an animal is successfully netted, the gun- ship shall refrain from pursuing another animal until the gun-ship dispatches a qualified mugger to attend the netted animal, confirms that a qualified mugger has been dispatched from a sister ship, or confirms that qualified and adequately equipped ground personnel are within the immediate vicinity of the netted animal. Two animals may be captured in one net if terrain, animal speed, and crew are optimal. Nets posing the potential for severe injury to an animal should be cut. At no time during the operation, are restrained bighorn sheep to be left unattended. • Pursuit shall only occur in terrain where bighorn sheep can be safely netted and recovered. • After bighorn sheep are located, pursuit time will be limited to five minutes. If capture is unsuccessful, pursuit would be terminated after five minutes. • Vital signs (temperature, pulse, and respiration) shall be assessed immediately after capture and monitored during processing. Water shall be available at both the capture and processing sites and used as necessary to cool animals. • If an animal is determined to be excessively stressed, it shall be processed or released as quickly as possible provided that it is in a stable condition. Prior to release, confirmation

42 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

shall be received from the project leader or project wildlife health specialist or veterinarian, unless extenuating circumstances prevent rapid communication. • In the event of significant injury or stress, qualified personnel and equipment shall be available to provide immediate care. • Injections of MU-SE (vitamin E and selenium) and additional medications may be administered to address individual bighorn sheep needs at the discretion of the on-site staff wildlife health specialist or veterinarian(s). • Translocations shall be conducted according to the protocol outlined in the Arizona Game and Fish Department Plan for Bighorn Sheep Management Guidelines (2006) and Game Animal Translocation Procedures policy (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2012). • Arizona Game and Fish Department conducts disease surveillance on the overall health of the herd. At the time of capture, wildlife health specialist or veterinarian(s) shall conduct an examination to determine if the animal is healthy. The Arizona Game and Fish Department shall not translocate any animal that exhibits clinical signs of disease. • Translocate a minimum of 15 animals, preferably these will be 65 percent ewes, 20 percent yearlings, and 15 percent medium aged rams (class II and III). • In the event that bighorn sheep health and safety are of concern, Arizona Game and Fish Department personnel would cease capture operations to discuss modifications to the capture operation with the capture crew. If concerns are not sufficiently addressed, Arizona Game and Fish Department personnel would terminate the capture effort. • GPS/VHF radio-telemetry tracking collared sheep shall be extensively monitored during the first 10 post-capture days to evaluate their health. All injuries and mortalities that occur during this time shall be reported within 24 hours of observation.

Environmental Effects

Through the authorization of landing a helicopter in wilderness, the Tonto National Forest has determined the Proposed Action, and those methods used to carry out those activities, would not jeopardize the existence of bighorn sheep in Arizona. The Arizona Game and Fish Department adheres to guidance sponsored by the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council (NWSGC) and Desert Bighorn Council (DBC). These guidelines describe the steps necessary to have a successful capture event and state that helicopter net-gunning is the most commonly used capture technique, followed by drop-nets, drive-nets, and then darting (Foster, 2005). This document also addresses the safety obligations needed for conducting captures under each of these methods, which Arizona Game and Fish Department implements during captures.

No Action—Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative, the Arizona Game and Fish Department would seek authorization to land helicopters in wilderness areas and likely be denied by the Forest Service therefore significantly limiting the ability for the Arizona Game and Fish Department to meet bighorn sheep management objectives. The Arizona Game and Fish Department may conduct bighorn sheep captures by use of chemical immobilization darts or drop nets within wilderness boundaries for limited site-specific and/or animal-specific purposes such as placement or recovery of a VHF/GPS radio tracking collar or for disease testing. Population reintroductions and augmentations would not occur.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 43

Cumulative Effects

The Cumulative Effects Area (CEA) developed for this analysis includes the approximately 189,325 acres within the Wilderness Areas of the Tonto National Forest. The total capture area occurring within the Tonto National Forest is approximately 296,225 acres. The temporal scope of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions includes all those actions which would have the same effects as described under the direct and indirect effects section (short-term direct disturbance to bighorn sheep).

Short-term impacts can be dependent upon how high the aircraft are flown over the ground, for example Krausman and Hervert (1983) found that bighorn sheep only mildly reacted to aircraft flown over 100 meters above ground. It is expected that aircraft flown for search and rescue missions are located at higher altitudes when moving into a search area and then fly at lower altitudes when searches occur. These lower flights may lead to more reactive responses from bighorn sheep; such as moving into a new area or bedding for a few hours after disturbance (Krausman and Hervert, 1983).

Additionally, recreation uses such as hiking, horseback riding, backpacking, backcountry camping, fishing, and hunting activities can lead to short-term disturbances on bighorn sheep. Bighorn sheep may temporarily move out of an area or alter their foraging habits to avoid human presence. For example, Hicks (1979) found that summer recreation use in the Baxter Pass area in California caused some short-term impacts; however, there was no permanent displacement of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep as a result of the presence of humans. The largest negative response by Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep from the presence of humans occurred if humans were located above or at close range of the sheep (Hicks, 1979).

Although winter recreational use is not anticipated to regularly occur within portions of the project area, captures would occur during weekdays which typically receive lighter use. If recreational use is occurring at the same time as the captures, it would be assumed that bighorn sheep responses would be the same as discussed in Hicks (1979). Furthermore, chemical immobilization darts, or drop-net stations would be placed in areas which are not readily accessible to visitors in order to avoid conflicts with capturing activities.

Bighorn sheep management activities by the Arizona Game and Fish Department include the continuation of monitoring bighorn sheep populations by survey overflights generally conducted once every three years in each of the wilderness areas and by ground crews as needed for individual herd groups. Disturbances to bighorn sheep are of short duration (one to a few hours), throughout a large area within each wilderness area.

A sufficient number of bighorn sheep would not be captured with these techniques. Long-term cumulative effects would include the inability to translocate bighorn sheep into approved release locations as determined by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. As bighorn sheep herds within these wilderness areas increases, they expand their range outside wilderness into surrounding urban areas such as Gold Canyon or into the Heber-Reno domestic sheep driveway. The possibility of bighorn sheep coming into contact with domestic goats and sheep in these areas is a serious concern because of potential disease transmission from domestic animals to wild sheep. This may be the scenario that occurred in the mid-1990s when the bighorn population in the Four Peaks Wilderness was significantly reduced. The loss of these bighorn sheep herds from

44 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

an epizootic event would significantly diminish the health of these bighorn sheep populations and bighorn sheep management would be adversely effected.

Proposed Action—Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative, helicopter landings would be authorized within portions of the Four Peaks, Hellsgate, Mazatzal, Salt River Canyon, and Superstition Wilderness areas to conduct research, population monitoring and translocation captures of bighorn sheep over a minimum ten year period. These activities are being proposed to facilitate meeting the objectives of the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s bighorn sheep management guidelines and management of bighorn sheep as a species of greatest conservation need according to the State Wildlife Action Plan. Strategic and operational objectives within these plans would be met by monitoring the status of radio-collared bighorn sheep to determine mortality rates, estimate population size, understand bighorn sheep habitat use, and by augmentation and reintroduction of bighorn sheep to portions of its historic range on the Tonto National Forest and other locations statewide to ensure long- term productivity and sustainability of the species.

Arizona Game and Fish Department would be authorized to conduct monitoring and translocation captures of bighorn sheep within wilderness boundaries with the use of net guns fired from a helicopter.

Helicopter net-gun captures of bighorn sheep can lead to effects on bighorn sheep that are limited in duration and intensity (a couple of hours) beginning from when the bighorn sheep sees or hears the helicopter until the helicopter leaves the area after capture has occurred or been discontinued. The presence of a helicopter generally causes bighorn sheep to move into escape terrain and after exposure to a helicopter the animals often take shelter under trees or cliffs. Avoidance of the helicopter causes an increase in body temperature in bighorn sheep and a rise in heart rates (MacArthur et al 1982). To reduce this effect, pursuit time with the helicopter would be limited to five minutes. Captures during fall also reduce effects to bighorn sheep it is outside the lambing and breeding season. Animals are in their peak condition which reduces the risk of injury or mortality from captures. Studies have shown that continuous helicopter over-flights can have negative results to desert bighorn sheep in the Grand Canyon National Park and southern California, with foraging decreasing and some changes in habitat use (Stockwell et al., 1991; Bleich et al., 1994).

Translocation captures do not occur if a source population of bighorn sheep is below a specific objective. That objective is often numerical (e.g. at least 150 bighorn sheep observed on the most recent survey effort (as for the Virgin Mountains) or at least 650 animals estimated in the population (as for the Kofa Mountains) and based specifically on the historical performance of the source population. Historical performance can provide biologists with insights into the realistic highs and lows and individual population of bighorn sheep can be expected to exhibit; this performance can also identify when a translocation from that source population is likely to have the least effect. In each case, translocations generally follow a population survey. Most translocations are conducted in November, whereas surveys precede them in October. All populations are surveyed at least once every three years to monitor their overall status. Following translocations, bighorn sheep herds are monitored with a follow-up survey. These follow-up surveys may not occur in the year immediately following a translocation, but generally occur within two years following the capture. In the meantime, reports from bighorn sheep hunters and

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 45

remote camera monitoring data that the Arizona Game and Fish Department collects are used to determine if an interim survey is needed.

Not all populations are affected by translocations in the same way. In some instances, only a few animals can be removed every few years, whereas in other situations the population may sustain repeated translocations with little rest between. This is dependent on the reproductive output, forage quality, predation rates, disease exposure, and several other site specific variables that ultimately influence population sustainability. Regardless, monitoring occurs prior to any translocation to ensure the action would not be detrimental to the population.

The average time a bighorn sheep is handled by capture crews during a helicopter capture is approximately 30 minutes, starting from when the animal is captured, either processed at the capture site or flown to the processing site, processed (outfitted with radio tracking collars and identity ear tags, health information is collected), then either released on the site of capture or placed into transport containers to be taken to the release site. Health conditions are monitored constantly while at the processing site and capture crews observe the animal for a few minutes after it is released.

Cumulative Effects

Under this alternative, the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would be of limited duration and intensity (one to a few hours), as the effects to bighorn sheep as a helicopter approaches, flies, over, or captures a bighorn sheep. Although there would be an increase in the number of landings during the capture period, this increase would not result in effects to bighorn sheep, as helicopter flights have temporary effects on bighorn sheep behavior, and once this disturbance has passed there are no remaining effects; bighorn sheep return to normal foraging behavior.

The potential for long-term effects on bighorn sheep use of traditional habitat is low because monitoring or translocation captures would not occur in consecutive years in the same areas and there are no effects to bighorn sheep habitat. The most recent bighorn sheep captures in the Four Peaks and Superstition Wilderness Areas occurred in November 2010 and again in November 2012. Prior to the translocation capture effort in 2010, surveys documented 99 bighorn sheep in the Four Peaks Wilderness Area population and 90 bighorn sheep in the Superstition Wilderness Area population. A total of 30 bighorn sheep (15 from each population) were captured and translocated into the Mineral Mountains on Bureau of Land Management lands according to Arizona Game and Fish Department guidelines and procedures. Prior to the translocation capture in 2012, surveys estimated 185 bighorn sheep in the Four Peaks Wilderness Area population and 184 bighorn sheep in the Superstition Area Wilderness Area population. Due to the increase in observed bighorn sheep, the 2012 translocation capture was approved and 26 bighorn sheep were captured and removed from the Four Peaks Wilderness Area population and six bighorn sheep were captured and removed from Superstition Wilderness Area population. A pre-capture survey would be scheduled for October 2014 prior to any further translocation efforts.

During the 2012 bighorn sheep surveys Arizona Game and Fish Department personnel did not observe changes in habitat use by bighorn sheep. During the 2012 capture efforts many of the capture locations were similar to that of the 2010 captures within the same areas of the Four Peaks and Superstition Wilderness Areas indicating little to no effect on bighorn sheep habitat use.

46 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Visitor Experiences and Recreation Opportunities

Affected Environment The five affected wildernesses (Superstition, Four Peaks, Mazatzal, Salt River Canyon, and Hellsgate) provide Tonto National Forest visitors with opportunities for varied levels of dispersed recreation experiences. These opportunities range from day hikes and backpacking trips, to horseback riding, nature and archaeological study, river rafting trips, rock climbing, hunting, and communing with nature. The Mazatzal and Salt River Canyon Wilderness offer multi-day river running opportunities on the Verde Wild and Scenic River and the Upper Salt River respectively and the Arizona trails runs through the Superstition and Mazatzal wildernesses. The majority of use in these areas is concentrated along wilderness trail systems and within the two river corridors. Use of these wilderness areas varies by proximity to population centers and season. According to the most recent National Visitor Use Monitoring survey (2008), there are no individual wilderness visitation numbers but estimated total wilderness visitation on the Tonto National Forest is approximately 152,000 visits annually.

Superstition Wilderness The Superstition Wilderness is likely the most visited wilderness on the forest due to its close proximity to the Phoenix Metro and its extensive 180 mile trail system. Its highest recreational use occurs on its western side on popular trails such as Peralta, First Water, and Lost Dutchman. Usage on these trails during the cooler months is extremely high. The eastern side, while still popular, is less visited because trailheads are more remote and difficult to access. Among other trails, the Arizona National Scenic Trail bisects the Superstitions and is growing in popularity for day hikers and multi-day hikers. Recreational usage of the Superstitions drops during the summer due to lack water and 110 degree Fahrenheit temperatures. However, hikers still take short hikes into this wilderness using the Peralta, First Water, and Lost Dutchman trails. There are no visitation numbers for the Superstition wilderness but during colder months, but parking lots on the western side fill up early on the weekends and turn over several times during the course of the day. Trailhead volunteers are often required at these trailheads to assist with parking.

Four Peaks Wilderness The Four Peaks Wilderness is located within 40 miles of the Phoenix metropolitan area; however, unlike portions of the Superstitions, there are no paved roads to trailheads. The highest point on the Tonto National Forest is located within the Four Peaks at approximately 7,700 feet in elevation. There are approximately 40 miles of system trails within the wilderness with varying degrees of maintenance and adventure seekers attempt to scale Brown Peak periodically. The most popular areas are accessed from the west and north sides due to the availability of roads and trailheads. The south side of the wilderness is bounded by Apache and Canyon lakes making access to this portion of wilderness challenging. There are no visitation numbers for the Four Peaks Wilderness.

Salt River Canyon Wilderness The Salt River Canyon Wilderness is located approximately 30 miles from Globe, Arizona. It has no system trails but provides visitors with water based recreation on the Upper Salt River. Flowing at the bottom of a deep and relatively inaccessible canyon, the river has only two access points – Gleason Flats located on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation and Horseshoe Bend via

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 47

Forest Service Road 219. The area has several other roads that end at the wilderness boundary but require 4X4 vehicles to access. The section of the Upper Salt River located within wilderness is a popular river rafting destination offering 45 miles of class III-IV rafting opportunities from March 1 through May 15. Private and commercial trips both require permits to raft the Salt River. There are five commercial permits currently issued and a maximum of 456 permits available for private parties. Group size is limited to 15. The number of private and commercial trips varies annually depending on water levels. Water levels are dependent on annual snowfall. On average, there are 275 trips during the river season. Other popular activities in the Salt River Canyon Wilderness are hunting and fishing.

Mazatzal Wilderness The Mazatzal Wilderness is located approximately fifteen miles west of Payson and is the largest wilderness on the Tonto National Forest. It has approximately 240 miles of system trails traversing the wilderness including the Mazatzal Divide trail, the Verde River Trail, and the Arizona National Scenic Trail. System trails are used by hikers and equestrians alike. The Verde Wild and Scenic River flows just inside the western boundary of this wilderness. Popular with canoeist and kayakers, this class II-III section of the Verde takes four days to complete. While dependent on water levels, this section of river can be run year round but is most commonly run during winter months. There are two permitted outfitters and private trips do not currently require a permit. Due to this section of river’s remoteness, there is no day use.

Hellsgate Wilderness The Hellsgate Wilderness is located equidistant between Payson and Young, Arizona. Six trailheads give access to the Wilderness, but human use is relatively light given that 4X4 vehicles are required to access the sites and foot travel on the trails can be difficult. Two creeks, Tonto Creek and Haigler Creek, provide fishing opportunities within this wilderness. The perennial nature of the two creeks also provides opportunities for hunting large and small game.

Environmental Effects Forest Service policy is to protect the long-term public interest by maintaining and enhancing open space options, public accessibility, and cultural, wilderness, visual, and natural resource values. Recreation in these five wilderness areas is managed for providing, among other social values, opportunities for solitude and a natural and primitive recreation experience.

No Action Under the No Action alternative, there would be no change to current visitor recreation experiences expected. There would be no helicopter landings to monitor and capture bighorn sheep and no sights or sounds of helicopters or capture crews relating to management of bighorn sheep.

Cumulative Effects The wilderness recreation experience could be impacted by a sudden loss of the desert bighorn population to an epizootic event.

48 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Proposed Action Under this alternative, more helicopter sightings and noise are expected to occur within wilderness areas. It is anticipated that Arizona Game and Fish Department would perform up to 90 landings per year for 10 years to accomplish their objectives. This action would affect recreation experiences near identified landing sites. Helicopter landings would generally occur during the week when recreation use is lowest, and would be concentrated within project specific timeframes. Recreation users using the wilderness during their scheduled flight times would be the most impacted. While Arizona Game and Fish Department cannot predict the location of desert bighorn sheep on any given day, they plan to avoid high use areas and notify the Tonto in advance of landing in wilderness.

This alternative would have only minor impacts on the wilderness character but moderate impacts on visitors experiencing a landing when expecting a true wilderness experience. Helicopter noise and visual presence could disrupt a solitude or primitive wilderness experience, startle equines, and displace target species for wildlife viewing and hunting, but should not displace recreationists. Helicopter landings are planned to occur during times of low use and any trailheads would be signed notifying visitors of any possible disruptions. Helicopters would avoid landings near trail corridors to minimize effects to recreationists. Helicopters would not schedule routine monitoring or translocations during the rafting season on the Upper Salt River. An emergency helicopter landing for disease management is the only exception to scheduled landings; however, Arizona Game and Fish Department would notify the Forest Service in advance of these operations.

Cumulative Effects At any given time, there may be multiple projects occurring in any of the five wildernesses where helicopter use is proposed to capture and transport bighorn sheep. Examples include fire suppression, fish reintroductions, ecological restoration, range fence improvements, stock tank improvements, and search and rescue operations, and trail maintenance. Historically, these mechanical transportation actions have had only negligible to minor effects on wilderness visitor experiences and opportunities and can be mitigated by closing trailheads, posting press releases, or posting that game management activities are occurring using helicopters.

These types of activities rarely, if ever, happen in the same place at the same time thus reducing the overall cumulative effects on these areas. The visual landing of helicopters is only a minor to moderate short term effect on a visitor given the proximity of the wildernesses to Phoenix and other local communities, and the popularity of using helicopters by agencies to reach remote locations. The Proposed Action is not expected to substantially deter use or decrease recreation opportunities in wilderness overall. In the short-term, helicopter landings would have a minor to moderate effect on the visitor experience in wilderness. In the long-term, the effects of the Proposed Alternative would be negligible when combined with the cumulative effects of the past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Wilderness Characteristics

Affected Environment The project area includes portions of the Four Peaks, Hellsgate, Mazatzal, Salt River Canyon, and Superstition Wilderness Areas. These wilderness areas were designated by Congress and

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 49

management of wilderness areas differs from the general forest portions of National Forest System Lands. Management of wilderness must preserve its wilderness character and allow for visitor enjoyment. There are six specified purposes of wilderness: scenic, scientific, recreation, education, conservation, and historical use. Land managers can approve and implement activities in wilderness provided that the activities further one or more purposes of wilderness without degrading wilderness character. Under Forest Service policy, an action must be analyzed using the Minimum Requirements Decision Guide before it is implemented. The Minimum Requirements Decision Guide is a two-step process that first requires the agency to determine if any administrative action is necessary to meet minimum requirements to administer the area for the purposes of the Wilderness Act. If action is deemed necessary, the second step is to determine the minimum activity, method, or tool needed to accomplish the action that would have the least impact to the wilderness resource, character, and purposes.

Environmental Effects

Methodology The Forest Service national framework for monitoring wilderness character concluded that wilderness character is ideally described as the unique combination of (a) natural environments that are relatively free from modern human manipulation and impacts, (b) opportunities for personal experiences in environments that are relatively free from the encumbrances and signs of modern society, and (c) symbolic meanings of humility, restraint, and interdependence in how individuals and society view their relationship to nature. Based on definitions included in the Wilderness Act of 1964 and Keeping it Wild: An Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness Character Across the National Wilderness Preservation System, the following wilderness resource values have been identified for the project area and are a component of the wilderness character:

• Untrammeled Quality: Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation. • Natural Quality: Wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization, and marked by the following: o Absence of evidence of people and their activities. o Perpetuation of natural ecological relationships and processes and the continued existence of native wildlife populations in largely natural conditions. • Undeveloped Quality: Wilderness retains its primeval character and influence, and is essentially without permanent improvement or modern human occupation. • Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined experiences, and promises the following: o The likelihood of not encountering other people while in wilderness, including privacy and isolation. o The absence of distractions (such as large groups, mechanization, unnatural noise, signs, and other modern artifacts). o Freedom from the reminders of modern society.

50 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

o The freedom of visitors to explore, with limited or no restrictions; the ability to be spontaneous. o Self-sufficiency and absence of support facilities or motorized transportation; direct experience of weather, terrain, and wildlife with minimal shelter or assistance from devices of modern civilization.

Many activities and uses occur within the Four Peaks, Hellsgate, Mazatzal, Salt River Canyon, and Superstition Wilderness Areas. The analysis will focus on wilderness character and resources, as defined by the four fundamental qualities of congressionally designated wilderness.

Table 10 displays the terminology used in this analysis to describe the impact and intensity of the proposed action on wilderness characteristics.

Table 10: Terminology used in Wilderness Characteristics Analysis

Term Definition Negligible There is little or no change to the four attributes of wilderness character or wilderness experience. One or more attributes of wilderness character and wilderness experience change but the changes are Minor temporary and occur in small ways in one or more locations. One or more attributes of wilderness character and wilderness experience change in substantial ways in Moderate a single distinct area, or it affects multiple areas but is not permanent. One or more attributes of wilderness character and wilderness experience changes substantially across Major more than one distinct area on either a permanent or frequent but temporary basis.

No Action—Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative, the Arizona Game and Fish Department would seek authorization to land helicopters in wilderness areas and likely be denied by the Forest Service, therefore significantly limiting the ability for the Arizona Game and Fish Department to meet bighorn sheep management objectives. Arizona Game and Fish Department may conduct bighorn sheep captures by use of chemical immobilization darts or drop-nets within wilderness boundaries for limited site-specific and/or animal-specific purposes such as placement or recovery of a VHF/GPS radio tracking collar or for disease testing. Translocation captures would not occur and therefore population reintroductions and augmentations would not occur.

Under the No Action Alternative two types of capture methods would be considered:

• Chemical Immobilization Darting (dart gun). This method is described in Chapter 2. Activities associated with the capture method that manipulate or control components of the wilderness (i.e. bighorn sheep) are: o Baiting/Opportunistic- Baiting consists of using an unnatural food source to draw bighorn sheep to a specific area. Although these baiting areas are established in the vicinity of areas bighorn sheep naturally use, the intent of baiting is to draw bighorn sheep into a specific area with an unnatural food supply. Bait would be placed in an area one to six weeks before the actual capture occurs. Additional opportunities may allow the slow approach to an animal in its natural setting, attempting to approach within the distance restrictions for a successful darting attempt.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 51

o Duration of Handling- Timeframe for chemical immobilization may vary dependent on the reactions of the animal, and may take 130 minutes for capture and processing. Movement into difficult recovery areas are common and increase risk. Recovering time from chemical immobilization drugs may be substantial, varying from one to six hours and increase risk of mortality. • Drop-Net: This method is described in Chapter 2. Activities associated with this capture method that manipulate or control components of the wilderness (i.e. bighorn sheep) are: o Baiting – same as above. o Duration of Handling - The duration of when a bighorn sheep is handled is defined as when the net is dropped on bighorn sheep and they are then restrained, hobbled, and blindfolded. The timeframes can vary depending on the number of bighorn sheep captured, but generally a bighorn sheep is restrained for approximately 30 minutes for capture and processing.

Untrammeled Quality

There would be minor adverse effects to untrammeled quality of wilderness. The analysis indicator selected for the untrammeled quality of wilderness character is the duration of a capture event and the duration a bighorn sheep is handled after capture annually per wilderness area. The duration of capture events and handling provides a quantifiable measure of how humans will manipulate the bighorn sheep and be in wilderness.

The rationale for the minor adverse effects on untrammeled character is based on six factors:

• Effects are limited to selected bighorn sheep in the population where monitoring captures would occur, and to the time period during which captures would take place in that population. The Arizona Game and Fish Department wildlife managers indicate that within a few hours to one day after capture, bighorn sheep resume normal behavior. Unless captures are conducted repeatedly in the same location and in consecutive years, there would be negligible effects to bighorn sheep behavior after captures. • There would be no additional manipulation of sheep after captures are completed. Tracking collars do not affect or control sheep behavior or movement (Murphy, 2012). • Capture activities would take place in November to avoid critical phases of the bighorn sheep's reproductive cycle. • Fewer bighorn sheep would be captured or manipulated over a ten year period under this alternative than the Proposed Action Alternative. • Monitoring captures using these techniques do not impede the free play of natural forces or interfere with natural processes in the ecosystem.

Natural Quality

This alternative may have moderate adverse effects to the natural quality of wilderness. A sufficient number of bighorn sheep would not be captured with these techniques therefore leading to the inability of the Arizona Game and Fish Department to meet bighorn sheep management objectives. As bighorn sheep herds within these wilderness areas increases, they expand their range outside wilderness into surrounding urban areas such as Gold Canyon or into the Heber- Reno domestic sheep driveway. The possibility of bighorn sheep coming into contact with

52 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

domestic goats and sheep in these areas is a serious concern because of potential disease transmission from domestic animals to wild sheep. This may be the scenario that occurred in the mid-1990s when the bighorn population in the Four Peaks Wilderness was significantly reduced. The loss of these bighorn sheep herds from an epizootic event would significantly diminish the natural quality of wilderness character of these areas. For drop-net captures in wilderness areas, vegetation pruning or removal may be visually evident or result in an observable change to the natural quality of wilderness. This is because of the minimal amount of trimming and removal that would occur to allow for nets to safely and securely capture bighorn sheep. All vegetation other than grass or forbs must be removed from the drop net capture area. Net posts for the capture net must be set in the ground or secured with surrounding rocks and small boulders. The effects would be minor because they would be site-specific, only occurring where nets are established.

Undeveloped Quality

There would be minor adverse effects to undeveloped quality because captures would be confined to one or two of the wilderness areas and not typically in consecutive years. There would be no permanent observable effects on the undeveloped quality because there would be no structures remaining on the ground or any lingering evidence of mechanized access to that location in the wilderness. The analysis indicators selected for the undeveloped quality of wilderness character under are: 1) the number of helicopter landings per year and 2) the duration of a capture event in a given wilderness area. The number of landings is the key measure of the use of mechanized transport in wilderness. The duration of a capture event measures the length of time that Arizona Game and Fish Department would erect temporary net structures in wilderness.

• Number of helicopter landings per year: Under this alternative there would be no effects to the undeveloped quality of wilderness character because no helicopter landings would occur. • Duration of the capture event: Under this Alternative, drop net stations would be located in select wilderness areas that have reasonable access by road or reservoir. The net stations are temporary as they are removed after the capture has taken place, which would be completed in six weeks for drop-nets. The drop net station would be a site-specific, minor, adverse effect to the undeveloped quality.

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation

There would be minor adverse effects to the opportunities for solitude in the wilderness areas under this alternative. The analysis indicator selected for the opportunities for solitude include the number of days helicopter landings would occur per year and the duration of the capture event in a given wilderness area. The duration of a capture event measures the number of day’s ground- based capture crews would be working in wilderness. The drop net stations would be staffed by Arizona Game and Fish Department employees throughout each day (staff would not camp at the net stations) during the one to six week period the stations are established. The drop net stations and presence of staff would have site-specific adverse effects on visitors' opportunities for solitude.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 53

Cumulative Effects

Untrammeled Quality: Past actions within the Tonto National Forest and associated wilderness areas that manipulate the bighorn sheep populations include monitoring captures, population surveys, reintroductions, augmentations, and translocations between 1980 and 2012. These management activities contributed to increases in the bighorn sheep population within the Tonto National Forest and other locations as determined by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Under this alternative, monitoring captures would have minor cumulative adverse effects to the untrammeled quality of the associated wildernesses. Monitoring captures may occur at far less intensity compared to the Proposed Action.

Natural Quality: The distribution of bighorn sheep is a key measure of the effects of human actions on this indigenous species inside wilderness. Past actions have had a positive effect on the natural quality of wilderness because the population and distribution of bighorn sheep has increased. There would be a major cumulative adverse effect on the ability of the Arizona Game and Fish Department to improve the natural quality of wilderness areas under this alternative.

Undeveloped Quality: There would not be any helicopter landings under this alternative. The drop net and chemical immobilization (dart gun) capture techniques would have a minor cumulative adverse effect when added to the effects from the on-going administrative and emergency helicopter landings in wilderness, which is assumed to continue into the future. The drop net stations are temporary structures that would be removed once a capture event is completed.

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation: Effects are the same as Undeveloped Quality.

Cumulative Effects Summary

Under the No Action Alternative, the use of chemical immobilization (dart gun) and/or drop net captures of bighorn sheep would be an added effect to other actions in wilderness but is expected to have minor cumulative effects. The cumulative effect of these capture techniques on the four qualities of wilderness character is the addition of potential bighorn sheep management activities to the ongoing intrusions from the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions discussed above. In the long-term, the effects of the No Action may have a major adverse effect on bighorn sheep populations when combined with the cumulative effects of the past, current and reasonably foreseeable actions. From a wildlife management perspective, the most beneficial way to manage a big game population is to monitor and mitigate bighorn sheep population growth. During a period of wildlife population growth, removing a predetermined number of animals from a population can prevent or reduce the number of animals that can be lost to disease or reduced viability due to limited forage resources. Although is unlikely that forage resources would become limited for these bighorn sheep populations, not capturing bighorn sheep from these wilderness areas may eventually lead to an undesirable epizootic outbreak. Furthermore, the limitations inherently found within these bighorn sheep capture techniques would prevent the Arizona Game and Fish Department from restoring bighorn sheep to their historic range and maintaining viable bighorn sheep populations on the Tonto National Forest and other locations throughout the state. Table 11 shows the summary of these effects by wilderness quality.

54 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Table 11: Summary of Effects from the No Action

Wilderness Quality Effect Untrammeled Minor Adverse Natural Moderate Adverse Undeveloped Minor Adverse Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation Minor Adverse

Proposed Action—Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the Proposed Action, helicopter landings by the Arizona Game and Fish Department would be authorized within portions of the Hells Gate, Mazatzal, Four Peaks, Superstition, and Salt River Canyon Wilderness areas to conduct research, population monitoring, and captures of bighorn sheep for a minimum of 10 years. The bighorn sheep capture method proposed under this alternative is the helicopter net gun capture as described in Chapter 2.

Untrammeled Quality

There would be moderate adverse effects to untrammeled quality of wilderness due to direct human control or manipulation bighorn sheep populations; particularly for bighorn sheep translocations. Vegetation and other natural characteristics (other than bighorn sheep) within the wilderness will not be intentionally modified for any activities. These impacts are considered a moderate, short-term trammeling of the wilderness characteristics. The use of helicopters is considered a tool and does not manipulate or control the earth or community of life and therefore is not considered to have an adverse effect on untrammeled quality of wilderness3.

The capture and subsequent handling of bighorn sheep is the primary adverse effect to untrammeled quality of wilderness. This is defined as the time when the net gun restrains the bighorn sheep and crews then hobble and blindfold the animal. This time may vary, but generally takes up to 30 minutes before the animal is released on the site of capture or placed into a transportation trailer.

Monitoring captures would have a minor adverse effect on untrammeled quality of wilderness. The duration of effects would be temporary, lasting from one to three days in each wilderness where monitoring captures would occur. The context of effects would be site-specific, confined to individuals within a population where monitoring captures would occur each year and based on four factors:

• Effects are limited to selected bighorn sheep in a population where captures would occur, and to the specific days during which captures would take place in that area. The Arizona Game and Fish Department biologists indicate that within one day after helicopter net- gun captures, sheep have been observed to resume normal behavior.

3 Page 12 of analysis instrictions: http://www.wilderness.net/MRDG/documents/MRDG_instructions.pdf accessed on July 13, 2014.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 55

• Monitoring captures manipulate individual bighorn sheep by restraining them while data is being collected. There would be no additional manipulation of sheep after captures are completed. Tracking collars do not affect or control sheep behavior, foraging ability, or movement (Murphy, 2012). • Capture activities typically would be conducted in fall (November) to avoid critical phases of the bighorn sheep's reproductive cycle (i.e., lambing season and breeding season). • The monitoring captures would manipulate up to 30 individual bighorn sheep annually as approved during the minimum ten year time period based on Arizona Game and Fish Department approved operational goals and objectives. Although individual sheep would be manipulated for up to 30 minutes for each capture, they will return to normal behavior less than one day after capture, therefore captures temporarily impede the free play of natural forces or interferes with natural processes in the ecosystem.

Translocation captures to augment or reintroduce bighorn sheep to current or historic bighorn sheep locations would have a moderate adverse effect on untrammeled quality of wilderness. Although translocations would be implemented to conserve the species, the reintroduction of bighorn sheep into currently unoccupied habitat is considered a manipulation by humans that intervene in the free play of natural forces because humans are affecting the distribution of the population. However, bighorn sheep are native to each wilderness area of the Tonto National Forest and it is believed they were extirpated from these areas by over-hunting or disease transmission from domestic livestock (human induced events) (U.S. Department of Interior, 2007a). Enhancing bighorn sheep populations in areas of previous habitation would aid in sustainability of the species and have beneficial effects on the natural quality of wilderness as described below. Assuming the translocated sheep survive and reproduce, the duration of effects from the translocations would last more than ten years. While actively moving bighorn sheep from one area to another intervenes in the free play of natural forces, effects of these translocation captures on the untrammeled quality are considered to be moderate because bighorn sheep currently or historically occupied the areas.

Natural Quality

There would be major positive and minor adverse effects to the natural quality of wilderness qualities. Natural qualities of the wilderness areas on the Tonto National Forest would be positively affected because a native species would be maintained. Monitoring captures and augmentations may be necessary to sustain current a current population of bighorn sheep (Salt River Canyon Wilderness) and translocations would help reduce a population of bighorn sheep (Four Peaks Wilderness) to reduce likelihood of an epizootic event. Continued bighorn sheep colonization of new areas within the Tonto National Forest prompt research and monitoring needs to inform statewide management decisions necessary for the continued health of bighorn sheep and maintenance of the this natural quality of wilderness. There would be minimal effect to the vegetative community as any sensitive or rare plant species that may be present within capture locations would have seeded or would be dormant during the time captures would occur.

The direct effect of the sights and sounds associated with helicopter operations and landings would have a minor short-term adverse effect on the natural character of wilderness. However, mitigation measures restricting flight paths and length of flight time may lessen the adverse effects to the wilderness and its natural systems.

56 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Undeveloped Quality

There would be minor adverse effects to the undeveloped wilderness quality. The analysis indicators selected for the undeveloped quality of wilderness character is the number of helicopter landings per year. The number of landings is the key measure of the use of mechanized transport in wilderness.

A maximum of 450 helicopter landings would occur over a minimum 10 year period. The duration of effects would be temporary, because a helicopter would be on the ground in wilderness for approximately 10 to 30 minutes for each capture, depending on capture method. Once the capture is completed, there would be no observable effects on the undeveloped quality because there would be no structures remaining on the ground or any lingering evidence of mechanized access to that location in the wilderness. The context of effects would be site-specific for each landing, because effects would be confined to the specific location of each landing. The intensity of the effects would be minor because captures/landings would be confined to one or two of the wilderness areas, and not typically in consecutive years.

The maximum number of annual helicopter landings in wilderness is 10 landings for monitoring captures and 30 landings for translocation captures. This number of landings would be the maximum number required to meet Arizona Game and Fish Department bighorn sheep management objectives. The number of landings each year across all the wilderness areas would not exceed 90 landings.

Proposed monitoring captures would occur in the Hellsgate, Mazatzal and Salt River Canyon Wilderness Areas because 1) the established need for monitoring bighorn sheep movements to document travel corridors between bighorn sheep populations, and 2) monitor populations that are in need of augmentation or recovery efforts. Anticipated translocation captures would occur in the Four Peaks and Superstition Wilderness Areas because 1) these areas have been identified as source populations and 2) the majority of bighorn sheep on the Tonto National Forest occupy these wilderness areas.

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation

Helicopter landings would have a moderate adverse effect on this quality of wilderness while sustaining bighorn sheep populations has a moderate positive effect on ability for visitor to observe this native species. Helicopter flights and landings would introduce a short-term visual and audible disturbance to visitors in the vicinity of helicopter operations. The duration of noise effects would be temporary, approximately ten minutes or less for each approach, landing, and take-off from the ground. The helicopter may not be seen or heard continuously during the day from the same location, as flight paths may change depending on desert bighorn sheep locations or while the helicopter is grounded. This would reduce the potential for recreationists in these areas to see or hear the helicopter. For most of the project area this would be further limited because landings would occur during a time of year (November) and in a location (steep, rugged terrain with few trails) with few visitors. The context of effects would be site-specific effects for each landing, confined to the area around the landing that is within hearing by visitors of the mechanical noise from a helicopter. To minimize the effects on outstanding opportunities for recreation within the wilderness, helicopter flights would be scheduled for weekdays to avoid

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 57

busy weekends and holidays. Helicopter flights would also avoid trail corridors and concentrated areas of recreation users, when possible.

Historically, bighorn sheep were part of the values that contributed to the primitive wilderness recreation opportunity. Observing iconic bighorn sheep while hiking in the wilderness is often described as one of the highlights of the primitive experience. Helicopter use in support of bighorn sheep management would have a beneficial effect on the visitors’ opportunities for the primitive recreation experiences.

Cumulative Effects

The five primary known bighorn sheep populations occur within the Tonto National Forests and would be in the area in which effects of the proposed project plus the effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects on wilderness character would occur. To better describe the cumulative effects to wilderness quality, this section is organized by the four qualities of wilderness character.

Untrammeled Quality: There would be moderate cumulative adverse effect on untrammeled quality (direct human control or manipulation bighorn sheep populations; particularly for bighorn sheep translocations) from past, present, and future bighorn sheep management actions.

Past actions within the Tonto National Forest and associated wilderness areas to manipulate the bighorn sheep populations include monitoring captures, population reintroductions, augmentations, and translocations between 1980 and 2012. These management activities contributed to increases in the bighorn sheep populations within the Tonto National Forest and other locations in the state. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has demonstrated changes in the bighorn sheep population and habitat use by the original bighorn sheep (approximately 208 individuals) that were reintroduced into the Four Peaks and Superstition Wilderness Areas. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has removed approximately 80 bighorn sheep from the Four Peaks and Superstition Wilderness Areas for reintroduction or augmentation of others bighorn sheep populations in the state. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has observed and documented changes to the populations and habitat use for those bighorn sheep populations occurring in the Hellsgate, Mazatzal, and Salt River Canyon Wilderness Areas including the capture of nine bighorn sheep in the Hellsgate and Salt River Canyon Wilderness Areas.

Current and reasonably foreseeable actions include helicopter net gun monitoring captures and translocations of bighorn sheep within the Tonto National Forest Wilderness Areas resulting in moderate cumulative adverse effects to the untrammeled quality of wilderness.

Monitoring captures and translocation captures would occur at greater frequency when compared to the No-Action Alternative. Therefore under the Proposed Action, trammeling effects on wilderness would be greater than the No-Action Alternative, as more animals would be captured, cumulatively.

Natural Quality: There would be a major cumulative positive effect and a minor cumulative adverse effect to the natural quality of wilderness. The distribution of bighorn sheep is a key measure of the effects of human actions on bighorn sheep within these wilderness areas. Natural qualities of the wilderness areas on the Tonto National Forest have been positively affected

58 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

because native bighorn sheep have been reintroduced and populations maintained. Monitoring captures and augmentations may be necessary to sustain current a current population of bighorn sheep (Salt River Canyon Wilderness) and translocations would help reduce a population of bighorn sheep (Four Peaks Wilderness) to reduce likelihood of an epizootic event. Continued bighorn sheep colonization of new areas within the Tonto National Forest prompt research and monitoring needs to inform statewide management decisions necessary for the continued health of bighorn sheep and maintenance of the this natural quality of wilderness. The desired number of bighorn sheep needed for the translocation portion of this project would be met under this alternative.

Current and potentially future actions to conserve the bighorn sheep populations within these wilderness areas would include monitoring, regulated hunting, and changes in domestic sheep grazing management. In the absence of an unforeseeable event such as a major disease outbreak, this beneficial effect would persist in the long term as bighorn sheep population and distribution would increase and continue to be an important wildlife resource for the State of Arizona.

The context of the cumulative minor adverse effects is related to the helicopter landings required under this action although they would be site-specific and confined to the specific location of each landing.

Undeveloped Quality: There would be a cumulative minor adverse effect on the undeveloped quality of wilderness character due to the use of a helicopter (mechanized transport) in wilderness. As detailed in the description of this alternative in Chapter 2, the maximum number of annual landings that would occur over the next ten years from: 1) the Proposed Action maximum number landings each year; 2) the average number of administrative and emergency landings in Tonto National Forest wilderness areas each year; 3) reasonably foreseeable number of annual landings related to bighorn sheep management activities within the Tonto National Forest Wilderness Areas; 4) the cumulative number of annual landings that would occur.

Opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation: There would be cumulative moderate adverse effects to this quality although the effects would be temporary and site-specific and cumulative to the administrative and emergency helicopter landings in wilderness that will continue to occur in the future. There would be moderate positive effects to wilderness recreation through the conservation of bighorn sheep as a native species in wilderness. Historically, bighorn sheep were part of the values that contributed to the primitive wilderness recreation opportunity. Observing iconic bighorn sheep while hiking in the wilderness is often described as one of the highlights of the primitive experience. Helicopter use in support of bighorn sheep management would have a beneficial effect on the visitors’ opportunities for the primitive recreation experiences.

Cumulative Effects Summary

Under the Proposed Action, the use of helicopters would be an added effect when coupled with the ongoing flights over wilderness by commercial, military, emergency response, and private aircraft. Although effects resulting from landings are not likely to occur in the same time and place as other administratively-approved or emergency landings, the effect of the Proposed Action would have minor cumulative effects on wilderness resources. The cumulative effect of helicopter operations on the four qualities of wilderness character is the addition of potential sight

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 59

and sound intrusions from supporting bighorn sheep management activities to the ongoing intrusions from the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions discussed above. In the absence of an unforeseeable event such as a major disease outbreak, the indirect beneficial effects of this project would persist in the long-term as bighorn sheep populations and distribution would increase and continue to be an important wildlife resource for the State of Arizona. In the short- term, helicopter flights and landings would have a minor to moderate adverse effect on wilderness resources and wilderness qualities. In the long-term, the effects of the Proposed Action will be negligible when combined with the cumulative effects of the past, current and reasonably foreseeable actions. Table 12 shows the summary of these effects by wilderness quality.

Table 12: Summary of Effects from the Proposed Action

Wilderness Quality Effect Untrammeled Moderate Adverse Natural Major Positive; Minor Adverse Undeveloped Minor Adverse Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation Moderate Adverse; Moderate Positive

Socioeconomics Associated with Big Horn Sheep Management

Affected Environment The existing conditions for economic and forest contribution includes values associated with the presence of bighorn sheep in wilderness areas. This indicator is presented based on state and national data along with Tonto National Forest data when available. Communities adjacent to public lands can benefit economically from visitors who spend money in hotels, restaurants, gift shops, and elsewhere for recreation related to bighorn sheep. During 2011, watchable wildlife recreation supported approximately 12,900 full and part-time jobs in Arizona (approximately 9,900 related to residents’ spending and approximately 3,000 related to non-residents’ spending). These are jobs that are associated with direct spending by wildlife watchers plus the jobs in industries that are indirectly affected by wildlife watching through the multiplier effect. (Tucson Audubon Society, 2013) It is unknown how many of these jobs were directly related to watchable wildlife recreation in the project area.

On the Tonto National Forest, there are currently 130 outfitting and guiding services with active special use permits that mostly focus on recreation opportunities. These services include hiking groups, motor vehicle tours, river access shuttles, rock climbing, and fishing and hunting guides (U.S. Forest Service, 2014). Some of these special use permits are authorized for recreational use in wilderness and presence of bighorn sheep within these wilderness areas likely contributes social and economic values to these services.

Using the “Societal -Benefits Attitudes” as listed by Purdy and Decker (1989), certain specific social values of bighorn sheep within the project area may be recognized. These values include that bighorn sheep:

60 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

• Create topics of conversations for friends and family. • Provide opportunities for viewing and photographing wildlife, often within close range. • Create awareness of the existence of wildlife in the natural environment. • Provide opportunities for a greater understanding of wildlife behaviors. • Provide incentive to participate in outdoor activities. • Create an appreciation of the role wildlife play in the natural environment. • Provide incentives to include wildlife in educational materials and curricula in order to increase awareness and appreciation of the natural world. • Contribute to the awareness that the presence of wildlife is an indicator of the quality of the natural environment. • Provide a basis for the public to express opinions about wildlife, wildlife management, and natural resource conservation to public officials or private conservation organizations.

While there are no known studies that specifically address the cumulative economic value of bighorn sheep in Arizona or within the Tonto National Forest, Bugarsky (1986) attempted to answer these questions specific to the Pusch Ridge Wilderness population of bighorn sheep in the Catalina Mountains adjacent to the Tucson metropolitan area. The study assigned a total value of the bighorn sheep population to the Tucson public. The total value was defined as the sum of the use value and the existence value of the population. The use value included both consumptive and non-consumptive uses and was considered to be driven by egocentrism. The existence value was defined as the satisfaction an individual gains simply by knowing that a resource exists, regardless of any plans to use that resource. The existence value of the Pusch Ridge herd accounted for ninety percent of the total value. Bugarsky (1986) found that people within the metropolitan area of Tucson placed a value of $1.3 to $2.4 million on the continued existence of the population, regardless if they would ever see a bighorn sheep. This equated to an individual worth of $13,000 to $24,000 for each bighorn sheep, based upon an estimated population of approximately 100 animals in the herd. If the bighorn sheep could be seen, their estimated value was $2.2 to $3.9 million, or $22,000 to $39,000 per animal.

Using this study, combined with an annual inflation rate of 2.91 percent between 1985 and 2010, as a basis for estimating the total value of bighorn sheep within the Four Peaks and Superstition Wilderness Areas, the result would be an estimated value of $26,000 to $49,000 per animal in 2010. If the animals could be seen, their values would be approximately $45,000 to $79,000 per animal. This equates to a combined value of $10 to $18.8 million for bighorn sheep within just these two wilderness areas alone, based upon a total estimated population of 384 animals. If they could be seen their value would increase to $17.3 to $30.3 million. Values of bighorn sheep populations within and adjacent to other wilderness areas on the Tonto National Forest (Hellsgate, Mazatzal, and Salt River Canyon Wilderness Areas) could be estimated using the same methodology as described above, but reliable population estimates are not available for these bighorn sheep populations making economic values speculative at best.

Consumptive Use Value of Bighorn Sheep The consumptive use value of bighorn sheep refers primarily to revenues generated as a result of lawful, regulated hunting. Providing an accurate account of participation of hunting and fishing and other wildlife related recreation on the Tonto National Forest can be difficult. For example,

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 61

determining the overall number of people interested in hunting statewide is relatively easy because people wishing to participate in those activities must purchase hunting licenses, but not all people who buy licenses hunt solely on the Tonto National Forest nor do they hunt solely within the project area or solely for bighorn sheep. To determine the number of hunters that may hunt on the Tonto National Forest, the Arizona Game and Fish Department relies heavily on a well-established hunter questionnaire program to estimate how many hunters hunt in a particular game management units and to provide information on game species harvest (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2008). In the case of bighorn sheep hunting, these licenses or tags are distributed via a lottery draw and the numbers of people who wish to participate far exceed those that are allowed to participate due to the need to regulate the number of animals harvested (Table 13). For example, in 2011 there were 1,503 applicants (people wishing to participate) for only six desert bighorn sheep tags (people who actually participated) in Game Management Units 22 (includes Four Peaks and Mazatzal Wilderness Areas) and 24B (includes Superstition Wilderness Area) on the Tonto National Forest. Most big game hunts have more applicants than the number of hunt permits available.

Table 13: Hunt Applicants and Permits Issued for GMU on Tonto National Forest in 2011

Species GMUs No. of Authorized No. of 1st Choice Permits Applicants

Whitetail Deer 21, 22, 23, 24A, 24B 3,975 4,917 Mule Deer 21, 22, 23, 24A, 24B 2,750 4,322 Any Antlered Deer 22, 23 275 579 Pronghorn 21 35 424 Elk 21, 22, 23, 24A 2,040 5,556 Turkey 22, 23, 24A 1,590 2,646 Javelina 21, 22, 23, 24A, 24B 4,420 5,207 Bighorn Sheep 22, 24B 6 1,503 Total 15,091 25,158 Desert bighorn sheep are considered by many to be the most highly sought after big game trophy animals in North America. The demand for desert bighorn sheep permits far exceeds the number of permits available. In Arizona, the total number of bighorn sheep permits authorized averages about 100 per year with over 15,000 first and second choice applicants for these permits, resulting in a demand that exceeds 150 applicants per permit (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2012). In addition, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission annually awards three special big game license-tags for bighorn sheep to nonprofit wildlife conservation organizations that auction or raffle these tags to raise funding that is used to benefit bighorn sheep. The sponsoring wildlife conservation organizations must cover all marketing and administrative costs for the license tag sales, and 100 percent of the money raised is returned to the state of Arizona designated solely for bighorn sheep management in Arizona. These revenues provide funding for projects that range from water improvements, wildlife friendly fencing, wildlife studies, game surveys, translocations, habitat restorations, land acquisitions, and more. Many of these projects are matched and further leveraged with other funding sources, labor, or supplied materials, stretching every dollar spent even further.

62 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Bighorn sheep harvested by hunters within and adjacent to the Four Peaks and Superstition Wilderness Areas have yielded the highest scoring trophies for bighorn sheep hunters in Arizona within the past five to six years. As a result, hunters that obtain the special permits described above consistently choose these areas to hunt. The 2013 desert bighorn sheep special license-tag was sold for $160,000 and the tag for the 2014 season sold for $180,000. The amounts paid for these special license-tags are driven by the expectation that the hunter will take an exceptional trophy animal.

For the 2013 general bighorn sheep hunting season, eight bighorn sheep hunters spent an estimated $259,000 for the opportunity to take a bighorn sheep within or adjacent to the Four Peaks and Superstition Wilderness Areas. These expenditures include approximate totals of $62,000 for guide services, $16,000 for equipment purchases, and $20,000 for taxidermy fees (Moss, 2014). Also included is $161,496 spent for hunting licenses and permits. Trip-related expenditures were not included in this estimate.

Of particular interest, hunters appear to hold societal benefits of wildlife in higher regard than values related to personal recreation or non-consumptive use (Purdy and Decker, 1989). In the case of bighorn sheep hunters, this is demonstrated by social bonds created during scouting and active hunting. As is often the case, bighorn sheep hunters enlist the help of friends and acquaintances to assist in these prolonged activities. Bighorn sheep hunters often actively engage in future habitat improvement projects designed to benefit bighorn sheep, and they encourage friends to participate as well, thus creating a greater awareness of wildlife values.

According to the 2006 report for State and National Economic Impacts of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Related Recreation on U.S. Forest Service-Managed Lands, by the American Sportfishing Association, Tonto National Forest had the most expenditures for wildlife related recreation in the southwestern region:

• $24,350,674 for hunting; • $21,583,552 for fishing; and • $11,898,625 for wildlife viewing. Much of this information was obtained from the 2006 United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006) and the National Visitor Use Monitoring Program (U.S. Forest Service, 2012).

Non-Consumptive Use Value of Bighorn Sheep Non-consumptive use refers to revenues generated by such activities as wildlife viewing, wildlife photography, nature hikes, and tours. The ability of the Arizona Game and Fish Department to adequately represent current public interests in wildlife is being tested by an ongoing societal shift in the way people value and interact with wildlife. The Arizona Game and Fish Department conserves game, sport fish, and nongame wildlife species, primarily using revenues from discretionary spending of customers relating to hunting and fishing license sales. Increasingly, fewer people are interested in hunting and fishing as a proportion of the entire population, yet there has been growth in other forms of wildlife-related recreation, such as wildlife viewing. Although valuable and contributory to local economies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011), wildlife viewing activities provide little direct revenue for further conservation of wildlife, but likely contributes significantly to local communities. Tied to these trends is the increasing interest in providing input in how wildlife is managed. People have many different preferences for

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 63

wildlife related recreation programs and services. Greater diversity in viewpoints has contributed to increased conflict, as well as contradictory social values among stakeholders (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2012a).

Only a small percentage of watchable wildlife recreationists in Arizona, both non-residential and residential, report they are non-white. Participants are near fifty, are split fairly evenly between male and female, though more nonresidents are male. Resident participants are more likely to be married than nonresident participants. The average household income for residents participating in non-residential and residential activities is similar. Non-residents have, on average, a household income higher than resident participants. Both have incomes higher than the 2011 state average ($48,621 per U.S. Census Bureau). As with income levels, the education levels of residents who participate in residential and non-residential activities are similar, however non- residents have, on average, a higher level of education. (Tucson Audubon Society, 2013)

The total non-consumptive use values specific to bighorn sheep within the project area are not known to be available. However, some general assumptions may be drawn from statewide data and research that has been completed relative to the economic values of wildlife in general. It appears that non-consumptive value of bighorn sheep within the project area exceeds the consumptive value. This is supported by data that provides estimated amounts of expenditures incurred for hunting versus viewing or photographing wildlife in Arizona (Silberman, 2002 and Tucson Audubon Society, 2013). Data from these studies provided estimates of annual expenditures of $126,628,825 for hunting in Arizona versus $848,690,708 for wildlife watching in Arizona. Arizonans participate in wildlife viewing more than any other wildlife-related activity, particularly when viewing from home or in neighborhoods is included. In 2013, 25 percent of Arizonans, or 1.67 million people, made a trip with the primary purpose of viewing or photographing wildlife. Sixty-nine percent of respondents that viewed wildlife in the last year were very satisfied and 24 percent were somewhat satisfied. (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2014). Although this information is not specific to bighorn sheep, one would assume that some of these trips were related to viewing bighorn sheep in the project area.

Three specific examples of non-consumptive use of bighorn sheep within the project area include the Dolly Steamboat Tour at Canyon Lake, Bighorn Sheep Watchable Wildlife Workshops conducted by the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and a recent Wild Sheep Foundation bighorn sheep tour.

The Dolly Steamboat Tour is a commercial enterprise (Arizona Steamboat Cruises, Inc.) that operates a 100’ foot tour boat (“The Dolly”) at Canyon Lake. The Dolly carries approximately 140 passengers and has a crew of three. It is operated year-round, and offers nature cruises that are conducted 5 to 6 days a week, one to two times daily, depending upon the season. The tours are rated as one of the “25 things to see and do in Arizona” by the Official Visitors Guide of Phoenix. One of the most popular attractions of the nature tour is the opportunity to view bighorn sheep along the lake (Grimh, 2014). The opportunity to observe bighorn sheep is included in advertising for the Dolly Steamboat Tour and is listed first in the attractions for the tour. In 2013, The Dolly Steamboat Tour had a total of 51,201 passengers. Of these, 49,202 were paying passengers. Using an average fare of $21.00, the total expenditures by paying passengers in 2013 was $1,033,242.00. An estimated five percent of the passengers also purchase meals at the

64 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

restaurant adjacent to the dock where passengers embark and disembark. Using an average expense of $9.00 per meal, this adds another $23,000 in expenditures (Grimh, 2014).

In 2014, two Bighorn Sheep Watchable Wildlife Workshops were conducted by the Arizona Game and Fish Department on Canyon Lake. These workshops are offered in cooperation with the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society and the Dolly Steamboat and are guided boat tours focused specifically on educating the public about bighorn sheep, bighorn sheep conservation, and bighorn sheep management. The tours are intended to provide the public an opportunity to view and photograph bighorn sheep within and adjacent to the Four Peaks and Superstition Wilderness Areas. The price for the workshop tours are $32.00 per person. In 2014, 145 persons participated in these workshops, with attendance expenditures of $4,640. The Wild Sheep Foundation also conducted a bighorn sheep tour in cooperation with the Dolly Steamboat in 2014. The tour was conducted specifically to provide opportunities for participants to view and photograph bighorn sheep. The price for the tour was $32.00. Approximately 85 persons participated in the tour for total attendance expenditures of $2,624 (Babb, 2014).

The three specific examples mentioned above for non-consumptive use related to bighorn sheep presence within the project area accounted for over one million dollars in expenditures by the general public in 2013 and 2014. These expenditures do not include ancillary expenses such as gasoline, airfare, cameras, binoculars, clothing, or meals. In addition to expenditures by participants, the commercial operation also generates revenue for purchase and transportation of diesel fuel, food and beverages served aboard the tour, boat slip fees, permit fees for operating on the Tonto National Forest, as well as State and Federal taxes. The Dolly also provides employment for three crew members as well business administrative staff.

Environmental Effects

No Action—Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative, the Arizona Game and Fish Department would seek authorization to land helicopters in wilderness areas and likely be denied by the Forest Service, therefore significantly limiting the ability for the Arizona Game and Fish Department to meet bighorn sheep management objectives. As bighorn sheep herds within these wilderness areas increases, they expand their range outside wilderness into surrounding urban areas such as Gold Canyon or into the Heber-Reno domestic sheep driveway. The possibility of bighorn sheep coming into contact with domestic goats and sheep in these areas is a serious concern because of potential disease transmission from domestic animals to wild sheep. This may be the scenario that occurred in the mid-1990s when the bighorn population in the Four Peaks Wilderness was significantly reduced.

Bighorn sheep are very susceptible to bacterial infections which cause pneumonia. Six states (Idaho, Nevada, Montana, Utah, Washington, Wyoming) have had severe losses in their bighorn sheep populations in 2010. The amount of infection in any one population varies; as many as 90 percent of the animals can be affected and in some cases all of the affected animals will die. Those that don’t die may be affected by the disease for a year or more and may become carriers. In cases where herds have survived, the number of lambs that survive to adulthood is reduced such that the overall herd population actually declines for several years. While contact between domestic sheep and goats has preceded some outbreaks of pneumonia in bighorns, such contact has not been confirmed in all cases. There is no effective treatment or vaccination for bighorn sheep.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 65

The loss of these bighorn sheep populations within the project area from an epizootic event would significantly affect the social and economic value described in the existing conditions although it is not known if, when, how, or to what extent these values would be effected.

Proposed Action—Direct and Indirect Effects Under the Proposed Action, helicopter landings by the Arizona Game and Fish Department would be authorized within portions of the Hells Gate, Mazatzal, Four Peaks, Superstition, and Salt River Canyon Wilderness areas to conduct research, population monitoring, and captures of bighorn sheep for a minimum of 10 years.

Bighorn sheep are native to each wilderness area of the Tonto National Forest and it is believed they were extirpated from these areas by over-hunting or disease transmission from domestic livestock (human induced events). Enhancing bighorn sheep populations in areas of previous habitation would aid in sustainability of the species and have beneficial effects on social and economic values described in the existing conditions. Assuming the translocated sheep survive and reproduce, the duration of effects from the translocations would last more than ten years.

It is assumed that bighorn sheep are part of the values that contribute to wilderness recreation.

Helicopter flights and landings would introduce a short-term visual and audible disturbance to visitors in the vicinity of helicopter operations. The duration of noise effects would be temporary, approximately ten minutes or less for each approach, landing, and take-off from the ground. The helicopter may not be seen or heard continuously during the day from the same location, as flight paths may change depending on bighorn sheep locations or while the helicopter is grounded. This would reduce the potential for recreationists in these areas to see or hear the helicopter. For most of the project area this would be further limited because landings would occur during a time of year (November) and in a location (steep, rugged terrain with few trails) with few visitors. The context of effects would be site-specific effects for each landing, confined to the area around the landing that is within hearing by visitors of the mechanical noise from a helicopter. To minimize the effects for recreation within the wilderness, helicopter flights would be scheduled for weekdays to avoid busy weekends and holidays. Helicopter flights would also avoid trail corridors and concentrated areas of recreation users, when possible.

The long term effects of bighorn sheep conservation in wilderness areas on the Tonto National Forest would likely have greater positive social economic and social effects versus the short term helicopter use adverse effects to wilderness social and economic values.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this project is the Tonto National Forest and other areas of the state that benefit from presence of bighorn sheep as determined by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Other National Forests and other lands open to the public for wildlife related recreation are included as the effects of this action may affect recreational use patterns across these lands. In general, predictions about changes in recreational use related to bighorn sheep that may occur on the Tonto National Forest are difficult to make and somewhat speculative in nature. However, it would be reasonable to assume that levels of recreational use would continue to increase along with human population growth following current trends.

66 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Past actions related to bighorn sheep and wildlife related recreation within this analysis area have occurred regularly over the last 20 to 30 years. Some of these actions have been small, project specific actions such as construction of wildlife habitat improvement projects (e.g. water catchments) while others have been large, landscape level changes to wildlife and wildlife related recreation such as the Lone Fire in 1996 that burned approximately 61,000 acres within and adjacent to the Four Peaks Wilderness and the Willow Fire in 2004 that burned approximately 120,000 acres within and adjacent to the Mazatzal Wilderness. Some specific bighorn sheep projects include aerial surveys, radio telemetry monitoring, research, translocations, and reintroductions of bighorn sheep into historic ranges.

Some proposed reasonable foreseeable actions related to bighorn sheep and wildlife related recreation within the analysis area include: reauthorization of grazing allotments, the Heber-Reno domestic sheep driveway, recreation management, special use permits, personal use activities, wildfires and fire management, human population expansion, law enforcement, and management of wildlife diseases.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 67

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Preparers and Contributors

Kelly Kessler District Wildlife Biologist, Tonto National Forest

Greg Schuster Forest Recreation Planner, Tonto National Forest

Anne Thomas Forest NEPA Coordinator, Tonto National Forest

Todd Willard District Wildlife Biologist, Tonto National Forest

Jon Scott Wood Forest Archaeologist, Tonto National Forest

Nathan Yorgason Acting Wildlife Program Lead, Tonto National Forest

Agencies and Persons Consulted

Tribes Ft. McDowell Yavapai Nation

Hopi Tribe

Pueblo of Zuni

Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community

San Carlos Apache Tribe

Tonto Apache Tribe

White Mountain Apache Tribe

Yavapai-Apache Nation

Yavapai-Prescott Tribe

Agencies Arizona Game and Fish Department

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services

Organizations

Arizona Antelope Foundation, Inc.

Arizona Bowhunters Association

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 69

Arizona Deer Association

Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Inc.

Arizona Elk Society

Arizona Wilderness Coalition

Arizona Wildlife Federation

Audubon Society

Center for Biological Diversity

Mogollon Sporting Association

Mule Deer Foundation

Sierra Club—Grand Canyon Chapter

Western Watersheds Project

The Wilderness Society—Arizona Chapter

70 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

References

Apache County Independent News. 1971. Rocky Mt. bighorn invading Arizona. St. Johns, Arizona, USA. April 30, 1971.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2014. Arizona Trends Regarding Wildlife. Phoenix, Arizona.

______. 2012a. Hunt Arizona 2012 Edition - survey, harvest and hunt data for big and small game. Phoenix, Arizona.

______. 2012b Final Project Implementation Priorities. Phoenix, Arizona.

______. 2012c. Arizona’s State Wildlife Action Plan: 2012-2022. Phoenix, Arizona.

______. 2012d. Game Animal Translocation Procedures Policy. Phoenix, Arizona.

______. 2012e. Hunt Arizona 2012 Edition - survey, harvest and hunt data for big and small game. Phoenix, Arizona.

______. 2011a. Bighorn Sheep Management Guidelines. Arizona Phoenix, Arizona.

______. 2011b. Bald Eagle. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 9 pp.

______. 2011c. Golden Eagle. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp.

______. 2010. Sonoran Desert Tortoise. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 2-5 pp.

______. 2008. Hunter Questionnaire Improvement Report. Arizona Game and Fish Department , Phoenix, Arizona.

______. 2005. Mexican Spotted Owl. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 11 pp.

______. 2000. Evaluation of Bighorn Sheep Habitat in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Averill-Murray, R.C., and C.M. Klug. 2000. Monitoring and ecology of Sonoran desert tortoises in Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 161. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. 104p.

Averill-Murray, Roy C., Swann, Don E., Schwalbe, Cecil R. 2002. Distance Sampling for Sonoran Desert Tortoises. Journal of Wildlife Management 66(4):969-975.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 71

Babb, R. D. 2014. Statewide Watchable Wildlife Program Coordinator, Arizona Game and Fish Department. Personal communication.

Bailey, S.J. 1992. Hibernacula use and home range of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the San Pedro Valley, Arizona. M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson. 82pp

Bleich, Vernon C., R. Terry Bowyer, Andrew M. Pauli, Matthew C. Nicholson, and Richard W. Anthes. 1994. Mountain Sheep Ovis canadensis and Helicopter Surveys: Ramifications for the Conservation of Large Mammals. Biological Conservation 70:1-7.

Braun, C.E., F. Hamerstrom, T. Ray, and C.M. White. 1975. Conservation committee report on status of eagles. Wilson Bulletin 87:140-143.

Buechner, H. K. 1960. The bighorn sheep in the United States, its past, present, and future. Wildlife Monograph 4, 174pp.

Bugarsky, D.J. 1986. The Value of the Pusch Ridge Bighorn Sheep Herd (Arizona). MS Thesis. The University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. 77pp

Corman, T.E. and C. Wise-Gervais (Eds.). 2005. Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

Cunningham, S. C. 1989. Evaluation of bighorn sheep habitat. The desert bighorn sheep in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, USA, 135-160.

Davis, G. P., Jr. 1982. Man and wildlife in Arizona: the American exploration period 1824-1865. N. B. Carmony and D. E. Brown eds. Arizona Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit and Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix.

Delaney, D.K. and T.G. Grubb. 2004. Sound recordings of road and maintenance equipment on the Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper, RMRS-RP-49, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

Delaney, D.K., T.G. Grubb, and P. Beier. 1999a. Activity patterns of nesting Mexican spottedowls. Condor 101:42-49.

Delaney, D.K., T.G. Grubb, P. Beier, L.L. Pater, and M.H. Reiser. 1999b. Effects of helicopter noise on Mexican spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:60-76.

deVos, J. C., Jr. 1983. Desert bighorn sheep in the Pusch Ridge Wilderness Area. USDA Forest Service, Coronado National Forest, Contract #R381151. 57pp.

Driscoll, J.T., K.V. Jacobson, G.L. Beatty, J.S. Canaca, and J.G. Koloszar. 2006. Conservation assessment and strategy for the bald eagle in Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 173. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Eakle, W.L., and T.G. Grubb 1986. Prey remains from golden eagle nests in central Arizona. Western Birds 17: 87-89.

72 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Foster, Craig L. 2005. Wild Sheep Capture Guidelines. Biannual Symposium of the North American Wild Sheep and Goat Council. 14:211-282.

Frid, A. and L.M. Dill. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conservation Ecology 6:11. Available from:http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art11.

Good, R.E., R.M. Nielson, H.H. Sawyer, and L.L. McDonald. 2007. A population estimate for golden eagles in the western United States. J. of Wildlife Management 71:395-402.

Grimh, J. 2014. Arizona Steamboat Cruises. Personal communication (July 16, 2014).

Grubb, T.G., and W.L. Eakle. 1987. Comparative morphology of bald and golden eagle nests in Arizona. J. Wildlife Management 51:744-748.

Heffelfinger, James R., Valerius Geist, and William Wishart. 2013. The role of hunting in North American wildlife conservation, International Journal of Environmental Studies, 70:3, 399-413, DOI: 10.1080/00207233.2013.800383

Heffelfinger, J. R., Lee, R. M., and Cagle, D. N. 1995. Distribution, movements, and mortality of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in Arizona. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions, 39, 10- 16.

Hicks, L. L., & Elder, J. M. 1979. Human disturbance of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 909-915.

Jacobson, K.V. 2014. Personal communication regarding coordination of flights between December 1 and June 30 with AGFD Non-Game Raptor Management Program and AGFD Region VI for current eagle data on 7/25/2014.

Krausman, P.R., R. Valdez. 1999. Mountain sheep of North America. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 353 pp.

Krausman, P. R., & Hervert, J. J. 1983. Mountain sheep responses to aerial surveys. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 372-375.

Larsen, L.A. 1971. Bighorn sheep in New Mexico. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 15: 1- 6.

Latch, E. K., Heffelfinger, J. R., Wakeling, B. F., Hanna, J., Conrad, D. A. V. E., and Rhodes Jr, O. E. 2006. Genetic subspecies identification of a recently colonized bighorn sheep population in central Arizona. In the Proceedings of the Managing Wildlife in the Southwest Symposium. J.W. Cain and P.R. Krauseman eds. Southwest Section of The Wildlife Society (pp. 1-9).

Lee, R. 1986. Bighorn sheep hunting. Pages 1-17 in B. Hook and R. Lee, eds. Borrego, The fall and rise of desert bighorn sheep in Arizona. Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Inc.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 73

MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist, R. H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and Behavioral Responses of Mountain Sheep to Human Disturbance. The Journal of Wildlife Management 46(2): 351-358.

Mahoney, Shane P. (2013): Preface, International Journal of Environmental Studies, 70:3, 349- 349.

Martin, B.E. 1995. Ecology of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in a desert grassland community in southern Arizona. M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson. 112pp.

Martin, G.R. 1986. Sensory capacities and the nocturnal habitat of owls (Stigiformes). Ibis 128:266-277.

McCall, T. C., & Brown, E. 2011. Movement and survival of translocated Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in central Arizona. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions, 51, 11-16.

McCarty, K. 2014. Email correspondence referencing bald and golden eagle data for the Tonto Forest, and Arizona on 7/10/2014.

McCarty, K.M., K.L. Licence, and K.V. Jacobson. 2013. Arizona golden eagle nest survey 2013 summary report. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 277. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

McCarty, K.M., and K.V. Jacobson. 2011. Arizona golden eagle nest survey 2011. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 267. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

______. 2012. Arizona golden eagle nest survey 2012. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 271. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Mearns, E. A. 1907. Mammals of the Mexican boundary of the United States, Part 1. United State National Museum Bulletin 56. 530pp.

Millsap, B.A. 1981. Distributional status of Falconiformes in west central Arizona, with notes on ecology, reproductive success, and management. U.S. Dept. Interior, Bureau of Land Management Technical Note 355.

Millsap, B.A., G.S. Zimmerman, J.R. Sauer, R.M. Nielson, M. Otto, E. Bjerre, and R. Murphy. 2013. Golden eagle population trends in the western United States: 1968-2010. Journal of Wildlife Management. 77(7):1436-1448.

Moss, G. 2014. Little Horn Outfitters. Personal communication (July 10, 2014).

Murphy, Leann. 2012. Biological Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landing by CDFG within Wilderness Areas. Signed September 14, 2011. USDA U.S. Forest Service, Inyo National Forest.

74 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Nero, C.R. Knapton, and R.J. Hamre (eds.), Biology and conservation of northern forest owls: symposium proceedings. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report, RM-142, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

Nielson, R. M., T. Rintz, L. McManus, and L. L. McDonald. 2012. A survey of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in the western U.S.: 2011 Annual Report. A report for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. WEST, Inc., Laramie, Wyoming.

Norberg, R.A. 1987. Evolution, structure, and ecology of northern forest owls. Pp. 9-43 in R.W.

Ogren, H. 1957. Additional information on the status of bighorn sheep in New Mexico. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions,1, 34-34.

Olendorff, R.R., A.D. Miller, and R.N. Lehman. 1981. Suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines: the state of the art in 1981. Raptor Research Report No. 4, Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., St. Paul, MN.

Pater, L.L., T.G. Grubb, and D.K. Delaney. 2009. Recommendation for improved assessment of noise impacts on wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:788-795.

Purdy, K. and D. Decker. 1989. Applying Wildlife Values Information in Management: The Wildlife Attitudes and Values Scale. The Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol.17, No. 4 (Winter, 1989), pp. 494-500.

Remington, R., & Fuller, A. 1989. Capture and transplant techniques. The desert bighorn sheep in Arizona. RM Lee (ed). Arizona Game and Fish, Phoenix. pg, 195-197.

Russo, J. P. 1956. The desert bighorn sheep in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Dept., Federal Aid Project W-55-R. 153pp.

Silberman, J. 2002. Arizona State University, “The Economic Importance of Fishing and Hunting”

Stockwell, Craig A., Gary C. Bateman, and Joel Berger. 1991. Conflicts in National Parks: A Case Study of Helicopters and Bighorn Sheep Time Budgets at the Grand Canyon. Biological Conservation 56: 317-328.

Swarthout, E.C. and R.J. Steidl. 2003. Experimental effects of hiking on breeding Mexican spotted owls. Conservation Biology 17:307-315.

Swarthout, E.C. and R.J. Steidl. 2001. Flush responses of Mexican spotted owls to recreationists. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:312-317

Tucson Audubon Society. 2013. The Economic Contributions of Wildlife Viewing to the Arizona Economy: A County Level Analysis. Southwick Associates/Arizona Game and Fish Department.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Arlington, VA.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 75

______. 2007a. Protection of eagles; definition of “disturb”. Final rule. Federal Register. 72(107):31132-31140. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

______. 2007b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; removing the bald eagle in the lower 48 states from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife; final rule.

______. 2007c. Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. Sacramento, California. xiv + 199 pages.

______. 2011. United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Arlington, VA.

______. 2012. Final Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), First Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. 413 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. 2014. Tonto National Forest Draft Travel Management Environmental Impact Statement.

______. 2012. National Visitor Use Monitoring Program (NVUM) Data Collected FY 2008, NRIS HD-NVUM 1.2.2.33. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Resources Programs. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum

______. 1985 (revised 2005). Tonto National Forest Plan. Southwestern Region of the FS. 271 pp.

Vaughan, S.L. 1984. Home range and habitat use of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the Picacho Mountains, Pinal Co., Arizona. M.S. Thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe. 111pp.

Wakeling, B. F. 2007. Status of bighorn sheep in Arizona, 2006-2007. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 49:52-54.

Wakeling, R. Lee, D. Brown, R. Thompson, M. Tluczek, and M. Weisenberger. 2009. The restoration of desert bighorn sheep in the Southwest, 1951-2007: factors influencing success. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 50: 1-17.

Watson, J. 1997. The Golden Eagle. Bath: The Bath Press.

76 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Appendix A: Laws, Regulations, and Policies

• Sikes Act • Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act • Wilderness Act • Intergovernmental Cooperation Act • Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR part 1501) • Federal Land Policy and Management Act • National Forest Management Act • Executive Order 13443 – Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation (2007). The purpose of this order is to direct Federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. (White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2008) • Tonto National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1985), as amended • Forest Service Manual o Chapter 2320, Wilderness Management o Chapter 2600 Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management • Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness (as amended June, 2006) • Four Peaks Wilderness Plan (November 1, 1998) • Hellsgate Wilderness Implementation Plan (September 30, 1993) • Mazatzal Wilderness Implementation Plan (March 14, 1994) • Salt River Canyon Wilderness Implementation Plan • Superstition Wilderness Implementation Plan (October 31, 1985) • Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (version 2012) • Master Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and Southwestern Region and the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and Department (2010) • Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 17 as they pertain to powers, duties, and authorities of the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Commission for management of wildlife in the state of Arizona o A.R.S. 17-102 - Wildlife in Arizona is property of the state. o A.R.S. 17-231 - Allows the Commission, among other things, to: . Establish programs for the management of wildlife. . Establish hunting, trapping and fishing rules. . Be responsible for enforcement of laws for the protection of wildlife.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 77

. Share information about wildlife and activities of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. • Arizona Game and Fish Department Bighorn Sheep Management Guidelines (2006) • Arizona Game and Fish Department Final Project Implementation Priorities (2012) • Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation (Executive Order 13443 of August 16, 2007)

The proposed project responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Tonto National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan in contributing towards the desired conditions described in the plan (Tonto National Forest 1985). This project also meets wilderness management policy as outlined in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2300), and the Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness (as amended June, 2006).

Tonto National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

The Tonto National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan direction for management of fish and wildlife management:

• Wildlife and fish habitat elements will be recognized in all resource planning and management activities to ensure coordination that provides for species diversity and greater wildlife and fish populations through improvement of habitat. Ensure that fish and wildlife habitats are managed to maintain viable populations of existing native vertebrate species. Improve habitat for selected species. Cooperate with appropriate state fish and wildlife agencies. Prevent destruction or adverse modification of critical habitats for Threatened and Endangered species and manage for a goal of increasing population levels that will remove them from the lists. • Analyze all pronghorn and bighorn sheep habitat and continue the stocking program in suitable areas in cooperation with Region VI of the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Forest Service Manual

Forest Service Manual direction states the following policy for wilderness:

• FSM 2300 – Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Management; Chapter 2320 Wilderness Management; 2323.04 – Responsibilities; 2323.04c - Regional Forester o Developing, with the involved State(s), a supplement to the State/Forest Service memorandum of understanding, which will establish fish and wildlife management coordination in wilderness. The joint Forest Service and International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Guidelines will be used to develop compatible management activities. • 2323.3 - Management of Wildlife and Fish; 2323.31- Objectives o 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.

78 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

o 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. o 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: o 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. Recognize wilderness protection needs and identify any needed requirements in coordination efforts and in cooperative agreements with State agencies. o Wildlife and fish management programs shall be consistent with wilderness values. o Discourage measures for direct control (other than normal harvest) of wildlife and fish populations. o Manage wilderness to protect known populations of federally listed threatened or endangered species where necessary for their perpetuation and aid in their recovery in areas of previous habitation. When alternative areas outside of the wilderness offer equal or better protection, take actions to recover threatened or endangered species outside of wilderness areas first. o 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 (FSH 2309.19) 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. • 2323.33 - Wildlife Management; 2323.33a – Reintroductions: o Reintroduce wildlife species only if the species was once indigenous to an area and was extirpated by human induced events. Favor federally listed threatened or endangered species in reintroduction efforts. Reintroductions shall be made in a manner compatible with the wilderness environment. Motorized and mechanical transport may be permitted if it is impossible to do the approved reintroductions by nonmotorized methods. • 2323.33b-Habitat Surveys and Populations Inventories: o Conduct wildlife habitat surveys and population assessments in a manner compatible with the wilderness environment • 2323.37- Wildlife and Fish Research: • Wildlife and fish research is an appropriate activity in wilderness. In all cases, research shall be conducted in such a way as to minimize any adverse impacts on the wilderness research or its users.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 79

o Research methods that temporarily infringe on the wilderness character may be used; provided the information sought is essential for wilderness management and alternative methods or locations are not available. o Scientific sampling of wildlife and fish populations is essential to the management of natural populations in wilderness. o Capturing and inconspicuous marking of animals, including telemetry, is permitted. • Chapter 2600 Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management; 2610 – Cooperative Relations; 2611.1 – State – Forest Service Memorandum of Understanding: o With each State, develop a written memorandum of understanding involving policy or State-wide procedural matters. Periodically review and revise these memorandums of understanding. Prepare Regional or forest supplements to the basic memorandum of understanding to cover specific cases. This encourages continuity of direction regardless of changes in personnel. Regional Foresters and Forest Supervisors shall work to establish and maintain broad formal memorandums of understanding with each State in which there are National Forest system lands. Coordinate with other Regions in States covered by more than one Region. • 2611.3 – Research: o Encourage State wildlife and fish agency research projects on National Forest System lands and provide all practicable assistance through technical advice and administrative concurrence, when State agencies request the use of National Forest System for studies, sample plots, or other research needs. Such research may be done directly by the States, but preferably the States should handle the research in cooperation with the Forest and Range Experiment Stations. Where circumstances permit, qualified State personnel may be assigned to work at the Experiment Stations. It may benefit some States to secure needed research by financing individual projects through the Forest Service Research Station. Formal agreements or contracts may be entered into for such cooperative research. The Station Director shall negotiate and approve these agreements or contracts. Forest officers should ensure that there has been proper consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service concerning research on federally listed species. • 2620 – Habitat Planning and Evaluation - 2624 Sikes Act clarification, ; 2620.2 – Objectives: o The broad objective of habitat planning and evaluation is to provide habitats to meet goals and objectives for wildlife and fish, including endangered, threatened, and sensitive animal and plant species set forth in land and resource management plans. Specific objectives are to: . Integrate habitat planning into land management and project plans to meet National, Regional, and local objectives for wildlife and fish, including threatened, and endangered and sensitive animal and plant species. . Provide a sound base of information to support management decision-making affecting wildlife and fish, including endangered, threatened, and sensitive animal and plant species, and their habitats.

80 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

. Identify opportunities and management strategies to maintain and improve habitats throughout the National Forest System. . Coordinate forest planning for wildlife and fish with State comprehensive planning conducted pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, as amended by the Sikes Act (FSM 2601, item 6). Include in Forest plans and projects objectives required by the Act. . Achieve Service-wide consistency in how habitats of wildlife, fish, sensitive, and threatened and endangered species are evaluated and considered in land and resource management planning. • 2620.3 – Policy: o Use management indicators to address issues, concerns and opportunities for plants, wildlife, fish, and sensitive species habitats through all planning levels. o Provide habitat management direction to support recovery of Federally-listed species. Provide habitat management direction to ensure maintenance of viable populations generally well-distributed throughout their current range. o Evaluate the cumulative effects of proposed management activities on habitat capability for management indicators. o Specify in forest plans and project plans the standards, guidelines, and prescriptions needed to meet identified habitat goals and objectives for wildlife and fish, including endangered, threatened, and sensitive animal and plant species. o Monitor management indicators to evaluate compliance of management activities with plan direction, effectiveness of prescribed management, and validity of information used in habitat evaluation and planning. • 2630 – Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitat; 2630.3 – Policy: o Cooperate with States, other Federal agencies, and private groups to plan and accomplish habitat management. • 2640 – Stocking and Harvesting; 2640.2 – Objective: o To provide diverse opportunities for esthetic, scientific, and consumptive uses of wildlife and fish resources on a sustained-yield basis under applicable Federal and State laws and regulations. • 2640.3 – Policy: o Provide habitat for stocked species and assist in stocking and introduction operations to restore locally extinct indigenous species, to recover threatened and endangered species, and to introduce new species in coordination with State and Federal agencies. o Provide a variety of fishing, hunting, trapping, viewing, studying, and photographing opportunities and experiences in cooperation with the State fish and wildlife agencies. o Emphasize the protection, enhancement, and maintenance of habitats for production of wildlife and fish. Introductions or stocking of species may be made to restore resources following environmental changes, to provide

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 81

recreation opportunities where reproduction is insufficient to meet demand, or to introduce new species desired by the public. o Favor native or desirable non-native species over new exotic species in stocking and introductions. • 2640.42 - Forest Supervisor. The Forest Supervisor shall: o Reach joint agreement with the appropriate fish and wildlife agencies on proposals for stocking or introduction of the following fish and wildlife on National Forest System lands: . Stocking to supplement existing populations. . Stocking to re-establish populations where they formerly occurred. o Cooperate with State fish and wildlife agencies in local arrangements for capturing, stocking, and introducing fish and wildlife. • 2670 – Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals; 2671.1 Cooperation with state agencies; Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and Bureau of land Management Wilderness (as amended June, 2006); o Purpose (Page 1): . This statement of policy and the following guidelines are intended to provide guidance to State fish and wildlife agencies, FS and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) personnel for the management of fish and wildlife populations in wilderness in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964. Both State and Federal agencies are responsible for fostering mutual understanding and cooperation in the management of fish and wildlife in wilderness. The purpose of these guidelines is to develop and expand a framework of cooperation upon which projects and activities may be planned and accomplished while working cooperatively at the National, regional, and local levels. These guidelines serve as a framework for cooperation among the FS, BLM, and the States in the coordination of fish and wildlife management and in the development of cooperative agreements or other management plans. o General Policy: (Pages 4-5) . Fish and wildlife management activities in wilderness will be planned and implemented in conformance with the Wilderness Act’s purpose of securing an “enduring resource of Wilderness…” . Proposed fish and wildlife management activities that would involve uses generally prohibited under Section 4c of the Wilderness Act will be considered and may be authorized by the Federal administering agency. The FS and BLM will consult closely with States and give careful consideration to State fish and wildlife interests when considering these proposed activities, subject to applicable National Environmental Policy Act review, where determined through the Minimum Requirements Decision Process to be a necessary action. Additionally, the minimum tool to accomplish necessary fish and wildlife management activities as determined through the MRDG, will be recommended by the State and reviewed by the Federal

82 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

administering agency, in close consultation with the State, and approved where determined appropriate. . Section 4(d)(7) of the Wilderness Act stipulates that “Nothing in the Act shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the several States with respect to wildlife and fish in the national forests.” These policies and guidelines should not be construed as diminishing or expanding the State jurisdiction and responsibility to manage fish and wildlife. o Project Implementation: (Pages 6-13) . Use of Motorized Equipment: The State’s fish and wildlife management activities within wilderness can be accomplished with motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport, only if these devices are necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of the area as wilderness or are specifically permitted by other provisions of the Act. Any such use should be rare and temporary; no roads can be built; and proposals for use of motorized equipment will be considered and may be authorized by the Federal land management agency, in cooperation with the State, through application of the Minimum Requirements Decisions Process (MRDP) as outlined in Section E., General Policy. Any use of motorized equipment or mechanical transport requires advanced approval by the Federal administering agency. o Transplanting Wildlife: Transplants (removal, reintroduction, or supplemental introduction) of terrestrial wildlife species in wilderness may be permitted if necessary: (a) to perpetuate or recover a threatened or endangered species; (b) to restore the population of an indigenous species; or (c) to manage wildlife populations in accordance with the States’ wildlife population objectives. • In 2001, the United States Forest Service reaffirmed its commitment to the “Policy and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness” as provided under the MOU between the FS, BLM, and International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). It states: o “Research on fish and wildlife, their habitats, and the recreation users of these resources is a legitimate activity in wilderness when conducted in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment (Section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act). Methods that temporarily impinge on the wilderness environment may be approved if alternative methods or other locations are not available. Research or management activities must be approved in writing, on a case-by-case basis by the administering agency.” • Note – The 2001 AFWA agreement has been superseded by the 2006 Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) MOU which states: o Fish and Wildlife Research and Management Surveys o Research and evaluation related to fish and wildlife, their habitats and the recreational users of these resources are legitimate activities in wilderness when conducted in a manner compatible with the area as wilderness. Coordination of all research and survey activities is essential between State

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 83

and Federal agencies. Methods that temporarily infringe on the wilderness environment may be authorized by the Federal administering agency if alternative methods or other locations are not reasonably available. Research or management survey activities that would involve uses generally prohibited under Section 4 (c) of the Wilderness Act will be considered and may be authorized by the Federal administering agency through application of the MRDP as outlined in Section E., General Policy. o Helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft over flights may be used to conduct fish and wildlife research and management activities. Use of aircraft for these activities will be coordinated among the State and Federal agencies to minimize conflicts with other wilderness uses. To the greatest extent possible, aircraft must be used in a manner that minimizes disturbance to wilderness character and to human and wildlife use of the wilderness. o Aerial counts and observations (i.e. surveys) of wildlife are allowed in the management of fish and wildlife resources in wilderness. Capturing and marking of animals, radio telemetry, and occasional installations (such as shelters for cameras and scientific apparatus and enclosures essential for wildlife research or management surveys) that would involve uses generally prohibited under Section 4 (c) of the Wilderness Act will be considered and may be authorized by the Federal administering agency through application of the MRDP as outlined in Section E., General Policy. • Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Research and Management Surveys o Obtain specific written approval or permits from the Federal administering agency before erecting any structure, enclosure, or exclosure. o Locate and construct all structures so as to make them unobtrusive on the landscape. o Construct structures of native materials or camouflage to make them blend with their natural surroundings. o Plan aircraft flights over wilderness to minimize disturbance. Consider time of day, season of the year, route, and altitude of flight, and location of landing areas on the perimeter of the wilderness. o Research projects underway when a wilderness is designated may continue, but research methods should be modified, if possible, to minimize disturbance of the wilderness environment. o Installation of base stations for monitoring of radio-instrumented animals will be considered and may be authorized by the Federal administering agency through application of the MRDP as outlined in Section E., General Policy. o The Federal administering agency should only approve methods that minimize the impact on the wilderness environment to the greatest extent possible.

84 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

Arizona Game and Fish Department Bighorn Sheep Management Guidelines

Procedure 1: To annually monitor recruitment rates, ram to ewe ratios, and population trends.

• Field Operations personnel should conduct fall surveys in each mountain range or geographic area having a bighorn sheep population. Helicopter surveys should be conducted every third year to estimate recruitment rates, ram to ewe ratios, age structure of ram population, and population trends. Surveys shall be conducted by helicopter between September 15 and December 1 (June 1 to January 15 for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Helicopter surveys must be approved by the Regional Supervisor and the Big Game Supervisor. Interim monitoring may be conducted using remotely-triggered cameras, water hole monitoring, or foot surveys to document minimum numbers of rams by size class. If funds are sufficient and need is demonstrated, supplemental helicopter surveys and surveys of marginal sheep populations may be authorized by the Game Branch Chief. • Surveys will be designed to sample representative bighorn sheep range in each unit. Surveys should be mapped by flight area on topographic maps. Surveys should follow the methods described in the survey chapter of "The Desert Bighorn Sheep in Arizona" (Remington and Welsh 1989). The pilot must be experienced, and both he and the observers should be familiar with bighorn sheep survey methods. The survey time needed for each mountain range should be based on relative sheep density, ruggedness of terrain, vegetation, etc. Generally, one hour of survey for every 10 square miles of habitat is a reasonable survey effort. • Observed bighorn sheep will be classified as lambs (1-12 months), yearling ewes and rams (12-24 months), unclassified yearlings, ewes, and Class I, II, III, and IV rams (Figs. 1 and 2). Animals that cannot be positively classified will be recorded as "unclassified. Each animal or group of animals observed will be recorded as one observation on Bighorn Sheep Survey Record. Those observations believed to be replicates will not be used in making calculations and summaries. Confidence intervals will be calculated for ram, lamb, and yearling: 100 ewe ratios for each herd unit.

Procedure 2: To collect data on the ages and condition of harvested bighorn sheep.

• Bighorn sheep hunters will be required to check-out their animals according to Commission Order 7 and R12-4-308. Hunters will be encouraged to check any bighorn sheep taken through the Regional Office of their hunt area. Hunters may be requested to collect samples of blood, tissue, feces, rumen contents, ticks, or other samples of interest to the Department from their bighorn sheep. • Field Operations and Game Branch personnel will be familiar with check-out procedures. Only trained personnel will check out bighorn sheep. Bighorn sheep will be checked for general body condition, evidence of scabies, sinusitis, or any abnormalities. Left and right side, frontal, and top view photographs of each head should be taken. Abnormalities and other unusual characteristics will also be photographed. Other samples may be collected. Data from all sheep checked will be recorded on the Bighorn Sheep Hunt Record. Copies of these forms will be forwarded to the Game Branch within 10 days after the close of the bighorn sheep season. The Game Branch will provide copies to each Region of Bighorn

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 85

Sheep Hunt Records checked through the Phoenix office. The Game Branch will prepare a statewide hunt summary. • Cumulative hunt data will be summarized by regional personnel on Bighorn Sheep Management Summary Form. These data will be used to formulate future hunt recommendations.

Procedure 3: To use survey and hunt data to determine a prescribed annual harvest of bighorn sheep and formulate hunt recommendations to accomplish that harvest.

• Survey data will be summarized by Wildlife Managers and Game Specialists on the Bighorn Sheep Management Summary Form. Survey effort, design, and data manipulation should be well documented. • A population estimate will be constructed for those herd units for which sufficient population data are available. • Hunt recommendations will be made in conformance with the Guidelines for Hunting Season Recommendations. Generally speaking, a population of 50 animals should be sufficiently robust to support the annual harvest of at least a single sheep annually. Hunt recommendations should allow the harvest of 5-10% of the estimated ram population, which is generally 10-20% of the Class III and Class IV rams. • Hunt unit recommendations and survey data must be submitted to the Game Branch for review in accordance with the Hunt Recommendations Guideline schedule.

Procedure 4: To determine factors contributing to bighorn sheep population declines.

• Past recruitment rates will be compared with climatological data to test possible correlations between precipitation patterns, drought indices, and recruitment rates. Analyses should be a cooperative effort among the Game Branch, Research Branch, and regional personnel. • Disease investigations will be coordinated with Research Branch, University, State Health, and other interested parties. Cooperative investigations into bighorn sheep diseases will be encouraged. • The Research Branch will maintain a file on all samples collected and tested and the results of pertinent disease investigations. These data will be available to anyone doing or interested in research on bighorn sheep diseases. • Predator control for the benefit of bighorn sheep populations may be considered in hunt units with declining bighorn sheep populations. An assessment of other influences on bighorn sheep survival should be made before predator management is recommended. Written landowner permission is needed for private or leased land before planning can proceed. Site specific planning must be done in accordance with the Commission's Predation Management Policy (DOM A2.31). • Field Operations personnel will submit their predator management recommendations to Game Branch. The Game Branch will evaluate recommendations and set priorities on the basis of need, control methods to be used, and funds available. Approved recommendations will be forwarded to the USDA, Wildlife Services, for an action program. • The Regional Game Specialist, in conjunction with the Predator-Furbearer Biologist, will document all data pertaining to recommendations for predator control and for predators

86 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness

removed, both before and after control. These personnel will also be responsible for preparing the environmental compliance documentation required for predator management activities

Procedure 5: To maintain and enhance bighorn sheep habitat.

• Habitats of importance to bighorn sheep will be identified, rated, and ranked in importance. An attempt will be made to identify important areas in private ownership and transfer them to AGFD or U.S. Government administration. Acquisition may be through trade of state or Federal lands or by purchase. • Livestock grazing allotments containing important bighorn sheep habitat will be evaluated for conflict with bighorn sheep. Management alternatives to domestic sheep, goat, and ephemeral range cattle operations on public lands will be encouraged. Ranges having cow-calf and rotating steer operations will be evaluated for forage condition. Those areas where forage conditions are in need of upgrading will be discussed with the appropriate land management agency and the permittee in an effort to reduce grazing pressure. An attempt may be made to obtain data on the condition and on the presence of disease antibodies in a sample of pastured or intended stock animals. Such actions will be determined and conducted with the cooperation of the appropriate land management agency. • Bighorn sheep watering requirements should be evaluated. If it can be demonstrated that bighorn sheep are watering with domestic or feral stock, an effort will be made to keep stock from watering at that source, or an alternate source limited to bighorn sheep will be developed. Water development evaluations will be a joint effort of Game Branch, Development Branch, and Field Operations personnel with various land management agencies. • Wild horses and burros should be maintained at the lowest numbers possible, or as identified in land use plans, to minimize impacts to bighorn sheep and their habitat. Resolution of conflicts with feral horses and burros should be pursued with the appropriate land management agency. No release of exotic ungulates should be permitted in bighorn sheep habitat.

Procedure 6: To restock former bighorn sheep range.

• Potential bighorn sheep transplant sites will be determined according to the Evaluation of Bighorn Sheep Habitat described in "The Desert Bighorn Sheep in Arizona" (Cunningham, 1989). Transplants will be accomplished in accordance with the Big Game Transplant Procedures. • When Regional personnel determine that a particular bighorn sheep population can be used as a source for sheep, animals may be transplanted from this population to the priority ranking area within the historic range of the subspecies to be captured. The Big Game Supervisor must approve all transplant sites. Actual release location will be determined jointly by Field Operations and Game Branch personnel. Extra-Departmental requests for bighorn sheep must be in accordance with AGFD Policy and procedures. • AGFD personnel may capture bighorn sheep using helicopter and capture gun procedures or drop-net captures may be attempted throughout the year using suitable bait, such as apple mash bait. Other techniques may be developed. Capture techniques are described in

Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness 87

"The Desert Bighorn Sheep in Arizona" (Remington and Fuller 1989). Each release will require a minimum of 15 animals. Preferably these will be 65% ewes, 20% yearlings, and 15% medium aged rams (Classes II and III). • Captured bighorn sheep will be transported to the release area by trailer or helicopter. Transportation procedures are outlined in "The Desert Bighorn Sheep in Arizona" (Remington and Fuller, 1989). Animals may be "free" released or kept in temporary holding pen(s) at the release site and "soft" released from 4 to 24 hours after arrival. A minimum of four to six ewes should be radiomarked for monitoring purposes. • Released bighorn sheep will be monitored by Field Operations personnel. The need for supplemental releases shall be jointly determined on an ad hoc basis by regional and Game Branch personnel.

88 Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Authorization of Helicopter Landings in Wilderness