Finding of No Significant Impact and Final Environment Assessment for the Black-footed Ferret Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement October 23, 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MOUNTAIN-PRAIRIE REGION FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF AN ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 10(a)(1)(A) ENHANCEMENT OF SURVIVAL PERMIT FOR THE BLACK-FOOTED FERRET PROGRAMMATIC SAFE HARBOR AGREEMENT The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to issue an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 10(a)(1)(A) Enhancement of Survival Permit (Permit) to the Black-footed Ferret Recovery Program Coordinator for the purpose of implementing a Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) to support the recovery of the endangered black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes). The permit will have a term of 50 years, and will enable the implementation of the SHA in the states of Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, we evaluated the potential environmental effects associated with the Proposed Action of issuing the Permit and implementing the SHA, as well as two alternatives, in an Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA addressed two alternative SHA implementation scenarios and a no-action alternative. We made the draft EA and SHA available for public review at the National Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center in Carr, Colorado, and online at www.blackfootedferret.org for 30 days on December 19, 2012. In response to requests for an extension of the public comment period, we provided the draft documents for review for an additional 30 days on January 23, 2013. We reviewed comments submitted by the public and are providing our responses to substantive comments in Appendix A of this FONSI. Appendix A also describes changes we made to the Final EA (Appendix B) in response to certain comments. All final documents associated with the SHA are available at the Black-footed Ferret Recovery Program website (http://www.blackfootedferret.org/), the Service’s Mountain-Prairie Region website (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/blackfootedferret/), or from the Black-Footed Ferret Recovery Coordinator (currently Pete Gober; [email protected] or 970-897-2730 x224) upon request. We also initiated government-to- government consultation with potentially affected Tribes; a summary of these consultations is found in Table 1 of Section 2.0 of the EA. As a result of the analyses we conducted in the EA and review of public comments, we have made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). This FONSI documents the support for our finding as follows. We selected the proposed alternative of implementing a Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement (Alternative B). The development of the SHA is a critical step in the eventual recovery of the black-footed ferret, as it will help facilitate reintroductions of the species on non-federal lands while providing regulatory assurances that will encourage greater private landowner participation in black-footed ferret recovery. The SHA is summarized in more detail in the attached EA. Furthermore, it allows implementation of recovery efforts on non-federal lands 2 within the historic range of the black-footed ferret to proceed more quickly than Alternative C, which would rely on the development of individual Safe Harbor Agreements on a case-by-case basis. Both Alternative B and Alternative C would conform with the Service’s Safe Harbor policy and regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32), which allow landowners to return to baseline conditions at any time without penalty. However, under Alternative C, the time necessary to develop individual SHAs and prepare the required environmental compliance documentation for each agreement would delay implementation of reintroductions and associated recovery activities on non-federal lands under these SHAs. The additional time and processes involved in developing individual SHAs are likely to be a disincentive for some landowners to volunteer enrollment of their properties which would result in a diminished benefit to the black-footed ferret relative to Alternative B. In contrast, Alternative B provides a streamlined process for landowner enrollment. Both Alternative B and Alternative C would encourage the recovery of the black-footed ferret to a greater extent than the no-action alternative (Alternative A), which would not provide mechanisms for landowners to volunteer their lands for black-footed ferret reintroductions other than through Section 10(a)(1)(A) permits or within designated Section 10(j) areas. These mechanisms do not provide the same level of streamlining or the regulatory assurances that serve as incentives under SHAs. Under Alternative B, landowners who choose to participate in the SHA would commit to continue to utilize their lands as agreed upon by them and the permit holder. In most cases, enrolled landowners are likely to continue livestock grazing, the activities that facilitate grazing (e.g., installing and maintaining fences, installing and maintaining watering facilities and controlling weeds), and other agricultural land uses compatible with black-footed ferret conservation. Furthermore, under Alternative B, the reintroduction of black-footed ferrets and associated management activities to be implemented under the SHA are not expected to change or disrupt current land uses or constitute a significant effect on other factors of the human environment within the action area. These factors and a summary of the determination of effect for each are found below: 1. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species – Federally listed species and candidates for listing potentially affected by the implementation of Alternative B include the black- footed ferret (endangered), Gunnison’s prairie dog (candidate), California condor (endangered), greater sage-grouse (candidate), Gunnison sage-grouse (proposed endangered), lesser prairie-chicken (candidate), northern aplomado falcon (endangered), and Sprague’s pipit (candidate). Alternative B is expected to have a beneficial effect on the black-footed ferret due to the implementation of reintroduction activities and plague management; prairie dog management activities are not expected to exceed the level of lethal control that presently occurs, so will likely not constitute a negative effect for the black-footed ferret. Reintroduction of the black-footed ferret is not expected to occur in the montane portion of Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat due to the paucity of colonies of adequate size (approximately 3,000 acres, depending on prairie dog density). Due to limited habitat overlap, conservation practices implemented as a result of Alternative B are not expected to constitute a negative effect on the California condor, greater sage-grouse, 3 Gunnison sage-grouse, lesser prairie-chicken, northern aplomado falcon, and Sprague’s pipit. 2. Wildlife – The implementation of Alternative B is expected to have beneficial effects for wildlife species dependent on prairie dog colonies. Many of these species are listed as species of management concern in State Wildlife Action Plans for the states contained within the action area (see Section 4.2 of the EA for additional information). While there may be some risk of short term impacts to some wildlife species, particularly from prairie dog management activities, the overall impacts are expected to be beneficial to wildlife. Additionally, the scope of Alternative B would affect only a very small percentage of the landscape (<0.1 percent, or approximately 500,000 acres of occupied prairie dog habitat); therefore, any short term impacts to wildlife would be negligible to population or species stability 3. Environmental Justice - Under Alternative B, participation in the SHA would be voluntary for any landowner who meets the eligibility requirements for habitat suitability identified in Section 3.2 of the EA. Because participation is voluntary, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of this alternative are not expected on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian Tribes. Many Tribes have indicated a desire to participate in recovery efforts for ferrets and the implementation of Alternative B would expedite the ability for these Tribes to participate and would provide assurances that their participation would not result in additional regulatory burdens. 4. Farm and Ranch Land - Under Alternative B, landowners who choose to participate in the SHA would commit to continue to utilize their lands as agreed upon by them and the Black- footed Ferret Recovery Coordinator. In most cases, participating landowners are likely to continue livestock grazing, the activities that facilitate grazing (e.g., installing and maintaining fences, installing and maintaining watering facilities and controlling weeds), and other land uses compatible with black-footed ferret conservation. Thus, the release of ferrets and associated management activities are not expected to change or disrupt current land uses or contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farm and ranch lands to nonagricultural uses. Some landowners may be concerned with potential impacts to ranching activities from the presence of prairie dogs, such as the risk of injury to livestock and damage to equipment from prairie dog burrows and competition for livestock forage. However, Alternative B allows for prairie dog management in designated