U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Olympic National Park OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK GOAT MANAGEMENT PLAN/EIS AUGUST 2017 . Uncertain Status Introduced Vagrant Extirpated HtstoricalRe-mrds Only f/ Nationalboundar?gr Subnatidnalboundary R'r-xer ater Ody NatureServe Permanent Resident Breeding Resident Nont-reeding Resident Pas-sage Migrant Man- created 3e nte mt: er 200.7 Olympic Peninsula Mountain Goat Introduction Sites 11-12 goats, 1925-1929 Population Expansion, 1920-1960’s . imated 222 goats on Klahanne Ridge Est Goat Population 1983: Minimum: 773 i 113 (SE) Estimate: 1175 :171 (SE) j- Strata 1983 ?Estimated goat density Management Low i0: L3: Medium Iii-9: High r10+2 Olympic National Park NannalForest 9022545 9 135 18 ?5 Kilometers A Imp-11H- dnsf"- I A1 13? Removals: before 1983 survey: (207) 1983-1989: 240 1990-1998 - 39 (193){Removal (pre 84), 1984-1989, - 1990+ ,3 9 ?1 . . ?Strata1983 I . I. 12 4 i Estimated goat density rx . Manage mem .. . a" . Low - I Medium (1-9) +3 Elf-"r - I :10 (fwwuOlympic National Park . . . - t. Ii i I Olympic National Forest max Nlometers A "9 3 0'1 ..-. ?0 2.25 4.5 9 13. Index: minimum population number of goats, 1983-2004 survey area, no correction for sightability Estimate (1) : 1983-2004 survey, corrected for sightability using correction factor Goats in Olympic National Park: Rcvicw of Scienti?c Material Relevant to the Occurrence. Ecosystem Role. and Tested Draft Environmental Impact Staterruar? Management Options for Mountain Goals in Olympic National Park for Mountain Goat Managemerv? Fulfillment of Contract of Interior Reed Nu?, Russell Graham. Dale R. McCullough. l?rcd Ramsey. Icnnil'cr Scax'c}. (?athy and Michael P. Williams :15 3h. 10m ('urllracmr: Conservation Biology Institute 200 SW Madison Aux. Suite Ill-(i Corvallis. OR 97333 541-757-0637 February 1995 Too/x and 'Il?t?lmo/ogi' Prepared in cooperation with the us. National Park Service and Washington Department ol Fish and Wildlile A Sightability lWodcl for lWountain Goats Cl 1? :5 (.31: . :1 ., ?nu-?31. 1511'1? u, Seasonal Distribution and Aerial Surveys of Mountain Goats in Mount Rainier, North Cascades, and Olympic National Parks, Washington Isn :1 . .2. 11-. :1 .. 11Dun-u 121:4! tr; i-E i: i-i DUI l'n. .iuui ?mu Open-File Report 2011-1107 us. Department at tho Int-riot us. Gooloo'cal Slmy Olympic mountain goat population trends 1983-2016 20161600 estimate: 623 + 43 (SE) goats. Increasing at 8.1 + 1.5%/yr (2004-2016) Mountain Goat Abundance 1400 1200 Index Estimate (1) Estimate (2) 1175 1000 800 623 600 391* 389 400 288 290 281 200 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Year Index: minimum population number of goats, 1983-2004 survey area, no correction for sightability Estimate (2) : 2011-2016 sample frame, corrected for sightability using model *2011 estimate includes count from Ellinor from 2012 Estimated Population 623i 43 (SE) 4, s?urVeyed Blocks . s?Esti mated goat density 10? Management Low JED Medium - High Olym pic National Park Olympic National Forest [21? m5, ?7?0 2.25 4.5 9 13.5 18 A 41? Nlometers . .i Occurrence Responses to situation 1: Observations of  Post level 1 signs 2: Goats don’t move   Post level 2 signs Implement aversive conditioning during regular patrols. Inform Wildlife Incident team of situation Increase patrols in area Mark animals with paint balls goats at > 100m (300f) off trail until get close, but easily shooed away. 3: .. follow people on trail, come into campsites; not easily chased away; no aggressive postures 4: .. persistently follow people on trail, come into campsites; hard to chase away; aggressive postures in adult males 5: .. aggressively seek salt; exhibits threat posture when encountered on trail; will not leave area without aggressive hazing 6: Goat attacks human; makes contact or corners people making egress impossible         • Evaluate need for area closure NPS Aversive Conditioning team patrol area Consider closing trail/ area Consider use of permanent marks (e.g. radio collar) Lethal removal if behaviors are repeated Lethal removal Goat Observation Types, Parkwide 2011 (n=157) 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Goat – Human Interactions 2011 Mountain Goat Management on Olympic National Forest NPS, WDFW, USFS prepare consistent public message on how to interact around goats (trailhead, website, video)  2012 - USFS close Mt. Ellinor after repeated encounters and begin adverse conditioning/hazing of goats.     USFS-WDFW develop goat incident reporting form; field ranger patrols USFS – WDFW- population census (2012, 2014); meeting with USFS leadership in Regional Office and Forest on goat management ‘Conflict reduction hunt’ started in 2014    NPS starts process for goat plan in 2014 WDFW and USFS are cooperators Public scoping July – September 2014 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Olympic National Park OBJECTIVES Develop a scientifically based method for the management of exotic mountain goats.. Reduce or eliminate impacts on sensitive environments and unique natural resources from mountain goats on the Olympic Peninsula. Reduce or eliminate the potential for visitor safety issues …. Protect the wilderness character … in the park and Olympic National Forest. Work cooperatively with co-managers of mountain goats … Support the wildlife management objectives of cooperating agencies and tribes... Provide opportunities to reestablish or augment sustainable native mountain goat populations in suitable mountain goat habitat on NFS lands in the North Cascades national forests. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Olympic National Park ALTERNATIVES A. No Action: Continuation of current mountain goat management methods. B. Capture and translocation: Mountain goats would be captured on the Olympic Peninsula, then transferred to WDFW and translocated to areas where they are native in the North Cascades national forests. Primarily use helicopters for capture and translocation. C. Lethal removal: Mountain goats would be lethally removed from the Olympic Peninsula using shotguns and rifles, via ground and helicopterbased methods. D. Preferred: Combination of capture and translocation and lethal removal Mountain goats would be captured and translocated, similar to alternative B, followed by lethal removal of additional mountain goats, similar to alternative C, of remaining goats. Alternatives Considered, Not Carried Forward Include:       Increased nuisance control Fertility control Introduction of wolves Fencing Use of salt licks as long-term management measure Public and/or tribal hunting in Park Alternative A: No Action Number of Mountain Goats Removed None, unless under current management options. Projected Goat Population 2028 Would continue to grow; current rate of increase is 8%/ year ~ >1500 Alternative B: Capture and Translocation Alternative D: Capture and Translocation and Lethal Removal (preferred) Alternative C: Lethal Removal Approximately Approximately 50% of the 90% of the population. population. Approximately 90 % of the population. About 50% would be captured and translocated. (~350) (~350 goats) (~650 goats) 40% would be lethally removed. (~300) Unknown; may stay low (<300) for many years, or may start to increase. Between 0 and 50 Between 0 and 50 (goal is 0) (goal is 0) Estimated goat population in 2018 ~725 Alternative D: Alternative B: Alternative C: Capture and Alternative A: Capture and Lethal Translocation and No Action Translocation Removal Lethal Removal (Preferred) Two 2 week periods (July Two 2 week and Sept) 3 to 5 years, Two 2 week periods (July with most activity in periods (July and Initial Current and Sept) 3 to 5 years 1 to 4. Sept) for 3 to 5 Management management years. Capture and translocation years. Duration would continue. Most actions used during initial years, Most actions during (years 1-5) during years 1 and switch to lethal years 1 and 2. to 3. removal sometime during years 2 or 3. Goat population Current Depends on the success of initial removals. will likely rebound Additional lethal removal may not be management within 10 to 15 needed at all, or may not be needed until 5 Maintenance would continue. years. to 15 later. activities Level of effort Will need to periodically repeat and Duration likely to Management activities would initial (years 6-20) increase with include use of ground based and helicopter management, and increasing goat operations and would be short duration (1 management under to 5 days). population. A indefinitely. Preferred Alternative: • Meets purpose and need and objectives the best of all alternatives. • Capture as many goats as safely and efficiently can. Stop when • Not safe or efficient • No more places to put them • No more resources for translocation • Estimate 2 years and 50% of population • Lethal removal could start at end of year 2 (September) • Start with ground-based operation • Use designated, skilled and trained volunteers • Follow with aerial operations the following year (s) Translocation: • Helicopters needed for capture and translocation • 2 primary periods of operation: • 2 weeks in mid July • 2 weeks in late August/ early September Transport to closest active staging area 1 staging area in the north (NPS) and 1 in the southeast (USFS) f?va. - 1W. nun. .. Mu?o'vl'l. :l?lk STATUS OF MOUNTAIN COATS IN CLIFFORD G. RICE 1. Research Scientist. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 600 Capitol Way 3.. Olympia. 98501. USA Abstract: Based on aerial surveys (2004?2002. adjusted for sightability} and subjective estimates for unsm?veyed areas. I developed an estimate oftl1e total number of mountain goats (Orennmor otnertcomrs) in State. USA. Mountain goat populations were estimated for 56 units. 40 areas. and 21 zones. yielding a total 2.815 (2401?1184) mountain goats. Of the m1 been monitored with aerial surveys. For the remaining areas. t1 ground counts and the rest subjectively estimated. Additional aeri Rainier National Park. the ?North h-iormtains. and th knowledge of moimtain goat populations 111 Bienmni 91111310511111: offhe Aorthem Wild Sh Ear words: population. Oreomnor. survey. This is the first estimate of mountain goat st ror snoulo oe attempted. h'Iy total estimate of 2.815 mountain goats in was substantially less than the estimate of 8. 555 goats from 1961. estimate tor theD areas included for the 1961 estimate was 2 .00?g .- mucl1otth1s erence is due to declines in mom1ta1 at populations. and how much is due to differing methods. It is clear that there have been large declines 111 some areas. For instance. the Snoqualnn'e area was thought to contain 450 mountain goats 111 1961 (Wadkins 1962 3. while the current estimate was 50. Sinnlarly the Bumping -er area population was estimated at 75 n1 1961anc .. - .2. ..s1ve11a1vest is thought to be the primary cause of such declines (Rice and Gay 2010}. In contrast. l?Ioimt Rainier Historic Declines 160 80 70 Penders Canyon 120 60 100 50 Falls Creek 80 40 60 30 40 20 20 10 0 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 Year 1970 1975 1980 0 1985 Falls Creek Count Penders Canyon Count 140 Factors Predicting Success of hiountain Goat Reintroductions RICHARD B. I-LALRRIS.1 Department of Fish our} Midlife, 600 C?rmitor? ?Err A: Oh?rimio. ?393.5011?. [551.4 BRIAN STEELE. Department of ?fmhemotics. of Affomono, ??ssonlo. 115??" 59813, USA ABSTRACT We adopted a retrospective approach to assess factors associated with success of motmtain goat (Orermmos (truer'immis) reintroductions into native habitats dtu'ing 1950-2010. Riv-Te excluded translocations into areas not historically inhabited by motmtain goats. as well as projects best considered augrnentations. To supplement published and unpublished literature. we requested data on translocations from staff at state and provincial wildlife agencies likely to have access to infonnation otherwise unavailable. Where data allowed. we estimated post-translocation growth rates. Because most projects did not allow the quanti?cation of growth. we also categorized reintroduction projects as successful or not. reintroduced populations as extant or exti1pated. and released animals as having displayed site fidelity or dispersing soon after release. Riv-Te examined a suite of hypothesized explanatoiy variables for these outcomes. including number of males. females. juveniles. and kids. as well as munber of separate releases. mmrber of source populations (assumed a proxy for genetic variation). and whether source populations themselves originated as translocations. In contrast to earlier work that suggested no demographic predictor of mountain goat translocation success (Guenzel 1980). we found that the munber of adult founders was strongly predictive of long-term success. Releases of just a few animals were relatively likely to have been extirpated within the time duration studied. Evidence suggested that releasing juveniles and kids along with adults produced no improvement in probability of a successful outcome. Biennial Ufl?fli? .A-?Torrliarw MW Sheep and Goof Council 19; 3014? Relationships between size of release and outcome 22 22 20 20 18 Total Animals Released Total Animals Released 18 16 14 12 10 16 14 12 10 8 8 6 6 4 4 Fate of Released Animals Successful Undetermined Fate of Released Animals Unsuccessful Displayed fidelity Undetermined Dispersed Mt Baker WA 20 Naches Pass Boulde r River Bumping River US 12 Goat Rocks US 2 NPS/WDFW Yakima TWS March 28 2017 I 90 Analyses conducted Rough assessment of summer habitat quality (Wells et al. 2011)    Based on 38 GPS collared goats; emphasized topographic features, rough indicator of vegetation only Aggregated to 125x125 scale, then grouped to produce contiguous polygons Estimated historic population density    Historic abundance indexed by historic harvest Density estimated by applying areas subjected to harvest (Note: NCNP included because much historic harvest preceded NP designation) Rough estimate of potential population size • Based on estimate of 2.3 goats/km2 appropriate habitat throughout • • • • • Connectivity Mountain goat diets in North Cascades Historic goat presence as function of underlying geology Presence and abundance of preferred forage species by geology Logistics: Access, wilderness designation Mt. Buckindy Ross Lake Harvest Geologic Origin 0 1 - 5 - Plutonic 6 - 15 - Volcanic 16 - 50 Sedimentary - Mixed Sham Various Deposit Water . .. l' ~1fu: . Mutt-u Chilihdn? l- l' I ,v'v?3n 9:11? . 331-3th 3 II Bauct-SnOQuumlo Nahon) Fovcr. ?38" ?We? u?mdemess f'a?nuso "255' N-l unnl Pout-l I?ul l' chf?f .- Jackson wicemess 'J?l 'l -- AJmne hat-uluznh nolr'.o- Lap-85 Uni' Rlvlu' a "unlu- It"! tn .1 lar?dUwr?c'2no . :Timeline 7/28/2017 Draft EIS Released for 60-day public comment August 14-17 Public Meetings 9/26/2017 Public Comment Period Ends Oct-Nov 2017 Review and Respond to Public Comments Dec. 2017 – March 2018 Prepare Final Plan / Decision Document Summer 2018 Plan Implementation