Environmental Assessment

Home , South Central Oklahoma, Tishomingo City Hall

CONSTRUCTION OF OFFICE FACILITIES AND HIKING TRAILS

TISHOMINGO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, JOHNSTON COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

10/13/2017

Prepared By

Refuge Staff Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge Tishomingo, OK

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE…………….…………….1

1.1 Introduction: ...... 1

1.2 Location: ...... 1

1.3 Background: ...... 5

1.4 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action: ...... 7

1.5 Decision to be Made: ...... 7

1.6 Regulatory Compliance: ...... 7

1.7 Public Involvement and Issues Identified: ...... 8

2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE…………………….9

2.1 Alternative A--No Action Alternative: ...... 9

2.2 Alternative B— Construction of office facilities at Tishomingo NWR (Preferred) ...... 10

2.3 Alternative considered but dismissed from further consideration………………………...... 11

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT...…………………………………………………………………...... 11

3.1 Physical Environment: ...... 11

3.1.1 Air Quality: ...... 11

3.1.2 Soils/Geology:………………………...………………..………….………………………………...12

3.1.3 Water Resources and Quality…………………………………………………………………...…...12

3.2 Biological Environment: ...... 12

3.2.1 Vegetative Communities: ...... 12

3.2.2 Wildlife: ...... 12

3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species…………………………………………………………….…..14

3.3 Human Environment…………………………………………………………………………………..15

3.3.1 Cultural Resources ...... 15

3.3.2 Socioeconomic Resources: ...... 18

3.3.3 Public Use/Recreation: ...... 19

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES……………………………………………………………22

4.1 Physical Environment: ...... 22

4.1.1 Impacts on Air Quality:...... 22

4.1.2 Impacts on Water Quality and Quantity ...... 23

4.1.3 Impacts on Soils: ...... 23

4.2 Biological Environment: ...... 24

4.2.1 Impacts on Habitat: ...... 24

4.2.2 Impacts on Wildlife: ...... 24

4.2.3 Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species and Special Status Species ...... 25

4.3 Human Environment: ...... 25

4.3.1 Impacts on Cultural Resources: ...... 25

4.3.2 Impacts to Socioeconomics:………………………..………………………………………………26

4.3.3 Impacts to Public Use and Recreation………………..……………………………………………26

4.4 Cumulative Impacts……………………………..…………………………………………………….27

4.5 Environmental Justice:………………………………………………………………………………...27

4.6 Indian Trust Assets……………………………………...…………………………………………..…28

4.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources………………………...... …………..28

4.8 Summary of Environmental Impacts by Alternative…………………….…………………………….28

5.0 CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND DOCUMENT PREPARATION:…………………….29

5.1 Agencies and individuals consulted in the preparation of this document…………………………….29

5.2 References:…………………………………………………………………………………………….29

1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION

1.1 Introduction: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to construct new office, visitor center and maintenance shop facilities at Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) near Tishomingo, Oklahoma. These facilities will be constructed to replace the Tishomingo headquarters and maintenance shop office facilities that were destroyed during the flood events in 2015. The office/visitor center facility will be approximately 4,585 square feet, and consist of eight individual offices, an exhibit area and a multi-purpose room. The visitor center will be constructed on concrete slabs on grade with turn down or spread footing with a floor elevation approximately 670 feet above sea level. A 20-foot wide concrete driveway will provide access to a parking area for 14 visitors. A bus turnout /RV parking shall be bid by the contactor as an option. A canopied parking area will also be provided for six employees and six government vehicles. City water will be tied to the facility and a lateral line septic system will be installed on site. See Appendix A for office/visitor center floor plan. All built facilities shall meet 2010 ADA standards for accessible design: https://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm

Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines – 2006: https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines- and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-aba-standards/aba-standards.

The maintenance shop facility will be 3600 square feet and will consist of two offices and a work area. This facility will also be constructed on concrete slabs on grade with turn down or spread footing with a floor elevation of 670.00 feet above sea level. Parking for staff will consist of a canopied parking area. City water and a lateral line septic system will also be installed on site. See Appendix B for maintenance shop floor plan.

Additionally, the Tishomingo NWR is proposing the development of 1-4 hiking trails all beginning at the new visitor center. Hiking trails 1-3 would consist of a short, medium and a long trail winding east along Sandy Creek. The long Sandy Creek trail would lead visitors to the northeast towards Sandy Creek then turn south along the creek for approximately one mile; it would then go west across Refuge Road and loop north to connect with the Craven Trail before eventually returning to the visitor center for a total loop length of approximately 2.0 miles. While these trails would make for interesting hikes, two of the three trails eventually drop in elevation and enter areas subject to occasional flooding. For this reason, it is unlikely that all three trails will be constructed but this will be dependent on funding. The fourth trail would take visitors west across the road from the visitor center and would connect with the existing Craven trail. These trails would consist of crushed granite with fines or asphalt on five-foot-wide paths depending on funding. See Figure 1-5 and Appendix C for additional hiking trail information. All built outdoor recreational facilities shall meet the Final Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas: https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/recreation-facilities/outdoor-developed- area/final-guidelines-for-outdoor-developed-areas/single-file-version-of-rule

This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to evaluate the effects associated with this proposal and complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1509) and Department of the Interior (516 DM 8) and Service (550 FW 3) policies. NEPA requires examination of the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environment. In the following chapters, two alternatives are described and environmental consequences of each alternative are analyzed.

1.2 Location: The 16,464-acre Tishomingo NWR is located within Johnston and Marshall Counties in south central Oklahoma. The refuge is south-southwest of Oklahoma City and due north of the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area. The refuge is also located within 125 miles of six million people, although it is still in

1 a rural setting approximately three miles southeast of the city of Tishomingo in Johnston County, Oklahoma (Figure 1-1).

The proposed locations of the headquarters and maintenance office are approximately 3 miles south of Tishomingo, OK on Tishomingo NWR, Johnston County, Oklahoma along S. Refuge Road at Lat/Long 29°42’32”N / 93°55’12”W, (Figure 1-2,1-3 and 1-4). The area of impact is approximately four acres for the buildings and approximately 1.12 acres for the hiking trails (Figure 1-5).

Figure 1-1. (Refuge Location in proximity to Dallas/Ft.Worth Area).

Figure 1-2. (Existing and proposed facilities map).

Figure 1-3. (Proposed Locations of Office/Maintenance Shop).

Figure 1-4. Proposed Permanent Facilities

Figure 1-5. Proposed Hiking Trails

1.3 Background: Tishomingo NWR is in southcentral Oklahoma on the north side of Lake Texoma and encompasses 16,464 acres. The refuge was established to benefit migratory waterfowl in the Central Flyway and help conserve America’s wildlife heritage for current and future generations. The refuge is located on the Washita River arm of Lake Texoma and includes the Cumberland Pool. The south and east sides of the refuge are steep, rocky, and generally heavily wooded. The north and west sides are gentle to sloping in topography and include sections suitable for cropping, wildlife and recreational use. Grasslands and forest habitats are intermingled and extend along the periphery of the refuge. Except for about 120 acres of cropland and 500 acres of woodlands, lands are subject to flooding at high water levels.

Tishomingo NWR was established in 1946 under the Public Land Order 312…”to provide refuge and breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife” …and in accordance with such rules and regulation for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife resources thereof, and its habitat thereon…16 U.S.C. (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act).”

The predecessor of today’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, also entered into a cooperative agreement with the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Department, currently known as the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC), through the USACE on November 19, 1957. This agreement encompasses cooperative management responsibilities of each

5 agency for the 3,170-acre wildlife management unit (WMU) included within the refuge. The lands of the WMU are allotted by the USACE to be managed by both the Service and ODWC in accordance with the agreement.

Although originally established to provide habitat for migratory ducks and geese, through land and water management, it now provides a diversity of habitats for a wide range of migratory and resident species, including the interior least tern (Sternula antillarum athalassos) and piping plover (Charadrius melodus), both of which are federally listed as threatened or endangered species.

The refuge provides important waterfowl and migratory bird habitat in south central Oklahoma that partially fills a large gap along the Central Flyway. The refuge’s agricultural practices meets refuge objectives by providing adequate grain and browse to meet the feeding requirements of waterfowl and other wildlife. In addition to waterfowl, other wildlife species also benefit from the refuge’s habitat restoration efforts. Habitat management to maintain populations of Neotropical migrants and shorebirds associated with the Arkansas/Red River Ecosystem has become a major objective. The regions value to waterfowl and other wildlife species and their habitats has also increased since the refuge’s development (Figure 1-6).

Figure 1-6 Arkansas/Red River Ecosystem Boundaries

The general vegetation within the refuge is classified as mid-grass prairie and Eastern Cross Timbers (Hoagland 2000). Stream banks and overflow floodplains support typical bottomland hardwood vegetation. General plant communities found on the refuge are forest, prairie, riparian/wetland and agriculture. Recent bird surveys indicate that 296 bird species occur on the refuge, of which over 90

6 species are known to nest locally. Approximately 134 species of Neotropical migratory songbirds use refuge habitats primarily during spring and fall migrations, although approximately 50 of these species nest in spring and summer.

The first portion of land which would become known as the Washita Farm was purchased by Phillip A. Chapman in 1918. The Chapman family eventually purchased a total of 30,000 acres in Johnston, Carter, Murray and Marshall Counties. By 1925, the Washita Farm, also known as the Chapman Farm was considered the largest estate in Oklahoma. Records indicate that there were 42 five-room concrete bungalows for tenants and managers. Farm operations included cattle, hogs, turkeys, chicken production and a hatchery. The Washita Farm School also opened its doors in 1930. In 1938, Congress authorized the USACE to build a dam at Denison in order to create Lake Texoma along the Oklahoma and Texas border. Dismantling of the Washita Farm begin in 1941 and was completed in 1943. The Denison Dam was completed and placed in operation in February of 1944. As many of the structures were concrete buildings, several are still standing along with grain silos and Harley’s Cemetery.

1.4 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action: The purpose of this management action is to strategically relocate the Tishomingo NWRS office facilities to a location and elevation that will be more likely to withstand the extreme lake levels which are possible should Lake Texoma experience historic flood conditions in the future. This action is needed because the Tishomingo office and maintenance facilities were destroyed during historic floods experienced in 2015. Rebuilding at the previous office site was not feasible due to the probability of similar catastrophic losses occurring in the future. The selected location(s) for new facilities at Tishomingo NWR are located approximately 670 ft. above sea level. This is also the same elevation as the top of the Denison Dam so high-water levels are not likely to impact these facilities. The proposed trails will also provide increased recreational opportunities as the new visitor center is completed.

1.5 Decision to be Made: This EA is an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the alternatives and provides information to help the Service fully consider these impacts and any proposed mitigation. Using the analysis in this EA, the Service or Regional Director will decide whether there would be any significant effects associated with the alternatives that would require the preparation of an environmental impact statement and whether to proceed with no action, a proposed action or a mixture of the two and prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the selected alternative. The issuance of permits (e.g., Special Use) is not a consideration for this project, but rather environmental impact to this new location on existing refuge property is under consideration. This environmental assessment will be used to determine the path of least impact to the affected environment, and the most functional placement of facilities to carry out the mission of the USFWS.

1.6 Regulatory Compliance: This EA was prepared by the Service and represents compliance with applicable Federal statutes, regulations, Executive Orders, and other compliance documents, including the following: . American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996) . Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470) . Clean Air Act of 1972, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) . Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) . Endangered Species Act of 1973, (ESA) as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) . Executive Order 12898, Federal Action Alternatives to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, 1994. . Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) . Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988) . National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

7 . Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500 et seq.) . National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) . Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.) . Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (Executive Order 11593) . Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) . National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) . The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) Improvement Act of 1997

Further, this EA reflects compliance with applicable State of Oklahoma and local regulations, statutes, policies, and standards for conserving the environment and environmental resources such as water and air quality, endangered plants and animals, and cultural resources.

The USACE has been charged with the legal authority to protect the water resources of the United States, including vegetated wetlands, through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The USACE regulatory program supports the national goal of “no overall net loss” of wetlands through the sequencing process which ensures that any environmental impact on aquatic resources from construction projects, that would require discharge of dredge or fill material, where applicable, should avoid, minimize, or mitigate for these unavoidable impacts to the “waters of the U.S.,” including wetlands. A wetland delineation of the proposed project while referencing National Wetland Inventory maps determined that the project area was not located in jurisdictional wetlands that require USACE 404 permitting.

On June 23, 2017, the Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the Section 106 documents and determined the proposed project would have an adverse effect on properties deemed eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The project was then elevated to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in Washington for consultation and to complete the Section 106 process. On August 11, 2017, the ACHP declined to participate in consultation and returned the decision and the responsibility of developing a Memorandum of Agreement to the Service, USACE, SHPO, Oklahoma Archeological Survey and the Chickasaw Nation. This process is currently underway and the undertaking and construction of permanent facilities shall be implemented in accordance with the stipulations outlined in the agreement upon signature of invited agencies and when an executed version is received by the ACHP.

1.7 Scoping/Public Involvement and Issues Identified: Tishomingo NWR was established in 1946 under the Public Land Order 312…”to provide refuge and breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife” …and in accordance with such rules and regulation for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife resources thereof, and its habitat thereon…16 U.S.C. (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act).”

Tishomingo NWR is an overlay on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Denison Dam and Lake Texoma Project. The USACE retained primary jurisdiction of Denison Dam and Lake Texoma Reservoir lands, including lands on which the refuge is located but entered into a cooperative agreement with the refuge on April 9, 1957. The agreement provides the Service the authority to administer and maintain habitat within the refuge boundaries for wildlife protection. The USACE and the Service have a good working relationship and entered discussions regarding constructing new permanent facilities early in this process. The USACE also granted the Service, the right of entry to initiate work for the construction of a permanent office on February 24, 2017. Collaboration continued as the cultural surveys were being conducted and during the Section 106 review. On May 26, 2017 the Service announced its intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment of alternatives for the construction of office facilities and hiking trails on Tishomingo NWR, near Tishomingo, Oklahoma. A 14-day scoping period began on May 26, 2017 and concluded on June 9, 2017. The Service provided a news release to area newspapers in Tishomingo, Durant and Madill

8 Oklahoma. Emails were also sent to the USACE office in Denison, Texas, the Oklahoma Department of Conservation and the Chickasaw Nation, announcing the initial scoping period for development of this EA. Hard copies of the notice of intent were also posted at the Tishomingo City Hall, County Court House and the refuge office on May 26, 2017.

The Service received one comment during the 14-day scoping period. The published notice of intent to prepare an EA and comment can be found at Appendix D. The draft EA will be made available for public review at the refuge and on the Service website upon its completion. Comments will be accepted in person, by email, mail and telephone during this time. All comments will be considered in the decision- making process and included in the final version of this EA.

On June 23, 2017, the Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the Section 106 documents and concluded that the construction of the facilities would have an adverse effect on nearby sites deemed eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Properties. The SHPO then elevated final determination of the project to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in Washington. On August 11, 2017, the ACHP declined to participate on the ruling and returned the decision to the state and federal agencies. This resulted in the SHPO, Oklahoma Archeological Survey, the Chickasaw Nation, USACE and the Service working together to develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) identifying stipulations to mitigate the adverse effects of constructing new facilities and allowing the Service to move forward with construction. While the group was formed to develop an MOA that would be satisfactory to all the agencies, the USACE and the Service had the primary responsibility of developing the agreement.

Issues include implementing an action that will provide a safe work environment for staff and visitors while also protecting existing cultural resources. The previous office location flooded twice in 2015 and the structure was deemed uninhabitable after the floods. Construction of a new office and maintenance shop at an elevation of 670 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) should prevent flooding in the future and provide a safer environment for staff and visitors. While the elevation requirement of 670 AMSL greatly reduces the chances of flooding in the future, it also limited the number of suitable sites available for constructing new facilities. It also required that construction occur much closer to existing historical structures than preferred but efforts will be made to work closely with all agencies involved to minimize impacts to cultural resources while providing a safe environment for staff and visitors.

2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2.1 Alternative A--No Action Alternative: Under Alternative A, the staff would be housed at their current location at Tishomingo NWR in a purchased modular trailer and no new hiking trials would be developed but existing trails (Sandy Creek and Craven’s) would continue to be open to the public. The temporary trailer is 1344 square feet and currently located in between the area identified for constructing the permanent visitor center and the area identified for the maintenance shop. This temporary office is not intended to serve as a permanent headquarters as it would not meet the long-term needs of the staff or visitors. No formal parking has been developed at this site and employees park on the south side of the building to allow enough parking for visitors on the north side of the trailer. The maintenance staff shares one of the four offices in the trailer, with the remaining offices utilized by the biologist, environmental education specialist, and the refuge manager. The friends group also meets at this location but do not have an area in which they can store any items.

Many of the buildings, such as the residences and former office that were deemed uninhabitable after the floods are still standing. Heavy equipment continues to be stored in the same location as prior to the 2015 floods (the hog barn) as there are no suitable areas near the proposed facilities where equipment can be stored that are not heavily wooded or susceptible to flooding. The temporary office is located at a much

9 higher elevation and a different area than the equipment yard and former office so it does take additional time to reach various locations throughout the refuge when moving equipment. The refuge continues to conduct business and carry out refuge management activities but does so with the understanding that the accommodations provided by the modular trailer are temporary and not intended to become permanent.

Because of the current accommodations, the environmental education specialist has concentrated on traveling to area schools and providing programs using off-site host facilities. We have also focused on providing programs at the pavilion located approximately .35 miles south of the temporary office and utilizing Craven’s nature trail located approximately .15 miles north of the temporary office to accommodate visitation from area schools and groups. See figure 1-2, existing and proposed facilities map for locations of the facilities.

2.2 Alternative B—Proposed Action The proposed action is to construct new office facilities (headquarters and maintenance shop) and hiking trails at Tishomingo NWR near Tishomingo, Oklahoma, which would replace the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge office facilities that were deemed uninhabitable after the flood events of 2015. The headquarters will be approximately 4,585 square feet, and consist of eight individual offices, an exhibit area and a multi-purpose room. The visitor center will be constructed on concrete slabs on grade with turn down or spread footing with a floor elevation at approximately 670.00 feet above sea level. A 20-foot wide concrete driveway will provide access to a parking area for 14 visitors including appropriate accessible parking. Shaded parking will also be provided for six employees and six government vehicles. City water will also be run to the facility and a lateral line septic system will be installed on site. Construction of this facility would impact approximately two acres. See Appendix A for projected floor plan and Appendix B for site plan.

The maintenance shop facility will be 3600 square feet and will consist of two offices and a work area. This facility will also be constructed on concrete slabs on grade with turn down or spread footing with a floor elevation 670.00 feet above sea level. Parking for staff will consist of a covered parking area. City water and a lateral line septic system will also be installed on site. Construction of this facility would impact an additional two acres for a total of four acres and would begin after the completion of the headquarters.

While some heavy equipment may be stored at this location, it would be temporary as elevations drop quickly immediately south or east of the proposed site and would not allow for an established heavy equipment area without a major expense of re-contouring elevations with fill immediately south of the area. Most of the heavy equipment will continue to be stored at the hog barn, an area which has served as the maintenance shop since the refuge was established. All efforts would be made to relocate equipment to higher elevations prior to any future flood events. See Appendix B for proposed maintenance shop and site plans.

Future plans also include the development of 1-4 hiking trails beginning at the new visitor center. Hiking trails 1-3 would consist of a short, medium and a long trail winding east along Sandy Creek. The long Sandy Creek trail would lead visitors to the northeast towards Sandy Creek then turn south along the creek approximately one mile; it would then go west across Refuge Road and loop north to connect with the Craven Trail before eventually returning to the visitor center. While these trails would make for interesting hikes, two of the three trails eventually drop in elevation and enter the areas subject to occasional flooding. For this reason, it is unlikely that all three trails will be constructed but this will be dependent on funding. The fourth trail would take visitors west across the road from the visitor center and would connect with the existing Craven trail. All of the trails would consist of crushed granite with fines or asphalt on five-foot-wide paths depending on funding. See Figure 1-5 and Appendix C for additional hiking trail information. If all four trails were constructed the area affected would total

10 approximately 1.21 acres and consist of gravel with crushed fines or asphalt depending on funding. All trails will include appropriate drainage structures and meet accessibility requirements. See Appendix C for proposed hiking trail plans.

All built facilities shall meet 2010 ADA standards for accessible design: https://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm

Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines – 2006: https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines- and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-aba-standards/aba-standards.

2.3 Alternative Considered But Dismissed From Further Consideration Rebuilding facilities at the previous Tishomingo NWR office location was considered but ruled out as a viable option due to probability of flood events continuing to occur at lower elevations. No additional site locations were considered as the elevation requirement quickly eliminated the majority of otherwise suitable sites.

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The 16,464-acre Tishomingo NWR is located within Johnston and Marshall Counties in south central Oklahoma. The refuge is south-southwest of Oklahoma City and due north of the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area. The refuge is within 125 miles of nearly six million people, although it is still in a rural setting approximately three miles southeast of the city of Tishomingo in Johnston County, Oklahoma. The affected area identified for the proposed headquarters and parking area previously served as a two-acre food plot prior to locating a modular trailer on the south end of the field and converting the area into the temporary office location.

The additional two acres identified for the proposed maintenance shop are made up of early successional forest species such as Mexican plum (Prunus mexicana), winged elm (Ulmus alata), osage orange (Maclura pomifera), hackberry (Celtis laevagata), eastern red cedar ((Juniperus virginiana), with post oak (Quercus stellata), normally found in the valleys and bluffs along Big Sandy Creek. Construction of any new trails will affect 1.12 acres of forest habitat comprised of the same species identified for the proposed maintenance shop.

3.1 Physical Environment: The refuge lies within the Oak and Bluestem Parkland of the Prairie Parkland Province and consists of the Osage Savanna and Mixed Grass Plains Biota and Eastern Cross Timbers, which form a gently rolling sandy belt and rugged topography marked by steep ravines on the south and east sides of the refuge. Most of the refuge lies within the floodplain of Lake Texoma. The north and west sides of the refuge consist of rolling hills divided by a wide and flat valley near the center, the area where the facilities have been proposed for construction.

3.1.1 Air Quality: The major sources of air pollution in the region are oil and gas production and/or refining, agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, and fires (both wild and prescribed). Prescribed burning is conducted by the refuge, ODWC, and some private landowners as part of agricultural practices and habitat management. Prescribed burning is conducted by the government agencies only under specific meteorological conditions and approved burn plans. Each individual project or activity in the region that produces air emissions could affect the region’s air quality but the overall impact will depend on a variety of factors including: project activity, length of time, wind direction, etc. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for monitoring several pollutants throughout the state including:

11 Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, fine particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Monitoring stations are set-up throughout the state and typically allow the public to view and monitor air quality from each specific site.

3.1.2 Soils/Geology: Soils within the immediate construction sites are made up of Konawa and Gasil soils, which consist of fine sandy loams.

The refuge lies on the northern edge of the Cretaceous rock formations that were deposited between 66 and 144 million years ago. Cretaceous formations are found in a band of lithology from southern Johnston County to southern Marshall County, and from western Love County all the way to the Arkansas state line. The refuge features various geologic units within the landscape, such as Caddo Formations, Woodford Shale, Terrace Deposits, Antlers Sandstone, Alluvium, Goodland Limestone and Walnut Clay, and Kiamichi Formations (USGS 2009).

3.1.3 Water Resources and Quality: No water resources are located within the immediate area of the proposed construction site. Dick’s pond is located approximately 1000+ feet (.20 miles) to the west and Big Sandy Creek is approximately 960 feet (.18 miles) to the east of the proposed sites. One of the proposed hiking trails may be located adjacent to the Big Sandy Creek but construction of the facilities or trails should not impact water resources or quality.

3.2 Biological Environment: 3.2.1 Vegetative Communities: The general vegetation within the refuge is classified as mid-grass prairie and Eastern Cross Timbers (Hoagland 2000). General plant communities found on the refuge are forest, prairie, riparian/wetland, and agriculture. The sites for the facilities are agriculture and forest, with the proposed trails to be developed in forest/riparian areas.

Forest The location for the proposed facilities include hardwoods in the lowland valleys and in the steep bluffs of low relief found along Big Sandy Creek. Forest types range from bottomland hardwood timber to heavy brush in the floodplains and into savannah and scattered brush uplands. Species adjacent to the proposed sites include, winged elm, osage orange and hackberry.

Riparian/Wetland The proposed trails include hardwoods and riparian-palustrine communities which occur near and adjacent to the Big Sandy Creek. The river and creek channels feature riparian species such as boxelder (Acer negundo), black willow (Salix nigra), and eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides).

Agriculture The refuge currently farms approximately 340 acres to provide browse for wintering waterfowl and spring feeding needs for geese and resident wildlife. All refuge farm fields are farmed force account with refuge personnel. Two acres of agriculture will be affected by construction of the visitor center. The two acres were originally planted to increase recreational opportunities for refuge hunts but had not been panted since the 2015 floods.

3.2.2 Wildlife: While many species of wildlife can be found on the refuge, only the species which may be impacted by construction of new facilities and trails will be discussed.

12 Mammals Most of the mammals listed may be encountered in the proposed construction areas and may be affected by construction of facilities and trails. This may result in the loss of habitat along with short term disturbance during construction which is scheduled to last nine months. These species include, white- tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), coyote (Canis latrans), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) and fox squirrel (Sciurus niger).

Birds Broad seasonal variation occurs in avian populations on the refuge due to the arrival and departure of migratory species. Bird surveys have indicated that 296 bird species have occurred on the refuge, of which over 90 species are known to nest locally. Approximately 134 species of Neotropical migratory songbirds use refuge habitats, primarily during spring and fall migrations, although approximately 50 of these species will nest on the refuge in spring and summer.

The area also attracts 17 species of raptors during the fall and spring migration period, species which may be affected by construction of new facilities include, sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), red-tailed (B. jamaicensis), Coopers’ (Accipiter cooperii), broad-winged (B. platypterus), red-shouldered hawks (B. lineatus); and American kestrel (Falco sparverius).

No water resources are located within the immediate area of the proposed construction site so impacts to waterfowl or shorebirds should not occur. Previously mentioned raptors and some migratory species may be affected as areas of construction include two acres of agriculture and two acres of forest, with an additional 1.1 acres identified for trail development.

Reptiles and Amphibians Although less apparent, reptiles and amphibians are vital components of the ecosystem and are essential to the productivity and stability of habitats on the refuge. Several species of reptiles and amphibians are found on the refuge but those which may be realistically impacted include, great plains narrow-mouthed toad (Gastrophryne olivacea), gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor), eastern collared lizard (Crotaphytus collaris), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), little brown skink (Scincella lateralis), Texas rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), western ribbon snake (Thamnophis proximus), western cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), pygmy rattlesnake (Sistrurus miliarius), timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), and three-toed box turtle (Terrapene carolina).

Many of the species listed above are forest and edge dependent species and will be affected by the construction of facilities and trails. Construction is expected to last nine months and although some species may be displaced a reduction in population should not occur.

Fish and Invertebrates Approximately 62 fish species could potentially be found in the area but no water resources are located within the immediate area of the proposed construction site. Dick’s pond is located approximately 1056 feet (.20 miles) to the west and Big Sandy Creek is approximately 960 feet (.18 miles) to the east of the proposed sites. One of the proposed hiking trails may be located adjacent to the Big Sandy Creek but construction of the facilities or trails should not impact water resources or any fish/invertebrate species.

3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend and to conserve and recover listed species. Under the law, species may be listed as either “endangered” or “threatened”. An endangered species is in danger of extinction

13 throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. All species of plants and animals (except pest insects) are eligible for listing as endangered or threatened. A proposed species is any species of fish, wildlife, or plant that is proposed in the Federal Register to be listed under section 4 of the ESA.

Whooping Crane (Grus americana) - The whooping crane was listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 (USFWS 2009). Once widespread in North America, by 1941 the species had declined to about 16 individuals in a single wild flock that migrated between Canada and coastal Texas (Lewis 1995). Several factors contributed to the historic decline of the species, including habitat loss and alteration, coastal and marine pollution, illegal hunting, disease, predation, collision with utility lines, loss of genetic diversity within the population, and vulnerability to natural and human caused disturbances (Lewis 1995). Whooping cranes are associated with marshes, shallow river bottoms, potholes, prairies, and agricultural fields. Overall decline of the species is attributed to habitat loss and alteration; once reduced in numbers, killing and disturbance by humans, disease, and collision with manmade objects became important (Lewis 1995). The whooping crane has begun a slow but seemingly steady recovery, and as of March 12, 2003, the wild population of crane had increased to 292 (259 adults, 33 young). Of this number, the Aransas/Wood Buffalo population accounts for 185 birds (169 adults and 16 young). The historic wintering grounds included southwestern Louisiana, the Gulf Coast of Texas, interior west Texas, the highlands of northern Mexico, and Atlantic coastal areas of New Jersey, Delaware, South Carolina, and Georgia (De Hoyo et al. 2000). During migration, they feed and roost in a wide variety of habitats, including croplands, large and small freshwater marshes, the margins of lakes and reservoirs, and submerged sandbars in rivers. Whooping cranes have not been observed on the refuge but are known to occur in Johnston County. (USFWS, 2010)

Interior Least Tern (Sternula antillarum) - The interior least tern was listed as endangered on May 28, 1985. All subspecies of the least tern apparently were abundant through the late 1880s but were nearly extirpated for their delicate plumage used for fashionable hats at that time. After the signing of the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, commercial harvesting became illegal, and the species began to increase through the 1940s. However, human development and use of tern nesting beaches for housing and recreation subsequently led to another rapid population decline. In the interior United States, river channelization, irrigation diversions, and the construction of dams contributed to the destruction of much of the tern’s sandbar nesting habitat. By the mid-1970s, least tern populations had decreased by more than 80 percent from the 1940s. This colonially nesting waterbird is a species that seldom swims, spending much of its time on the wing (Hubbard 1985). The least tern is the smallest North American tern with gray above, black cap and nape, and white below. The flight is light, swift, and graceful, and it is developed to the point that flight is the major means of foraging, allowing the birds to snatch fish, crustaceans, and insect food from the surface. They nest on the ground, on sandbars, in rivers, or along lake or pond edges, typically on sites that are sandy and relatively free of vegetation. Interior least terns are migratory and breed along the Red, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and Rio Grande River systems. Interior least terns are occasionally seen on the refuge but construction of facilities and trails at the proposed locations should not affect this species.

American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) - The American burying beetle was originally listed as endangered on July 13, 1989. This species is the largest within its genus and has two distinct markings of orange-red scallops upon its shiny black wings and a large orange-red marking on the raised portion of the pronotum (unique to this species). The American burying beetle is nocturnal, lives for one year and typically reproduces only once. They are beetles which emerge from the soil in search of food and mating when soil temperatures reach 60 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. The American burying beetles are scavengers, dependent on carrion, and play an important role in breaking down decaying matter. They reproduce by utilizing a small carcass to bury and lay their eggs within for the growing larvae. The American burying beetle is unusual in that both parents provide care to their young. The distribution for

14 the American burying beetle includes the eastern half of North America, from southern Ontario, Canada, to the southern Atlantic coastal plain. The range of the American burying beetle within Oklahoma occurs on the eastern half of the State, with confirmed sightings in over 20 counties. The decline in population is still uncertain, due to a lack in data; however, declines could possibly be attributed to habitat loss and degradation, habitat fragmentation, carcass limitation, pesticides, disease, and possibly light pollution, or a combination of these factors. Ecological Service has confirmed that they have been known to occur within Johnston County (USFWS, 2010) but surveys conducted during the week of June 25, 2017 and August 20, 2017, did not document any occurrences with the areas identified for the construction of the facilities and trails.

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) - The Great Lakes population (found in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ontario, and Great Lakes of Canada) of the piping plover was listed as endangered in 1985, while all other populations are listed as threatened. Critical habitat has not been designated. Piping plovers migrate north in the spring to breed and nest, seeking habitat in open, sparsely vegetated areas near the water, such as sand bars, prairie sloughs and sandy beaches. Nesting begins in late April or early May and can last into September. The piping plover is rarely seen on the refuge during migration. Construction of facilities and trails should not affect this species.

3.3 Human Environment: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the State of Oklahoma had a population estimate of 3,642,361 in the year 2008. Among the 50 states, it ranked as the 28th most populous. By 2025, it is projected to have a population above four million people. Approximately 10,286 residents resided in Johnston County in 2008. From 2000 to 2008, among the 77 counties, Johnston County population was ranked 59th within the State of Oklahoma.

Citydata.com (2009) indicated that 75.4 percent of the population of Johnston County is non-Hispanic whites. Native Americans contribute approximately 20.1 percent to the total population. African- Americans and Hispanics each contribute approximately two percent to the county’s population. The refuge is in Johnston and Marshall Counties with populations of 10,286 and 14,919, respectively. The refuge is located approximately three miles southeast from the city of Tishomingo. Tishomingo is the only city in the Johnston County with a population greater than 1,000. Several small towns are within 25 miles of the Refuge, including Madill, Milburn, and Nida. Dallas (with a population of 1,279,910) and Oklahoma City (with a population of 551,789) are within 125 miles of the Refuge. Including Fort Worth, the Mid-Cities, and metro Oklahoma City, more than six million people live within 125 miles of the Refuge, providing a tremendous potential for delivering a conservation message to the public.

3.3.1 Cultural Resources: The refuge is located within the old Chickasaw and Choctaw Indian holdings on land obtained under a treaty at the time the tribes were dispossessed from their lands in the southeastern United States. Between 1830 and 1906, Oklahoma served the Nation as the Indian Territory. In 1837, the Chickasaws settled among the Choctaws in the newly formed Choctaw Nation along the Washita River. In 1855, the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations separated, and the Chickasaw settled in a large area known as the Chickasaw District, with the capitol located at Tishomingo. Three other tribes—the Seminoles, Creeks, and Cherokees—were also interested in this area, since they were also included in the treaty terms. Due to their advanced standard of living, these nations came to be known as the Five Civilized Tribes.

The Chickasaw Manual Labor Academy (Academy) was located on 200 acres of present day Tishomingo NWR from 1851–1885. The academy was the first boarding school for tribal youth established in the Chickasaw Nation. In 1885, the Academy was moved to a new location north of Tishomingo. The area which formerly housed the Academy is located north of the proposed construction site.

The Harley family burial ground (Harley Cemetery) is also located on present day refuge lands just north of the proposed construction site and is open to the public. See (Figure 3-1) for map illustrating distance between these resources and proposed construction site.

(Figure 3-1) Distance (in ft.) between resources and proposed construction site

The Washita Farm was once known as the showcase of agriculture for southern Oklahoma and the central United States. It seemed like a “Garden of Eden” for people living in Johnston County, Oklahoma, from 1920 to 1943. The creation of the Washita (or Chapman) Farm actually began in 1913 when Fred Chapman, who was traveling through Johnston County, noticed railroad cars loaded with corn and other crops from the area. It made such an impression on him that he returned in 1916 to purchase land. The Chapman family eventually acquired 30,000 acres of land in Johnston, Marshall, Carter, and Murray counties. The land in Johnston County encompassed the majority of the refuge excluding the Wildlife Management Unit and included 13,000 acres of Washita River bottomlands. By 1925, all the land intended for farming had been completely cleared of trees. The hardwood timber, which was a valuable asset, prompted the Chapman family to establish the Washita Lumber Company in Tishomingo. A considerable amount of this lumber was used to build the houses and barns of the Washita Farm. The Washita Farm specialized in Duroc Jersey hogs and included a concrete hog barn with an internal waste cleaning system and electricity, which was state-of-the-art for the time. The editor of the Capital- Democrat newspaper stated, “The establishment will revolutionize the hog industry in this section of the country.” In 1928, there were 42 five-room concrete homes for managers and tenants, a concrete hatchery building with two large incubators capable of handling 22,000 eggs, a concrete hog barn housing 400 hogs, a concrete main office and store containing 10,000 square feet, 14 concrete grain silos, and chicken rearing barn 5,000 square feet in size. The farm also included 40 barns, 6 frame houses, 22 box houses, 9 sheds, and 33 garages. Only the concrete structures remain, with the former Washita Farm headquarters building having served as the former headquarters for the refuge until historic floods caused the site to be abandoned. Another concrete structure which is currently closed may be reopened as a heritage center to

16 showcase items from the Washita Farm era. The submerged concrete buildings found in Cumberland pool also provide popular spots for crappie fishing and are known locally as the “house tops” (USFWS 2008).

In 1938, Congress authorized the USACE to build a dam near Denison, Texas, thereby creating Lake Texoma along the Oklahoma/Texas border. The Chapman family fought to save their farming showplace but ultimately lost, and their land was condemned by the Federal government. Dismantling of Washita Farm began in 1941 and was finished by 1943 as the impounded waters began to flood the fertile fields.

The National Historic Preservation Act requires that any actions by a Federal agency that may affect archaeological or historical resources be reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office and that the identified adverse effects must be avoided or mitigated. The Service’s policy is to preserve these cultural, historic, and archaeological resources in the public trust and avoid any adverse effects whenever possible. Contingencies are incorporated into all FWS construction contracts that allow for the proper treatment of archeological sites if any are subsequently located during the construction phase of any and all projects. Many of the buildings on the historic Washita Farm may be eligible but have not been placed on the National Register of Historical Places at this time.

The refuge complex has not been fully surveyed for cultural resources. Surveys that have occurred are usually initiated on a project-specific basis, such as for water or construction projects, to comply with the requirements of Section 106 regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 36 CFR Part 800.

Four cultural resource surveys have been completed in preparation for the construction of the headquarters and maintenance shop. The initial survey included the area identified for the placement of the temporary modular trailer and the area identified for the construction of the permanent office/headquarters. The second survey was conducted by Oklahoma Gas & Electric (OG&E) and included an area on the east side of Refuge Road from the entrance to the proposed construction location. Another survey was scheduled for the initial maintenance shop location north of the proposed office and was not completed as a human tooth was discovered shortly upon beginning the survey. The survey was halted after the finding and a new site south of the proposed headquarters was identified, with the tooth turned over to USACE representatives. A third survey was conducted in an area immediately east of the proposed visitor center location which will allow for the septic lateral lines to be relocated to provide sufficient parking area for the new visitor center. A fourth survey was completed when a new location was identified for the placement of the permanent maintenance shop. See (Figure 3-2) for map illustrating survey areas in relation to proposed construction locations.

(Figure 3-2) Survey Areas and proposed construction locations

3.3.2 Socioeconomic Resources: The primary economic sectors (categories of economic activities) in the region include manufacturing, public administration, healthcare services, retail, and agriculture. However, there has been a steady decline in agricultural occupations over the years, with those jobs being replaced by manufacturing, retail, and healthcare services (Citydata.com 2009).

The estimated median household income for Tishomingo in 2013 was $28,365, with an estimated median home value of $74,568. The median real estate property taxes paid for housing units in the area during 2013 were $400 (0.5 percent). The average unemployment rate for the region in 2015 was 6.4 percent.

The economic impact of refuge operations is felt mainly in the neighboring communities of Tishomingo, Madill, Milburn, and Durant Oklahoma respectively as most refuge employees live and shop within these areas. Youth and other cooperative programs also provide occasional employment to members of the community.

The refuge provides various wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities—with fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation being the most popular. The refuge receives approximately 125,000 visitors a year

18 with approximately 18,500 anglers and 1,845 hunters using the refuge each year. While the refuge has many out-of-state visitors, the majority of visitors are from nearby communities. Local community businesses, including restaurants, grocery stores, motels, service stations, and sporting goods stores, profit significantly from these public use programs.

The refuge’s annual budget is approximately $600,000, and the majority of this money is recycled in the local economy through refuge staff salaries, purchases from local suppliers, and service contracts.

Johnston and Marshall Counties do not receive payments from the Service under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1978, Public Law 95-469, because all refuge lands in Johnston and Marshall Counties are considered the property of the USACE and that agency makes a payment to the county in lieu of taxes. However, Johnston County does receive payment in lieu of taxes from the Service for the 235 acres occupied by the Tishomingo National Fish Hatchery, which was established in 1929.

The refuge is open for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and other wildlife dependent recreation. The refuge also plays a role in the local economy as refuge employees typically live in the surrounding communities, own property, and support local businesses through routine purchases.

3.3.3 Public Use/Recreation: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 recognizes six wildlife-dependent public uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation— that are determined to be appropriate uses. The refuge manager must deem an activity compatible before allowing it to occur on the refuge. The refuge manager must also find that the compatible use will not interfere with or detract from the refuge and provide the greatest benefit to refuge resources and the public. Determinations on if to allow otherwise compatible uses are based on compliance with other laws, the System mission, policy, refuge purposes, availability of resources to manage the use, possible conflicts with other uses, public safety, and other administrative factors (USFWS Service Manual 603 FW 1 & 2).

While floods in 2015 and 2016 caused much damage, the refuge has repaired both the Sandy and Craven’s hiking trails and the road leading to the Murray 23 boat ramp using Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) funding and has many recreation facilities, buildings, roads, trails, boat launches, and other features that support approximately 125,000 visitors per year. Visitors can access the refuge from Interstate Highway 35 or U.S. Highway 75, the major north-south highways in Oklahoma and Texas. The refuge headquarters is located southeast of Tishomingo, Oklahoma, with multiple signs directing visitors to the public use areas.

The refuge is still recovering from the effects of the 2015 floods which forced employees living on site to permanently relocate off refuge and the headquarters to be determined unsuitable to inhabit due to the frequency of flooding. The buildings which formerly served as residences, the office/headquarters and the heritage center are no longer being used; however, one of the smaller buildings was refurbished and serves as the hunt check station during refuge hunts. With no other facilities available on the refuge to meet their office needs during the flood, the Chickasaw Nation was gracious enough to allow the Service and refuge staff the use of one of their buildings in the City of Tishomingo from May 2015 through July 2016.

Most of the refuge signs located in low-lying areas have undergone flood events several times since 2015. These signs have been repeatedly washed and cleaned but replacements should be considered for many of the signs when funding allows. The main entrance road through the heart of the refuge is open seven days a week, 365 days a year. Four roadways provide visitors excellent opportunities to view wildlife, natural habitats, and refuge management practices on more than 4,000 acres. Several of these roads have also

19 been impacted by floods, with the Murray 23 entrance road/boat launch; Sandy Creek trail, Craven nature trail and boardwalk, all repaired using ERFO funding in 2016. The gravel roads in the Wildlife Management Unit are also repaired as needed following flood events.

Flood events have had a great impact on fishing areas surrounding Cumberland Pool. Debris is usually deposited at the three boat ramps on the Cumberland Pool after each flood and must be removed prior to reopening these areas. A large floating fishing dock located at Murray 23 was also damaged by the 2015 floods with efforts underway to utilize half of the dock as a picnic area and the other half as a floating/nesting platform for interior least tern. The dock is being used in this manner due to the high cost of repairing and returning the dock to its original location.

With flood events occurring in 2015 and 2016, there were very few visitors while staff was housed at the temporary facility provided by the Chickasaw Nation. There were also no environmental or interpretive programs as there was not adequate space to promote programs at the temporary office.

The following public uses were found compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established and are permitted on Tishomingo NWR and Wildlife Management Unit: limited waterfowl, deer, turkey, dove, quail, squirrel, and rabbit hunting; fishing; camping; wildlife observation; wildlife photography; environmental education; interpretation; boating; hiking; and picnicking.

These uses are accommodated by facilities such as the Craven Nature Trail, the wildlife observation pier on Dick’s Pond, refuge campsites, pavilion and the Tishomingo WMU which is open for hunting and fishing.

Primitive campsites are available on the refuge but are susceptible to flooding as National Wetlands Inventory maps identify the location as wetland forested shrub land. The refuge closely monitors rising water levels and will close areas as needed to provide for visitor safety.

Hunting Hunting is an accepted form of wildlife-oriented public recreation that is compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. Approximately 1,845 hunters participate in refuge hunts each year. White-tailed deer hunting occurs on the refuge through controlled hunt drawings which are conducted by the ODWC to maintain a healthy deer herd. Three hunt segments are held each season; these include a youth hunt, a non-ambulatory hunt and a general gun hunt. The refuge is closed to non-permitted hunters while the three - one and a half day hunts are in progress. Visitors interested in hiking or fishing while hunts are in progress are directed to the Wildlife Management Unit. The refuge alternates between the State of Oklahoma’s white-tailed deer spotlight survey protocol and a camera trapping deer survey protocol each August through September to determine carrying capacity and herd balance. The refuge then works with the State of Oklahoma wildlife biologists to determine the actual numbers of hunting permits available to maintain a healthy deer population.

The rest of the refuge does not allow hunting of small game and other species due to the inability to manage unlimited hunting, disturbance to nesting Neotropical migrants, habitat damage by hunters and to provide a sanctuary zone. Within the Tishomingo WMU, hunting of all game species and feral hogs is allowed, consistent with Oklahoma game regulations. Additional public land hunting opportunities are available near the refuge on both USACE and State managed lands.

Hunting is currently allowed in the immediate area where facilities and trails are being proposed. This unit will be realigned to provide a safe area around these areas during hunts.

Fishing Fishing from shore is allowed refuge-wide, year-round in accordance with state regulations except in designated bird sanctuaries. Fishing from boats is also allowed 24 hours a day during the refuge boating season which runs from March 1 through September 30. Night fishing is also permitted unless the refuge or WMU is closed for safety reasons or hunts.

Most of the boating activities on the refuge are directly tied to fishing with approximately 22,000 of the 125,000 annual visitors coming to the refuge to fish. A large floating fishing dock located at Murray 23 was also damaged by the 2015 floods with efforts underway to utilize half of the dock as a covered picnic area and the other half as a floating/nesting platform for interior least tern. The dock is being used in this manner due to the high cost of repairing and returning the dock to its original location. There are no fishing opportunities within the immediate area of the proposed visitor center.

Wildlife Observation and Photography Wildlife observation and photography is by far the most popular recreational activity, with approximately 62,000 visitors participating annually. Visitor use facilities and structures on the refuge are critical in providing opportunities for visitors to observe and enjoy the refuge’s wildlife resources. Many structures were damaged by the 2015 floods but staff continues to repair damaged areas as funding allows. Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) funding in 2016 allowed for several resources to be repaired including the Murray 23 entrance road, Sandy Creek trail, and the Craven Nature Trail. The observation tower east of Big Sandy Creek, a very popular visitor destination also suffered significant flood damage but was repaired force account in 2017 along with assistance from a Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) work crew, the tower is now open to the public. The roofed platform equipped with an accessible ramp, railings and benches, overlooks a productive wetland habitat easily accessible by vehicle with a convenient parking area. It is most popular during the winter when large numbers of geese, ducks, and other birds are easily observed from the tower.

The Murray 23 entrance road suffered flood damage at the end of the road near the boat ramp. The section of road was redone and new asphalt placed at the site utilizing ERFO funds. The road is currently open to public access. The ¼ mile Sandy Creek trail is comprised of gravel which was washed away during the floods. This trail has also been rehabbed using ERFO funds and is now also open to the public. The Craven Nature Trail, accessible for ¼ mile and augmented by interpretive panels, offers a close look at forest and marsh habitats. The boardwalk and roofed observation platform were also damaged by the floods but were also repaired in 2016 with ERFO funds. The boardwalk and trail are currently open to the public.

The former headquarters has been gutted and is no longer open to the public but the area adjacent to the building is open and continues to support viewing of wildlife with its meandering network of sidewalks, benches and spotting scopes, labeled specimen trees, bird observation blind, and works of art interpreting the natural and cultural history of the refuge. Prairie restoration work is currently being done to provide a more diverse habitat and improved wildlife viewing opportunities. A self-guided botanical specimen and pollinator garden are also being developed which will flank the edges of the sidewalk.

Environmental Education The refuge currently provides a monthly nature program series to 25 area Pre-K – 3rd grade classrooms in Tishomingo and surrounding communities. Communities within a 60-minute drive of Tishomingo may schedule refuge outreach presentations for classrooms, groups or community events. Local grade school and high school classes complement their environmental education curriculum by visiting the refuge. Refuge staff, primarily the visitor services specialist, also sponsors a high school Wildlife Club.

The largest environmental education event in the area, formerly known as the Arbuckle Simpson Nature Festival, is now coordinated, hosted and implemented at the refuge. The event has been renamed the Tishomingo NWR Nature Festival and typically serves 600 to 800 student/teacher participants. Special focus public programs and citizen science activities are also offered.

Interpretation Interpretation and education partnerships and cooperative work projects engage several area partners including the Chickasaw Nation, Murray State College, and Tishomingo Refuge Ecology and Education Society (TREES) the friend’s organization of the refuge. Refuge messages and presentations are provided to approximately 8,000 participants annually. Refuge staff also contributes to region wide events with information and activity booths at events such as Earth Day Texas in Dallas and the Wildlife Expo held in Guthrie, Oklahoma.

Wildlife classes from local colleges and high schools use the refuge for field studies during the fall and spring semesters, and presentations to civic groups are provided upon request and are typically held at the pavilion.

Many interpretive signs with photographs addressing refuge bird species are located on Craven Nature Trail. This trail suffered flood damage but the boardwalk and trail have been repaired and both are now open to the public. The Sandy Creek trail also suffered flood damage and was repaired in 2016. Both Sandy Creek and the Craven Trail are self-guided. Interpretive signs and brochures also describe cultural resources along the Oklahoma Legacy Trail on the refuge.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This chapter analyzes and discusses the potential environmental effects or consequences that can reasonably be expected by the implementation of the alternatives described in Chapter 2.0 of this EA. An analysis of the effects of management actions has been conducted on the physical environment (air quality, water quality, and soils); biological environment (vegetation, wildlife, and threatened and endangered species); and socioeconomic environment (cultural resources, socioeconomic features including public use/recreation). The direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of each alternative are considered. Direct effects are the impacts that would be caused by the alternative at the same time and place as the action. Indirect effects are impacts that occur later in time or distance from the triggering action. Cumulative effects are incremental impacts resulting from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including those taken by federal and non-federal agencies, as well as undertaken by private individuals. Cumulative impacts may result from singularly minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

4.1 Physical Environment: 4.1.1 Impacts on Air Quality: Alternative A--No Action Alternative: No impacts to air quality will occur because new office/visitor center/maintenance shop facilities and hiking trails would not be developed and the temporary modular facility would serve as the permanent office/headquarters.

Alternative B: The proposed action may result in direct impacts at a local scale because of the large trucks required to import building materials and heavy equipment needed for construction and to develop hiking trails. Once actual construction begins there is a 270-completion schedule. The temporary impacts to air quality from dust and emissions produced during construction would comply with Tishomingo NWR HQ/VC & Shop Design Build Statement of Work - Protection 3.5.1, the design/builder will comply with all

22 applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations. This condition applies to, but is not limited to, laws and regulations governing…air quality standards. Upon completion of facilities, there will be a negligible impact in air quality due to staff and visitors concentrated in the immediate area of the visitor center.

4.1.2 Impacts on Water Quality and Quantity Alternative A--No Action Alternative: No impacts to water quality or quantity are expected because no construction of facilities or trails would occur.

Alternative B-- (Proposed Action) This alternative may result in some short-term direct impacts at a local scale due to the dirt work conducted during construction of the facilities and trails. Construction may cause sediment to run-off into existing drainages or roadside ditches during storm events. Additional impacts from increased hard surfaces or leaking of fluids from vehicles will be monitored by staff and removed/cleaned as soon as possible. Impacts are expected to be minimal but have the potential to occur during the 270-construction period. Best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented to minimize or prevent sedimentation issues related to construction projects and development of hiking trails. Best management practices for water and soils are addressed in more depth in the 4.1.3 Impacts on soils Alternative B section.

4.1.3 Impacts on Soils: Alternative A--No Action Alternative: No impacts to soils are expected because no construction of facilities would occur.

Alternative B-- This alternative would result in local adverse direct and indirect impacts due to soil disturbance up to six feet deep which will occur when relocating the septic system lateral lines and when adding fill in order to shape and level site prior to beginning construction of maintenance shop if needed. During construction of the proposed facilities and trails, vegetation will be removed and soils will be exposed on approximately 5 acres. This will increase the potential for erosion until facilities and hiking trails are completed. Best management practices (BMPs) would be utilized in order to minimize loss of soils due to erosion caused by construction, soil compaction or runoff. Construction is expected to be completed in 270 days.

The majority of Best Management Practices will be dictated by the requirement for LEED Silver Certification. Sustainable Sites compliance under LEED has a Prerequisite that deals with erosion and water quality and soil impacts. This is a requirement (vs simply a point credit item). The Prerequisite from LEED is quoted below:

"SS Prerequisite 1: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required Intent. To reduce pollution from construction activities by controlling soil erosion, waterway sedimentation and airborne dust generation. Requirements Create and implement an erosion and sedimentation control plan for all construction activities associated with the project. The plan must conform to the erosion and sedimentation requirements of the 2003 EPA Construction General Permit OR local standards and codes, whichever is more stringent. The plan must describe the measures implemented to accomplish the following objectives: To prevent loss of soil during construction by storm water runoff and/or wind erosion, including protecting topsoil by stockpiling for reuse. n To prevent sedimentation of storm sewers or receiving streams. n To prevent pollution of the air with dust and particulate matter. The EPA’s construction general permit outlines the provisions necessary to comply with Phase I and Phase II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. While the permit only applies to construction

23 sites greater than 1 acre, the requirements are applied to all projects for the purposes of this prerequisite. Information on the EPA construction general permit is available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/cgp.cfm. Potential Technologies & Strategies Create an erosion and sedimentation control plan during the design phase of the project. Consider employing strategies such as temporary and permanent seeding, mulching, earthen dikes, silt fencing, sediment traps and sediment basins."

Additional items the contractor intends to achieve can be found in Appendix E.

4.2 Biological Environment: 4.2.1 Impacts on Habitat: Alternative A--No Action Alternative: No impacts to habitat are expected because no construction of facilities would occur.

Alternative B-- (Proposed Action) This alternative would have short-term and long-term impacts on habitat within the project area. Short- term impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project and they include the disturbance of soils, subsoils and removal of vegetation (approximately 5.2 acres for both facilities and all hiking trails). Long term impacts include cutting down and removing trees. The proposed locations for the headquarters and maintenance facility are along Refuge Road within the Tishomingo NWR boundary. Clearing of trees and other vegetation has already occurred along the roadside as the area proposed to house the new headquarters building is currently a fallow field. The maintenance shop location would involve the clearing of approximately two acres of shrubland/forest consisting primarily of elms (Ulmus spp.), Osage orange and honey locust from the area. Development of the hiking trails would begin adjacent to the new headquarters with a short, medium and a long trail winding east along Sandy Creek. The long Sandy Creek trail would lead visitors to the northeast towards Sandy Creek then turn south along the creek; it would then go west across Refuge Road and loop north and connect with the Craven Trail before eventually returning to the visitor center. While these trails would make for interesting hikes, two of the three trails eventually drop in elevation and enter areas subject to occasional flooding. For this reason, it is unlikely that all three trails will be constructed but this will be dependent on funding. The fourth trail would take visitors west across the road from the visitor center and would connect with the existing Craven Nature trail.

This alternative would be implemented in a manner that minimizes negative impacts to habitat (e.g., positioning building so that trees can be conserved in the area, planting with native flora, etc.). Construction activities would occur for 270 days and the benefits from constructing these facilities are expected to outweigh the loss of this relatively small acreage of habitat in comparison to the increased exposure and visitation the new facilities would bring to the refuge and local area.

4.2.2 Impacts on Wildlife: Alternative A--No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, since the facilities would not be constructed, disturbance to wildlife would remain as is, a long term direct impact. While there is typically an impact to the majority of wildlife species whenever human presence is noted, many animals have developed a tolerance especially on refuges when visitors remain in vehicles. Many animals also remain motionless until the perceived threat from visitors has dissipated. Since the refuge was established in 1946, a tolerance to human interaction has certainly developed. As a result, the wildlife found near the temporary facility has grown somewhat accustomed to the daily activities which occur at that location throughout the day and there would be no anticipated change in diversity or abundance of wildlife that currently use the area.

24 Alternative B-- (Proposed Action) There would be some short-term adverse impacts on small mammals, birds, and other wildlife such as reptiles and amphibians due to habitat loss and displacement during the project implementation period; however, similar habitat is abundant in the area and no loss of species diversity or abundance is likely. These impacts are not expected to reduce the overall wildlife population in the area.

The refuge proposes to begin this project in the winter of 2017 and it is anticipated that the construction may take up to a year. If major delays are experienced the construction date and duration may also be delayed. All bird species should have completed nesting by the start date, and disturbance caused by construction should discourage birds from nesting in the immediate area during this period. The development of hiking trails will likely occur after all building facilities have been completed. Trail development will also be delayed as needed to reduce impacts to birds nesting in the immediate area. The disturbance to wildlife caused by the development of trails will be long term once trails are established but likely to be minor and outweighed by the benefits of engaging visitors in increased outdoor recreation opportunities.

4.2.3 Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species and Special Status Species: Alternative A--No Action Alternative: Under the no action alternative, the project would not be implemented; therefore, there would be no impact to threatened and endangered species.

Alternative B-- (Proposed Action): Under alternative B, the existing habitat conditions would be altered, however impacts to overall habitat availability are not expected to be significant. Listed species within Johnston County, Oklahoma include the whooping crane (Grus Americana), American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) interior least tern (Sternula antillarum) and the piping plover (Charadrius melodus). There would not be any known impact, disturbance or displacement of the whooping crane or American burying beetle as neither species has ever been confirmed on the refuge although it is possible for the whooping crane to utilize the refuge during the fall and winter migration.

American burying beetle surveys were conducted the week of June 25, 2017 and August 20 with no American burying beetles found. Interior least tern can be found on the refuge sporadically during the summer months and are primarily seen foraging around Cumberland Pool. The first known (recent) occurrence of piping plovers was confirmed on the refuge on August 13, 2011. Construction of facilities and trails should have no impact on the interior least tern or the piping plover due to the vast difference in habitat requirements between both species and the areas identified for construction of facilities and trails.

4.3 Human Environment: 4.3.1 Impacts on Cultural Resources: Alternative A--No Action Alternative: No impacts to cultural resources are expected as the project would not be implemented.

Alternative B: Cultural surveys have been conducted in the project areas and reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Oklahoma Archeological Survey. The SHPO concluded that the proposed undertakings would result in an adverse effect to sites adjacent to the project location and requested the participation of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to complete the Section 106 process as outlined in 36 CFR Part 800. This will most likely result in a Memorandum of Agreement being developed by the SHPO, the USACE, the Chickasaw Nation and the Service in order to complete the Section 106 process.

25 Development of facilities and trails may also provide an opportunity to highlight cultural resources through signs to be placed along the new hiking trails which would result in a long term positive impact.

4.3.2 Impacts to Socioeconomics Alternative A--No Action Alternative: Not constructing these facilities may result in a negative impact for the local economy as decreased refuge visitation due to lack of adequate facilities may result in less visitors/shoppers to area businesses.

Alternative B-- (Proposed Action) The proposed action would have a direct positive impact on the local economy by providing improved facilities for visitors thereby increasing business potential for vendors in our region of Oklahoma. The actual construction phase of building the facilities may bring a slight increase to the economy in Tishomingo with incidental parts and other materials being purchased locally by contractors. Local labor may also be utilized for portions of construction activities. Convenience stores and restaurants in the local area would also see short-term benefits from construction activities. A slight increase in business for these types of facilities would likely be related to the increased visitation and recognition provide by having the refuge visitor center located near Tishomingo.

4.3.3 Impacts to Public Use/Recreation Alternative A--No Action Alternative: Implementation of the no action alternative would be expected to impact the ability to conduct public use/recreational programs on the refuge. Lack of a permanent building of sufficient size to conduct environmental education programs would hinder the ability to introduce large numbers of visitors and area schools to programs, nature and the outdoors. Not developing the hiking trails would also reduce the opportunities for visitors to gain a greater understanding and appreciation of area wildlife resources. The refuge hunts would also be impacted as the area where the temporary office is now located formerly served as a food plot and a hunting blind was locating in the immediate area. Stand locations would be relocated in order to provide a safe working environment for staff. After the floods in 2015 and 2016, the Heritage Center closed and remains closed until we determine the next course of action. No new building would replace the function of the Heritage Center. One of the two existing trails (Sandy Creek) is subject to flooding and it is hoped that with the creation of these new hiking trails additional hiking opportunities will be available even during flood events. The refuge experienced historic floods in 2015 and additional floods in 2016; as a result, much of the refuge was closed to public use for several months during both years. We received 125,000 visitors in 2016 with approximately 56,000 wildlife observers, 19,000 fishing visits, 6000 wildlife photography visits, 1845 hunting visits, 1665 interpretation visits and 1336 environmental education visits, respectively.

Alternative B: The presence and operation of a new refuge office, visitor center and maintenance shop would be expected to have impacts on public use/recreation opportunities on the refuge. Establishing infrastructure on refuge grounds and maintaining essential personnel (e.g., law enforcement officers) would enhance visitor opportunity to enjoy the resources the refuge offers in a safe manner. Placing biological staff, interpreters, and managers in a permanent structure which is readily accessible to the public will provide for an increase of daily interactions with the public and the opportunity to conduct more personal environmental education for visitors.

Refuge hunts would also be impacted as the area where the temporary office is now located formerly served as a food plot and a hunting blind was locating in the immediate area. Stand locations would be relocated in order to provide a safe working environment for staff. There are currently two existing trails on the refuge (Sandy Creek and Craven’s) and the Sandy creek trail is used primarily by fishermen during

26 the spring. Creating additional hiking trails will allow visitors additional options to experience nature and take part in other refuge approved activities even during flood events.

4.4 Assessment of Cumulative Impacts: A cumulative impact is defined as an impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future action regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7).

Cumulative impacts are the overall, net effects on a resource that arise from multiple actions. Impacts can “accumulate” spatially, when different actions affect different areas of the same resource. They can also accumulate over the course of time, from actions in the past, the present, and the future. Occasionally, different actions counterbalance one another, partially canceling out each other’s effects on a resource. But more typically, multiple effects add up, with each additional action contributing an incremental impact on the resource.

The proposed locations for the headquarters and maintenance facility are along Refuge Road within the Tishomingo NWR boundary. Clearing of trees and other vegetation has already occurred along the roadside as the area proposed to house the new headquarters building is currently a fallow field. The maintenance shop location would involve the clearing of approximately two acres of shrubland/forest consisting primarily of winged elms, hackberry, Osage orange and honey locust. The construction of the headquarters and office building may have cumulative effects within a very small area however the cumulative impacts from clearing five acres to construct the proposed office/headquarters, maintenance shop and hiking trails is not expected to cause long-term adverse effects on the local environment.

Beyond increases in traffic to the local area, economic impacts to the local area businesses should be positive due to the increased visitation to the refuge. There should also be a cumulative positive impact in environmental education for local students and visitors as a result of implementing the proposed action. The refuge is not aware of any other past, present or future planned actions that would result in a significant cumulative impact when added to the refuge’s proposed action, as outlined in alternative B. The adverse direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on air, water, soil, habitat, and wildlife are expected to be minor and short-term.

4.5 Environmental Justice: Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations: February 11, 1994) was designed to focus the attention of federal agencies on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income populations, with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The order directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and addressing disproportionally high and adverse human health and environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority and low- income populations. The order is intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment and to provide minority and low-income communities with access to public information and opportunities for participation in matters related to human health and the environment.

None of the alternatives described in this EA will disproportionately place any adverse environmental, economic, social or health impacts on minority and low-income populations. Implementation of the proposed action is anticipated to be positive for the environment and people in the surrounding communities over the long-term.

27 4.6 Indian Trust Assets: No Indian Trust Assets have been identified in the vicinity. There are no reservations or ceded lands present. Because resources are not believed to be present, no impacts are anticipated to result from implementation of either alternative described in the EA.

4.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: Project implementation would require the irretrievable commitment of fossil fuels (diesel and gasoline), oils, and lubricants used by heavy equipment and vehicles for a short period of time (i.e., less than 12 months). The Proposed Action will result in unavoidable harm or harassment to some wildlife; however this harassment will be short in duration and will be avoided when possible. The Service would implement best management practices to minimize potential impacts. See Appendix E for additional information regarding best management practices.

4.8 Table 1 - Summary of Environmental Effects by Alternative:

Alternative B: Alternative A: Environmental Resources Proposed Action No Action Alternative Alternative Short-term ( i.e. length of time required to complete No effect Impacts to Air Quality facilities - 9 months), negative effect Slight direct negative (short Impacts to Water Quality and No effect term) Quantity Direct and indirect negative Impacts to Soils No effect effect (short-term and long- term) Short-term direct slight Direct negative (remaining negative effect; long-term infrastructure) Impacts on Habitat indirect positive effect Indirect Negative (loss of (remove any invasive species habitat) present) Short-term direct slight negative effect (disturbance); Impacts of Wildlife No effect long-term direct/indirect slight negative effect (small acreage of habitat lost) Impacts on Threatened and No effect expected No effect Endangered Species Impacts on Cultural No effect expected No effect Resources Impacts on Socioeconomic Direct/indirect positive effect Resources Direct negative

Impacts on Public Use and Direct and indirect negative Positive direct/indirect effect Recreation effects

28 5.0 CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND DOCUMENT PREPARATION

Document prepared by Rick Cantu, Refuge Manager; Biologist, Justin Roach and Visitor Services Specialist, Joanne Ryan; Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tishomingo, Oklahoma.

5.1 Agencies and individuals consulted in the preparation of this document include: Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office Oklahoma Archeological Survey Eugene Marino, National Historic Preservation Officer, Washington DC Jeff Johns, Region 2 Engineering Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Denison, Tulsa Offices Carol Torrez, NEPA Coordinator, R2 NWRS

5.2 References Citydata.com 2009. Avameg, INc. http://www.citydata.com/county/johnston county Accessed February 2010.

Del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., and Sargatal, J., 2000. Anseriformes, Handbook of the Birds of the World, Vol, 1 p. 555.

Hoagland, B.W. 2000. The Vegetation of Oklahoma: A Classification of Landscape Mapping and Conservation Planning, Southwestern Naturalist 5:385-420.

Hubbard, J.P., 1985. Interior Least Tern, Handbook of Endangered Species in New Mexico, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

Lewis, J. C. 1995. Whooping Crane (Gus Americana), The birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 153:28

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Tom Stehn, Species Status and Fact Sheet, USFWS, North Florida Ecological Services Office. http://www.gov/north florida/Whooping Crane. Accessed November 2009Waterfowl Population Status, 2009

United States Geological Survey. 2009. http://tin.er.usgs.gov/geology/state. Accessed November 2009

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Threatened and Endangered Species List by County. USFWS Southwest Region Ecological Services Office. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/ES/endangered species/list/Accessed February 2010.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge. Washita Farms Brochure. Accessed October 2008

United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual 603 FW 1 (2006). Refuge Management, National Wildlife Refuge System Uses, Appropriate Refuge Uses. http://www.fws.gov/policy/manuals. Accessed November 2009

29 United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual 603 FW 2 (2000) . Refuge Management, National Wildlife Refuge System Uses, Compatibility. http://www.fws.gov/policy/manuals. Accessed November 2009

30 APPENDIX A - Proposed General Plans of Tishomingo Office & Visitor Center.

Final design subject to change as construction contract is being awarded as a design/build project.

31 APPENDIX B- Proposed General Plans of Tishomingo Maintenance Shop and Building Sites.

Final design subject to change as construction contract is being awarded as a design/build project.

APPENDIX C- Proposed General Plans of Hiking Trails.

Proposed hiking trails will be approximately five feet wide and consist of weathered crushed granite or asphalt. It is unlikely that all the trails will be constructed but our goal is to develop a new trail connecting with the Craven Nature Trail and at least one new trail leading east along Sandy Creek if funding permits.

APPENDIX D- Published Notice of Intent to Prepare an EA and comments.

--512;1201-7------nEPARTMENTOFTRE-INTERIORMail Tisho1111ngo NWR - Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment

Cantu, Rick

Tishomingo NWR - Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment 4 messages

Cantu, Rick Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:14 To: [email protected]

Stephan,

Please review and let me know if you have any questions or ccmments.

Thanks,

Rick Cantu Refuge Manager Tishomingo NWR (580) 371-2402 (cell) 903-271-9178

'1j New Facilities Scoping NEWS Release 052617.docx 53K

STEPHEN GREETHAM Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:32 To: "Cantu, Rick" Cc: "[email protected]" , Mike Mitchell , KEN SMITH

Rick-

Looks good from this end. Thanks for looping us in.

As a side question: Do you have a projected timeline for completion of the EA process?

Stephen Greetham CNDC, ED-General Counsel

From: Cantu, Rick [mailto:[email protected]]36 Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 12:15 PM To: STEPHEN GREETHAM Subject: Tishomingo NWR - Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment

Cantu, Rick Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: STEPHEN GREETHAM Cc: "[email protected]" , Mike Mitchell , KEN SMITH

Stephen, The EA is in progress and I have been in discussion with our regional folks and addressing their comments. I hope to have the document completed and out by the end of June. I will let you know when it goes out for public review. Thanks,

Rick Cantu Refuge Manager Tishomingo NWR (580) 371-2402

(cell) 903-271-9178

------·······------

STEPHEN GREETHAM

Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:39 AM To: "Cantu, Rick" Cc: "[email protected]" , Mike Mitchell , KEN SMITH

Thank you, sir!

Stephen Greetham

CNDC, EO-General Counsel

From: Cantu, Rick [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:34 AM

To: STEPHEN GREETHAM <[email protected]>

Cc: [email protected]; Mike Mitchell ; KEN SMITH

Subject: Re: Tishomingo NWR - Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment

37 Appendix E – Best Management Practices Additional items the contractor intends to achieve.

"2.5.19.3 Sustainable Sites (SS) SS Prerequisite 1: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention. The prerequisite requirements will be detailed through the civil engineering construction documents. SS Credit: Site Assessment. Information will be obtained to supplement the site survey. Elements to be evaluated and documented include hydrology, climate, vegetation, soils, human use and human health effects. The landscape architect - working in conjunction with the architect and civil engineer – will obtain information from local and online sources to complete the survey. SS Credit: Site Development - Protect or Restore Habitat. This credit aligns with SS Credit 5.1 from LEED v.2009 as referenced by the FWS Sustainability Checklist and is indicated to be a required credit. 30% of the site identified as previously disturbed will be planted with adapted or native vegetation. Soils will be reused for functions comparable to their original function (strip and store topsoil on site). This will also require that development be limited to the maximum extent possible. Areas will be identified to be left undisturbed during construction in a construction activity management plan. SS Credit: Open Space. This credit aligns with SS Credit 5.2 from LEED v.2009 as referenced by the FWS Sustainability Checklist and is indicated to be an optional credit. In LEED v.4.0, the credit also requires that 25% of the outdoor space be vegetated with other then turf grass which may be cost prohibitive. Additional planted areas could also make it difficult to achieve WE credits for outdoor water use reduction."

"SS Credit: Rainwater Management. This credit combines SS Credits 6.1 and 6.2 from LEED v.2009 as referenced by the FWS Sustainability Checklist which are indicated to be required credits. Option 1 will be utilized which provides 2 points for management of the 95th percentile of regional or local rainfall events using low-impact development (LID) and green infrastructure. The project site design will also comply with EISA 2007 Section 438."

"WE Prerequisite: Outdoor Water Use Reduction. This credit aligns with WE Credit 1 from LEED v.2009 as referenced by the FWS Sustainability Checklist and is indicated to be required. In LEED v.4.0 this is a prerequisite requiring no or reduced irrigation systems. Irrigation systems will not be provided in the design. Credits are earned in LEED v.4.0 by installing plantings that do not require irrigation in WE credit – Outdoor Water Use Reduction."