Draft Environmental Assessment Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge

Draft Environmental Assessment

Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge Potable Water Delivery System

April 2020

Prepared by

David Farmer, Dan McDonald, Lynn Cartmell Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge Indiahoma, OK

Table of Contents

Proposed Action ...... 3 Background ...... 3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ...... 4 Alternatives Considered ...... 5 Alternative A – Current Management [No Action Alternative] ...... 5 Alternative B – Install a New Water Delivery System and Purchase Potable Water [Proposed Action Alternative] ...... 6 Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices ...... 8 Affected Environment ...... 8 Environmental Consequences of the Action ...... 9 Affected Natural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Alternatives ...... 10 Affected Visitor Use and Experience Resources and Anticipated Impacts Alternatives ...... 17 Affected Cultural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Alternatives ...... 19 Affected Refuge Management and Operations Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Alternatives ...... 20 Affected Socioeconomic Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Alternatives ...... 21 Cumulative Impact Analysis ...... 24 Anticipated Cumulative Impacts of the Alternatives ...... 24 Summary of Analysis ...... 28 Monitoring ...... 29 List of Sources, Agencies, and Persons Consulted ...... 29 References ...... 31 Appendix 1 ...... 33 Appendix 2 – Proposed Rural Water District Water Supply Line Maps ...... 35

Draft Environmental Assessment for Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge Rural Water District Waterline Installation

This Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to evaluate the effects associated with this proposed action 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 (43 CFR 46; 516 DM 8) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)(550 FW 3) regulations and policies. NEPA requires examination of the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environment.

Proposed Action The Service is proposing to install a new water delivery system to supply potable water to visitors and staff at refuge facilities, Holy City of the Wichitas (Holy City), and Doris Campground on Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge (WR/refuge). The refuge would purchase potable water from Comanche County Rural Water District (RWD) 4 in Cache, Oklahoma. The water supply line would be extended from approximately 3 miles west of Cache along Highway 62, travel north on Highway 115 to the refuge boundary, and be buried along existing roadsides. The total expansion length would be approximately 15.22 miles, about 9.03 miles of which would be installed on refuge lands.

A proposed action is often iterative and may evolve during the NEPA process as the agency refines its proposal and gathers feedback from the public, tribes, and other agencies. Therefore, the final proposed action may be different from the original. The proposed action would be finalized at the conclusion of the public comment period for the EA.

Background National wildlife refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.

The mission of the NWRS, as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), is to:

“... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

The refuge was established pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 563, on June 2, 1905. The primary purpose of the refuge is “…for the protection of game animals and birds and shall be recognized as a breeding place thereof.”

The refuge is a tract of 59,020 acres embracing a major portion of the ancient Wichita Mountains in southwestern Oklahoma. Protection of this area dates back to 1901 when it was established as a forest reserve by President McKinley and 1905 when President Roosevelt re-designated the area as the Wichita Forest and Game Preserve. The long history of the preservation of the refuge has protected this unique vast land as a reminder of southwestern Oklahoma’s natural conditions prior to European settlement.

On October 23, 1970, the Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area was established by Public Law 91-504. It consists of two units totaling 8,570 acres. The Public Use Area (PUA) of the refuge, an administrative designation, is an area for public access, intended to benefit public use opportunities and promote awareness of the refuge’s wildlife and habitats. The PUA covers 24,088 acres of the south and southeastern portions of the refuge. The refuge consists of approximately 92.22 square miles in Comanche County, Ok.

Management goals established by the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2013) relevant to this action include:

To provide visitors a chance to enjoy a world-class, wildlife-focused experience through public use opportunities that educate and increase the quality of life for current and future generations and promote the long-term health of the refuge.

To administer safe, well-maintained, and energy-efficient facilities that allow the public and staff to enjoy and support the purpose of the refuge and the mission of the NWRS.

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of the proposed action is to install a new water delivery system to provide potable water to visitors, volunteers, and staff of the refuge at the visitor center, environmental education center complex area, Doris Campground, and Holy City. The proposed action meets the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the NWRSAA to “recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the NWRS” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses” 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4).

This project is needed because the refuge does not currently meet state requirements for water treatment standards or well depth. Refuge wells are shallow and are now classified as groundwater under the direct influence of surface water. In early 2017, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued a boil order for refuge water based on health and safety concerns associated with the presence of E. coli in the water from the current well and delivery system. This eliminated the use of drinking fountains, ice machines, and faucets to obtain potable water. The refuge does not have adequate water treatment to meet regulatory requirements with the new water source classification. The Service must provide potable water for employees in accordance with 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.141. Public safety is an utmost priority to the Service, and we must ensure that visitors engaged in approved activities, including overnight camping, at a developed campground are doing so safely.

The NWRSAA mandates the Secretary of the Interior in administering the System to (16 U.S.C. 668dd (a)(4):

● Provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within the NWRS; ● Ensure that the mission of the NWRS described at 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) and the purposes of each refuge are carried out; ● Ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife- dependent recreational uses.

This project would contribute to the strengthening of our conservation stewardship legacy and modernizing our infrastructure. Furthermore, it would contribute to building an atmosphere of trust with local communities and partners by supporting a robust local tourism industry that attracts visitors from around the world to the refuge for outdoor recreation and wildlife observation.

Alternatives Considered The refuge considered two alternatives, the No Action Alternative – Maintaining current management, and the Proposed Action Alternative – Installation of a new water delivery system. Refuge staff, and Service engineering, facilities, and contracting staff considered various options for meeting the needs of refuge visitors and staff for access to a safe water supply. The Proposed Action Alternative is an efficient strategy to provide potable water and alleviate health concerns.

Alternative A – Current Management [No Action Alternative] Under the No Action Alternative, current water use restrictions would remain in place, with temporary provisions to utilize existing water sources as non-potable water to provide fire protection and sanitation facilities.

The current inadequate system includes four wells and three separate delivery systems consisting of four well pump houses and three separate buried water supply lines that service Holy City and all refuge facilities including the refuge headquarters, maintenance facility, zone fire office, law enforcement office, environmental education center, visitor center, Doris Campground, a bunkhouse, and staff residences.

The refuge would continue to have to purchase bottled water for staff use at the cost of over $2,500 annually in addition to costs associated with staff time and fuel spent purchasing and transporting water and maintaining the antiquated water delivery system. Failure to provide potable water sources for employees and visitors increases the risk of dehydration and related health and safety issues. Bottled water must be kept on hand for use in search and rescue operations. Due to the rugged terrain and extreme temperatures at the WR, it is not uncommon to have ten or more major search and rescue operations and 30 minor search and rescue operations annually, many of which are in response to dehydrated hikers in need of emergency assistance. Continuing to utilize single-use plastics is not environmentally sustainable, or economical.

If the delivery system is not updated and potable water provided, provisions allowing the use of the existing system would likely be revoked, the water delivery system would be shut down, and the refuge would no longer provide any water. This may result in the closure of some facilities, a reduction of available services, and inadequate sanitation, which would lead to a heavily degraded visitor experience. The Service must provide sanitation facilities for employees in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.141. Failure to provide appropriate restroom facilities for employees and visitors increases health and safety risks and would result in increased costs to rent portable toilets. The marginal quality of the visitor experience may reduce visitation, which would be detrimental to the local economies.

Alternative B – Install a New Water Delivery System and Purchase Potable Water [Proposed Action Alternative] Under the Proposed Action Alternative, a water delivery system would be installed to provide potable water from Rural Water District #4 in Cache, OK (see Map 1 and Appendix 2). The length of the new water supply line would be approximately 15.22 miles, 9.03 miles of which would be on refuge lands. The new water supply line would be buried along Rogers Lane to Highway 62 before turning north along Highway 115 and diverging on Highway 49 next to existing roadways or directly adjacent to existing old water supply lines.

The system would provide potable water to Holy City, the visitor center, the environmental education center building complex, and Doris Campground, including replacement of all existing water supply lines over or adjacent to existing water supply lines within those areas. A pumphouse would be located adjacent to a disturbed area near the refuge’s Cache entrance gate and Burma Road parking lot to maintain the water pressure with a foundation not expected to exceed a 10.5-foot by 12.5-foot area.

Construction is anticipated to take between one to five months to complete, and we estimate it would begin three to five months after National Environmental Policy Act requirements were satisfied. Construction activities would only occur during daylight hours, and no lane closures would be allowed on the refuge on weekends during the popular public use months (February through May).

Construction equipment is likely to include tractors or dozer plows, backhoes, trenchers, rock saws, directional boring, and other equipment as necessary and appropriate for the substrate. Disturbance from equipment use and work crews should remain within 12 feet of the road edges for the length of the water supply line except when connecting to refuge infrastructure. We anticipate that these sources would only cause direct impacts on up to approximately 23 acres.

The 1.5 to 6-inch diameter water supply line would be buried mainly through the use of heavy equipment and a small crew at least 30 inches and up to approximately 42 inches deep to be below the frost line. Trenches are expected to be up to 3 feet wide. Directional boring techniques would be employed where feasible beneath creeks. The presence of incompatible substrate may require trenching through creeks or attaching the line to bridges. RWD #4 would be responsible for maintenance, water monitoring, and water quality up to the serviced facilities. The water supply line is expected to have a minimum of a 50-year lifespan.

Map 1. Overview of project area for Alternative B.

Two of the three existing independent water delivery systems would be abandoned in place, and the remaining water delivery system would continue to provide water for sanitation at the headquarters and for invasive plant control. The new water supply line would ensure sufficient potable water to meet the needs of refuge visitors, and staff, and allow for the efficient administration of the refuge while reducing long-term costs as opposed to Alternative A.

Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices

An Intra-Service Section 7 biological evaluation has been completed through consultation with the Service’s Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office. No critical habitat and no known listed, proposed, or candidate species reside in the project area; therefore, no Endangered Species Act mitigation measures would be necessary. The following mitigation actions would be implemented to reduce or eliminate the potential likelihood of adverse effects.

• Impacted areas would be revegetating to native vegetation as approved by the refuge manager. • Directional boring would be utilized where feasible under creek crossings. • Water supply lines would be installed in or very close to previously disturbed areas. • All work within streambanks would be in accordance with the Section 404 permit granted by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) authorizing the work. • Construction activities within the Holy City prairie dog town would be planned to avoid the nesting/birthing season for prairie dogs (March–May). Surveys would occur to determine the presence of burrowing owls in the Holy City prairie dog town. The construction project would be timed to avoid the nesting season of burrowing owls (April 15–July 1) if they are present and nesting in the Holy City prairie dog town.

Affected Environment Wichita Mountains WR and a few adjoining lands to the north of the refuge are an island of relatively well-functioning ecosystems in southwestern Oklahoma. Other properties in the area are primarily urban, farmed, or heavily grazed. The refuge consists of a diverse ecosystem of Cross Timbers and the largest remaining stretch of native southern mixed-grass, which supports a diversity of wildlife species. These species, including both game and non-game, are important contributors to the overall biodiversity of the Wichita Mountains WR.

The refuge is divided into three distinct terrestrial habitats: rocklands (2,474 acres), central mixed-grass prairie (30,941 acres), and Cross Timbers oak forest and woodland (24,702 acres). The Cross Timbers habitat is characterized by a mosaic of forest, woodland, and savanna. The central mixed-grass prairie contains elements from both shortgrass and tallgrass prairies with species densities and distributions controlled primarily by soil moisture and topography. The proposed construction would occur mainly in central mixed grass prairie habitat occasionally intersecting cross timbers oak forest and woodlands. The proposed water supply line would cross primarily intermittent natural aquatic classes, such as creeks and streams with no riparian vegetation. The refuge is at a higher elevation than the surrounding areas and is thereby situated at the top of the watershed.

The project area’s land use is primarily disturbed areas within road shoulders, private yards and entranceways, the military training garrison, and rights-of-ways (ROW) with the majority of the vegetation being non-native plants. Infrastructure impacted by this project includes the visitor center, Doris Campground, environmental education center complex area, law enforcement office, Holy City, and portions of Highways 62, 115, and 49 located within the project area, and sixteen gravel driveways belonging to private individuals.

For more information on the refuge, please see section 3.3 of the refuge’s 2013 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which can be found here: http://www.fws.gov/refuge/wichita_mountains.

Environmental Consequences of the Action This section analyzes the environmental consequences of the action on each affected resource, including direct and indirect effects. This EA only includes the written analyses of the environmental consequences on a resource when the impacts on that resource could be more than negligible and therefore considered an “affected resource.” Any resources that will not be more than negligibly impacted by the action have been dismissed from further analyses.

Impact Types: ● Direct effects are those which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. ● Indirect effects are those which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. ● Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions.

Resources potentially impacted by the proposed action and described in detail in this analysis include prairie dogs, burrowing owls, other wildlife and aquatic species, vegetation, soils, air, and water quality. Socioeconomic resources described in detail in this analysis include visitor use and experience, cultural resources, refuge management and operations, socioeconomics and, climate change.

Resources that would not be more than negligibly impacted by the proposed action and were therefore not analyzed in this EA include threatened and endangered species, wilderness and, visual resources. No listed species have been identified in the refuge or in the project area. There are no wilderness or wilderness study areas in the vicinity of the proposed action. Visual resources will not be affected long term by the proposed action and only negligibly affected in the short term.

The tables below provide:

1. A brief description of the affected resources in the proposed action area; and 2. Impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives on those resources, including direct and indirect effects.

Listed below are brief descriptions of each resource affected by the alternatives considered and anticipated impacts.

Affected Natural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Alternatives Prairie Dogs Analysis Throughout Oklahoma, significant declines in prairie dogs have been caused by loss of habitat, extensive poisoning, and disease during the last 100 years. Recreational shooting and trapping have contributed to reduced numbers locally but to a lesser extent. Black-tailed prairie dogs have likely occurred on the refuge since establishment. Osborn and Allan (1949) reported five active prairie dog colonies, and all except the Grace Mountain colony had been poisoned from time to time to limit their spread. However, by 1947 the Grace Mountain colony had disappeared. By 1960, only one prairie dog colony remained, the Turkey Creek colony, which was approximately 100 acres (Glass and Halloran 1961). In 1967, the largest remaining prairie- dog colony (1,000 acres) in Oklahoma was on the east range of Ft. Sill (Tyler 1968). Today, in Oklahoma, estimates of 60,000 acres of grasslands are occupied by prairie dogs, a small percent of historic acreages (Breland et al. 2009).

The refuge currently supports five prairie dog colonies on approximately 84 acres. The acreage of colonies fluctuates annually based on precipitation and vegetation growth. The Holy City prairie dog colony was once the largest colony on the refuge (63 acres), but flooding in 2015 and 2016, followed by significant vegetation growth, reduced the size to 23 acres. This prairie dog town has fluctuated widely over the years and typically rebounds quickly. No prairie dog towns exist within the project area off refuge lands.

Disturbance within prairie dog towns has been widely studied with mixed results. Shannon et al. (2016) found that road traffic noise modifies behavior of prairie dogs in a rural landscape, and Ramirez and Keller (2010) found that landscape (rural and urban) effects behavior on prairie dogs with possible implications on fitness and foraging behavior/time. Conversely, Adams et al. (1987) found distinct differences in avoidance response to human intruders in rural and urban landscapes. Adams et al. (1987) found urban prairie dogs to be less wary and concealed themselves for shorter periods of time than rural prairie dogs. Observational data from the refuge seems to support Adams et al. (1987) as prairie dogs in the Holy City area appear habituated to human intruders and only modify behavior or go underground when approached within 10 meters.

Holy City Road prairie dog towns are known to have multiple tunnels and chambers throughout their underground burrowing system. There are chambers that serve as listening posts to detect predators, nursery chambers for the young, chambers to spend the night, and chambers utilized during the winter. Chambers that serve as listening posts tend to be approximately 3.2 feet (one meter) below the surface. All other chambers, such as winter and nurseries tend to be deeper than 9.8 feet (three meters) and are more likely to be approximately 32.8 feet (10 meters) deep (Burns et al. 1989, Sheets et al. 1971).

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under the No Action Alternative, minor impacts from high visitation and vehicle disturbance would continue. This type of disturbance has been shown to modify behavioral responses of prairie dogs within rural landscapes. However, within urban or high visitation landscapes, prairie dogs appear to become habituated to human disturbance and display more tolerance to intruders than in a rural landscape.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Under this alternative, both direct and indirect impacts on prairie dogs are expected during installation. All construction activities would occur along the existing roadway. Of the five prairie dog towns on the refuge, the proposed action would only affect the Holy City prairie dog town. The water supply line would continue along the existing road ROW, which currently traverses through the middle of the approximately 23-acre prairie dog town. Prairie dogs actively use the area, but use decreases in closer proximity to the road. The pipeline would remain on the approximately 8-foot road ROW throughout the 0.25 miles that intersect the prairie dog town. This pipeline would travel alongside the roadway through the middle of the Holy City prairie dog colony for 0.25 miles and possibly impact up to 1.2 acres or 5.2% of the 23-acre town. Construction equipment is anticipated to remain on the paved road or within 12 feet of the road edge.

Direct impacts on prairie dogs because of this project include disturbance throughout the entire 23-acre prairie dog town. Although prairie dog towns have elaborate underground tunneling systems and chambers, this project has the greatest chance of affecting traveling burrows and listening chambers since the pipeline would be 36 to 42 inches deep. During installation, trenches may be up to 3 feet wide, but upon completion, the pipeline would only occupy the width of the 2-inch pipe. Direct impacts could include altering behavior (foraging and vigilance) due to the perceived threat of construction activities, destroying or altering the tunneling system, and potentially destroying predator listening chambers, and all other underground activities that are within the 36 to 42 inch depth of the pipeline. Direct impacts such as mortality are unlikely since prairie dogs should be able to avoid machinery through alternative tunnels that lead to other chambers and exits. No long-term direct impacts to breeding success is anticipated. Short- term impacts are anticipated to nesting chambers, nursery chambers and potential wintering chambers until the project is completed. This would likely temporarily displace prairie dogs. The proposed action could have indirect impacts on the burrowing system and could alter ingress and egress to deeper chambers such as nursery and nesting chambers. No long-term impacts from the proposed action are anticipated on prairie dogs once the pipeline is completed, work in the prairie dog town is anticipated to take only one day.

Impacts are expected to be short term and not permanent. The buried pipe would not be detrimental to prairie dog activities or block paths or burrows. Due to the small footprint and locating the pipeline along established roadsides, long term impacts to the prairie dog town are not expected. No other prairie dog towns would be impacted by this project, and no overall decline in the refuge population is expected due to this project. Construction activities would be planned to avoid the nesting/birthing season for prairie dogs (March–May).

Future maintenance actions would lead to the same or similar impacts as what would be created during the installation, but reduced in scale due to the smaller footprint of repairing a small section of pipe. Waterline leaks are expected to be rare and minor, resulting in small pooling of water and saturation of the soil with non-toxic and potable water. These impacts would be considered negligible.

Burrowing Owls Burrowing owls have been observed at refuge prairie dog towns for many years, most often for short periods of time during spring migration (March–April) as the birds pass through. On many occasions, a breeding pair will stay and utilize prairie dog town burrows as nesting sites. Since 2013, based on surveys, nine pairs of owls have fledged 20 young across the refuge. A majority of these pairs have utilized the Turkey Creek prairie dog town, but in 2015 one pair utilized the Holy City prairie dog town. Unfortunately, no young were observed from this pair. Anecdotal evidence from the refuge suggests that burrowing owls select nesting locations as far from disturbance as possible with an average distance of 209 meters from the nearest paved road. Anthropogenic disturbance mechanisms are high across the refuge, especially in and around prairie dog towns and by proximity, burrowing owls. Observational evidence suggests that burrowing owls may become habituated to some of this disturbance on the refuge, i.e., flight response to pedestrian and/or vehicle approach. Cavalli et al. (2018) found that owls could become habituated to human-related stimuli and could recognize and learn when a stimulus (presence of human) was not a threat. While there is typically disturbance to the burrowing owls whenever human presence is detected, evidence suggests owls have developed a tolerance to humans and vehicles. Burrowing owls either retreat to burrows or have a flight response until the perceived threat from visitors has dissipated. As a result, the burrowing owls found near the roads have grown somewhat habituated to the daily activities that occur at those locations throughout the day.

No burrowing owls have been observed or are known to utilize areas within the project area outside of the refuge boundary.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under the No Action Alternative, minor impacts on nesting burrowing owls (if present) may occur due to the high public visitation to the Holy City prairie dog town.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Under this alternative, minor short-term negative impacts to burrowing owls would occur, if owls are present or nesting within the Holy City prairie dog colony, during water supply line installation. The short-term negative impacts would be temporary disturbance due to activities associated with the installation work. Only approximately 0.25 miles of waterline would be placed within the Holy City prairie dog colony, all adjacent to roadways. No other prairie dog town or burrowing owl habitat would be disturbed. Due to these factors, the impacts during installation are not anticipated to be significant. There would be no anticipated change in burrowing owl presence in the area upon project completion. Burrowing owls have not been observed attempting to nest or raise young in close proximity to the roadway, where the waterline would be installed, therefore no adverse impacts to nesting or rearing young are anticipated. In addition, one other prairie dog town is located within 0.5 miles of the Holy City town, and if owls are displaced from this area, they may utilize this other town. The construction would be timed to avoid the nesting season of burrowing owls (April 15–July 1) if they are present and nesting in the Holy City prairie dog town.

Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species In a region and transition zone where the distributions of eastern and western wildlife species overlap, the refuge supports habitats high in biodiversity. From prairie habitats to oak savannas and rugged granite peaks, the refuge offers a diversity of animal and plant communities. Vertebrate wildlife species that occur in the project area include game and nongame species, 57 mammal species, 292 bird species, 19 amphibian species, 55 reptile species, and 33 fish species. A wide variety of wildlife are expected to utilize the various habitat types present within the project area, but these habitat types are not unique to the project area and are found throughout the refuge and on adjacent properties.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under the No Action Alternative, the existing habitat conditions on and off the refuge would not change.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) This alternative results in some short-term negative impacts on small mammals, birds, and other wildlife due to minor disturbance during the water supply line installation. Short-term impacts would include potential trenching in streams sending fine materials flowing downstream after the next rain event, destruction of prairie dog tunnels, increased risk of establishment of non-native invasive plant species, and additional human presence and noise during the installation or maintenance. These would cause a reduction in water quality, reduced habitat quality and availability for native species, and expenditures of energy resources on dispersal and wariness that would otherwise go towards survival, and reproduction.

While there is typically an impact on the majority of wildlife species from human presence, many animals have developed a tolerance to humans and vehicles (Shannon et al. 2016). Many animals remain motionless until the perceived threat from visitors has dissipated. As a result, the wildlife found near the roads has grown somewhat accustomed to the daily activities that occur at those locations throughout the day. Due to this and the delivery system, including the pumphouse, being installed along disturbed roadways or parking lots, the impacts during installation are not anticipated to be significant. There would be no anticipated change in diversity or abundance of wildlife that currently use the area upon project completion.

Future maintenance actions would lead to the same or similar impacts as what would be created during the installation, but reduced in scale due to the smaller footprint of repairing a small section. Although species would be temporarily impacted and some species could be displaced because of clearing associated with the new water supply line, implementation would not result in significant impacts.

Vegetation Native flora in project locations can generally be described as mixed-grass prairie and Cross Timbers habitat. The species composition of these areas varies based on soil types and proximity to granite out-crops. The mixed-grass prairies are dominated by little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), hairy grama (Bouteloua hirsute), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), silver bluestem (Bothriochloa laguroides), buffalograss (Bouteloua dactyloides), and Canada wildrye (Elymus canadensis). The Cross Timber forests are dominated by post oak (Quercus stellata), blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana).

Vegetation off refuge lands within the project area consist of mowed highway ROWs with non- native plants. Off-refuge project locations in highway ROWs are generally dominated by non- native flora such as Bermudagrass and Old World bluestem along with scant native flora including little bluestem, silver bluestem, and switchgrass. Woody species include post oak, hackberry, and American elm. The seed bank within these soils is very good, and native vegetation re-establishes quickly, reducing the potential for soil erosion.

The Wichita Mountains WR staff treats non-native invasive species annually to prevent the degradation of natural communities. Invasive species can have a negative effect on the habitat and modify both the appearance and the utility of the landscape. The refuge has demonstrated a correlation between the density and distribution of invasive plants and their occurrence relative to roads and trails.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under the No Action Alternative, invasive species would continue to be spread along roadways due to vehicle traffic, and visitors would continue to trample native vegetation within the prairie dog town and along road edges.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Under this alternative, there is potential for localized damage and increased invasive species spread due to ground disturbance associated with the installation and construction process. These impacts would be minimized due to the proximity to roadways, which allow easy access for observation and detection of invasive species. Most vegetation and ground along the proposed pipeline routes has been previously disturbed due to roadway construction and other work over the years. As degraded sites, impacts to vegetation are expected to be temporary and manageable on up to approximately 23 acres. No greater than 132 square feet of vegetation would be permanently lost due to the footprint of the pumphouse. This would be located adjacent to a roadway and parking lot, where the quality of vegetation is already reduced due to prior disturbance and invasive species presence. Revegetation efforts may take one to two years to fully erase the signs of installation.

Future Maintenance actions would lead to the same or similar impacts as what would be created during the installation, but they are reduced in scale due to the smaller footprint of repairing a small section of pipe.

Soils Soils in the area of potential effects are largely in the Foard, Tillman, Vernon, and Hollister soil series, each with extensive distribution in the region. The Foard series are very deep and well- drained soils occurring on nearly level to gently sloping broad summits and shoulder slopes of terrace pediments. The Tillman series are very deep and well-drained soils found on alluvial plains and alluvial plain remnants. Vernon soils are well-drained, moderately deep soils over claystone bedrock on broad, gently sloping to steep plains and escarpments. Hollister soils are very deep and well-drained, occurring on broad, flat, plain terraces. The project area is almost entirely located within an existing ROW or adjacent to an existing road previously disturbed by prior projects.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to soils within the project area would remain the same. There is the potential that soils could be disturbed during maintenance operations.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts associated with this alternative would result in a minimal disturbance to soils from trenching, boring, and compaction by construction equipment on up to 23 acres. Trenches would range from 36 to 42 inches deep and be approximately 3 feet wide. Soils moved during installation would be quickly backfilled and secured as each section of pipe is set in place. Impacts are expected to be localized, minimal, and manageable as soils along the proposed pipeline routes are disturbed due to prior roadway construction and other work over the years. Vegetation is expected to quickly grow over the disturbed soil, stabilizing the soil and minimizing erosion, but some minor erosion is expected.

Air Quality The refuge wilderness areas are designated as a Class I Clean Air Areas, by the Clean Air Act. The refuge coordinates with the Service’s Air Quality Branch to ensure appropriate and consistent air quality monitoring, including the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) station to ensure protection of the refuge’s Class I status. Air quality on the refuge is primarily influenced by off-site sources, carried by prevailing southeast transport winds. Based on data from IMPROVE, the air quality monitoring site on the refuge, soil dust, soot, and sulfates are the top particulates within our air shed (IMPROVE 2017). Natural and man-made contributors of these particulates include dust storms, wildfire/prescribed fires, unpaved roads, vehicles, and coal-fired power plants.

In Comanche County the majority of emissions occur from (1) on-road and non-road mobile sources (volatile organic compounds [VOCs], CO, NOx, and carbon dioxide equivalent [CO2e]), (2) prescribed fires (CO and SOx), (3) solvent/surface coating usages (VOCs), and (4) fugitive dust from unpaved roads and agricultural activities (USACE 2019).

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under the No Action Alternative, air quality within the project area would remain the same.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Under the Proposed Action Alternative, during construction, installation, and operational activities on the water delivery system, temporary air quality impacts could result from (1) combustive emissions due to the use of fossil fuel powered equipment and (2) fugitive dust due to the operation of equipment on exposed soil. Implementation of standard fugitive dust control measures would ensure that construction activities associated would not result in significant impacts to air quality. We anticipate that equipment emissions and dust associated with construction would not be considered significant because they would only occur during a one to five month period, the work areas would be revegetated, and best management practices for dust control would be implemented. No long-term impacts are anticipated.

Water Resources The Wichita Mountains WR is at a higher elevation than the surrounding areas and is thereby situated at the top of the watershed. Natural aquatic classes on the refuge such as creeks and streams are intermittent and seasonal. Man-made reservoirs, ponds, and associated wetlands account for the largest water bodies on the refuge and are the primary year-round water sources.

The Oklahoma Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (OPDES) stormwater program, authorized by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permitting program, requires construction site owners/operators to obtain coverage under the OPDES Construction General Permit to discharge stormwater runoff from a construction site and to implement appropriate pollution prevention controls/techniques to minimize pollutants and reduce stormwater runoff.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under the No Action Alternative, water quality within the project area would remain the same.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) The proposed water delivery system route crosses creeks. In these areas, the water pipeline would be bored and installed under the creek bed whenever possible; however, there may be creeks where trenching is required. Not all creeks have water and creeks may be dry during construction. Short-term impacts, including potential minor sediment loading in water, may occur. Water supply lines would be bored under larger creek crossings when possible and practical to reduce impacts on streambeds, even if dry. However, due to unknown subsurface conditions, boring may not always be possible.

All work within the streambanks would be in accordance with the Section 404 permit granted by the USACE authorizing the work. There are no anticipated long-term impacts on water resources. Impacts on water quality, riparian habitat, and wetlands would be minimized through the implementation of special construction measures such as the prompt revegetation of disturbed areas. Best management practices (BMP) would be implemented to avoid bank erosion and downstream sedimentation. The selection of and use of BMPs depends upon specific soil types and ground conditions in the areas disturbed, but also could include sediment retention structures, gully repairs, and repairing areas of compacted soil. Trenching would be avoided on rainy days to reduce the potential for erosion and reduced water quality. All contractor construction requirements for construction of the water delivery system would specify compliance with the OPDES General Permit, which would be obtained by the contractor in advance if required.

Affected Visitor Use and Experience Resources and Anticipated Impacts Alternatives Visitor Use and Experience The refuge hosts approximately 2 million visitors per year, with 170,000 visits at the visitor center in fiscal year 2019. These visitors (annual approximate visits in parenthesis) engage in a variety of recreational activities including but not limited to hunting (591), fishing (12,123), hiking (202,049), rock climbing (4,000), camping (27,000), scuba diving (100), wildlife observation (2,166,450), and wildlife photography (1,414,432). These activities primarily occur in the PUA, comprising approximately 24,088 acres of the south and southeastern portions of the refuge.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) No potable water would be available to visitors or staff, creating health and safety risks. A chief complaint currently received by refuge staff from the public is the lack of potable water. The refuge has a 93-site campground where campers must boil water because the water provided is not safe to consume otherwise. Lack of potable water can lead to dehydration and heat exhaustion, particularly during summer, when temperatures are warm to hot all day.

Non-camping related visitor use experiences are also degraded by a lack of potable water. Many of the above referenced recreational activities may occur year-round (except hunting), including the hot weather months. Much of the refuge is exposed granite, where temperatures in the 80s can be dangerous as the rock radiates heat. This heat is in addition to direct sunlight and can cause more extreme heat conditions than most visitors anticipate. Temperatures often exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer. Historically, visitors were able to obtain water on the refuge to help cool down and rehydrate. Due to the boil order, all water fountains have been turned off, and few visitors bring the proper equipment to boil water. It is very common for visitors not to bring an adequate supply of water when visiting, relying on refuge sources to replenish.

Holy City would continue to have a residence without water and be unable to provide water to the visitors. Provisions allowing the use of the existing water delivery system would likely be revoked, the system would be shut down, and the refuge would no longer provide any water. This may result in the closure of some facilities, a reduction of available services, and inadequate sanitation, which would lead to a heavily degraded visitor experience.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) While there would be short-term adverse impacts as the water delivery system is installed, from noise and traffic, long-term impacts on visitor use and experience are anticipated to be positive and improved once potable water is available for drinking, cleaning, and food preparation. Potable water would be available from sources at Doris Campground, the environmental education center complex, the visitor center, and Holy City.

Bicyclists, wildlife photographers, and other users may be impacted due to noise associated with equipment operations and visual aesthetics of disturbed land immediately upon installation. Visual aesthetic quality impacts are low because the water supply line would be placed in or adjacent to previously disturbed areas, not in a pristine habitats, and devegetated areas would be replanted.

To prevent traffic congestion and detours, roads would not be completely closed, but they may be limited to one lane of travel for short lengths of the road. Visitors would be notified through the refuge website, social media, and electronic billboards of construction activities. Lane closures would not be allowed on weekends during the busy season of February through May when we receive the highest concentration of visitors.

Affected Cultural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Alternatives Cultural Resources Periods of human occupation throughout Oklahoma have been heavily documented and extend from the widely accepted Clovis complex (possibly even pre-Clovis) forward. Consistent with much of its surroundings, assessments of the cultural resources at Wichita Mountains WR reveals a rich collection of archaeological and historical sites. While the refuge has never been fully surveyed, there have been a number of studies that have identified potential sites and documented existing sites spanning from prehistory, through Western contact and expansion, and into the modern day. The largest of these surveys (Bastain 1966) did not evaluate many of these sites for inclusion into the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Since that time, few sites have been professionally revisited over the last 50 years, denoting their eligibility for addition to the NRHP as undetermined or unknown.

Currently, six properties have been nominated to the NRHP: Holy City district, Boulder Cabin, Buffalo Lodge, Cedar Creek Arrastra, Ferguson House, and Ingram House. Each of these sites is a product of historic Euromerican development. The built structures reflect architecture consistent with the settlement and Euromerican occupation of the Wichita Mountains in the early twentieth century. These historic structures are, for the most part, well known and well preserved. While not included in the NRHP, additional historic properties exist from the 1930s Civilian Conservation Corps/Works Progress Administration programs. To date, no recommendation has been made to include these resources on the NRHP, but they do exist as part of a wider historical landscape and may need further long-term consideration.

Prehistoric, archaeological sites across the refuge have received minimal monitoring and management. Beyond their initial survey, the majority of documented locations have not been revisited. Site conditions are largely unknown; as such, adverse impacts are unknown. Based upon available information, however, the majority of the approximately 45 sites are believed to be late Archaic (c. 5,000 BC–1,000 BC) and/or Plains Woodland (c. 1000 BC–1400 AD) in nature. These locations were documented in varying conditions from “excellent, subsurface deposits demonstrated” to “disturbed” as a result of erosion. Several sites offered up small collections of materials that can be found at the Sam Noble Museum in Norman, OK, and the Museum of the Great Plains in Lawton, OK.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to cultural resources within the project area would remain the same. There is the potential that buried cultural resources could be discovered during maintenance operations.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the majority of the water delivery system would be installed in areas that had some level of previous ground disturbance related to road, bridge, building, and pipeline construction. There is potential that not all areas have been disturbed to the depth of 46 inches, and there is potential that cultural resource artifacts could be discovered. An inadvertent discovery plan shall be developed, and an archaeological field inspection of the pump house location and along a segment of the proposed waterline would be conducted before to construction to reduce the potential of disturbing cultural artifacts. Any required mitigation or re-routing of the system would be analyzed prior to approval of the project.

While the water supply lines would pass near Holy City and the Ferguson and Ingram houses, no impacts are anticipated on these properties listed on the NRHPs as determined in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office. Construction staging areas and locations for work crew breaks would not be located within their boundaries.

Affected Refuge Management and Operations Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Alternatives Refuge Management and Operations Administration The refuge receives funding and staffing for operations, infrastructure, and maintenance. Current staffing fluctuates, but is approximately 30 personnel encompassing the following: refuge management and administration: 3 FTEs (Full Time Equivalent Employees), biology: 3 FTEs, visitor services: 5 FTEs, maintenance: 5 FTEs, law enforcement: 4 FTEs and fire: 10 FTEs. The total allocated funds vary annually. Fire funding is approximately $1.2 million and other refuge operations funds are approximately $2.1 million. Refuge staff offices are located throughout the refuge, including the headquarters area, the environmental education center complex and the visitor center.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under Alternative A, annual operations for maintaining the current water well and delivery system, including labor, is estimated to cost the refuge approximately $95,000 with additional costs associated with providing potable water to staff. Existing pipelines are old and leak considerably. Waterline breaks are not uncommon and are expected to continue to occur, wasting water and causing expenditures for parts and labor.

Water in the current system is not potable unless boiled, which is not practical for daily use. Due to extreme summer heat, the refuge has two ice machines to use in coolers to cool food and water. Ice was also added to water bottles to improve hydration and cooling. With the boil order, it is not practical to produce ice after boiling water in any quantity. Ice cannot be added to water bottles and care must be taken when used in coolers to prevent food and water contamination.

Under alternative A, it is likely that regulations would prevent the ongoing operation of a public water supply (the refuge water wells and delivery system) that does not deliver potable water. Without running water, sanitation facilities would cease to operate, creating additional health and human safety concerns through lack of sanitation and potential greater risk of associated illness. Costs to the refuge would increase from the need to rent portable toilets for refuge facilities.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Upon new waterline installation, annual maintenance and operating costs are anticipated to be less than current expenditures. Water would be billed based upon use, and expected use is under 5,000 gallons a month. Estimated monthly water bills would be closer to $2,000, versus the $7,900 monthly cost to maintain the current system. However, current pipelines leak profusely; therefore, accurate use estimates are unavailable, and expected monthly water bills cannot be accurately calculated. Water use associated with Doris Campground would be paid through fees generated from the campground. All treatment and a majority of water testing would fall under RWD #4 responsibility, reducing labor and materials cost directly associated with water treatment. New water supply lines would also reduce the amount of water supply system repairs over their 50-year lifespan, saving ongoing annual materials and labor costs.

Impacts on refuge operations would be positive. Holy City and all developed refuge areas, excluding the headquarters area, would be served by potable water. Ice machines would be installed in other areas of the refuge for staff and volunteer use. Additionally, potable water would be available to the headquarters area if relocated as conceptually planned in the future.

Preventing the discontinuation of water for sanitation and restoring the supply of potable water to these facilities would provide for the health and safety of employees and the public, enhance the visitor experience, and provide on-site water for use in upkeep and maintenance of the facilities themselves.

Affected Socioeconomic Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Alternatives Socioeconomics Local and Regional Economies Wichita Mountains WR sits just outside the Lawton, OK metro area in Comanche County, which has a population of approximately 122,000 people. The Lawton/Ft. Sill Chamber of Commerce prominently lists the refuge as a major local attraction. According to the Service’s 2013 Banking on Nature report, recreational visitation to Wichita Mountains WR, which was operating on a budget of $3.9 million, produced $174 million in economic effects while supporting some 1,050 jobs. That is about $44 generated for every $1 in budget expenditures.

Visitors coming from outside the local area, do so specifically to experience some aspect of the refuge and its resources. Visitors that live within the local 50-mile radius of a refuge typically have different spending patterns than those that travel from longer distances. A 2010 study showed that 34 percent of surveyed visitors to Wichita Mountains WR indicated that they live within the local area (Sexton et al. 2011). Nonlocal visitors (66 percent) stayed in the local area, on average, for two days. Expenditures by these travelers support locally owned businesses, including hotels, coffee shops, restaurants, boutiques, and art galleries. Furthermore, the refuge currently manages 61 commercial permits, which allow photographers, videographers, and climbing guides to conduct commercial operations within the refuge.

In 2016, employment in Comanche County totaled 65,926 jobs. The largest employment sector in Comanche County was government and government enterprises (45 percent), followed by retail trade (12 percent), accommodation and food services (9 percent), and health care and social assistance (7 percent). Construction accounted for 4.5 percent of total employment. Over the last several years, the average annual unemployment rate in the county has steadily declined from 6.2 percent in 2013 to 4 percent in 2017. During this same time, the state average annual unemployment rate also declined annually but remained higher than the county. In 2016, per capita personal income in Comanche County was $39,001, which is less than per capita personal income in the state, which is estimated at $42,692. (USACE 2019)

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) It is not likely that the lack of potable water would reduce visitation numbers, but it is possible. If visitation is reduced due to a lack of water, particularly on warm or hot days, any reduction in use and visitation may proportionately negatively affect the local economy. Reduced visitation may lead to fewer people shopping or dining at nearby businesses, possibly reducing their revenues.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) The visitor experience is expected to improve with the availability of potable water leading to visitation above current levels. If visitation increases, there would likely be a proportionate increase in economic activity in the local area. Visitation to Doris Campground and Holy City is expected to increase immediately upon connection to the new water supply system.

The project installation is expected to cost nearly $3,000,000. Contractors associated with this project would likely travel in from outside the area and bring additional revenue to local lodging, restaurants, and shops. The economic benefit to area businesses would occur during water delivery system installation, which is expected to last one to five months. Construction activities provide economic benefits to the surrounding areas through the employment of construction workers and the purchase of materials and equipment. Construction activities would be temporary and would provide a limited amount of economic benefit. Construction activities would create localized, temporary noise. Noise associated with construction activities would occur during daylight hours and is not anticipated to impact economic activity. Once construction is complete, noise levels would return to pre-construction levels.

The expansion to the refuge involves trenching through or boring beneath 16 gravel driveways. Construction along any driveway would last no longer than one day, and no impacts on socioeconomics are expected. Driveways and mailboxes if impacted would be returned to pre- construction condition after installation of the pipeline.

Climate Change The impacts of climate change on wildlife species is of great concern. The increase in global temperatures and change in weather patterns can have catastrophic effects on wildlife distribution and ecosystems processes. Such climate-induced changes have the capacity to make dramatic alterations in floral and faunal composition, species dominance, and distribution of ecosystems. Another impact of climate change is the spread of invasive plants. The prevalence and vigor of invasive plants and the competitive advantage they have over native plants may be linked to changes in climate.

Direct and Indirect Impacts The current or proposed action are not likely to result in any direct or indirect impacts on climate change. Any emissions created during manufacturing of materials, installation and future maintenance needs would be short term and localized.

Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations and communities.

Direct and Indirect Impacts The Service has not identified any potential high and adverse environmental or human health impacts from this proposed action or the no action alternative. The Service has identified no minority or low-income communities within the impact area. Minority or low income communities will not be disproportionately affected by any impact from this proposed action or the alternative.

Indian Trust Resources There are no Indian trust resources in the project area.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Neither Alternative A nor B would impact any Indian trust resources.

Cumulative Impact Analysis Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (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 counter- balance one another, partially cancelling out each other’s effects on a resource. However, more typically, multiple effects add up, with each additional action contributing an incremental impact on the resource.

Anticipated Cumulative Impacts of the Alternatives Other Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activity Descriptions of Anticipated Cumulative Impacting the Affected Environment Impacts Social Conditions Alternative A: Population trends in Oklahoma have decreased in Alternative A may result in the refuge playing a the last seven years. In 2017, the estimated smaller role as a driver of tourism in the area population of Comanche County was 121,526 because of a reduced visitor experience. Visitor (USCB 2018). Between 2010 and 2017, the reductions may incrementally impede or stall county population decreased at an average annual economic growth related to nature tourism in the rate of 0.3 percent, with a total decrease of communities that service refuge visitors. approximately 2,527 persons over the seven-year period (USCB 2018). In 2017, the state of Alternative B: Oklahoma had an estimated population of 3.75 Under the Proposed Action Alternative and in million. The decreases in average annual light of the heavy outdoor public use on the population growth in the county have been less refuge, this project stands to bolster the than the state. State, county, and local socioeconomic impact of the refuge on the populations are all anticipated to increase by 2030 surrounding areas. Positive effects are expected (USACE 2019). in the county from short-term spending relating to pipeline construction and from consistent and The combined Lawton-Fort Sill population is possibly increased levels of visitation. approximately 93,714 people. Smaller towns of Cache, Indiahoma, Elgin, and Medicine Park are Under this alternative, visitor and staff safety on located near the refuge. the refuge would improve from reducing the risk for dehydration and infection by water-borne United States Army Garrison Fort Sill (Fort Sill / illnesses, and continued sanitation. Garrison) is the third largest single-site employer in Oklahoma, contributing more than $24 billion Fort Sill may benefit from access to a new RWD into Oklahoma’s economy over the last 12 years, waterline that could potentially reduce costs averaging out to roughly $2 billion in outlays each associated with future water connections for year. Fort Sill encompasses approximately 150 underserved portions of the garrison. square miles (93,829 acres) stretching 27 miles east to west and 6 miles north to south. The Alternative B has the potential to result in minor, Garrison is growing and engaging in large adverse impacts on air quality, noise, soil construction projects regularly. The western half resources, water resources, and traffic. Minor, of the north boundary is bounded by the Wichita positive impacts on socioeconomics would result Mountains WR. from implementing Alternative B. None of these impacts would be significant.

Other Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activity Descriptions of Anticipated Cumulative Impacting the Affected Environment Impacts Other land use near the refuge consists of agricultural land interspersed with low-density residential development in some areas, and limited oil field development.

Fort Sill is actively collaborating with Land Legacy of Tulsa, Oklahoma to proactively manage land development around Fort Sill. The program is designed to protect the installation from urban sprawl encroachment by establishing a buffer around critical ranges and training lands. The purpose of the ACUB program is not to purchase land but to acquire the development rights (conservation easements) on land surrounding Fort Sill to prevent encroachment. The program is seeking to protect 14,080 acres. (USACE 2019)

Based on review of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation Project - 8 Year Construction Work Plan Report, seven road and bridge projects are scheduled for construction in Comanche County between 2020 and 2027. Projects range from intersection to bridge improvements.

Visitor Use and Experience Alternative A: Local opportunities for recreation includes a The lack of available potable water affects a large historic district, concerts, car shows, casinos, portion of refuge visitors. Maintaining current event centers, and private and public hunting management may result in reduced or static lands. Lake Elmer Thomas Recreation Area, visitation levels from a degraded visitor Lake Lawtonka, Medicine Park Aquarium and experience. A lack of potable water would Natural Sciences Center, and other parks in the continue to be a guest dissatisfier resulting in community provide opportunities for water sports, frustrated visitors and the generation of camping, and other nature-based and outdoor continuous complaints at one of the most visited recreation. national wildlife refuges in the country. The conditions would tarnish the reputation of the Roughly, two percent of the 2 million annual Service and the refuge, which may lead to the visitors to the refuge stay in Doris Campground, reduced support and relevancy of the NWRS. while another 8 percent stop at the visitor center. Alternative B: There are public concerns that boiling water is not enough and that the water would remain unsafe even after boiling. The transition to a new water delivery system would alleviate those concerns, reassuring the visiting public and providing for a more positive experience overall.

Other Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activity Descriptions of Anticipated Cumulative Impacting the Affected Environment Impacts Impacts on visitor use and experience stand to improve. The restoration of this service would provide for a safer and more enjoyable experience and would alleviate the bulk of visitor complaints while adding to the availability of enjoyable recreation activities in the county. Any negative impacts would be short term and solely associated with the installation of the necessary water delivery infrastructure.

Wildlife and Aquatic Species Alternative A: Refuge Management There would be no cumulative impacts from Prescribed fire and fire suppression activities on Alternative A. the refuge and other properties in the county may affect larger areas of soil. Fire activities have the Alternative B: potential to be beneficial to soils by increasing Alternative B has the potential to result in minor availability of certain nutrients and thus direct, adverse impacts on wildlife and aquatic stimulating healthy vegetation growth and species from human-caused disturbance like the increasing available forage, but they may cause removal of vegetation, increased sedimentation in the mortality of some wildlife. Hunting programs creeks, and reduced air quality. None of these occur on the refuge and other government and impacts would be significant. private lands within the county. Hunting programs may adversely affect populations of The additional human-caused disturbance during hunted species in the short term. The state the construction of under 16 miles of water supply manages hunting to maintain sustainable wildlife line in the project area with a construction populations. timeline of only 1 to 5 months does not incrementally add the cumulative impacts from Land Practices past, present, and foreseeable activities affecting Prior gold mining on lands before the refuge was wildlife and aquatic species. established has left some impacts to the soil, such as open pits and shafts, mine tailings, and traces of mercury and other contaminants. These past mining operations may contaminate food and water sources and open pits and mines may cause wildlife mortality or create habitat for some species.

Air pollution from nearby off-refuge sources, including industry, power plants, and automobiles exists in the county. Fires from explosives and other military activities at the adjacent Fort Sill generate smoke that can temporarily affect the air quality of the refuge. Air pollution causes adverse impacts to the refuge and its wilderness area. The smoke from military activities could add to smoke from prescribed fires occurring on the refuge, further adversely affecting the refuge’s air quality.

Other Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activity Descriptions of Anticipated Cumulative Impacting the Affected Environment Impacts Reduced air quality may negatively affect the health of wildlife or their food sources.

Windfarms operate in the vicinity of the refuge. Windfarms have the potential to adversely affect migratory birds because of collisions with spinning blades.

Historically Southwestern Oklahoma, including Fort Sill, was a grassland prairie traversed by wooded streams. The native prairie was subsequently overgrazed as settlement increased, somewhat changing the climax grassland communities. Overgrazing has changed plant communities in the county resulting in the reduced populations of certain species and the increase in abundance of other species.

The City of Lawton controls the population of prairie dogs at Elmer Thomas Park resulting in localized mortality, but does maintain small areas that are not treated that prairie dogs may inhabit.

Climate Change Alternative A: Warming, whether it results from anthropogenic There would be no cumulative impacts from or natural sources, is expected to affect a variety Alternative A. of natural processes and associated resources. However, the complexity of ecological systems Alternative B: means that there is a tremendous amount of While the impacts from climate change on the uncertainty about the impact climate change will project area are not certain, nor well understood, actually have. In particular, the localized effects the installation of a new water delivery system for of climate change are still a matter of much the refuge would not add to the cumulative debate. A study modeling climate change in impacts of climate change. Oklahoma showed the potential for decreases in precipitation, greater variability in monthly precipitation, and increased frequency of large storms (Zhang et al. 2005).

Interior Regions 6, 7, and 8 have been working with the U.S. Geological Survey, the academic community, and other natural resource management agencies and interest groups to translate available and emerging science into concrete actions that reduce the impacts of a changing climate on the diverse ecosystems in Oklahoma.

Summary of Analysis The purpose of this EA is to provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

Alternative A – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, current water use restrictions would remain in place. The Service does not currently meet state requirements for water treatment standards or well depth. The state has issued a boil order for refuge water. There is potential that failure to act would lead to the closing of our water system, to ensure public safety, due to non-compliance with current health and safety standards. This could eliminate all water sources from the current wells and delivery system, including showers and flush toilets. The refuge hosts approximately 2.2 million visitors per year, with 170,000 visits at the visitor center in fiscal year 2019.

Minor adverse impacts would continue to occur to visitor use and experience under the no action alternative. No potable water would be available to visitors or staff, creating health and safety risks and concerns.

Minor adverse impacts would continue to occur to refuge management and operations. Under Alternative A, annual operations for maintaining the current system, including labor, is estimated to cost the refuge approximately $95,000. Current systems provide water that is only potable under a boil order, and no potable water is available to Holy City.

No impacts would occur on other resources because the project would not take place.

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative Under this alternative, an underground water delivery system would be installed to provide potable water from RWD #4, Cache, OK. The majority of the current system would be replaced and potable water would be available.

Upon project installation, annual maintenance and operating costs are anticipated to be less than current expenditures. All treatment and a majority of water testing would fall under RWD #4 responsibility, reducing labor and materials cost directly associated with water treatment. New water supply lines would also reduce the amount of water line repairs needed in the future, saving ongoing annual materials and labor costs.

A leading complaint currently received by refuge staff from the public is the lack of potable water. While there would be minor short-term impacts as the water delivery system is installed, long-term impacts on visitor use and experience are anticipated to be positive and improved once potable water is provided. It is possible visitation would increase due to a greater visitor experience. If visitation increases, there would likely be a proportionate increase in revenue circulated within the local economy, a local economic benefit.

No impacts are anticipated to cultural resources because the water delivery system would be installed along paved roads in previously disturbed ground. Surveys would be conducted in

limited areas, and a plan for inadvertent discovery would be implemented to reduce potential adverse effects on unidentified cultural resources.

The proposed water delivery system route crosses creeks. In these areas, the water pipeline would be bored and installed under the creek bed whenever possible. Trenching through creeks would be restricted to non-rainy days and be conducted in accordance with any applicable permits. There are no anticipated long-term impacts on water resources, but in the short term, siltation may occur.

Impacts on vegetation and soils from heavy equipment use are expected to be limited to a 23- acre area. There is potential for localized damage and increased invasive species spread due to ground disturbance associated with the installation and construction process. These impacts would be minimized due to the proximity to roadways, which allow easy access for observation and detection and are already routinely monitored for invasive species presence. Vegetation and ground along the proposed pipeline routes are disturbed due to roadway construction and other work over the years.

Minor disturbance impacts are expected to prairie dogs and burrowing owls during the construction and installation phase. The water delivery system would be installed along roadways where disturbance already occurs; the impacts during installation and construction are not anticipated to be significant and are temporary in nature. There would be no anticipated change in prairie dog or burrowing owl presence in the area upon project completion.

Monitoring A biological monitor for the refuge would assist in ensuring that project activities stay in compliance with all environmental regulations, laws and provisions during the construction phase. They would conduct biological surveys as needed and monitor work areas on a daily basis. The biological monitor will (a) document activities pertaining to biological resources, (b) provide regular update to refuge manager, (c) notify the refuge manager immediately if unauthorized impacts to biological resources occur, and (d) advise contractors, as needed, to ensure effective implementation of biological mitigation measures for specific site conditions.

List of Sources, Agencies, and Persons Consulted Refuge staff have coordinated and communicated with Oklahoma DEQ, Comanche County RWD #4, United States Army Garrison Fort Sill, Oklahoma Department of Transportation, and Holy City throughout our efforts to provide potable water.

List of Preparers David Farmer, Project Leader, Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, Indiahoma OK Lynn Cartmell, Supervisory Park Ranger, Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, Indiahoma OK Daniel McDonald, Wildlife Biologist, Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, Indiahoma OK

Public Outreach To solicit public review and comment, the refuge has sent notices to area newspapers and media that have wide local distributions, including KSWO, and the Elgin Chronicle and Lawton Constitution newspapers, posted notices on social media, and posted on the refuge website at https://www.fws.gov/refuge/wichita_mountains/.

This Draft Environmental Assessment will be made available for public comment from 04/20/2020 through 05/20/2020. Comments should be mailed to Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, 32 Refuge Headquarters, Indiahoma, OK 73552, or sent via email to [email protected]. In order to be considered, all comments must be received by 11:59 p.m., May 20, 2020.

Tribal Consultation On February 4, 2020, the refuge sent out letters to the following tribal entities advising of the proposed action and inviting comment on this Environmental Assessment.

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Caddo Nation, Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Comanche Nation, Delaware Nation, Fort Sill Apache, Kiowa Tribe, Osage Nation, and Wichita and Affiliated Tribes.

References Adams, R. A., B. J. Lengas, and M. Bekoff. 1987. Variations in avoidance responses to humans by black-tailed prairie dogs (cynomys ludovicianus). Journal of Mammalogy 68(3) 686- 689.

Breland, A., D. Elmore, L. Wiemers, and T. Bidwell. Prairie dog ecology and management in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. NREM-9014.

Buck, P. 1964. Relationships of the wood vegetation of the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge to geological formations and soil types. Ecology 45(2): 336-344.

Burns, J. A., D. L. Flath, and T. W. Clark. 1989. On the structure and function of white-tailed prairie dog burrows. The Great Plains Naturalist 49(4): 517-524.

Cavalli, M., A.V. Baladron, J/P. Isacch, L.M. Biondi, and M. S. Bo. 2018. The role of habituation in the adjustment to urban life: An experimental approach with burrowing owls. Behavioural Processes 157: 250-255.

Glass, B. P. and A. F. Halloran. 1961. The small mammals of the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. Journal of Mammalogy 42(2): 234-239.

Hoagland, J. L. 1995. The black-tailed prairie dog: social life of a burrowing mammal. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Hollister, N. 1916. North American Fauna No. 40. A systematic account of the prairie-dogs. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey. Washington, DC. 52 pages.

Osborn, B. and P. F. Allan. 1949. Vegetation of an abandoned prairie-dog town in tall grass prairie. Ecology 30(3): 322-332.

Ramirez, J. E. and G. S. Keller. 2010. Effects of landscape on behavior of black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) in rural and urban habitats. The Southwestern Naturalist 55(2): 167-171.

Sexton N.R., A.M. Dietsch, A.W. Don Carlos, L. Koontz, A.N. Solomon, and H.M. Miller. 2011. National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Survey 2010/2011: Individual Refuge Results for Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge

Shannon, G., L. M. Angeloni, G. Wittemyer, K. M. Fristrup, and K. R. Crooks. 2014. Road traffic noise modifies behavior of a keystone species. Animal Behaviour 94: 135-141.

Shannon, G., K. R. Crooks, G. Wittemyer, K. M. Fristup, and L. M. Angeloni. 2016. Road noise causes earlier predator detection and flight response in a free-ranging mammal. Behavioral Ecology 27(5): 1370-1375.

Sheets, R. G., R. L. Linder, and R. B. Dahlgren. 1971. Burrow systems of prairie dogs in South Dakota. Journal of Mammalogy 52(2): 451-453.

Tyler, J. D. 1968. Distribution and vertebrate associates of the black-tailed prairie dog in Oklahoma. Dissertation. University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma. 93 pages.

USAFACFS 2014. U.S. Army Field Artillery Center Fort Sill. Fires Center of Excellence and Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. 2014-2018.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, RPEC. 2019. Final Environmental Assessment for Renewable Energy and Energy Resiliency at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment.

Zhang X.C., Nearing, M.A. 2005. Impact of climate change on soil erosion, runoff, and wheat productivity in central Oklahoma. CATENA 61(2–3): 185-195

Appendix 1 OTHER APPLICABLE STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS & REGULATIONS

STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS Cultural Resources The proposed action does not impact any documented paleontological, archaeological, or historic sites. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act, as amended, Service has coordinated with the Oklahoma Historical 42 U.S.C. 1996 – 1996a; 43 CFR Part 7 Society State Historic Preservation Office and Oklahoma Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431-433; 43 CFR Archeological Survey, and is implemented required Part 3 conditions to assure compliance with Cultural resource Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 laws. U.S.C. 470aa – 470mm; 18 CFR Part 1312; 32 CFR Part 229; 36 CFR Part 296; 43 CFR Part 7 The refuge has consulted with the appropriate Native National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, American tribe/groups to identify any concerns they may 16 U.S.C. 470-470x-6; 36 CFR Parts 60, 63, 78, 79, 800, have pertaining to the project. 801, and 810 Paleontological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa – 470aaa-11 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; 43 CFR Part 10 Executive Order 11593 – Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 36 Fed. Reg. 8921 (1971) Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites, 61 Fed. Reg. 26771 (1996) Fish & Wildlife There are no known federal threatened or endangered species on the refuge. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668-668c, 50 CFR 22 The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 13186 because the Environmental Assessment for 1531-1544; 36 CFR Part 13; 50 CFR Parts 10, 17, 23, Potable Water Delivery system on Wichita Mountains 81, 217, 222, 225, 402, and 450 WR evaluates the effects of agency actions on migratory Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742 a-m birds. Lacey Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 10, 11, 12, 14, 300, and 904 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 703- 712; 50 CFR Parts 10, 12, 20, and 21 Executive Order 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, 66 Fed. Reg. 3853 (2001) Natural Resources The Service has evaluated the suitability of the Wichita Mountains WR for wilderness designation and found Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q; 40 that the Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area, consisting CFR Parts 23, 50, 51, 52, 58, 60, 61, 82, and 93; 48 CFR of two units totaling 8,570 acres, meets the criteria. Part 23 Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq. The Service has evaluated the eligibility of streams on Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq. Wichita Mountains WR for wild and scenic river Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species, 64 Fed. Reg. designation and concluded no streams meet the basic 6183 (1999) criteria for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The proposed action has no effects on designated wilderness.

The proposed action would have negligible effects on air quality.

STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS

The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 13112 because stipulations in permits would be designed to prevent the introduction of invasive species.

Water Resources The refuge does not lie in a coastal zone and contains no rivers, harbors, or navigable waters. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 923, 930, 933 There would be negligible impacts of the proposed Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly action on water quality or water resources. referred to as Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 320-330; 40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, The refuge contains no drinking water sources and does 230-232, 323, and 328 not supply drinking water to any community. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 114, 115, 116, 321, 322, and The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 333 11990 because installation of the waterlines or the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 300f et purchase of potable water would protect existing seq.; 40 CFR Parts 141-148 wetlands. Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management, 42 Fed. Reg. 26951 (1977) The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands, 42 11988 because installation of the waterlines and Fed. Reg. 26961 (1977) purchase of potable water would not result in the modification or destruction of floodplains.

Appendix 2 – Proposed Rural Water District Water Supply Line Maps