DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Assessment Draft Environmental Assessment Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge Hunt Plan January 2020 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge 4200 East Pine Lodge Road, Roswell, NM 88201 Table of Contents Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 4 Background ................................................................................................................................. 4 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ................................................................................ 6 Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Alternatives Considered .............................................................................................................. 6 Alternative A – Current Management Strategies [No Action Alternative] ............................ 6 Alternative B – Implement the Bitter Lake NWR Hunt Plan [Proposed Action Alternative] 8 Alternative(s) Considered, But Dismissed from Further Consideration ..................................... 9 Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices ............................................................... 9 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 13 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 13 Environmental Consequences of the Action ............................................................................. 15 Affected Natural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 16 Hunted Species – Deer (white-tailed and mule) ................................................................... 16 Hunted Species – Feral Hog ................................................................................................. 17 Hunted Species – Waterfowl and Sandhill Crane ................................................................. 18 Hunted Species – Dove (white-winged and mourning) ........................................................ 20 Hunted Species – Quail and Pheasant ................................................................................... 21 Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species ..................................................................................... 23 Threatened and Endangered Species and other Special Status Species ................................ 24 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 26 Soils....................................................................................................................................... 27 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 28 Water Resources ................................................................................................................... 28 Wilderness............................................................................................................................. 29 Affected Visitor Use and Experience Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ................................................................................................... 29 Visitor Use and Experience .................................................................................................. 29 Affected Cultural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 31 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 31 Affected Refuge Management and Operations Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ................................................................................. 32 2 Refuge Management and Operations .................................................................................... 32 Affected Socioeconomic Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 33 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................................... 33 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................... 34 Indian Trust Resources ......................................................................................................... 34 Cumulative Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 34 Anticipated Cumulative Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ........... 35 Summary of Analysis ................................................................................................................ 39 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 41 List of Sources, Agencies, and Persons Consulted ................................................................... 41 References ................................................................................................................................. 43 Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................................... 44 List of Tables Table 1. Bitter Lake NWR Huntable Species List .......................................................................... 8 Table 2. Bitter Lake NWR Federally-listed Species and Habitat Designations .......................... 15 List of Figures Figure 1. Bitter Lake NWR Hunt Area Map – North and Middle Tracts .................................... 11 Figure 2. Bitter Lake NWR Hunt Area Map – South Tract ......................................................... 12 Figure 3. Feral Hog Distribution by County, 1982–2015 ............................................................ 17 Figure 4. Sandhill crane-use days in Chaves County, NM. ......................................................... 19 Figure 5. Dove numbers counted during the Christmas Bird Count in Roswell, NM. ................ 21 3 Environmental Assessment for Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge Hunt Plan This 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 (550 FW 3) regulations and policies. NEPA requires examination of the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environment. Proposed Action The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to adopt the updated Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or refuge) Hunt Plan. The refuge’s Hunt Plan would continue upland game hunting and expand hunting opportunities for migratory birds and big game. Migratory bird hunting would be expanded on 12,269 acres to include the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish’s (NMDGF) early, teal-specific season, which occurs for about 8– 10 days in mid-September prior to the regular waterfowl season opener in late October. Big game hunting would be expanded on 1,186 acres through a special demographic only hunt, and these acres are currently open to special hunts for upland game species. This proposed action is often iterative and evolves over time during the process as the agency refines its proposal and learns more from the public, tribes, and other agencies. Therefore, the final proposed action may be different from the original. The final decision on the proposed action will be made at the conclusion of the public comment period for the EA and the Draft 2020–2021 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations. 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 refuge was established on October 8, 1937 pursuant to Executive Order 7724. The primary purpose of the refuge is to serve “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” The Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d) authorized the refuge “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” In addition, the Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-1) established the refuge as being “suitable for – 1) incidental fish and wildlife
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Legislative History for Craters of the Moon National Monument
    o 37 - ..... LEGISLATIVE HISTORY FOR o 37 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT 70th Congress through 96th Congress Compiled by MARILEE COGSWELL CATHLEEN FRANK - LINDA RHINES - Under the direction of .... ELLEN TRAXEL Regional Librarian and NOREEN BREEDING Acting Regional Librarian NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGIONAL LIBRARY SEATTLE, WASHINGTON November 1985 - INTRODUCTION On January 17, 1983, a memorandum was issued by the Director of the National Park Service directing all Superintendents and Regional Directors to have complete legislative history files for the area(s) under their jurisdiction. In January 1985, Regional Librarian Ellen Traxe1 began reviewing legislative histories in the National Park Service to determine the scope of undertaking such a project: there had been a previous legislative history project in 1958 which covered some of the older parks in the Pacific Northwest Region. The Regional Librarian was able to obtain copies of these legislative histories. With this information, the project was defined as an updating of work accomplished for parks established prior to 1958 plus a complete compilation for parks established after that date. By February 5, 1985, a methodology had been developed for determining what congressional documents were needed and the sources for obtaining them. Three professional librarians were recruited as volunteers to compile the legislative histories. The project was substantially completed by October 1985 at a cost of $748 for reimbursement to volunteers for local travel, meals, supplies, and copying expenses. The only alternative method of acquisition (by contract) would have cost between $20,000-$25,000. COMPILER'S NOTES I. SCOPE Legislative histories for parks established before 1958 consist of two sections.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Small Vessel General Permit
    ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PUBLIC NOTICE The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois has requested a determination from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources if their Vessel General Permit (VGP) and Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) are consistent with the enforceable policies of the Illinois Coastal Management Program (ICMP). VGP regulates discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and non-recreational vessels greater than or equal to 79 ft. in length. sVGP regulates discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and non- recreational vessels less than 79 ft. in length. VGP and sVGP can be viewed in their entirety at the ICMP web site http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/cmp/Pages/CMPFederalConsistencyRegister.aspx Inquiries concerning this request may be directed to Jim Casey of the Department’s Chicago Office at (312) 793-5947 or [email protected]. You are invited to send written comments regarding this consistency request to the Michael A. Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle Street, Suite S-703, Chicago, Illinois 60601. All comments claiming the proposed actions would not meet federal consistency must cite the state law or laws and how they would be violated. All comments must be received by July 19, 2012. Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) SMALL VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS LESS THAN 79 FEET (sVGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • September 2019 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale Environmental Assessment Pecos District Office DOI-BLM-NM-P000-2019-0003
    ------- U S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management September 2019 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale Environmental Assessment Pecos District Office DOI-BLM-NM-P000-2019-0003 Location: Eddy, Lea & Chaves Counties, New Mexico U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Pecos District Offices: Roswell Field Office 2909 W. 2nd Street Roswell, New Mexico 88201 Carlsbad Field Office 620 East Greene Street Carlsbad, New Mexico 88220 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5 1.1. Background ................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2. Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................... 6 1.3. Decision to Be Made ..................................................................................................................... 6 1.4. Conformance with BLM Land Use Plans, Other Statutes, Regulations, and Plans ...................... 6 1.4.1. Carlsbad RMP/ROD 1988 .................................................................................................... 6 1.4.2. Carlsbad RMPA/ROD 1997 .................................................................................................. 7 1.4.3. Roswell RMP/ROD 1997 .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1464 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1132
    § 1132 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 1464 Department and agency having jurisdiction of, and reports submitted to Congress regard- thereover immediately before its inclusion in ing pending additions, eliminations, or modi- the National Wilderness Preservation System fications. Maps, legal descriptions, and regula- unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress. tions pertaining to wilderness areas within No appropriation shall be available for the pay- their respective jurisdictions also shall be ment of expenses or salaries for the administra- available to the public in the offices of re- tion of the National Wilderness Preservation gional foresters, national forest supervisors, System as a separate unit nor shall any appro- priations be available for additional personnel and forest rangers. stated as being required solely for the purpose of managing or administering areas solely because (b) Review by Secretary of Agriculture of classi- they are included within the National Wilder- fications as primitive areas; Presidential rec- ness Preservation System. ommendations to Congress; approval of Con- (c) ‘‘Wilderness’’ defined gress; size of primitive areas; Gore Range-Ea- A wilderness, in contrast with those areas gles Nest Primitive Area, Colorado where man and his own works dominate the The Secretary of Agriculture shall, within ten landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where years after September 3, 1964, review, as to its the earth and its community of life are un- suitability or nonsuitability for preservation as trammeled by man, where man himself is a visi- wilderness, each area in the national forests tor who does not remain. An area of wilderness classified on September 3, 1964 by the Secretary is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service primeval character and influence, without per- as ‘‘primitive’’ and report his findings to the manent improvements or human habitation, President.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1517 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1131 (Pub. L
    Page 1517 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1131 (Pub. L. 88–363, § 10, July 7, 1964, 78 Stat. 301.) Sec. 1132. Extent of System. § 1110. Liability 1133. Use of wilderness areas. 1134. State and private lands within wilderness (a) United States areas. The United States Government shall not be 1135. Gifts, bequests, and contributions. liable for any act or omission of the Commission 1136. Annual reports to Congress. or of any person employed by, or assigned or de- § 1131. National Wilderness Preservation System tailed to, the Commission. (a) Establishment; Congressional declaration of (b) Payment; exemption of property from attach- policy; wilderness areas; administration for ment, execution, etc. public use and enjoyment, protection, preser- Any liability of the Commission shall be met vation, and gathering and dissemination of from funds of the Commission to the extent that information; provisions for designation as it is not covered by insurance, or otherwise. wilderness areas Property belonging to the Commission shall be In order to assure that an increasing popu- exempt from attachment, execution, or other lation, accompanied by expanding settlement process for satisfaction of claims, debts, or judg- and growing mechanization, does not occupy ments. and modify all areas within the United States (c) Individual members of Commission and its possessions, leaving no lands designated No liability of the Commission shall be im- for preservation and protection in their natural puted to any member of the Commission solely condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy on the basis that he occupies the position of of the Congress to secure for the American peo- member of the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • New Mexico Pilot Dust Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Salt Creek Wilderness Area
    New Mexico Pilot Dust Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Salt Creek Wilderness Area Prepared By The State of New Mexico Environment Department Air Quality Bureau EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the summer of 2002, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Oversight Committees established a Dust Emissions Joint Forum (DEJF). The Forum concentrates on improving how dust emissions are estimated and assists in the development of tools to help states develop the dust related portion of their State Implementation Plans (SIP) required by the Regional Haze Rule. To further assist states in the develop of their SIPs for dust, WRAP awarded grant funding to the State of New Mexico in 2005, to utilize and critique the tools developed by the forum for one of the Class I areas in New Mexico. The Class I area chosen for the Pilot Study is the Salt Creek Wilderness Class I area located in southeastern New Mexico near the City of Roswell, NM. The Salt Creek Class I area was chosen due to its marked increase in monitored coarse mass emissions, the major component of dust, for the site's 20% worst visibility days. The tools evaluated for the Pilot Study include: • Causes of Dust Analysis; • Fugitive Dust Emissions from Wind Erosion; • Fugitive Dust Handbook; • Dust Definition and Categorization Policy; • CMAQ Modeling for Fugitive Emissions; and • Weight of Evidence Checklist. Along with the tools developed by WRAP for dust, supplemental projects based on the work done by WRAP were developed specifically for the Salt Creek area. The supplemental projects include: • Identification of Source Areas Affecting Dust Concentrations at the Salt Creek, New Mexico; and • Application of the WRAP's Draft Definition and Categorization of Dust to the Salt Creek Class I Area, A Case Study.
    [Show full text]
  • 1997 Roswell Approved RMP and Record of Decision
    TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE USER'S GUIDE ......................................................... UG-1 ACRONYMS ..................................................... UG-2 RECORD OF DECISION .................................................. ROD-1 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN ..............................................1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................1 PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ...............................4 MINERALS MANAGEMENT .............................................4 Fluid Minerals Management ........................................4 Other Surface Management Agencies ..........................11 Locatable Minerals Management ...................................14 Solid Leasable Minerals Management ...............................14 Saleable Minerals Management ....................................19 LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT ....................................21 Utility and Transportation System ...................................21 Retention ......................................................25 Acquisition .....................................................25 Disposal ......................................................28 Access ........................................................28 Trespass ......................................................30 Withdrawals and Classifications ....................................30 LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT ...................................30 Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management ...31 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1480 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1113 (Pub
    § 1113 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 1480 (Pub. L. 88–363, § 13, July 7, 1964, 78 Stat. 301.) ment of expenses or salaries for the administra- tion of the National Wilderness Preservation § 1113. Authorization of appropriations System as a separate unit nor shall any appro- There are hereby authorized to be appro- priations be available for additional personnel priated to the Department of the Interior with- stated as being required solely for the purpose of out fiscal year limitation such sums as may be managing or administering areas solely because necessary for the purposes of this chapter and they are included within the National Wilder- the agreement with the Government of Canada ness Preservation System. signed January 22, 1964, article 11 of which pro- (c) ‘‘Wilderness’’ defined vides that the Governments of the United States A wilderness, in contrast with those areas and Canada shall share equally the costs of de- where man and his own works dominate the veloping and the annual cost of operating and landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where maintaining the Roosevelt Campobello Inter- the earth and its community of life are un- national Park. trammeled by man, where man himself is a visi- (Pub. L. 88–363, § 14, July 7, 1964, 78 Stat. 301.) tor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an CHAPTER 23—NATIONAL WILDERNESS area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its PRESERVATION SYSTEM primeval character and influence, without per- manent improvements or human habitation, Sec. which is protected and managed so as to pre- 1131.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wilderness Act of 1964
    The Wilderness Act of 1964 Source: US House of Representatives Office of the Law This is the 1964 act that started it all Revision Counsel website at and created the first designated http://uscode.house.gov/download/ascii.shtml wilderness in the US and Nevada. This version, updated January 2, 2006, includes a list of all wilderness designated before that date. The list does not mention designations made by the December 2006 White Pine County bill. -CITE- 16 USC CHAPTER 23 - NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM 01/02/2006 -EXPCITE- TITLE 16 - CONSERVATION CHAPTER 23 - NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM -HEAD- CHAPTER 23 - NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM -MISC1- Sec. 1131. National Wilderness Preservation System. (a) Establishment; Congressional declaration of policy; wilderness areas; administration for public use and enjoyment, protection, preservation, and gathering and dissemination of information; provisions for designation as wilderness areas. (b) Management of area included in System; appropriations. (c) "Wilderness" defined. 1132. Extent of System. (a) Designation of wilderness areas; filing of maps and descriptions with Congressional committees; correction of errors; public records; availability of records in regional offices. (b) Review by Secretary of Agriculture of classifications as primitive areas; Presidential recommendations to Congress; approval of Congress; size of primitive areas; Gore Range-Eagles Nest Primitive Area, Colorado. (c) Review by Secretary of the Interior of roadless areas of national park system and national wildlife refuges and game ranges and suitability of areas for preservation as wilderness; authority of Secretary of the Interior to maintain roadless areas in national park system unaffected. (d) Conditions precedent to administrative recommendations of suitability of areas for preservation as wilderness; publication in Federal Register; public hearings; views of State, county, and Federal officials; submission of views to Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Kiowa National Grasslands Draft Wilderness Evaluation Report
    Kiowa National Grasslands Draft Wilderness Evaluation Report Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area PW-03-03-01G October 24, 2007 This draft potential wilderness evaluation report is divided into three parts: capability, availability, and need. Capability and availability are intended to be objective evaluations of existing conditions in the Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area. The most important area of focus for public comment is the “need” evaluation. The intent of this part of the evaluation is to consider if the Canadian River fits into the National Wilderness Preservation System at the regional level. This report offers data that helps us understand different sources that might generate need; ultimately, however, need for wilderness is generated by public demand. Therefore, public input is an essential component of this part of the wilderness evaluation. We would like your feedback on this draft report - if we have missed an important detail or you would like to share your comments or other input, please contact us (our contact information can be found on the last page of this report). DRAFT 10/24/2007 Table of Contents Introduction ...............................................................................2 Area Overview............................................................................2 Wilderness Capability ..................................................................4 Availability for Wilderness ............................................................6 Need for Wilderness ....................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Pecos Gambusia Recovery Plan
    talb- PECOS GAMBUSIA RECOVERY PLAN GatILL U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FISH 8r tirt.DLIFE-T ‘ SERVICE ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 1983 RECOVERY PLAN FOR PECOS GAMBUSIA (GAMBUSIA NOBILIS) PREPARED BY THE RIO GRANDE FISHES RECOVERY TEAM November 16, 1981 TEAM MEMBERS Clark Hubbs, Team Leader, University of Texas Salvador Contreras-Balderas, University of Nuevo Leon Anthony A. Echelle, Oklahoma State University Michael D. Hatch, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Buddy L. Jensen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Floyd E. Potter, Jr., Texas Parks and Wildlife Department TEAM CONSULTANTS Gerard Hoddenbach, National Park Service William McPherson, U.S. Soil Conservation Service APPROVED: Regtoxf 47 r, Region 2 U.S. Fish d Wildlife Service - 1923 Date SUMMARY 1. The ultimate goal of the recovery plan is to improve the status of the Pecos gambusia (Gambusia nobilis) to the point that survival is secured and the species can be downlisted. This goal should result from implementation of the recovery plan. 2. The objective of the Pecos Gambusia Recovery Plan is to improve the status of the Pecos gambusia to the point that survival of the populations from the four major areas of occurrence is secured. 3. When monitoring of Pecos gambusia populations and habitats as described in Section 1.0 of the Stepdown Narrative (p. 22) indicate the four major populations are stable and secure, the species will be reclassified to Threatened. 4. When reintroduction efforts described in Section 2.0 (p. 24) are accomplished, the species will be removed from the Federal list of Threatened and Endangered species.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services Environmental Assessment Or
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ORAL VACCINATION TO CONTROL SPECIFIC RABIES VIRUS VARIANTS IN RACCOONS, GRAY FOXES, AND COYOTES IN THE UNITED STATES In cooperation with: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service And In consultation with: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management December 2009 Prepared By: United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services 4700 River Road, Unit 87 Riverdale, MD 20737-1234 i TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .............................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.1 Public Health Importance of Rabies ....................................................................................................... 2 1.1.2 Raccoon Rabies in the Eastern U.S .......................................................................................... 3 1.1.3 Gray Fox and Coyote Rabies in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas ....................................................... 4 1.1.4 Primary Need for Action .......................................................................................................... 5 1.1.5 Development of Oral Rabies Vaccine Programs ...................................................................... 5 1.2 DESCRIPTION
    [Show full text]