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

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

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 oriented recreational development, 2) the protection of natural resources, 3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species.” The Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-577) also directs activities on the Salt Creek Wilderness on the North Tract to “maintain wilderness as a naturally functioning ecosystem.”

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 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 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 biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the NWRS are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans; ● 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 effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with owners of land adjoining refuges and the fish and wildlife agency of the States in which the units of the NWRS are located; ● Assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and water quality to fulfill the mission of the NWRS and the purposes of each refuge; ● Recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public uses of the NWRS through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife; ● Ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife- dependent recreational uses; and ● Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.

Therefore, it is a priority of the Service to provide for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, including hunting and fishing, when those opportunities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Hunting of big game (mule deer, white-tailed deer, and feral hog), upland game (rabbit, hare, pheasant, and Eurasian collared-dove), quail (scaled, northern bobwhite, Gambel’s, and Montezuma), and migratory birds (duck, goose, coot, sandhill crane, and dove (mourning and white-winged)) is permitted in accordance with refuge regulations in various locations on the refuge, and has been, since 1961, when the first refuge hunt plan was written. Since that time, periodic updates have been made to reflect such things as: 1) wildlife population surveys which indicated that bird and mammal populations had reached or exceeded refuge habitat carrying capacities enough to provide a harvestable surplus; 2) comments from neighboring landowners experiencing increased crop depredation from wildlife, which otherwise used the refuge as a sanctuary area; and 3) a reasonable demand for recreational hunting opportunities on public land. The refuge is composed of three tracts: the North Tract consists of 12,269 acres, of which 9,620 acres are designated federal wilderness; the Middle Tract comprises 11,279 acres; and the South

Tract is 1,186 acres. The entire North Tract is open to hunting, 831 acres of the Middle Tract are open to hunting, and the South Tract is open to special demographic hunts only.

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose of this proposed action is to provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on Bitter Lake NWR. The need of the proposed action is to meet 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)). The need of the proposed action also meets the Service’s implementation of Secretarial Order (S.O.) 3347 Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation and S.O. 3356 Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories by expanding hunting opportunities and aligning Service regulations with State regulations.

Alternatives

Alternatives Considered

Alternative A – Current Management Strategies [No Action Alternative] Under this No Action Alternative, the refuge would continue its hunting program the way it is currently managed. Bitter Lake NWR would be open to hunting for big game (deer and feral hogs), migratory birds (duck, goose, coot, sandhill crane, mourning dove, and white-winged dove), and resident upland game (rabbit, pheasant, quail, and Eurasian collared-dove) (See Table 1 for a list of huntable species including scientific names). These various refuge hunting opportunities would occur on three different tracts of the refuge as shown on the Bitter Lake NWR Hunt Area Maps (Figures 1 and 2).

Hunting for big game, migratory birds, and upland game would take place on the entire North Tract (12,269 acres). Hunting for migratory birds and pheasant would take place on selected portions of the Middle Tract (approximately 831 hunted acres). Hunting for pheasant and quail would take place on the entire South Tract (1,186 acres), though only to opportunities for youth (seventeen years and younger) hunters.

On the North Tract, big game (deer and feral hog), upland game (rabbit, pheasant, quail, and Eurasian collared-dove), and migratory bird species (duck, goose, coot, sandhill crane, mourning dove, and white-winged dove) would be hunted during season dates set by NMDGF. For all huntable species on the North Tract, the refuge would allow all legal methods of take and follow bag limits and permitting requirements per NMDGF regulations for that season. In addition to state regulations, to hunt feral hogs the hunter would need to be in possession of a valid deer tag and use the weapon legal for that tag. Rabbit and hare hunting would only be allowed during the season dates that are concurrent with quail hunting dates. This is due to the fact that NMDGF allows year-round rabbit and hare hunting, but since the North Tract has other year-round public uses (hiking, wildlife observation, horseback riding, etc.), a compromise of a more restrictive season would be used to minimize user conflicts. Eurasian collared-doves are a relatively new huntable species to New Mexico (circa 2000), and NMDGF classifies them as upland game with

a year-round season. Again, to minimize user conflicts, the season date on the North Tract would mirror mourning and white-winged dove season dates and not year-round hunting. Access to the North Tract would be restricted to walk-in or via horseback, except non-motorized bicycles could be used on established field roads but only east of the Salt Creek Wilderness.

The Middle Tract would be open to upland game (pheasant) and waterfowl (duck, goose, coot, and sandhill crane) hunting during season dates set by NMDGF. For all huntable species on the Middle Tract, the refuge would allow all legal methods of take and follow bag limits and permitting requirements per NMDGF regulations for that season. However, the refuge would have restrictions on the hunting hours of the day and hunting days of the week. Hunting for waterfowl would only be allowed on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, and hunters would be allowed to hunt from one-half hour before sunrise to 1:00 p.m. For pheasant, the refuge would follow the NMDGF four-day season, but only allow hunting on the days that fall on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Pheasant hunters would be allowed to hunt from one-half hour before sunrise to 1:00 p.m. These restrictions would be used to increase hunter satisfaction and success, reduce law enforcement monitoring and costs, reduce illegal hunting activity (primarily late shooting), and allow migratory birds an opportunity to utilize habitat without constant hunting pressure. Access to hunting areas on the Middle Tract would be by walk-in access to designated areas as shown in Figure 1 from public parking areas or roads.

The South Tract would be open to special demographic hunts only (youth and hunters with disabilities). The refuge’s United States Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) language does not specify which species are allowed to be hunted during these special hunts, but the refuge would host a youth pheasant hunt, with shotgun being the only allowed method of take. Youth hunters would apply to the refuge and 16 permits would be randomly drawn for a one-day hunt during the regular NMDGF pheasant season in early December. Since quail season coincides with the pheasant season, youth hunters would be allowed to take quail as well. Bag limits would follow NMDGF regulations for that season. The youth hunters, with their accompanying adult, would be allowed to drive on restricted refuge roads, determined the day of the hunt, subject to weather conditions.

Under this alternative, the refuge would not participate in NMDGF’s early teal season on the North Tract. A limited, youth and hunters with disabilities firearms deer hunt would not be hosted on the South Tract.

Table 1. Bitter Lake NWR Huntable Species List

Type of Game Species Common Name Scientific Name White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus Big Game Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Feral hog Sus scrofa Duck Anatidae Goose Anser spp., Branta spp., Chen spp. Migratory Game Birds American coot Fulica americana Sandhill crane Grus canadensis Mourning dove Zenaida macroura White-winged dove Zenaida asiatica Scaled quail Callipepla squamata Northern bobwhite quail Colinus virginianus Montezuma quail Cyrtonyx montezumae Upland Game Gambel’s quail Callipepla gambelii Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Desert cottontail Sylvilagus auduboni Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus

Alternative B – Implement the Bitter Lake NWR Hunt Plan [Proposed Action Alternative] The refuge has prepared a hunt plan (Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge Migratory Game Bird, Upland Game, and Big Game Hunting Plan), which is presented in this document as the Proposed Action Alternative.

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the refuge would continue to manage its hunt program as outlined in Alternative A, but would implement the changes outlined in the refuge’s hunt plan. These changes include participation in NMDGF’s early teal season on the North Tract. The refuge would also host a youth and hunters with disabilities firearms deer hunt on the South Tract.

The early teal season on the North Tract would follow all NMDGF regulations for that season including all legal methods of take, bag limits, hunting hours of the day, and permitting requirements. Access to the North Tract would be restricted to walk-in or via horseback, except non-motorized bicycles could be used on established field roads but only east of the Salt Creek Wilderness.

The additional special demographic only (youth and hunters with disabilities) deer hunt would take place on the South Tract beginning in the 2020–2021 season. NMDGF would issue the permits through its lottery system for a season that comprises four weekends (3–4 different hunters per weekend). Method of take would be firearms only, and hunters would hunt from established blinds with a non-hunting adult (parent/guardian or assistant) present. Hunters would be allowed to drive personal vehicles to their respective blinds on established field roads within the unit. Use of the blinds would be mandatory, and blind locations would be drawn randomly at a mandatory safety and orientation meeting prior to the hunt. Access roads would also be

discussed at the meeting and maps would be distributed to the hunters. Approximately 12–16 youth and hunters with disabilities are would participate in this special demographic only deer hunt.

The South Tract would remain open to upland game hunting for special demographic hunts. This is proposed with the understanding that refuge staff will evaluate the recreation potential (presence of game, environmental concerns, access, safety considerations, public interest, conflicts with other activities, etc.) and determine whether to administratively close the hunt during a given year. Information on the special demographic hunts for a given season will be provided on the refuge hunting tearsheet.

The refuge-specific regulations would be published in the Federal Register as part of the 2020– 2021 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations.

This alternative offers increased opportunities for public hunting/fishing and fulfills the Service’s mandate under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Service has determined that the hunt plan is compatible with the purposes of the Bitter Lake NWR and the mission of the NWRS.

Alternative(s) Considered, But Dismissed from Further Consideration

The Unrestricted Hunting of Migratory Birds The refuge considered allowing the hunting of migratory birds on the entire refuge in accordance with state regulations. There would be no restrictions on areas open to hunting or on the number of days during the season that hunting would be allowed. The hunting conditions would be the same as the Proposed Action with the addition of unrestricted waterfowl and crane hunting on all three refuge units during all state open seasons and unrestricted dove hunting on all terrestrial habitats of the refuge. This hunt program design would not have allowed the refuge to meet requirements in its establishment legislation that requires that no more than 40 percent of the refuge be open for migratory bird hunting and would make the hunt program not compatible. This program would also open areas that are currently closed to all public access for the protection of endangered and threatened species.

Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices

The refuge would implement measures to reduce possible negative effects to other visitor uses, visitor/hunter safety, wildlife habitat, endangered/threatened species, and other refuge resources.

Mitigation measures include:

 On the Middle Tract, approximately 10,448 acres of the total 11,279 acres are closed to hunting. This not only protects important spring systems and wetlands for endangered species on the refuge, but it gives waterfowl sanctuary wetlands to escape hunting pressure.  Hunting days are limited on the Middle Tract to three days a week and only until 1:00 p.m. to allow huntable species to have a rest period. A majority of refuge public use facilities are on the Middle Tract, and these restrictions also allow non-consumptive users to utilize the refuge unrestricted. 9

 The refuge manages water levels in its six man-made impoundments throughout the year to improve habitat for both endangered species and waterfowl. This management focuses on providing good water quality and food resources for multiple species.  The refuge also actively manages to reduce invasive plant species to improve habitat for waterfowl and other species.  On the Middle Tract, signs are posted at a 100-yard buffer zone around the open hunting area. This limits the risk of hunters accidentally shooting outside of the hunting zone where other visitors may be present.  Additional hunting information will be posted in the refuge kiosks specifying the dates of the additional early teal season, and all visitors are asked to wear safety orange when they are on the North Tract, even when not hunting.  Before the youth pheasant hunt on the South Tract, all hunters must attend a safety orientation. During this orientation, hunters participate in a skeet shoot to improve their shooting accuracy and limit wounded wildlife during the hunt. They are also informed about general safety practices and are taught how to identify birds to avoid taking non- target species.  The refuge has a Federal Wildlife Officer (FWO) stationed on-site, and they work with NMDGF officers to ensure hunters are complying with refuge regulations and state laws for the protection of refuge resources.  After the hunting season has ended, the refuge coordinates local volunteer groups to pick up empty shells and other litter that hunters may have left behind. This limits contamination to resources on the refuge long term.

Figure 1. Bitter Lake NWR Hunt Area Map – North and Middle Tracts

Figure 2. Bitter Lake NWR Hunt Area Map – South Tract

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Affected Environment

The refuge consists of approximately 24,608 acres in Chaves County, New Mexico (See area map on Figures 1 and 2). It is mostly surrounded by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land and large, privately-owned ranches.

Bitter Lake NWR is primarily desert-grassland habitat. The refuge is located within the mid- Pecos River Valley and lies at an elevation of 3,600 feet, and it protects important wetlands near the confluence of the Pecos and Hondo Rivers. The proposed action is located in the North Tract and South Tract of the refuge (See Figures 1 and 2).

The refuge is named for a naturally occurring, 205-acre “Bitter Lake,” a shallow playa wetland that is fed by small, perennial springs. The water from the springs is brackish, creating a wetland area with unique water chemistry and associated plant and animal life. Because of the area’s high rate of evaporation, Bitter Lake is often dry during the summer, leaving behind a white alkaline lakebed, which becomes an extremely important nesting area for endangered least terns. Least tern nesting was first documented on the refuge in 1949, and the refuge is the only consistent nesting colony in New Mexico.

In addition to the playa lake, the refuge manages seven water impoundments totaling about 750 surface acres. These impoundments are man-made, and they were constructed within the ancient river bed of the Pecos River beginning in 1937. These impoundments receive no water from the river, but instead rely solely upon springs that flow when the water table is high. The water in these impoundments also has a high salt content and supports a diversity of native fish and wildlife, some of which are endemic to the refuge.

Three Research Natural Areas (RNA) are located on the refuge. One of these, the 700-acre Lake St. Francis RNA, is pitted with numerous gypsum sinkholes that are up to 90 feet deep. Although the area’s water table continues to drop, many of these sinkholes still contain water and provide habitat for native fish and aquatic plants. A species of marine algae, normally occurring in the lagoons of the Gulf of Mexico, is found in some of the sinkholes. Due to the fragile nature of the RNAs, they are generally open only to scientific and educational groups by prior arrangement and special use permit (SUP).

The refuge provides a wintering area for tens of thousands of migratory waterfowl, sandhill cranes, shorebirds, raptors, and neo-tropical birds. Along with the more abundant wildlife species that utilize refuge habitats during the year, there are eight species that are federally listed as endangered or threatened.

Six of these federally-listed species have critical habitat designated on the refuge (See Table 2). The additional seven species which are state-listed as endangered or threatened are the Pecos pupfish (Cyprinodon pecosensis), Mexican tetra (Astyanax mexicanus), greenthroat darter (Etheostoma lepidum), Rio Grande river cooter (Pseudemys gorzugi), arid land ribbon snake (Thamnophis proximus), least shrew (Cyptotis parva), and Wright’s marsh thistle (Cirsium wrightii).

Even though some of these species occur only on Bitter Lake NWR, many of the state-listed species have not been elevated to federally endangered status because both New Mexico and the United States consider them to be adequately protected and managed for on the refuge. While this is currently true, lack of water resources or diminished habitat in the future may jeopardize the continued existence of many of the state-listed species.

Three separate land tracts make up the refuge. On the North Tract, 9,620 acres of the total 12,269 acres are Designated Federal Wilderness. The Salt Creek Wilderness Area was established to protect native grasses, sand dunes, brushy bottomlands, and a deeply eroded red bluff along its northern boundary. Entry into the wilderness area is limited to foot travel and horseback riding. Refuge headquarters is located on the Middle Tract, which is 11,279 acres and contains man-made water impoundments, natural wetlands, desert upland habitat, and riparian areas. Visitors can drive the six-mile wildlife drive around some of the impoundments. The 1,186-acre South Tract is closed to all public access aside from a youth hunt for upland game birds. The refuge periodically grows crops on these acres as a wildlife food source.

While numerous archeological sites are known to exist on Bitter Lake NWR, these sites have not been well documented or examined. Bits of black on white pottery, brown earthware, stone arrowheads, metates, fire rings, worked fish scales, and other artifacts have been observed in several upland areas on the refuge.

The refuge is located approximately seven miles from the city of Roswell, New Mexico, which has a population of about 48,000. Although Roswell has historically been an agricultural town, recent expansions of the oil and gas industry into southeastern New Mexico has caused more people to move into the area. While the largest influx has occurred in Carlsbad (approximately 85 miles south of the refuge), the oil and gas industry will likely continue to expand into Roswell and local communities.

Bitter Lake NWR receives approximately 71,000 visitors annually who engage in a variety of “Big Six” wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities (Service 2007). These six wildlife- dependent uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and education.

For more information regarding the affected environment, please see section 3 of the refuge’s Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (CCP), which can be found here.

Table 2. Bitter Lake NWR Federally-listed Species and Habitat Designations

Common Name & ESA Scientific Name Designated Critical Habitat Status on Bitter Lake NWR? Interior least tern Sterna antillarum athalassos No (Federally-endangered) Pecos gambusia Gambusia nobilis No (Federally-endangered) Pecos bluntnose shiner Notropis simus pecosensis Yes (Federally-threatened) Pecos sunflower Helianthus paradoxus Yes (Federally-threatened) Noel’s amphipod Gammarus desperatus Yes (Federally-endangered) Koster’s springsnail Juturnia kosteri Yes (Federally-endangered) Roswell springsnail Pyrgulopsis roswellensis Yes (Federally-endangered) Pecos assiminea Assiminea pecos Yes (Federally-endangered)

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.” An analysis of the effects of management actions has been conducted on the physical environment (air quality, water quality, and soils); biological environment (vegetation, wildlife, and threatened and endangered species); and socioeconomic environment (cultural resources, socioeconomic features including public use/recreation, and visual and aesthetic 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 that are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. ● Indirect effects are those that 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.

The sections below contain brief descriptions of each resource affected by the alternatives considered and anticipated direct and indirect impacts on each resource.

Affected Natural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives

Hunted Species – Deer (white-tailed and mule) Regional Analysis In the early 1900s, there were an estimated 500,000 white-tailed deer in the United States. Unregulated commercial hunting and subsistence hunting threatened to eliminate the white- tailed deer from much of its range. At that time, many state wildlife agencies were formed with the goal of conserving the nation's depleted wildlife resources. Hunting regulations were put into place, and the harvest of antlerless (female) deer was prohibited. The rebound of white-tailed deer populations that followed is considered a wildlife management success story. Today there are over 20 million deer in the United States and numbers are rising.

New Mexico experienced reduced deer numbers in several areas across the state in the early- 2000s. However, NMDGF has reported increased fawn recruitment and female survival in more recent years, and deer populations in New Mexico are considered stable or are experiencing population growth. After the 2018–2019 hunting season, NMDGF estimated that there were 45 fawns: 100 does and 30 bucks: 100 does across the state, with these numbers being within NMDGF’s management objectives (NMDGF 2019). There are approximately 36,000 people who hunt deer in New Mexico annually, with an estimated 11,000 deer harvested. While New Mexico offers opportunities to hunt both Cous and Texas white-tailed deer, mule deer make up 95 percent of the deer that are harvested.

Local Analysis Both white-tailed and mule deer are open to hunting on Bitter Lake NWR. No formal deer surveys are conducted on the refuge, but deer are periodically seen on the North Tract and South Tract. NMDGF considers deer populations in southern New Mexico to be stable, and increased moisture in recent years is increasing fawn survival across the state. Approximately 41 hunters participate in deer hunting on the North Tract of the refuge annually.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) This alternative would result in some minor short-term negative impacts to the refuge’s deer population through harvest of individual animals. This impact would be short-term because deer hunting is only allowed on 12,269 acres (49.9 percent of the refuge) during 34 total days during the fall. Hunting on the refuge should not impact the state deer populations because the refuge’s hunters account for less than one percent of the deer hunters in New Mexico. NMDGF manages the number of hunting permits it distributes based on population estimates, and even if hunters achieved the state’s average success rate (30.5 percent) on the refuge, only 12 deer would be harvested from the refuge annually.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts to white-tailed and mule deer would be similar to Alternative A. With the proposed special demographic deer hunt on the South Tract, an additional 1,186 acres of the refuge

would be open to deer hunting. An expected 12–16 additional hunters would participate in this hunt over an eight-day season (four weekends), and an additional 3–4 deer would be harvested annually. This slight increase in take should not affect deer populations in New Mexico, and the special hunt would be treated as a depredation hunt. The South Tract is surrounded by privately-owned farms, and landowners in the area often complain about depredation of their crops from deer and other wildlife. Providing a new deer hunt on the South Tract would allow the refuge to manage its deer population as needed, provide a new opportunity for special demographic hunters in the area, and would likely benefit neighboring farmers by reducing the number of deer foraging on their crops.

Hunted Species – Feral Hog Regional Analysis Feral hogs are widely recognized as a damaging invasive species. They were originally imported as a food source and escaped from domestication or were intentionally released. As of 2015, feral hogs were not found across the entire state of New Mexico, but mostly in the eastern half of the state. Feral hogs are an unprotected species in New Mexico, and NMDGF encourages their hunting by allowing year-round hunting without permit requirements.

Figure 3. Feral Hog Distribution by County, 1982–2015 Local Analysis Feral hogs have been documented on the refuge since at least 1998 when the refuge’s CCP was written. As part of the refuge’s management of invasive species, staff has worked closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct removal efforts. This effort was considered successful, and feral hog sightings are rare on the refuge. The refuge only allows hunting of feral hog on the North Tract during the NMDGF deer season, and only while legally hunting deer with the method of take for that day.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Feral hogs compete with native wildlife for food, cover, water, and space. They are highly adaptable, have high reproductive capabilities, and can be found in a wide range of habitat 17

types. Rooting and digging activities damage vegetative communities, soil properties, and plant successional patterns (Tolleson et al. 1995). Feral hogs are opportunistic omnivores and often compete with game and non-game wildlife species for available food resources. They also cause $1 billion of damage across the U.S. Because feral hogs are a non-native species, the refuge’s management goals for the species is to reduce or eliminate local populations. There are approximately 41 big game hunters who hunt on 12,269 acres of the refuge.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts to feral hog would be similar to those described in Alternative A.

Hunted Species – Waterfowl and Sandhill Crane Regional Analysis The refuge provides wintering habitat for popular migratory game birds including ducks, coots, geese, and sandhill cranes. The 2019 Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey conducted by the Service indicates that total duck numbers are at 38.9 million, which is 16 percent below 2018 estimates, but 10 percent greater than the long-term average (1955– 2018). Blue-winged teal (Spatula discors) numbers are estimated at 5.4 million (16 percent below 2018 but similar to the long-term average) and green-winged teal (Anas crecca) numbers are estimated at 3.2 million (similar to 2018, but 47 percent greater than the long- term average). The mid-continent population of lesser snow geese is estimated at 12 million birds, which is 9 percent below 2018 estimates and 3 percent below the long-term average. Ross’s goose numbers are estimated at 337,000 birds, which is 25 percent below 2018 and 6 percent below the long-term average. According to the Status and Harvests of Sandhill Cranes: MCP, RMP, LCRVP and EP (Dubovsky 2018), the mid-continent population of sandhill cranes is estimated at just over 1 million birds, which is 77 percent above the 2017 count and a record high estimate for this population.

Local Analysis 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) also authorized the refuge “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” As a migratory bird refuge, the refuge manages its water impoundments, particularly in the winter, for migratory waterfowl. In 2019, Bitter Lake NWR had approximately 552,980 duck-use days. Waterfowl use is highest on the Middle Tract because of the water impoundments, but occasional waterfowl sightings have been made on the sinkholes on the North Tract and along the Pecos River and Hondo River. Hunter Marsh is the only one of the refuge’s seven impoundments that is open to hunting, and in 2019 it had approximately 34,274 duck-use days. The refuge is a popular roosting site for sandhill cranes, and their numbers range from approximately 300 in early October, peak around 23,000 in mid- October, and average around 13,000 throughout the rest of the winter. From 2017 to 2018, crane-use days increased across Chaves County, NM, as a whole (Figure 4).

Both the Middle Tract and North Tract are open to waterfowl and crane hunting, and the public hunting areas total approximately 14,286 acres. Of this, approximately 6,393 acres were purchased using Migratory Bird Conservation Act (MBCA) funding. Lands purchased with MBCA funding and authorized as an inviolate sanctuary must not be opened to hunting on more than 40 percent of the total land area. The refuge has a total of 10,754 acres

designated as an inviolate sanctuary, with 49.2 percent currently open to hunting based on area; however, not all of this area is suitable habitat for waterfowl. On the North Tract, waterfowl have only been seen occasionally using sinkholes and the Pecos River, which only total 75 surface acres. These wetland areas are surrounded with desert upland habitat that hunters must traverse to reach good hunting areas. With this factored in, only 555 acres of MBCA-funded land is open to hunting on the refuge, which is only 5.2 percent of the total inviolate sanctuary lands.

Approximately 200 hunters visit the refuge to hunt waterfowl and sandhill crane annually for 107 days on the North Tract and 46 days on the Middle Tract (this encompasses NMDGF goose season; season lengths are shorter for crane and duck/coot).

Chaves County, NM Crane-use days 210,000

200,000

190,000

180,000

170,000

160,000

150,000 10/01/2017 – 03/31/2018 10/01/2018 – 03/31/2019

Crane-use days

Figure 4. Sandhill crane-use days in Chaves County, NM.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) This alternative would result in some minor short-term negative impacts to the refuge’s waterfowl and crane populations through harvest of individual animals. There are other available wetlands on the Middle Tract that allow waterfowl and cranes to escape hunting pressure and the low number of waterfowl hunters using the North Tract. While Bitter Lake NWR had 552,980 duck-use days in 2019, only 6.2 percent of these days were in the main public hunting area (Hunter Marsh). This is largely due to the other six impoundments being outside of the hunting area, and the refuge manages its hunting program to provide this large area of undisturbed habitat for wildlife. Refuge staff have also observed that waterfowl and cranes start avoiding the public hunting area as the hunting season progresses. While the refuge provides good roosting habitat for waterfowl and cranes, it does not grow crops to provide supplemental food. In Chaves County, there has been concern from farmers about depredation of their crops, particularly from cranes. By allowing hunting of waterfowl and cranes, the refuge would be helping to reduce the rate of depredation in the area and benefit

local farmers. The refuge’s hunting program should not have an impact on the national population of waterfowl or crane. The overall waterfowl population was 10 percent higher than the long-term average as of 2019, and the mid-continent crane population was at its record high in 2018 at more than one million individuals.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts from hunter activity would be similar to those described in Alternative A with an increase in hunter-use days on the North Tract with participation in early teal season. This would allow an additional eight days of hunting for teal on approximately 75 acres. Refuge staff has not observed many waterfowl hunters on the North Tract under current management because of better hunting opportunities on the Middle Tract, and an increase in hunters under this alternative would be minimal. As of 2019, teal numbers were either similar to long-term averages or above them (Service 2019). The refuge does not have harvest estimates for waterfowl on the North Tract, but there would be an expected slight increase in the number of teal harvested. Overall, the estimated take is approximately 380 teal on the refuge.

Hunted Species – Dove (white-winged and mourning) Regional Analysis The mourning dove is one of the most numerous birds in North America, occurring throughout most of the continent. The Service Mourning Dove Population Status (Seamans 2018) indicated that an estimated 166 million mourning dove were present in the Central Management Unit during the fall survey. An estimated 73,900 mourning doves were harvested in New Mexico by 5,500 hunters during the 2017–2018 season. White-winged doves are commonly found in desert habitat across the Southwest, and they are commonly found in the southern portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, and down into Mexico. There is no current data on white-winged dove populations in New Mexico.

Local Analysis Bitter Lake NWR participates in a Christmas Bird Count (CBC) that includes the Roswell, NM area. The most common dove seen in the area is white-winged, but mourning and Eurasian collared-dove are also seen during the survey (Figure 5). Although Eurasian collared-doves are part of the dove family, NMDGF classifies them as upland game due to their non-migratory status, and they are addressed under upland game in the Bitter Lake hunt plan. From 2016 to 2018, both white-winged and mourning dove numbers increased during the CBC. Approximately 22 hunters visit the refuge to hunt doves annually.

Christmas Bird Count Dove Numbers (Roswell, NM) 900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 2016 2017 2018

Eurasian collared-dove Mourning dove White-winged dove

Figure 5. Dove numbers counted during the Christmas Bird Count in Roswell, NM. Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) This alternative would result in some minor short-term negative impacts to the refuge’s dove population through harvest of individual animals. This would be a short-term impact due to the low volume of hunters that hunt dove on the refuge, which make up less than one percent of the dove hunters in New Mexico. Only the North Tract is open to dove hunting, and doves can use the other 12,339 acres of the refuge undisturbed. The refuge’s hunting program should not impact the state dove population. Even if hunters on the refuge achieved the average harvest rate for New Mexico, only 295 birds would be harvested annually (less than one percent of the doves harvested in the state).

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts to dove would be similar to those described in Alternative A.

Hunted Species – Quail and Pheasant Regional Analysis New Mexico is home to multiple species of quail including scaled, northern bobwhite, Gambel’s, and Montezuma. NMDGF collects voluntary harvest data from hunters annually through its online Harvest Reporting System. In the 2018–2019 season, hunters harvested approximately 13,943 scaled quail; 1,039 northern bobwhite; 2,505 Gambel’s quail; and 99 Montezuma quail. There were 57 pheasants that were harvested during the 2018–2019 season. A total of 34,759 hunters reported to the Harvest Reporting System. NMDGF uses this harvest data to determine future upland game hunting opportunities.

Local Analysis Scaled quail is the most common species seen on Bitter Lake NWR, however all four quail species can be hunted on the refuge. Quail are only open to hunting on the North Tract and

during a special youth-only hunt on the South Tract. In Chaves County, NM, 2,108 scaled quail, 44 northern bobwhite, 0 Gambel’s quail, 6 Montezuma quail, and 266 unknown quail were harvested during the 2018–2019 season. All three refuge tracts are open to pheasant hunting, but the South Tract is open for a one-day youth hunt only. Twelve pheasant were reported as harvested during the 2018–2019 season in Chaves Count, NM. Approximately 30 hunters use the refuge to hunt upland game annually, and the North Tract is open for 93 hunt days.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) This alternative would result in some minor short-term negative impacts to the refuge’s quail and pheasant populations through harvest of individual animals. The effects to the refuge’s quail populations would be short-term because only the North Tract is open to quail hunting, aside from a one-day youth only hunt on the South Tract. The rest of the 12,339 acres of the refuge is available for quail to use undisturbed. The refuge’s pheasant population should not experience a long-term negative impact because the NMDGF pheasant season is only four days long, and the Middle Tract and South Tract are only open on two and one of those days, respectively. The refuge’s hunting program should not impact quail or pheasant populations in New Mexico because the refuge’s 30 hunters comprise less than one percent of the licensed hunters in the state.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts on quail and pheasant would be similar to those described in Alternative A.

Hunted Species – Rabbit and Eurasian collared-dove Regional Analysis Rabbits are considered non-game species by NMDGF, and hunters can harvest them year- round without a permit. Eurasian collared-dove are classified as upland game by NMDGF, but they can also be hunted year-round. During the 2018–2019 season, hunters reported that they harvested 8,179 Eurasian-collared doves.

Local Analysis On the refuge, only the North Tract is open to rabbit and Eurasian-collared dove hunting. Rabbit can only be hunted on the refuge during the NMDGF quail season, and Eurasian collared-dove can only be hunted during the NMDGF dove season. During the 2018–2019 season, 1,519 Eurasian collared-doves were harvested in Chaves County, NM.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) This alternative would result in some minor short-term negative impacts to the refuge’s rabbit and Eurasian collared-dove populations through harvest of individual animals. This impact would be short-term because of the low volume of hunters that use the refuge to hunt upland game (30 annually). Eurasian collared-dove is a non-native species, and the refuge does not manage to maintain their populations.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative)

Impacts to rabbits and Eurasian collared-doves would be similar to those described in Alternative A. Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species The refuge supports a diversity of wildlife species of southeastern New Mexico, including game and nongame species, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates, which are important contributors to the overall biodiversity on the refuge. Many species of waterfowl, game birds, and endangered species have been Service priorities since the 1930s. Conservation of migratory birds is often considered the focal point of the NWRS throughout the United States. The refuge was established primarily for the conservation and management of migratory birds and to serve as a stopover and resting place for waterfowl during their spring and fall migrations. Species that depend on the refuge, especially during the winter or as migratory bird stopover habitats include the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), gadwall (A. strepera), northern shoveler (A. clypeata), northern pintail (A. acuta), blue-winged teal (A. discors), American widgeon (A. americana), canvasback (Aythra valisineria), and redhead (A. americana). The refuge has documented 352 species of birds, 51 species of mammals, 52 species of reptiles and amphibians, and 24 species of fish. Management of many of these species remains a collaborative effort with the NMDGF. The refuge's mixture of Chihuahuan desert, short grass prairie, alkali/salt flats, and wetland habitats also support other rare and declining migratory birds, particularly neo-tropical songbirds and federally-listed species such as the interior least tern.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) This alternative would result in some minor short-term negative impacts on small mammals, birds, and other wildlife due to disturbance in areas where human access for hunting activities occurs. This would be a short-term impact mainly from September through February, and not in all areas of the refuge. On the North Tract, hunters would have access to the entire tract on foot or horseback. This would be similar to the level of disturbance that already occurs on the refuge from visitors who are out hiking, horseback riding, or engaging in other compatible uses. On the Middle Tract, hunters would be required to use established roads when driving their vehicles, and these roads are already used either by visitors or refuge staff. Hunters would be allowed to walk around the public hunting area that is otherwise closed to the public, and some wildlife, especially ground-dwellers, would be negatively impacted from the disturbance. This would occur in a relatively small portion of the Middle Tract, and much of the area would remain free from disturbances from hunters. Hunters on the South Tract would be allowed to walk freely across the tract, which would result in some wildlife disturbance. This is expected to be negligible because hunters would only be present one day a year.

The active breeding season for most birds (with the exception of winter breeding raptors) is between April and July. Hunting would occur before this period, and as a result no direct impacts are expected. Hunters are not allowed to use boats for any hunting, and the main impact on fish species would most likely be from retrieval of game from wetlands by dogs. These hunting dogs may also disturb non-target species, but this is mitigated by the requirement that dogs be under close control of their handlers at all times.

Physical damage, as well as the establishment of invasive plant species would significantly degrade habitat quality. Degraded habitat indirectly affects wildlife populations, decreasing availability of forage and nest sites and/or alteration of important habitat structural components required by certain species. Any increase in invasive species populations would lead to further adverse impacts on other wildlife species. There are currently invasive species on the refuge, and allowing hunting should not significantly increase the spread of these species.

Feral hog impacts on soil resources can have an adverse effect on aquatic wildlife species where erosion occurs from feral hog rooting and wallowing activities. Allowing hunting of feral hogs should reduce these negative impacts on wildlife habitat and wilderness characteristics on the North Tract.

Water management to fill Hunter Marsh for the hunting season benefits Pecos sunflower, which in turn provides an important food source for local pollinators.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts from hunter activity would be similar to those described in Alternative A with an increase in hunter disturbance in September when the proposed early teal hunt would occur and for an additional month when the proposed special demographic deer hunt would occur. These additional disturbances would be short-term, with each hunt adding an additional eight hunting days. The number of hunters participating in these additional hunting days is expected to be small, with the deer hunt allowing a maximum of 16 permits.

Threatened and Endangered Species and other Special Status Species Interior least tern The interior least tern nests on large, bare river sandbars, beaches and islands of large reservoirs, and alkali flats near water in the central and northern Great Plains. Interior least terns are piscivorous, taking small fish by diving into the water. Bare substrate (several acres in extent) is essential for nesting, within which they scrape a small depression to hold the two or three eggs (sometimes one) that comprise a clutch. Incubation lasts 19–25 days, and the semi-precocial chicks take about 20 days to fledge. Least tern nesting on the refuge was first documented about 1949, and the refuge is home to the only consistent nesting colony in New Mexico. In recent years, nests have been on the bare alkali flats of Bitter Lake or Unit 16. Terns begin arriving in early May and begin nest initiation by the end of May. By mid- August, fledglings and adults have typically departed the refuge.

Pecos gambusia The Pecos gambusia is a small invertebrate found exclusively in the Pecos River basin in southeastern New Mexico and western Texas. It is primarily a surface feeder, with algae making up its diet. Females bear live young and produce up to 40 young every four to five days. Spring-fed pools and marshes with constant temperature are essential habitat for Pecos gambusia. Today, the Pecos gambusia is found in Jeff Davis and Pecos Counties in west Texas and on the refuge. The primary threat its survival is the loss of the spring-fed waters that provide its habitat.

Pecos bluntnose shiner

The Pecos bluntnose shiner occurs exclusively in the Pecos River. It prefers the open river channel with minimum aquatic vegetation. It is most common below obstructions in the river, but not in stagnant pools. Spawning is believed to peak during summer. This shiner is apparently carnivorous-omnivorous, eating a wide range of organisms. Habitat alterations resulting from dams and other dewatering projects have been the primary reason for the decline in the bluntnose shiner. No portion of the refuge is included within the critical habitat designation for the Pecos bluntnose shiner, however the southern segment of critical habitat does occur about 30 river miles downstream of refuge impoundments.

Pecos sunflower The Pecos sunflower was discovered on the refuge in 1991 and was listed as threatened in 1998. It is unique among sunflowers in that it grows in saline wetlands. It occurs on the Middle Tract, from Bitter Creek south to Hunter Oxbow, and on the South Tract along the Hondo River and at scattered locations east of the farm fields. The sunflower, to varying degrees, encircles all of the wetland impoundments on the Middle Tract. It occurs in distinct large patches in Hunter Marsh, and in large patches at higher elevations of other impoundments’ spring-seeps. Pecos sunflower is an annual, reproducing exclusively from seed. Thus, abundance and distribution of plants on the refuge will vary with the vagaries of climate and weather (and water management). Most seeds will remain ungerminated and viable in the soil for years, so that, in a sense, maintaining a healthy seed bank is more important than the number of plants during a given year. Germination is thought to begin in February, and most plants have dropped their seeds by October.

Noel’s amphipod The Noel’s amphipod is a small shrimp-like crustacean endemic to Chaves County, NM. The last known populations occur almost exclusively on the refuge, primarily in Bitter Creek and Sago Springs, but also in the Unit 6 and Unit 7 spring ditches. In 2004, a few were discovered at the west edge of Hunter Marsh. They have also been found in the Hondo River on the South Tract. Amphipods are generally active by night, hiding during the day. They inhabit cool, unpolluted waters with an abundance of oxygen, and they are omnivorous.

Koster’s springsnail The Koster’s springsnail is an extremely small gastropod endemic to Chaves County, NM. It is known only from scattered sites on the refuge (Bitter Creek, Sago Springs, and springs on the west side of refuge impoundments). The snail is totally aquatic, living in low-velocity springs and streams with soft, organic substrates. The snail presumably feeds on the fine film associated with the substrate. In the summer of 1998, several isolated populations were discovered on the western shoreline of refuge impoundments from Unit 3 to Hunter Marsh.

Roswell springsnail The Roswell springsnail is a tiny, aquatic gastropod endemic only to Chaves County, NM. It is known only to occur at North Spring at the Roswell Country Club, Bitter Creek and Sago Springs, in the ditch west of Unit 6, and in the Unit 7 spring ditch. This snail favors indurate substrates characteristic of Sago Springs. It requires perennially flowing water where it feeds on algae and organic detritus.

Pecos assiminea

The Pecos assiminea is a very small, amphibious gastropod occurring only at one site in Texas, at the Quatro Cienagas in northern Mexico, and at a few locations on the refuge. To date, it has been located along Bitter Creek, near the confluence of Sago Springs and Sinkhole 31, along the Unit 7 spring-ditch, and in the southwest corner of Unit 15. These snails are not aquatic, but amphibious, residing mostly in moist substrate or vegetation within a few inches of flowing water. They presumably consume bacteria, fungi, algae, and associated items.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) There would be no long-term negative effects to any of the eight federally-listed species on the refuge from the current hunting program, as it was designed to limit impact to listed species. There is critical habitat designated for the Pecos sunflower and Noel’s amphipod on the South Tract, which is open to hunting; however, this critical habitat is along the Hondo River and to the east. The only hunt that would take place on the South Tract would be a youth pheasant hunt, and hunters would focus on upland areas of the unit. Refuge staff would also be present to ensure hunters are not disturbing critical habitat during the one-day hunt. Hunting seasons on the Middle Tract are limited to avoid critical growing periods for the Pecos sunflower. Interior least terns leave before hunting season begins, and the hunting season ends before they return to the refuge to nest. The aquatic invertebrates are found primarily in the refuge’s spring systems, which are not included in the hunting area. The Pecos sunflower benefits from the flooding of Hunter Marsh prior to the hunt, and it provides moist soil for the plant to inhabit during the following year. Because of this water management, the Pecos sunflower patch around Hunter Marsh is the densest on the refuge.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts from hunter activity would be similar to those described in Alternative A. While there would be an increase in hunter use days on both the North Tract and South Tract, only the South Tract contains critical habitat. There should not be any disturbance to critical habitat from the proposed special demographic deer hunt on the South Tract because hunters would hunt from established blinds that are on the east side of the Hondo River. Any disturbance to the Pecos River on the North Tract by hunters would be similar to disturbances that non- consumptive users would cause. Hunting for deer on the South Tract would be from mandatory blinds and not near any water sources where listed species are present.

Vegetation Vegetation on the refuge consists primarily of mixed Chihuahuan shrub and shortgrass prairie with areas of riparian vegetation. Although vegetation is quite variable in this broadly defined system, examples may include fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides), inland saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), and coyote willow (Salix exigua). The Roswell area receives on average fifteen inches of rainfall annually, and high evaporation rates often leave shallow wetlands very saline. As a result, most plant species must be drought and salt tolerant to survive on the refuge.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

Some minor short-term effects would impact vegetation on the refuge with the continuation of the current hunting program. Approximately 57 percent of the refuge would be open to hunting during the specified seasons (ranging from 1 to 107 days/year). Some minor negative effects are expected to vegetation from trampling, because of hunters walking across the hunting units. Because of the arid climate the refuge is in, vegetation can take longer to recover from disturbances; however, the impact from trampling should be short-term because of the low volume of hunters and the fact that many plants are dormant during the fall and winter when the hunting season is open. Some disturbance of vegetation would benefit the threatened Pecos sunflower by opening ground cover for seeds to germinate through during the spring. The refuge does not expect an increase in the spread of invasive species from hunters because of their low volume and the control measures taken by the refuge year-round.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts from hunter activity would be similar to those described in Alternative A. While there would be an expected increase in hunter use during the early teal season and special demographic deer hunt, this increase would be small (about 6 percent). On the North Tract, non-consumptive users are currently permitted to walk around freely across the landscape during the early teal season, which causes similar disturbance. The South Tract deer hunt would be done from established blinds, which would eliminate hunters walking through fields of vegetation but would negatively impact the sites where the blinds are erected. This impact would be short-term because it would only occur for one month a year, and blind locations would be moved annually.

Soils Bitter Lake NWR is located in the Lower Pecos Valley Subsection of the Great Plains Physiographic Province of Southeastern New Mexico. Much of the Pecos Valley Section is underlain by Permian bedrock units composed of gypsiferous and saline evaporites, limestone and dolomite, mudstone, shale, and sandstone. Dissolution of evaporite and carbonate units is an active geomorphic process affecting landscape evolution in much of the region, and various sizes of solution-subsidence depressions are common landforms.

Soils in the area are dominated by aridisols, which are not well suited for non-irrigated agriculture because they lack the necessary moisture to support any long- term growth except arid-adapted vegetation. The soil horizon is low in organic matter and is light in color. Aridisols also exhibit special fertility problems due to unavailable micronutrients resulting from a high pH. Practices such as irrigation, fertilizer application, and crop rotation are implemented to offset these deficiencies in the surrounding area.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) This alternative would result in some minor short-term negative impacts to soils in the public hunting areas, mainly resulting from compaction from hunters walking across the landscape. This compaction would be minor because of the low volume of hunters on the refuge (approximately 300 annually), and it would be similar to the effects of non-consumptive users except on the Middle Tract where they are not allowed off of established trails.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative)

Impacts from hunter activity would be similar to those described in Alternative A because of the small increase in hunters (6 percent) from expanded season dates for teal and deer.

Air Quality Under the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401-7671q, as amended in 1990), the Service has a responsibility to protect air quality and related values from the adverse effects of air pollution and to comply with federal, state, and local air pollution control laws and regulations. The Salt Creek Wilderness, located on the North Tract, is designated a Class I Air-shed area. The refuge overall has excellent air quality, due to the rural land uses in most of the surrounding area.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) This alternative would result in some minor short-term negative impacts to air quality. Hunters are allowed to drive their vehicles on established roads, and emissions would increase in the public hunt areas. This would be very minor because of the low volume of hunters the refuge receives (approximately 300 annually), and hunters on the North Tract are not allowed to use any motorized vehicles in the wilderness area. Refuge staff mows strips into fields prior to the youth hunt on the South Tract, and there would be a small increase in emissions from equipment used during that time.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts from hunter activity would be similar to those described in Alternative A, because additional hunters on the North Tract and South Tract would only use their vehicles to drive to parking areas before hunting on foot.

Water Resources Bitter Lake NWR is at the juncture of the Roswell Artesian Basin of southeastern New Mexico and the Pecos River. The Roswell Artesian Basin is a natural hydrologic basin that extends from the summits of the Capitan, Sacramento, and Guadalupe Mountains to the west, extending just beyond the Pecos River on the east. It includes most of Chaves County, primarily west of the Pecos River, with important recharge portions in Lincoln and De Baca Counties. The Pecos River runs through the eastern side of the basin from north to south through the refuge. Several small tributaries drain from the west to the east, with the most prominent being the Hondo River. These two systems and their interactions account for the diversity of water resources within the refuge, including sinkholes, springs, natural wetlands, oxbow lakes, and riparian riverine habitat.

The Roswell artesian aquifer and the Pecos River provide water for agricultural, industrial, residential, and recreational use for much of southeastern New Mexico and west Texas. The Pecos River and associated wetlands provide essential breeding, wintering, and migratory habitat for a tremendous number and diversity of wildlife, including one of the highest concentrations of endangered and sensitive species in the state of New Mexico.

The seeps and springs feed approximately 1,200 acres of surface water in the form of natural playa lakes, impoundments, sinkholes, and spring runs. During the hot summer months, this surface water quickly evaporates due to high temperatures and constant winds, the salts and

other solids in the water do not evaporate, and rather, they concentrate if water management prescriptions are not implemented.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) This alternative would result in some negligible effects to water quality on the refuge. While waterfowl hunters primarily hunt around water impoundments and river oxbows, they are not permitted to use boats or other motorized equipment that could leak pollutants into the water. Waterfowl hunters (approximately 200 annually) are also required to use non-toxic shot on the refuge, which prevents lead contamination from ammunition.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts from hunter activity would be similar to those described in Alternative A because of the small increase in hunters (six percent) from expanded season dates for teal and deer.

Wilderness The 9,621-acre Salt Creek Wilderness was established under PL-91-504 on October 23, 1970. The Wilderness Act defines wilderness as an area of undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions. Scientific research, vegetation management, wildlife management, and monitoring programs, all in accordance with the Service’s minimum tool policy, are crucial to meet this broad goal. The Salt Creek Wilderness currently provides opportunities for primitive recreation, including hiking, horseback riding, hunting, and sightseeing. Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) This alternative would result in some negative effects to the wilderness characteristics of the Salt Creek Wilderness. Hunters shooting would disturb the quiet sound levels of a wilderness, which could disrupt non-consumptive users. Hunting dogs could also disturb non-target wildlife species while retrieving downed game. These impacts would be relatively short-term (a maximum of 107 hunting days). Hunters of feral hog would benefit the wilderness by removing a non-native species that often harms the native vegetation, soil, and other species.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts from hunter activity would be similar to those described in Alternative A because participating in the early teal season will only increase hunter impacts by eight days annually.

Affected Visitor Use and Experience Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Visitor Use and Experience Bitter Lake NWR receives approximately 71,000 visitors annually who engage in a variety of wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities (Service 2007). In 2019, approximately 87.8 percent of visitors participated in wildlife observation, 7.2 percent participated in wildlife photography, 3.2 percent participated in interpretation, and 1.1 percent participated in environmental education. Approximately 300 visitors engage in hunting annually, which accounts for 0.4 percent of the refuge’s annual visitation. The North Tract is open every day

and is accessible by three parking areas. There are no visitor facilities on this tract because a majority of it is designated federal wilderness. Visitors are restricted to access the wilderness area on foot or horseback, but they may use bikes on established roads east of the wilderness boundary. On the Middle Tract, the refuge is open from sunrise to sunset every day, and the visitor center is open from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Visitors can drive or bike the six-mile wildlife drive around the refuge’s water impoundments, and there are multiple overlooks where they can park for scenic views. They can also walk or bike on one of the refuge’s six trails, which range from 0.2 to 2 miles in length. Three of these trails are accessible to visitors with disabilities, and all five of the parking areas in the refuge’s public use area are accessible. The refuge hosts various groups throughout the year ranging from birding groups to school classes, and refuge staff give these groups guided programs and often take them into areas that are closed to public use. Approximately 10,448 acres of the total 11,279 acres on the Middle Tract are closed to hunting. The South Tract is closed to all public use activities except for a special youth-only upland game hunt.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) There would be no change in existing visitor services and recreational opportunities on the refuge under this alternative. The refuge would continue to ask visitors on the North Tract to wear safety orange during the hunting season, even if they are not hunting. This is to increase their visibility to hunters because the entire tract is open to hunting and does not have closed areas for non-consumptive users. The refuge would continue to close one hiking trail that is located in the public hunting area on the Middle Tract. This would limit opportunities for wildlife observation and photography on this trail and on surrounding water impoundments where waterfowl and other wildlife are normally seen. This reduction of opportunity would occur for approximately 46 visitor use days; however, the refuge would limit the NMDGF season and hunting hours on the Middle Tract to only Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday from one-half hour before sunrise until 1:00 p.m. If this limit on the NMDGF season was not done, non-consumptive uses would be reduced for approximately 107 days. Hunters are allowed to walk around the public use hunting area on the Middle Tract during the hunting season, which is an area normally closed to public use aside from on established roads and trails. The refuge staff receives 1–2 complaints a year from non-consumptive users about hunters getting to walk around areas they cannot. This exception would be made for hunters because the opportunity for hunting exists only around the refuge’s surface water for many game species, whereas the opportunity for non-consumptive uses exists in other areas of the refuge that are open to the public year-round. The public hunting area would also be limited to only a portion of the Middle Tract in order to maintain opportunities for wildlife observation and other non- consumptive uses in other public areas. The South Tract would remain closed to public uses aside from the youth-only upland game hunt. There are no public use facilities on this tract, and there has been no expressed interest from the public in opening this tract. The youth hunt would provide a hunting opportunity for ring-necked pheasants in an area where opportunities to hunt pheasants is limited. The refuge staff has not carried out its farming program in the past seven years, and the lack of cover and food from crops has reduced the number of pheasants that hunters find. As a result, refuge staff have observed a reduction in the number of applicants the refuge gets for the youth pheasant hunt. If current management on the South

Tract was not changed, the refuge would most likely see a decrease in hunter success during the youth hunt.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) This alternative would have similar impacts as Alternative A, but it would also increase opportunities for hunters. Allowing hunting during the early teal season would add an additional 8–10 days of waterfowl hunting opportunity on the North Tract. Non-consumptive users would not be impacted by this addition because deer season would already be open by the time teal season started, and all safety information would be posted. The special demographic deer hunt on the South Tract would provide a new hunting opportunity for four weekends (eight days). Three to four hunters would participate in the hunt each weekend (a total of twelve to sixteen hunters), which would be either four fewer hunters or the same number as the youth upland game hunt (which has up to 16 hunters) in years when the upland game hunt was administratively closed. Providing the deer hunt would allow hunting opportunities to still be open to special demographics, even if the upland game hunt was administratively closed to allow the habitat to be improved for pheasants and quail.

Affected Cultural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Cultural Resources Bitter Lake NWR is known to have numerous archeological sites, but they have not been well documented or examined (Service 1998). Various artifacts such as black on white pottery, brown earthware, stone arrowheads, metates, fire rings, and worked fish scales have been found on the refuge. The southern Pecos River valley was settled by nomadic hunter gatherers who emigrated from Canada, and they are the ancestors of the Apache, Comanche, and Kiowa. The presence of artifacts or the location of these sites are not advertised to the public, and the sites have been deemed safe from vandalism but need future evaluation. The refuge also has a Registered National Natural Landmark, the Bitter Lake Group, which is comprised of the Lake St. Francis sinkhole cluster, Bitter Lake, and the Salt Creek Wilderness.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under this alternative, cultural resources may be adversely impacted. Artifacts can be found at specific sites and scattered throughout the landscape. Cultural resources could be affected by collectors and vandals or by hunters traversing the refuge. This adverse impact is similar to what would occur from non-consumptive users on the refuge, and specific sites are not disclosed to the public to avoid people seeking them out. There would be minimal to no impacts to the refuge’s registered natural landmarks under this alternative. The Bitter Lake Group sites that are located on the Middle Tract (Lake St. Francis sinkhole cluster and Bitter Lake) would be in areas that are closed to all public use. The Salt Creek Wilderness on the North Tract would be open to various recreational activities, but it would be managed as a naturally functioning ecosystem as required by the Wilderness Act of 1964. Any impact on cultural resources from hunters would be small compared to the impacts from non- consumptive users, as hunters account for only 300 of the 71,000 annual visitors to the refuge.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative)

Impacts under this alternative are expected to be similar to Alternative A. Although hunting would be expanded on the North Tract through participation in the early teal season, hunters would be accessing the Salt Creek Wilderness in the same ways as non-consumptive users and would follow all refuge regulations regarding wilderness. There would be no additional hunting opportunities on the Middle Tract, and the other sites of the Bitter Lake Group would remain in closed areas.

Affected Refuge Management and Operations Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Refuge Management and Operations Land Use The refuge is composed of Chihuahuan desert, shortgrass prairie, and riparian areas. Current management includes water management, invasive species control, endangered species monitoring, prescribed burning, and occasional farming.

Bitter Lake NWR has its own roads throughout the refuge for administrative use, and they are largely gravel roads that are maintained by staff. The Middle Tract is accessible off of Pine Lodge Road, the North Tract is accessible by Highway 70, and the South Tract is accessible by Highway 380. Pine Lodge Road is maintained by Chaves County, NM, while both Highway 70 and Highway 380 are maintained by the New Mexico Department of Transportation.

Administration The refuge has 17 full-time staff, which also includes staff from and funded by the New Mexico Fire District. The refuge’s annual budget is approximately $800,000.

The estimated annual cost to administer the refuge hunt program is approximately $18,000. Enforcement of hunt regulations is primarily carried out by the shared senior FWO who is stationed at Bitter Lake NWR but also covers Buffalo Lake and Muleshoe NWRs. Other FWOs, zone officers, special agents, state conservation officers, and the local sheriff’s department assist when needed. Estimated annual hunter visits to the refuge are:

Deer and feral hog: 41 Waterfowl and sandhill crane: 200 Upland game: 30 Dove: 22

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Land Use: No land use changes are anticipated under this alternative. Hunting season dates are adjusted on the Middle Tract to avoid endangered species monitoring/management, and invasive species management is conducted outside of hunt areas during the hunt season. Prescribed fires can take place during hunting season, but planning occurs well in advance to avoid any user conflicts. Current water management is done to benefit a variety of wildlife species, but refuge staff specifically floods Hunter Marsh prior to hunting season for hunters.

Although this management is done to benefit hunting, it would likely still be carried out to benefit other species even without a hunting program on the refuge.

Administration: No administrative changes are anticipated under this alternative. The hunt program would continue to cost approximately $18,000 to administer annually, and the refuge’s FWO would primarily enforce hunting regulations with assistance from other law enforcement agencies. Materials such as signs, brochures, and maps cost an additional $1,250 annually.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Land Use: Impacts under this alternative are expected to be similar to Alternative A. Land use would not change on the North Tract as a result of the early teal season, and it would remain managed largely as a wilderness. The South Tract would still be available to be farmed during the summer and fall as needed, because the special demographics deer hunt would take place in the winter.

Administration: Impacts under this alternative are expected to be similar to Alternative A. The refuge does not expect increased costs associated with the additional hunts, but closer coordination with NMDGF would be needed for the South Tract deer hunt. This would likely include having NMDGF officers administratively run two of the four weekends to reduce the increased refuge staff time that would be required. Refuge staff has met with NMDGF representatives, and they are supportive of helping administer the deer hunt.

Affected Socioeconomic Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Socioeconomics Local and Regional Economies The refuge is located approximately seven miles from the city of Roswell, NM, which has a population of 48,000. Several other small towns are also within 30–90 miles away including Dexter, Artesia, Carlsbad, and Ruidoso. The predominant land uses in the vicinity of the refuge are grazing, irrigated farming, and oil and gas development. The Roswell Chamber of Commerce lists the refuge as one of the area’s main attractions. The refuge averages about 71,000 visitors per year. Visitors in the area often visit Bottomless Lakes State Park, Carlsbad Caverns National Park, Lincoln National Forest, or stop in Roswell to investigate aliens. Total expenditures from visitors to the refuge were $917,100, with non-residents accounting for $643,600 or 70 percent of total expenditures. Expenditures on hunting activities accounted for one percent of all expenditures from visitors (Service 2007).

Sector of the Economy (Agricultural Practices) The local economy of Roswell, NM has historically been driven by agriculture and remains largely the same today. Local farmers often complain about depredation of their crops by deer, waterfowl, and sandhill cranes. All three of these groups are game species in New Mexico, and hunting them helps reduce their numbers and can lessen depredation.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

Local and Regional Economies: This alternative would result in some negligible effects to local and regional economies. The refuge only receives approximately 300 hunters a year, which only brought in $9,500 to the local economy in 2006.

Sector of the Economy (Agricultural Practices) This alternative would result in some slight positive effects to the local farming community by allowing the hunting of species that often depredate crops. The hunters on the refuge account for less than one percent of the hunters in New Mexico, so this effect is very minimal.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Local and Regional Economies: Impacts under this alternative are expected to be similar to Alternative A. Even with an increase of 26 hunters from expansions in the refuge’s hunting program, this alternative would only result in an additional $800 brought into the local economy.

Sector of the Economy (Agricultural Practices) Impacts under this alternative are expected to be similar to Alternative A with a slight increase in the mortality of teal and deer that depredate local crops.

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 This EA has not identified any adverse or beneficial effects for either alternative unique to minority or low-income populations in the affected area. Additionally, neither of the alternatives will disproportionately place any adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on minority or low-income populations.

Indian Trust Resources There are no Indian trust resources on this refuge.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Because there are no Indian trust resources, no impacts are expected to occur under either alternative.

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 counterbalance one another, partially cancelling out each other’s effects on a resource. But more typically, multiple effects add up, with each additional action contributing an incremental impact on the resource. The refuge is surrounded by private lands that are sparsely populated and BLM land. Other federal and non-federal activities occurring on those lands include farming, ranching, oil and gas development, hunting, and recreation. On the refuge, other management activities include prescribed burning, limited farming, and a variety of other recreational activities.

Anticipated Cumulative Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives

Other past, present, and foreseeable Descriptions of Anticipated Cumulative activity impacting the affected Impacts environment Hunted Species Migratory Birds Hunting has been allowed on the refuge since Hunting on the refuge does not add 1961. Hunting occurs throughout the entire significantly to the cumulative impacts of state of New Mexico and the United States. migratory bird management of local, regional, or Central Flyway populations because the Migratory Birds percentage taken on the refuge, though Migratory bird populations throughout the possibly additive to existing hunting takes, is United States are managed through an a tiny fraction of the estimated populations. administrative process known as flyways. Several points support this conclusion: 1) the The refuge is located in the Central Flyway. proportion of the national waterfowl harvest In North America, the process for establishing that occurs on national wildlife refuges is only hunting regulations is conducted annually. six percent (USFWS 2013); 2) there are no An Annual Waterfowl Population Status populations that exist wholly and exclusively Report is produced each year and includes the on national wildlife refuges; 3) annual most current breeding population and hunting regulations within the United States production information available for are established at levels consistent with the waterfowl in North America (Service 2019). current population status; 4) refuges cannot The report is a cooperative effort by the permit more liberal seasons than provided for Service, the Canadian Wildlife Service, in Federal frameworks; and 5) refuges various state and provincial conservation purchased with funds derived from the agencies, and private conservation Federal Duck Stamp must limit hunting to 40 organizations. An Annual Adaptive Harvest percent of the available area. In 2019, Management Report (AHM) provides the breeding duck, goose, and sandhill crane most current data, analyses, and decision- populations were all above or close to the making protocols. These reports are intended long-term average (Service 2019; Dubovsky to aid the development of waterfowl harvest 2018). In New Mexico, there were regulations in the United States for each approximately 3,300 active waterfowl hunters hunting season. The state selects season in the Central Flyway during the 2018–2019 dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other season (Raftovich et al. 2019). Currently, options using guidance in these reports, and approximately 200 waterfowl and crane the refuge follows the regulations published hunters use the refuge annually, and fewer than 10 additional hunters are expected to

in the annual New Mexico Hunting Rules and participate in the early teal season on the Information booklet. North Tract under the proposed action. In addition, no cumulative impacts are Deer anticipated because overall populations will The refuge is located in NMDGF Game continue to be monitored and future harvests Management Unit (GMU) 32. GMU 32 would be adjusted as needed under the consists of approximately 6,073 square miles, existing flyway and State regulatory while the North Tract consists of 19.17 square processes. miles and the South Tract consists of 1.85 square miles within the GMU. These two Deer refuge tracts, which would be open to deer Hunting on the refuge does not add hunting under the proposed action, make up significantly to the cumulative impacts of less than one percent of the GMU acreage. deer management of local, regional, or NMDGF issued 1,705 deer permits for GMU national populations. Anticipated annual deer 32 in the 2019–2020 season. A majority of harvest on the refuge and other national the public land that is open to hunting in wildlife refuges open to deer hunting is an GMU 32 is managed by BLM, and its extremely small percentage of the state’s Roswell Field Office oversees the annual harvest and just a fraction of the management of 2,344 square miles of land in national population. With the average success southeastern New Mexico. All BLM land in rate from the 2018–2019, only 12 deer would the state is open to public hunting unless be taken on the refuge annually under the No specifically prohibited. NMDGF estimated Action Alternative. With the special 11,000 mule and white-tailed deer were demographic deer hunt on the South Tract harvested in New Mexico by 36,000 hunters under the proposed action, an additional 12– during the 2018–2019 hunting season. 16 hunters would hunt on the refuge and 3–4 more deer would be harvested annually. Within GMU 32, the refuge lands open to deer hunting are negligible compared to the large areas BLM manages that surround the refuge, which are open to hunting.

Visitor Use and Experience There are no anticipated cumulative impacts The current impact of the Bitter Lake NWR from either alternative on the visitor use and hunts on visitor use has been minor on the experience on the refuge. The current refuge. Non-consumptive users have wildlife disturbance and visitor restrictions unrestricted access to the North Tract during from the refuge’s hunting program are short- hunting season; one hiking trail is closed term (only from September through during hunting days (Tuesdays, Thursdays, February), and the effects are mitigated and Saturdays) on the Middle Tract; and the through restricted season dates and areas South Tract is closed to all public uses except closed to hunting. Under the proposed action, special hunts. Visitors are still able to use the there would be an additional 16–18 days of refuge’s other five trails, the wildlife drive, hunting (8–10 on the North Tract and eight on and the visitor center, even on hunting days. the South Tract). The North Tract is already Some short-term wildlife disturbance occurs open to deer hunting during the 8–10 days of in and around the public hunting areas from the proposed early teal season, so there would hunters, but wildlife on the refuge have areas be no additional impacts to other visitor uses.

closed to hunting where they can rest and be The South Tract is closed to public use aside observed by other visitors. from special hunts, so there would be no impacts to other visitors. There are Other Wildlife-Dependent Recreation approximately 300 hunters annually who use In addition to the visitor uses described in the the refuge compared to the total 71,000 section above, the refuge is working closely annual visitors. Hiking and biking are with local partners (New Mexico Department allowed year-round on the refuge, so of Transportation, BLM, City of Roswell, and increasing hunters by 26 individuals for six Chaves County) to connect the trail system in months is not expected to incrementally add Roswell to Bitter Lake NWR. The trail will to the wildlife disturbance already occurring also continue south of the refuge onto BLM from non-consumptive users. land, where an additional two miles of trail will be installed to reach Highway 380. From Other Wildlife-Dependent Recreation this point, visitors will be able to travel south The planned trail connection project and other to Bottomless Lakes State Park. This project recreation opportunities on BLM land should is anticipated to increase recreation offset any cumulative impacts that either opportunities for the local community as well alternative would have on wildlife-dependent as visiting groups like triathlon participants recreation in the local area. BLM allows that already use the area. recreational activities that the refuge does not (including off-highway vehicle use) that are There are also a variety of recreational more disruptive to wildlife than refuge opportunities that are currently open on BLM hunters are because they are restricted to lands in the county including biking, driving on established roads or walking. camping, hunting, fishing, boating, off- Visitors can use BLM lands year-round, highway vehicle use, and caving. whereas hunters utilize the refuge for less than six months a year.

Socioeconomics and Local Economy There are no anticipated cumulative impacts The refuge is located approximately seven from either alternative on the local economy. miles from the city of Roswell, NM, which Although the refuge does bring in an has a population of 48,000. Several other estimated $917,000 annually to the local small towns are also within 30–90 miles away economy from visitors, hunters accounted for including Dexter, Artesia, Carlsbad, and only one percent of these expenditures Ruidoso. The predominant land uses in the ($9,500). The refuge anticipates 26 additional vicinity of the refuge are grazing, irrigated hunters would utilize the refuge under the farming, and oil and gas development. proposed action, which would add an additional $800 to the local economy. This Lands adjacent to the refuge are impact is negligible compared to large predominantly agricultural/rangelands and are industries in the area like agriculture and sparsely populated. BLM permits grazing on energy. its lands that neighbor the refuge, and the Roswell Field Office manages 4.6 million acres of federal mineral estate in the area. BLM conducts federal lease sales four times a year for oil and gas development, and the oil and gas industry as a whole is expanding into the Roswell area. Chaves County has a

diverse economy that is led by agriculture (including dairy farms), but energy, tourism, and aviation are also significant contributors. While oil and gas are the largest energy industries in the area, renewable energy projects are also in the area. A solar farm was installed in 2016 that is located less than one mile from the refuge boundary, and wind farms may be installed on the eastern side of Chaves County in the near future. The refuge attracts 71,000 visitors a year, and total expenditures from visitors to the refuge were $917,100, with non-residents accounting for $643,600 or 70 percent of total expenditures (Service 2007).

Climate Change The refuge does not expect its hunt program Warming, whether it results from to have cumulative impacts on climate change anthropogenic or natural sources, is expected under either alternative. The refuge would to affect a variety of natural processes and continue to use adaptive management for associated resources. However, the refuge activities in the future, including complexity of ecological systems means that hunting. there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty about the impact climate change will actually have. In particular, the localized effects of climate change are still a matter of much debate. That said, the combination of increased frequency and severity of drought in the basin and increased frequency of wildfire could dramatically reduce the amount and quality of waterfowl habitat in the basin. As a result, waterfowl would be forced into smaller and smaller amounts of available habitat. Concentrating birds into smaller and smaller areas also has the potential to more readily allow disease to spread within overwintering waterfowl populations resulting in increased bird mortality. The Service has 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 broadly diverse ecosystems in Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Use of Lead Ammunition There are no anticipated cumulative impacts NMDGF requires hunters to possess and use from either alternative. While lead only Service-approved nontoxic shot when ammunition is allowed for deer and feral hog hunting any waterfowl, coot, common hunting, the refuge hunting units make up a moorhen, crane, snipe, sora, or Virginia rail fraction of the entire GMU 32 (21 square with shotguns (including muzzle-loading miles compared to 6,073 square miles). shotguns). Studies suggest that lead shot and Therefore, the continued allowance of lead bullet fragments found in animal carcasses ammunition for the take of white-tailed deer and gut piles are the most likely source of and other hunted species will not lead exposure. Many hunters do not realize incrementally add to lead in the environment. that the carcass or gut pile they leave in the field usually contains lead bullet fragments.

Summary of Analysis

The purpose of this EA is to briefly 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 As described above, under Alternative A, the refuge’s current hunting program would remain unchanged. The refuge would not participate in NMDGF’s early, teal-specific season on the North Tract and would not open the South Tract to a special demographic only deer hunt.

There would be no additional take of hunted species or significant impacts to other wildlife species, federally-listed species, vegetation, soils, air quality, water resources, or wilderness.

There would be no additional costs or cost savings to the refuge under this alternative, as the refuge would continue to manage its hunt program the way it currently is. There would be no change to current public use and wildlife management programs on the refuge under this alternative.

The refuge would not increase its impact on the economy and would not provide new hunting and access opportunities.

This alternative does not meet the purpose and needs of the Service as described above because it would not provide additional hunting opportunities. Although this alternative has the least direct impacts of physical and biological resources, it would minimize our mandates under the NWRSAA and Secretarial Order 3356.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative As described above, under Alternative B, the refuge would continue to manage its hunt program as outlined in Alternative A, but would implement the changes outlined in the refuge’s hunt plan. These changes include participation in NMDGF’s early teal season on the North Tract. The refuge would also host a youth and hunters with disabilities firearms deer hunt on the South Tract.

This alternative would result in additional take of hunted species, particularly deer and teal species from the additional hunting opportunities. This additional harvest would be small and short-term because only 26 additional hunters are expected to utilize the additional hunts, and each hunt would last approximately eight days.

This alternative would also result in minimal, short-term adverse impacts to other wildlife and habitat components such as vegetation and soils. The disturbance to these resources from additional hunters would be minimal because hunters account for less than one percent of the refuge’s annual visitors and utilize the refuge for only six months out of the year.

There would be no additional impacts to federally-listed species, air quality, water resources, or wilderness under this alternative.

There would be additional staff time required to implement this alternative, but this would be minimal because the refuge would partner with NMDGF to administer its new hunts.

This alternative provides additional hunting opportunities for youth and hunters with disabilities, which benefits the local community. Providing additional hunting opportunities is supported not only by the Service, but by NMDGF and local hunters. Allowing hunting of game species that depredate crops in the area also improves the refuge’s relationship with the local farming community, and it helps manage wildlife populations on the refuge and prevents overpopulation.

Current non-hunting areas would remain closed to hunting and may offer other wildlife- dependent public use opportunities during hunting season, so this alternative would have minimal impacts to visitor use and wildlife-dependent recreation.

Based on the above analyses, the Service has determined that none of these impacts, even when accumulated, would be significant to the natural or human environment.

This alternative meets the purpose and needs of the Service because it provides additional hunting opportunities on the refuge and meets the refuge establishing purposes, including maintaining at least 60 percent of the refuge as inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds.

Opening the refuge to these hunts as proposed under this alternative would also meet the need of the refuge under the NWRSAA to provide for compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities while helping to fulfill Secretarial Orders 3447 and 3356.

The Service has the resources necessary to carry out this alternative, and has determined that the Proposed Action described in this alternative is compatible with the purposes of the Bitter Lake NWR and the mission of the NWRS.

Monitoring

Monitoring activities provide information on harvest levels, population size, and habitat conditions for migratory birds in the United States every year. The refuge and/or the state conduct quail, deer, and waterfowl surveys to set harvest limits. The Service’s Division of Migratory Bird Management is responsible for conducting migratory bird surveys for all of the flyways, collecting and compiling much of the relevant biological data, and coordinating the regulatory effort with States and the public. Data collected from these activities are analyzed and proposals for duck hunting regulations are developed by the Flyway Councils, States, and the Service on an annual basis. After extensive public review, the Service announces a regulatory framework within which states may set their hunting seasons. The refuge works with the state to ensure that all of its proposed hunting activities are in alignment with the results of these monitoring efforts and regulatory frameworks, using an adaptive management process to adjust hunting activities as necessary to ensure no adverse impacts to migratory bird populations. For more information on the extensive monitoring efforts for migratory bird populations in the United States, see the Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Hunting of Migratory Birds: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (USFWS 2013) (available here).

List of Sources, Agencies, and Persons Consulted

List of Preparers Jennifer Romero, Acting Refuge Manager, Bitter Lake NWR Jeff Beauchamp, Wildlife Biologist, Bitter Lake NWR Monica Kimbrough, Assistant Refuge Supervisor Juli Niemann, Division of Visitor Services

State Coordination Refuge staff met with NMDGF representatives on June 27, 2019 to discuss the current hunting program and recommendations for the future. During that meeting, the NMDGF indicated that they are in favor of expanding public hunting opportunities.

Tribal Consultation The refuge supervisor for New Mexico sent a letter on December 16, 2019 advising the leadership of the listed tribes of the proposed action and inviting comment on the Hunt Plan and this Environmental Assessment. The Service will send these documents directly to the tribes upon release for public comment.

Listed Tribes Jicarilla Apache Nation Kewa Pueblo Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico

Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation

Public Outreach An initial period of informal scoping public was held from 04/01/2020 through 04/30/2020.

References

Dubovsky, J.A. 2018. Status and harvests of sandhill cranes: Mid-Continent, Rocky Mountain, Lower Colorado River Valley and Eastern Populations. Administrative Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Lang, B. K. 1998. Status of aquatic mollusks of New Mexico. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Annual Performance Report (E-20-6) submitted to the Office of Federal Aid, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Lang, B. K. 2001. Status of aquatic mollusks of New Mexico. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Annual Performance Report (E-20-6) submitted to the Office of Federal Aid, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 2019. 2018–19 New Mexico Small Game Voluntary Harvest Reports. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, NM.

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 2019. 2019–2020 New Mexico Deer Hunting Prospects. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, NM.

Raftovich, R.V., K.K. Fleming, S. C. Chandler, and C.M. Cain, 2019. Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 hunting seasons. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA.

Sanders, T. A., editor. 2009. Mourning dove, white-winged dove, and band-tailed pigeon population status, 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA.

Seamans, M. E. 2018. Mourning dove population status, 2018. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, D.C.

Tolleson, Douglas R.; Pinchak, William E.; Rollins, Dale; and Hunt, Leland J. 95. Feral Hogs in the Rolling Plains of Texas: Perspectives, Problems, and Potential. Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. Washington, D.C. USA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Hunting of Migratory Birds, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. USFWS, Division of Migratory Birds and Management, Laurel, MD. 418pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Waterfowl population status, 2019. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. USA.

Appendix 1 OTHER APPLICABLE STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS & REGULATIONS STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS Cultural Resources The proposed action includes no ground-disturbing activities, or other activities that might disturb undocumented paleontological, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, archaeological, or historic sites. as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1996 – 1996a; 43 CFR Part 7

Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431- 433; 43 CFR Part 3

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470aa – 470mm; 18 CFR Part 1312; 32 CFR Part 229; 36 CFR Part 296; 43 CFR Part 7

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470-470x- 6; 36 CFR Parts 60, 63, 78, 79, 800, 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 eight federal threatened or endangered species on the refuge: the interior least tern, the Pecos gambusia, the Pecos bluntnose shiner, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as the Pecos sunflower, the Noel’s amphipod, the Koster’s springsnail, the amended, 16 U.S.C. 668-668c, 50 CFR Roswell springsnail, and the Pecos assiminea. An Intra-Service 22 Section 7 Consultation will be conducted with the Service’s New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 36 CFR The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 13186 because Part 13; 50 CFR Parts 10, 17, 23, 81, 217, the Environmental Assessment for Hunting on Washita NWR evaluates 222, 225, 402, and 450 the effects of agency actions on migratory birds.

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742 a-m

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 Bitter Lake NWR for wilderness designation and concluded that the Refuge has 9,621 acres Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. that meet the requirement for inclusion into the National Wilderness 7401-7671q; 40 CFR Parts 23, 50, 51, 52, Preservation System. This area was designated as the Salt Creek 58, 60, 61, 82, and 93; 48 CFR Part 23 Wilderness in 1970.

Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq. The Service has evaluated the eligibility of streams on Bitter Lake NWR for wild and scenic river designation and concluded no streams Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. meet the basic criteria for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic 1271 et seq. Rivers System.

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive The proposed action would have negligible effects to air quality. Species, 64 Fed. Reg. 6183 (1999) 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, but it contains portions of the Pecos River and Hondo River. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. There would be negligible impacts of the proposed action on water quality or water resources. 1451 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 923, 930, 933 The refuge contains no drinking water sources and does not supply Federal Water Pollution Control Act of drinking water to any community. 1972 (commonly referred to as Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 11990 because CFR Parts 320-330; 40 CFR Parts 110, implementation of the Hunt Plan would protect existing wetlands. 112, 116, 117, 230-232, 323, and 328 The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 11988, because Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as implementation of the Hunt Plan would not result in the modification amended, 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 33 CFR or destruction of floodplains. Parts 114, 115, 116, 321, 322, and 333

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 141- 148

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management, 42 Fed. Reg. 26951 (1977)

Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands, 42 Fed. Reg. 26961 (1977)