DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment Open and expand hunting opportunities for migratory game birds (dark geese, merganser, and coot) on the Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge May 2019 Prepared by Refuge Staff Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge Okmulgee, Oklahoma Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................... 4 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 4 Background ................................................................................................................................. 4 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ................................................................................ 5 2.0 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 6 Alternatives Considered .............................................................................................................. 6 Alternative A – Current Management Strategies – [No Action Alternative]: ........................ 6 Alternative B – Limited Dark Geese, Mergansers and Coot Hunting – [Proposed Action Alternative] ............................................................................................................................. 7 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 7 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 7 Environmental Consequences of the Action ............................................................................... 8 Cumulative Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 10 Affected Natural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 10 Hunted Species – Migratory Birds (Dark Geese, Mergansers, and Coot) ............................ 10 Incidental Take – Feral Hog ................................................................................................. 12 Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species ..................................................................................... 12 Threatened and Endangered Species and other Special Status Species ................................ 14 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 17 Soils....................................................................................................................................... 18 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 19 Water Resources ................................................................................................................... 20 Affected Visitor Use and Experience Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ................................................................................................... 21 Visitor Use and Experience .................................................................................................. 21 Affected Cultural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 22 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 22 Affected Refuge Management and Operations Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives................................................................................. 23 Refuge Management and Operations .................................................................................... 23 Affected Socioeconomic Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 23 2 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................................... 23 Climate Change ..................................................................................................................... 24 Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns ........................................................................ 24 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................... 25 Indian Trust Resources ......................................................................................................... 25 Anticipated Cumulative Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ........... 25 Natural Resources ................................................................................................................. 25 Visitor Use and Experience .................................................................................................. 28 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 29 Refuge Management and Operations .................................................................................... 29 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................................... 29 Summary of Analysis ................................................................................................................ 30 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 31 List of Sources, Agencies, and Persons Consulted ................................................................... 32 References ................................................................................................................................. 32 Determination ........................................................................................................................... 33 Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................................... 34 List of Figures Figure 1. Map of Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................. 9 3 Environmental Assessment for Opening of Dark Geese, Mergansers, and Coots 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. 1.0 Purpose and Need Proposed Action The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to open and expand hunting opportunities for migratory game birds (dark geese, mergansers, and coots) on the Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge (NWR/refuge) in accordance with the Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge Hunt Plan/Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The Deep Fork NWR hunting program allows the refuge to provide the public with appropriate and compatible public recreation and to promote the biological integrity of the refuge. The refuge is currently still in an acquisition stage. Approximately 9,873.5 acres have been acquired as of August 2018, with 6,946 acres open to hunting. 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 2019–2020 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations. The Service cannot open a refuge to hunting and/or fishing until a final rule has been published in the Federal Register formally opening the refuge to hunting and/or fishing. 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 pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Service Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471-535), as amended; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 661-666c) as amended; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j Stat. 1119) as amended; the Act of May 19, 1948, Public Law 80-537 (16 U.S.C. 667b-667d; 62 Stat. 240) as amended; and The National Wildlife
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Kickapoo Nations
    Historic, Archive Document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. aTC4P5 iSWI: ,K48K48W^: SiSx.S: WORK PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION AND FLOOD PREVENTION KICKAPOO NATIONS WATERSHED Oklahoma and Lincoln Counties, Oklahoma i PREPARED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE WATERSHED PROTECTION AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT (PUBLIC LAW 566, 83rd CONGRESS, 68 STAT. 666), AS AMENDED Kickapoo Nations Conservancy District Lincoln County Conservation District Oklahoma County Conservation District City of Chandler Lincoln County Commission Oklahoma County Commission UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE FOREST SERVICE AUGUST 1977 FINAL PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT KICKAPOO NATIONS WATERSHED Oklahoma and Lincoln Counties, Oklahoma U.S. DEPT. CF AC^i CULTURAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LIBRARY August 1977 OCT 2 4 1979 CMALOGIRG s EREEL Prepared under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 83-566, as amended (16 USC 1001-1008) and in accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, as amended (42 USC 4231 et seq ). Prepared by: Kickapoo National Conservancy District Lincoln County Conservation District Oklahoma County Conservation District City of Chandler Lincoln County Commission Oklahoma County Commission U.S. Dept, of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service U.S. Dept, of Agriculture, Forest Service ’ FINAL PLAN -1 KICKAPOO NATIONS WATERSHED Oklahoma and Lincoln Counties, Oklahoma August 1977 1/ All information and data, except as otherwise noted, were collected during watershed planning investigations by the SCS, USDA. ADDENDUM Kickapoo Nations Watershed, Oklahoma This addendum shows the project costs, benefits, and benefit-cost rati based on 6-5/8 percent interest rate, 1976 installation costs, and current normalized prices (7-26-76) for agricultural commodities.
    [Show full text]
  • Kickapoo Titles in Oklahoma
    Kickapoo Titles in Oklahoma by W.R. Withington of Oklahoma City 23 Oklahoma Bar Association Journal 1751 (1952) Reproduced with permission from The Oklahoma Bar Journal According to the best information available, this tribe of Indians was discovered by a Catholic missionary, Father Allouez, in southern Wisconsin about the year 1667. Later the tribe moved into southern Illinois and joined the great Indian confederacy of Tecumseh, the Shawnee, and his brother known as The Prophet, in 1811-1813. In the War of 1812, the Kickapoos sided with the British and in concluding the War in 1812 Great Britain required that the United States of America make a treaty with all of her Indian allies, which included the Kickapoo Tribes. The Kickapoos relinquished their Illinois holdings consisting of about half of the state of the United States. Then about 1832 they were assigned a reservation in Missouri aloing the Missouri River in what is now northeastern Kansas. A large band of the Kickapoos objected to the cession of their lands in Illinois to the government and to settlement in Missouri and went to Texas and joined the Texas Cherokees. The Texas Cherokees and the Kickapoos were defeated by the forces of the Texas Republic in 1839, and the Kickapoos came to the Indian territory and settled on Wild Horse Creek, in what is now Garvin County, Oklahoma. The tribe left this location in 1850 and 1851 and followed Wild Cat, a Seminole Indian, to Mexico and took up their residence in the State of Coahuila. The United States government finally induced the Kickapoo tribe, residing in Mexico and who were then known as the Mexico Band of the Kickapoos, to return to the Indian Territory in about 1873, and by an Executive Order of August 15, 1883, a reservation of some 100,000 acres was assigned to the Kickapoos in what are now parts of Lincoln, Pottawatomie and Oklahoma Counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Context and Reconnaissance Report Oklahoma County Route 66 Survey Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
    January 27, 2021 Historic Context and Reconnaissance Report Oklahoma County Route 66 Survey Oklahoma County, Oklahoma Prepared for: Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office 800 Nazih Zuhdi Drive Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Pinyon Project No.: 120137801 January 27, 2021 Historic Context and Reconnaissance Report Oklahoma County Route 66 Survey Oklahoma County, Oklahoma Prepared for: Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office 800 Nazih Zuhdi Drive Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Pinyon Project No.: 120137801 Prepared by: ___________________________ Poppie Gullett, M.A. Reviewed by: ___________________________ Ashley L. Bushey, M.S. Acknowledgment of Support The activity that is the subject of this historic context has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior. Nondiscrimination Statement This program receives Federal financial assistance for identification and protection of historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, or age in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity National Park Service 1849 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20240 Historic Context and Reconnaissance Report Oklahoma County Route 66 Survey Oklahoma County, Okahoma Page i Table of Contents 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge, Okmulgee County, Oklahoma Author(S): Bruce W
    Vascular Flora of the Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge, Okmulgee County, Oklahoma Author(s): Bruce W. Hoagland and Amy K. Buthod Source: Castanea, 82(1):32-45. Published By: Southern Appalachian Botanical Society DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2179/16-102 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2179/16-102 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/ terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. CASTANEA 82(1): 32–45. MARCH Copyright 2017 Southern Appalachian Botanical Society Vascular Flora of the Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge, Okmulgee County, Oklahoma Bruce W. Hoagland1,2* and Amy K. Buthod1 1Oklahoma Biological Survey, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019-0575 2Department of Geography and Environmental Sustainability, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019-0575 ABSTRACT The Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge (3,925 ha) is located in east-central Oklahoma. We report 584 taxa of vascular plants (565 species and 19 infraspecific taxa), 349 genera, and 106 families.
    [Show full text]
  • Route 66 in Oklahoma: an Historic
    Route 66 in Oklahoma An Historic Context Review A Perspective on Topics and Sources for Archives Collections and for Oral History Studies This document suggests topics and ideas for additional research along Oklahoma's portion of Route 66. Primarily, the review is intended to assist researchers collecting information about Route 66 by collecting oral histories and organizing research projects. This outline may also be used to encourage the preservation of archival materials and artifacts. The topical headings are random in order. I. Waterways Crossing or Near Route 66 The Waterways that crossed or came very near the roadway. Also including bridges, ferries, low water crossing, and other roadway features that are related to waterways. Waterways were the most important landmark for early native travelers and for early explorers. The same waterways continue to be important as obstacles for the original and later roadways. A. Neosho / Grand River B. Grand River C. Verdigris River D. Arkansas River E. Deep Fork River (Canadian River) F. North Canadian River (now the Oklahoma River as of 2006) G. South Canadian River (sometimes called the Canadian) H. Red River I. Deep Fork Creek in Oklahoma City J. Cat and Dog Creeks in Claremore K. Other waterways, creeks, lakes, etc. Waterways may be researched at the Oklahoma Department of Transportation or Corps of Engineers offices. The WPA Federal Writers Project papers are available at the Oklahoma Historical Society and may offer additional insight into the changes in Oklahoma waterways. II. American Indian Lands, or reserves, crossed by Route 66 or near to Route 66. Quapaw, Miami, Modoc, Eastern Shawnee, Peoria, Wyandotte, Ottawa, Seneca-Cayuga, Cherokee, Osage, Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Sac and Fox, Iowa, Kickapoo, Cheyenne and Arapaho, and others.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis-1986-E68p.Pdf
    PROPAGATION OF WETLAND VEGETATION ON A RIPARIAN OVERFLOW AREA IN CENTRAL OKLAHOMA By NANETTE EILEEN ERICKSON.,, Bachelor of Arts Concordia College Moorhead, Minnesota 1982 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE May, 1986 OVERFLOW AREA IN CENTRAL OKLAHCMA Thesis Approved: Dean of the Graduate College ii PREFACE Experimental plantings were established on a riparian overflow area on the Deep Fork River in Lincoln County, Oklahoma. Five plantings were used: common cattail (Typha latifolia), scarlet rose mallow (Hibiscus militaris), black willow (Salix nigra), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and a mixture of the four species. Species were established on the overflow area in three study plots of Latin square design. Plantings were monitored weekly to determine survival rates. Analysis of Variance procedures and Least Significant Difference tests were used to evaluate plant survival. Survival in all species decreased as the field season progressed. Survival rates declined abruptly between 3 July and ll July 1984 due to decreased soil moisture content attributed to increased competition among plant propagules and naturally established vegetation. At the conclusion of the study, survival of black willow ( 23.7%) was statistically greater than that of common cattail, scarlet rose mallow, buttonbush, or a mixture of the four species. Implications of natural and artificial establishment of vegetation are discussed as th~ apply to the Deep Fork River floodplain. Management implications and research alternatives for experimental planting studies on Deep Fork River overflow areas also are discussed. iii I thank my committee members Dr.
    [Show full text]