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 Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended. Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge was established in June 1993

4

under the provisions of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. The primary purpose of the refuge is to protect and enhance the high quality of wetlands found along the Deep Fork River and their associated fish and wildlife values, including economic; food supply; water supply and quality; flood control, fish, wildlife, and plant resources; and outdoor recreation.

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

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

The 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.

The Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge Hunt Program consists of hunting big game (deer and feral hogs, turkey), upland game (squirrel, rabbit, and raccoon), and migratory game birds (ducks). Hunting will be conducted in accordance with applicable state laws, unless otherwise listed in the refuge-specific regulations.

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

5

The purpose of this proposed action is to increase hunting opportunities on Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge. 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 refuge opened lands for hunting beginning in 1996 using the environmental assessment written for their CCP. The Fund for Animals/Humane Society lawsuit of 2003 listed Deep Fork NWR as one of the national wildlife refuges which had not provided a cumulative impact analysis when writing the environmental assessments for the migratory game birds, big game, and upland game hunting program. This revised environmental assessment provides a cumulative impact analysis for each of the alternatives. 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.

This action is also needed to effectively implement Secretarial Order 3356, which directs bureaus and offices within DOI, in collaboration with states, tribes, and territorial partners, to implement programs to enhance hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting opportunities on DOI-managed lands and waters, while also promoting conservation activities.

Privately owned land in Oklahoma accounts for 89.94 percent of all lands in the state. The federal government (through multiple agencies and bureaus) owns and manages 2.7 percent of the lands, while the State owns and manages 2.15 percent of the lands. Other landowners/managers include counties (0.21 percent) and Native American Nations (5 percent). Of the lands listed above, only 1 in 25 acres is available for outdoor recreation (Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department 2001). There are few lands in the region for the public to enjoy hunting while spending limited funds. Private land is leased for hunting, often costing a person $500–$2000/year for membership. This refuge is one of only a few public tracts open to hunting in eastern Oklahoma. Additionally, this would allow youth the opportunity to: 1) experience wildlife-dependent recreation; 2) gain an appreciation for and understanding of wildlife, the natural world, and the environment; and 3) promote a land ethic and environmental awareness.

2.0 Alternatives Alternatives Considered

Alternative A – Current Management Strategies – [No Action Alternative]: This alternative allows for limited duck hunting using restricted methods such as allowing only duck species to be hunted; limiting season length; limiting the days of the week and length of the day that a species could be hunted (i.e., ducks); and limiting the areas open to hunting. The September teal season on the refuge (around mid-September through the end of September) is open Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, thirty minutes before sunrise to 1:00 p.m. Blinds and decoys must be removed from the refuge at the end of the day’s hunt. Dogs are permitted for retrieving/pointing. The waterfowl season on the refuge (around the first week in December through end of January) is open Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday with the same restrictions as September teal season. Goose hunting is prohibited on the refuge. Feral hog

6

incidental take is allowed during waterfowl and teal hunts. Bag limits are aligned with state regulations. Waterfowl and September teal hunts occur on Units 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. A hunt held outside of the state framework is conducted only with concurrence from the ODWC.

Alternative B – Limited Dark Geese, Mergansers and Coot Hunting – [Proposed Action Alternative] Under the Proposed Action Alternative, Migratory Game Bird Hunting (Dark Geese, Mergansers, and Coots): This alternative would be the same as Alternative A but would add hunting of dark geese, mergansers, and coots. The bag limits for these species will align with the appropriate state regulations. During Oklahoma’s Special Resident Canada Goose season, the refuge will be open Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, thirty minutes before sunrise to 1:00 pm; this will coincide with the current September teal season. The dark geese, merganser, and coot season will be open no earlier than December 1 and close at the end of the regular state duck, merganser, and coot season; it will coincide with the second split of the state season. The refuge is closed to hunting on those days designated as closed in the Oklahoma Waterfowl Hunting Guide. Dark geese, merganser, and coot will be open Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, thirty minutes before sunrise to 1:00 pm during the regular season.

The use of retrieving and/or pointing dogs for migratory game bird hunting will be permitted; however, the dogs must be under the hunter's control at all times. Only federally approved non- toxic ammunition may be used. Hunters must pick up all spent shotgun shells. Firearms are restricted to the use of shotguns only. All hunters must possess a signed refuge general hunt tearsheet.

Mitigation Measures to Avoid Conflicts in Alternative B:

● Vehicles must stay on established roads to avoid disturbing wildlife and vegetation. ● Hunters must park in established parking areas to keep from blocking roadways and trails so that other user groups can access them. ● The use of non-toxic shot will be required. ● All hunters must have state hunter safety training. ● Waterfowl hunts will be limited by restricting dark geese hunting to four days during the state-approved special resident Canada goose season and dark geese, merganser, and coot during the regular waterfowl season starting after December 1st and closing at the end of the regular duck, merganser and coot season.

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Affected Environment The refuge is located largely in the floodplain of the Deep Fork of the North Canadian River, commonly known as the Deep Fork River, extending along approximately 34 miles of the river in a northwest-southeast direction. The Eufaula Wildlife Management Area, both of which are administered by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC), bound the refuge on the west by the Okmulgee Wildlife Management Area and on the south.

Historically, the bottomland hardwood forest community of the Deep Fork River was a complex,

7

diverse, and interrelated association of plants and animals, created and maintained by periodic, natural flooding. However, years of development and habitat alteration by humans have significantly modified the dynamic and pristine floodplain ecosystem.

Today, refuge lands are a mixture of regenerating bottomland forest, drained and natural wetlands, agricultural lands (mostly pastureland and pecan orchards with a small acreage of cropland), and some upland hardwood forest and prairie. Given time, protection, and proper management, the refuge bottomlands should regain much of the character of a mature riparian forest ecosystem, including the diverse assemblage of plants and animals representative of these vanishing habitats.

The refuge consists of approximately 15.6 square miles in Okmulgee County, Oklahoma (see Figure 1).

Deep Fork NWR is primarily bottomland hardwood forest. The proposed action is located throughout the refuge, which is primarily bottomland hardwood forest.

For more information regarding the affected environment, please see the refuge’s CCP.

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

8

;n a:irrl)lctclv 11nd ;iauratelv a, pouible, tile USFWS sM:i ncn,1£1rr1111ty. ~~ or •~ ;is tothe ;ia:urac;, rell11bll!tv, o, ~eteneu cl these d:.ta. 1n addition, the USFWS 1,1,1111 not be held liable (Cf l~OC)Cr o, l11m1rect use al tile data de$1';tlbl\'d artdfo, CO!ltlllllt'd here,ln. Gu,i,t,laj

Refuge Boundary Open Hunting Closed Hunting

Restricted Area

Closed To All Entry From Sept.1 to Mar. 31 Refuge Headquarters a

Refuge Maintenance Facility

Parking Lot -- Figure 1. Map of Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge

9

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. However, more typically, multiple effects add up, with each additional action contributing an incremental impact on the resource.

Refuges, including Deep Fork NWR, conduct hunting programs within the framework of state and federal regulations. Population estimates of huntable species are developed at a regional and state scale. Hunting frameworks and take limits are set based upon these estimates. The proposed refuge hunting program rules will be the same as, or more restrictive than, hunting regulations throughout the State of Oklahoma. By maintaining hunting regulations that are the same as or more restrictive than the state, individual refuges ensure that they are maintaining seasons which are supportive of management on a more regional basis. Such an approach also provides consistency with large scale population status and objectives. The refuge consistently coordinates with the state on our hunting program.

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

Affected Natural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Hunted Species – Migratory Birds (Dark Geese, Mergansers, and Coot) Regional Analysis Migratory Birds – Waterfowl populations throughout the United States are managed through an administrative process known as flyways. The refuge is located in the Central Flyway. In North America, the process for establishing waterfowl hunting regulations is conducted annually. In the United States, the process involves a number of scheduled meetings (Flyway Study Committees, Flyway Councils, Service Regulations Committee, etc.) in which information regarding the status of waterfowl populations and their habitats is presented to individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, public hearings are held and the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public comment.

Annual waterfowl assessments are based upon the distribution, abundance, and flight corridors of migratory birds. An Annual Waterfowl Population Status Report is produced each year and includes the most current breeding population and production information available for waterfowl in North America (USFWS 2010a). The report is a cooperative effort by the Service, the Canadian Wildlife Service, various state and provincial conservation agencies, and private conservation organizations. An Annual Adaptive Harvest Management Report (AHM) provides the most current data, analyses, and decision-making protocols (USFWS

10

Hunted Species – Migratory Birds (Dark Geese, Mergansers, and Coot) 2010b). These reports are intended to aid the development of waterfowl harvest regulations in the United States for each hunting season. Winter Canada goose survey for the Central Flyway in 2018 was estimated at a total of 2,434,766 and waterfowl 2018 population data for the Central Flyway was estimated at 9,149,317; and coot 2018 survey for the Central Flyway was an estimated 224,393 (USFWS 2018).

Ducks – The Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvest Report shows that 11.6 million ducks were harvested in the United States in the 2016–17 hunting season, increasing to 12.1 million ducks harvested in the 2017–18 season (Raftovich et al. 2018). The estimated average annual duck harvest for the Central Flyway was 2.4 million birds in 2017, which represent approximately 20 percent of the estimated average annual U.S. harvest of 12.1 million ducks (Raftovich et al. 2017). In Oklahoma, there were an estimated 197,400 ducks harvested in 2017, which represents approximately 8 percent of the estimated annual harvest of 2.4 million birds in the Central Flyway, and 2 percent of the average annual harvest of 12.1 million ducks in the United States.

Canada Geese – The Migratory Bird Activity and Harvest Report shows 6.8 million geese were harvested in the U.S. 2016–17 hunting season. In Oklahoma, 235,000 Canada geese were harvested during the 2016–17 hunting season, which represents approximately 3 percent of the average annual harvest in the U.S.

Coots – Coot hunters harvested 138,200 (± 61%) coots in 2016 and 117,100 (± 62%) in 2017 in the U.S.; no coots were reported in Oklahoma during the 2016–2017 hunting season.

Local Analysis Wetlands nourished by the Deep Fork River are important wintering habitat for numerous waterfowl species, and are particularly important for wintering mallards. Depending on existing environmental conditions, particularly weather patterns, peak populations of wintering waterfowl using the refuge have been estimated at 5,000–20,000 mallards, 1,000–5,000 wood ducks, and 1,000–2,000 other miscellaneous duck species. The sloughs, marshes, and overflow areas in the river bottoms also furnish vital nesting and rearing habitat for wood ducks. Hunting will be allowed for migratory game birds, including ducks, dark geese, coots, and mergansers within established federal and state approved regulations within the Central Flyway. Waterfowl are present throughout the river, wetlands and oxbows of the refuge and the refuge currently supports a sustainable population of waterfowl and other migratory game birds. The continued harvest of migratory game birds on the refuge is not expected to reduce populations below acceptable levels. We believe that hunting on the refuge will not add significantly to the cumulative impacts of migratory waterfowl management on local, regional, or Central Flyway waterfowl populations because the percentage likely to be taken on the refuge, though possibly additive to existing hunting take, would be a small fraction of the estimated populations.

Direct and Indirect Impacts

11

Hunted Species – Migratory Birds (Dark Geese, Mergansers, and Coot) Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under the no action alternative, no direct impacts are expected to occur to dark geese, mergansers, and coots under current management.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Under the proposed action alternative, dark geese, merganser, and coot hunting would not have a significant impact on local, regional, or Central Flyway waterfowl populations because the percentage taken on the refuge, though possibly additive to existing hunting take, would measure a fraction of a percent of the estimated dark geese, merganser, and coot populations.

It is expected that minor adverse effects to dark geese, merganser, and coot populations would occur through the disturbance and the take of a range of 0.003–0.009 percent of the estimated duck population; take of 0.008–0.02 percent of the estimated Canada goose population; and 0.00–0.01 percent of the coot population in the Central Flyway. These impacts are considered negligible due to the small number of hunters for waterfowl (range from 200 to 600 hunters depending on the rainfall and food production for that year) and a maximum of 40 days per year on which these impacts occur over 6,606 acres in five hunt units.

Incidental Take – Feral Hog Feral hogs are not a native species, and there is no need to sustain a population for any refuge objective. In fact, eradication of these destructive, exotic, feral animals would positively benefit the refuge (and neighboring) habitat. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that feral hog eradication will occur at the refuge due to the high reproduction of feral hogs (Taylor 1991), the presence of substantial feral hog populations on surrounding private land, and the transport and introduction of feral hogs by private individuals. Approximately 350 feral hogs have been removed from the refuge in the last five years through trapping by the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and incidental shooting by law enforcement officers and refuge staff and hunters. Feral hogs can be very destructive to habitat and while total eradication is unlikely, the goal is to reduce the population as much as possible, through a variety of methods, including hunting.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Some indirect negative impacts may occur due to feral hog depredation of waterfowl nests and broods.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Minor benefits are expected to occur through the incidental take of feral hogs. Migratory bird hunters that take feral hogs will likely be harvesting feral hogs from general areas where waterfowl nesting occurs, therefore resulting in less nest and brood mortality caused by feral hogs.

Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species Wildlife species found on the refuge are typical of bottomland hardwood forests, moist soils, upland post oak/blackjack oak forests, and tallgrass prairie. A total of 149 species of birds, 9

12

Hunted Species – Migratory Birds (Dark Geese, Mergansers, and Coot) game species, and 140 nongame species are known or thought to use the bottomland forests and associated habitats in eastern Oklahoma. The numerous sloughs and streams support large numbers of great blue and little blue herons and great and snowy egrets. Four great blue heron rookeries are located on the refuge; these rookeries are used by snowy egrets after the young herons fledge. Raptors, woodpeckers, and songbirds use the area in great numbers. The refuge is a very important migration stop for many species of neo-tropical birds and provides suitable nesting habitat for many others.

The refuge supports a diversity of wildlife species of eastern Oklahoma, including game and nongame species, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates, which are important contributors to the overall biodiversity on the refuge. Songbirds, raptors, and rails breed at the refuge, whereas shorebirds and waterfowl primarily utilize the refuge as wintering and migratory habitat. Wintering waterfowl concentrations on the refuge are highest from late November through February. The refuge maintains a waterfowl sanctuary that excludes access to the public, including small game and migratory bird hunters. This area provides sanctuary and roosting areas for migratory birds and helps to offset potential disturbance effects.

Fifty-nine fish species have been identified from the river, streams, and reservoirs of the Deep Fork River basin and many are likely to be found in refuge waters. The Deep Fork River provides feeding and spawning habitat for many sport fish native to east-central Oklahoma. The most important species to anglers are the channel catfish, flathead catfish, blue catfish (a.k.a. Mississippi white catfish), crappie, white bass, and largemouth bass.

Approximately fifty-four species of reptiles and twenty-two species of amphibians have been reported from Okmulgee County. Many of these likely occur on the refuge.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) This alternative currently results in some short-term negative impacts on small mammals, birds, and other wildlife due to minor disturbance in areas where human access for hunting occurs.

Feral hogs have an extremely high reproduction rate; compete with native wildlife for resources; and cause direct wildlife mortality through nest predation and opportunistic consumption of birds, reptiles, and amphibians (Tate 1984; Taylor 1991; Beach 1993). Feral hog are a vector of many diseases that can be contracted by other animals. 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 population would lead to further adverse impacts on other wildlife 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.

13

Hunted Species – Migratory Birds (Dark Geese, Mergansers, and Coot)

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Increased hunting may result in additional short-term disturbance to wildlife over a larger area. This includes temporary displacement of turkey, deer, waterfowl, and other resident wildlife from foot traffic moving through the area. In comparison to Alternative A, disturbance effects to wildlife may be negligible in the short-term and are not likely to significantly affect wildlife populations.

Songbirds and raptors use the refuge year-round, whereas shorebirds and waterfowl primarily utilize the refuge as wintering and migratory habitat. Wintering waterfowl concentrations on the refuge are highest from late November to February. From late November to February, the refuge maintains a waterfowl sanctuary that prohibits public entry. This area provides sanctuary and roosting areas for migratory birds and helps to offset potential disturbance effects. Impacts to migrating waterfowl and other birds and wildlife is expected to be negligible because no hunting may occur in the waterfowl sanctuary area or other closed areas of the refuge.

Reductions in competition with native wildlife for resources; direct wildlife mortality through nest predation and opportunistic consumption of birds, reptiles, and amphibians, and disease spread may occur as a result of increased feral hog mortality from increased hunting opportunities. Any decrease in feral hog populations would lead to beneficial impacts on other native wildlife species.

Threatened and Endangered Species and other Special Status Species Several federally-listed threatened and endangered species (T&E species), listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, occur within the project area. These species, as well as several additional species, are listed by the State of Oklahoma as endangered, threatened, or species of concern (rare).

Several recent actions by the Service under the Endangered Species Act have changed the status of T&E species occurring within the project area. The Service de-listed the bald eagle in August of 2007 and removed it from the T&E species list. The discussion of threatened and endangered species does not imply that these rare species necessarily occur within the area of influence of the proposed action.

Interior Least Tern Currently, the Service lists the interior least tern as endangered. The entire state of Oklahoma, including the refuge and the project area, is included within the migratory flyway of the interior least tern. Interior least terns nest inland of the coast of Texas, and are considered a separate population than the coastal least tern, which is a common nester along the Texas Gulf Coast. The interior least tern is observed on the refuge only rarely during spring and fall migration.

Whooping Crane

14

Hunted Species – Migratory Birds (Dark Geese, Mergansers, and Coot) Currently, the Service lists the whooping crane as endangered. The entire state of Oklahoma, including the refuge and the project area, is included within the migratory flyway of the whooping crane. Breeding populations winter along the Gulf Coast of Texas near Corpus Christi on the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, Matagorda Island, Isla San Jose, and portions of the Lamar Peninsula and Welder Point, which is on the east side of San Antonio Bay.

Up to 75 percent of the nation’s population migrate through Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma annually. While Deep Fork NWR is approximately 150 miles southeast of Salt Plains NWR, it is possible for whooping cranes to be found migrating through the area surrounding Deep Fork NWR in the spring and fall. Whooping cranes are generally found in their nesting area around Wood Buffalo National Park in Alberta, Canada by mid- to late April so their eggs can be laid and they do not venture south until September or October to overwinter on the Gulf Coast of Texas.

Piping Plover Piping plovers breed only in North America in three geographic regions: the Atlantic Coast, the Northern Great Plains, and the Great Lakes. Plovers in the Great Plains make their nests on open, sparsely vegetated sand or gravel beaches adjacent to alkali wetlands, and on beaches, sand bars, and dredged material islands of major river systems. Piping plovers from all three breeding populations winter along South Atlantic, Gulf Coast, and Caribbean beaches and barrier islands, primarily on intertidal beaches with sand and/or mud flats with no or very sparse vegetation.

Piping plover populations were federally listed as threatened and endangered in 1986. The Northern Great Plains and Atlantic Coast populations are threatened, and the Great Lakes population is endangered. Piping plovers are considered threatened throughout their wintering range. According to the last breeding census in 1996, the Northern Great Plains population is the largest of the three breeding populations, numbering approximately 1,398 breeding pairs. The Atlantic Coast population consists of 1,372 breeding pairs and the Great Lakes population was has only 32 breeding pairs. The highest concentration of birds reported in winter censuses are found in Texas, Louisiana, and Florida.

Plovers arrive on the breeding grounds during mid-March through mid-May and remain for 3 to 4 months per year. They lay 3 to 4 eggs in shallow scraped depressions lined with light colored pebbles and shell fragments. The eggs are well camouflaged and blend extremely well with their surroundings. Plovers depart for the wintering grounds from mid-July through late October. Breeding and wintering plovers feed on exposed wet sand in wash zones; intertidal ocean beach; wrack lines; washover passes; mud-, sand-, and algal flats; and shorelines of streams, ephemeral ponds, lagoons, and salt marshes by probing for invertebrates at or just below the surface. They use beaches adjacent to foraging areas for roosting and preening. Small sand dunes, debris, and sparse vegetation within adjacent beaches provide shelter from wind and extreme temperatures. In recent decades, piping plover populations have drastically declined. They might be found on Deep Fork NWR during spring and fall migration, although some periodicals state that the

15

Hunted Species – Migratory Birds (Dark Geese, Mergansers, and Coot) Great Plains population can be found year-round in some parts of Oklahoma. Piping plovers have rarely been observed on the refuge (USFWS 2009).

American Burying Beetle (ABBs) The American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) is between 25 and 45 millimeters long and can be identified by its striking, distinctive coloring. The body is shiny black, and there are four scalloped, orange-red markings on its wing covers. Most distinctively, there is an orange-red marking on the beetle's pronotum, a large shield-like area just behind the head. N. americanus has orange facial markings and orange tips on their large antennae. The beetle is nocturnal and is a strong flier, moving as far as a kilometer in one night.

During the winter months when temperatures are below 15 °C (60 °F). N. americanus adults bury themselves in the soil to overwinter. When temperatures are above 15 °C (60 °F), they emerge from the soil and begin the mating and reproduction process. Male burying beetles often locate carcasses first and then attract a mate. Beetles often fight over the carcass, with usually the largest male and female individuals winning. The victors bury the carcass, the pair mates, and the female lays her eggs in an adjacent tunnel. Within a few days, the larvae develop and both parents feed and tend their young. Brood size usually ranges from 1 to 30 young, but 12 to 15 is the average size.

The larvae spend about a week feeding off the carcass then crawl into the soil to pupate, or develop. Mature N. americanus beetles emerge from the soil 45 to 60 days after their parents initially bury the carcass. Adult ABBs live for only 12 months. Historical records offer little insight into what type of habitat was preferred by the American burying beetle. Current information suggests that this species is a habitat generalist, or one that lives in many types of habitat, with a slight preference for grasslands and open understory oak-hickory forests. However, the beetles are carrion specialists in that they need carrion the size of a dove or a chipmunk in order to reproduce. Carrion availability may be the greatest factor determining where the species can survive.

The endangered ABB is the only known federally listed species to occur on the refuge; it was first document in 2011 (USFWS 2009).

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Current hunting activities on the refuge are not known to have any direct or indirect impacts on threatened or endangered species. Piping plover critical habitat is limited on the refuge so hunting of waterfowl, dark geese, merganser, and coot is not likely to have a direct impact to these species.

ABBs are known to inhabit oak-pine woodlands, open fields, oak- hickory forests, open grasslands, and edge habitats adjacent to or within the refuge. Feral hogs could potentially depredate ABBs or indirectly eliminate the presence of carcasses needed for forage and brood- rearing. Through hunting, and hog population control, the potential for competition between ABBs and feral hogs for carcasses could be reduced (Tate 1984). However, to our knowledge,

16

Hunted Species – Migratory Birds (Dark Geese, Mergansers, and Coot) there is no evidence that feral hogs compete with ABBs for carcasses. Direct impacts on ABBs from hunters are unlikely.

Overall, under the No Action Alternative, the existing habitat conditions would likely remain the same. There would be no expected impacts to threatened and endangered species. However, the possibility does exist that as feral hog numbers continue to increase, piping plover habitat could be destroyed and the likelihood of feral hog impacts to ABBs may increase.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) The impacts would be the same as Alternative A, although this alternative may increase human presence on the refuge hunting will continue to take place at the same locations and times. The disturbance effects to threatened and endangered species may be negligible in the short-term and are not likely to affect piping plover or ABB populations. Further, any reductions to the feral hog population via hunting may have a beneficial impact to threatened and endangered species through a minor decrease in soil disturbance, increased availability of small carcasses (i.e., ABBs), and predation of piping plover and other waterfowl nests.

Vegetation The bottomland hardwood forest ecosystem of eastern Oklahoma is characterized by a great diversity of plant species and communities. Woodlands in areas with regularly saturated soil contain a variety of water-tolerant species, including black willow, river birch, cottonwood, sycamore, swamp privet, and buttonbush. A complex mixture of oaks, black walnut, pecan, hickories, sugarberry, cottonwood, boxelder, green ash, and other hardwood species of all ages occupy somewhat higher ground. The vegetative communities present today have been altered from the mature hardwood forest ecosystem that once existed in the Deep Fork River floodplain. Today, the river bottomlands are a mosaic of open river, streams, oxbows, sloughs, marshes, beaver ponds, bottomland hardwood forest, cut-over areas regenerating with dense brush, pastureland, and pecan groves.

Plant associations occurring on the refuge currently consist of:

(1) Emergent wetlands where floating aquatic vegetation, sedges, bulrushes, and smartweed predominate, and buttonbush, swamp privet, and black willow comprise the woody component, usually growing around the edges of the wetlands.

(2) Seasonally flooded areas with permanently saturated soils that support predominantly brushy species such as swamp privet, hawthorn, and buttonbush with a ground cover of sedges, smartweed, and water-tolerant grasses in some places.

(3) Seasonally flooded bottomlands where soils are not permanently saturated that support a mix of hardwoods, shrubs, vines, and herbaceous plants typical of floodplain forests in the area.

17

Hunted Species – Migratory Birds (Dark Geese, Mergansers, and Coot) (4) Steep upland slopes dominated by post oak/blackjack oak forest.

(5) Gently sloping or level sites above the floodplain that support grassland or grassland/oak savannah. Grasslands in the area are composed of species representative of the tallgrass prairie.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under this alternative, the existing vegetation and habitat conditions would likely remain the same.

Feral hogs may cause problems in aquatic systems, from increased soil erosion and bacterial contamination. Rooting, trampling, and compaction influence plant regeneration, community structure, soil properties, nutrient cycling, and water infiltration. Feral hogs may induce the spread of invasive plant species because invasive species typically favor disturbed areas and colonize more quickly than many native plants. As disturbed areas increase, the occurrence of invasive plants would also increase. Physical damage, as well as the establishment of invasive plant species, would significantly degrade habitat quality.

Competition for food, water, and space between feral hogs and native wildlife would remain the same. Consumption of acorn mast could affect forest health and could impact succession. Destruction of nests of ground-nesting species such as mallard, reptiles and amphibians would continue and likely increase as the hog population increases. Damage to refuge roads, impoundments, and streams and through excessive rooting behavior would likely remain the same.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) This alternative would be similar to Alternative A with a slight increase in human presence from increased hunting opportunities. Negligible impacts are expected to vegetation from trampling caused by hunters, because the number of users and days of use are expected to remain similar to current levels. Vehicles would be restricted to public roads and refuge parking lots. Some impacts may be beneficial as the incidental take of feral hogs by hunters may reduce the impacts of their destructive behavior, such as the spread of invasive species, uprooted plants, and fewer de-vegetated wallows and destruction of wetlands infrastructure.

Soils Flooding patterns largely have determined the nature of soils in bottomland hardwood forest ecosystems. The floodplain soils associated with the Deep Fork River bottom are the Verdigris, Pulaski, Roebuck, and Lightning series. The soils in the upland areas related to this project are the Dennis Silt Loam with a 1–3 percent slope and Parsons Silt Loam with a 0–1 percent slope. Verdigris soils are deep soils that formed in recent alluvium under hardwood forest. Pulaski soils are deep soils that developed in fine, sandy loam under the hardwood forests of the Deep Fork River bottoms. Roebuck soils are deep, poorly-drained clays of the Deep Fork River floodplain. Lightning soils are deep, somewhat poorly drained, fertile soils on bottomlands.

18

Hunted Species – Migratory Birds (Dark Geese, Mergansers, and Coot)

The Dennis Silt Loam consists of deep, very gently sloping or gently sloping soils on uplands. These soils formed under grass, in material weathered from silty shale or clay. Dennis soils absorb water moderately well and have good water-holding capacity. They are medium acid and moderately high in fertility. They are easy to work. The Parsons series consists of deep, nearly level or very gently sloping soils. These soils formed under grass in material weathered from silty shale or in deposits of old loess or alluvium over shale. Parsons soils are moderately fertile and medium acid. They are easy to work. In wet weather, these soils have a temporary water table above the clay subsoil. They absorb water slowly. The water-holding capacity is good, but the moisture held is not readily available to plants because of the heavy subsoil, which is difficult for roots to penetrate.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) No impacts to soils are expected from continuation of current management.

Current hunting activities on the refuge are not known to have any direct or indirect effects on soil quality based on the current level of foot traffic on the hunt units. Vehicles are confined to public access roads and parking areas. Feral hog populations, however, would continue to grow, thus increasing the potential for impacts on soil resources. Feral hogs damage wetland infrastructure, which leads to increased soil destabilization and erosion. Also, continued disruption of soil resources will hinder the establishment and maintenance of native habitats and wetlands by allowing invasive plant species to become established on disturbed sites.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) The proposed action would result in a negligible increase in disturbance to surface soils by compaction from foot traffic compared to Alternative A. These impacts are expected to be negligible because vehicles would continue to be confined to public access roads and parking facilities. In addition, the small increase in hunter visits compared to overall public use on the refuge is considered minor. Increased take of feral hogs, may reduce potential impacts on soil resources, wetland infrastructure and native habitat.

Air Quality Air quality in east-central Oklahoma is excellent, as would be expected in a primarily rural area that has limited industry. Accordingly, no permanent air monitoring stations have been established in Okmulgee County. The refuge is designated as Class 1 land under the guidelines provided in the 1977 Clean Air Act, a classification that contains provisions to maintain high air quality.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) No impacts to air quality are expected from continuation of current management. The current level of public use on the refuge (which is approximately 70,000 visits per year based on 2018 data) does not appear to be impacting air quality, as current air quality in the area meets air quality standards established by EPA. Hunting accounts for approximately 5

19

Hunted Species – Migratory Birds (Dark Geese, Mergansers, and Coot) percent (3,520 visits per year) of total visitation on the refuge. Hunter traffic on roads and trails may cause a slight decrease in air quality due to vehicle emissions and the stirring of road dust. These impacts are negligible, short-term, and local.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) No impacts to air quality are expected from the proposed action. With additional species being added to the waterfowl hunt, we can expect that there will be a limited increase in the number of hunter visits. Increased hunting traffic on roads and trails would result in a slight increase in vehicle emissions and stirring of dust; however, this impact is expected to be negligible and short-term at the local scale. The slight increase in the amount of traffic that results from increased hunter activity would be spread out over the same acreage as Alternative A. This small increase in the number of hunter visits when compared to overall public use on the refuge is considered negligible; no changes to air quality are anticipated.

Water Resources The Deep Fork River drains a watershed of approximately 2,548 square miles. The River originates in western Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and flows generally easterly for 230 miles through Lincoln, Creek, Okfuskee, and Okmulgee Counties to its confluence with the North Canadian River in Eufaula Reservoir in McIntosh County. At least thirteen named streams (i.e., Salt, Little Deep Fork, Negro, Honey, Okmulgee, Cussetah, Fourmile, Montezuma, Burgess, Moore, Coal, Wolf and Grave Creeks) feed the Deep Fork River within Okmulgee County.

The Deep Fork watershed is comprised of hilly terrain that accelerates runoff and causes frequent flooding. Reservoir construction, channelization, conversion of the floodplain to agricultural uses, and the addition of numerous, small floodwater-retarding structures have significantly moderated the natural flooding regime of the river. Major flooding along the Deep Fork occurs roughly once every five years, moderate flooding once every 1.5 years, and minor flooding twice per year.

Ground elevations on the refuge range from nearly 900 feet above sea level on the highest upland site to 590 feet above sea level along the river channel in the bottoms near the southern refuge boundary. Most of the refuge is located within the 100-year floodplain, and over 80 percent of it floods at least once a year except during very dry periods. On some parts of the refuge, watermarks on the trees are ten feet high.

Eufaula Reservoir, completed in 1964, inundated the southernmost reach of the Deep Fork River. The reservoir backs up into the southern part of the refuge during floods as the water level approaches the limits of the reservoir's flood pool.

Wetland areas include the Deep Fork River, sloughs, oxbow lakes, shallow wetlands, flooded scrub/shrub, and flooded woodlands.

The refuge has conducted an extensive and prolonged water quality-monitoring program in the Deep Fork River. Baseline contaminants data was collected in the confluences of most of the

20

Hunted Species – Migratory Birds (Dark Geese, Mergansers, and Coot) major streams. The refuge participates in a program administered by the Oklahoma State Conservation Districts called “Blue Thumb.” The “Blue Thumb” program uses volunteers to collect and analyze water samples collected at various places along the river at monthly intervals. The refuge has also been involved in contaminant cases involving improper discharges into the Deep Fork River by a municipality and by a local food product manufacturer. Various illegal discharges into the river have resulted in significant mortality and stress of aquatic life at various times of the refuge history. Only the continual monitoring and possible enforcement action can help ensure high water quality in the river. Water quality in other wetlands on the refuge has not been tested.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) No impacts to water resources or wetlands are expected from continuation of current management. Current hunting activities are not known to have any direct effects on water quality. However, there may be indirect beneficial effects as a result of reducing the number of feral hogs on the refuge. The rooting and digging behavior of feral hogs increases the potential for soil erosion, which could lead to decreased water quality due to sediment deposition.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) The proposed hunting activities would be similar to Alternative A; however, there may be a beneficial effect as a result of reduced feral hog numbers. The alternative may slightly improve water quality because there would be fewer hogs to cause turbidity.

Affected Visitor Use and Experience Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Visitor Use and Experience Outdoor recreation is a significant aspect of the culture and tradition of the people in Eastern Oklahoma. A significant percentage of the local public around the refuge participate in outdoor activities such as hunting and fishing. The refuge also attracts a significant amount of non-consumptive users. Activities such as hiking, wildlife observation, and photography are gaining popularity. The refuge receives about 70,000 visitors annually. The breakdown of average annual refuge visits for each use is as follows: hunting (3,500), fishing (3,000), wildlife observation (13,000), and wildlife photography (2,700).

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) No impacts to visitor use and experience are expected from continuation of current management.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative)

21

Visitor Use and Experience We estimate visitation for the hunting of dark geese, merganser, and coot to remain the same or slightly increase. To minimize potential conflicts, the waterfowl hunt season would be the same as current refuge waterfowl hunting dates and times.

Minimal conflicts, none of consequence, are expected between sport anglers, big game, migratory game bird and upland/small game hunters. Overlap of hunting area usage between sport anglers, migratory bird hunters, and big game hunters may occur, but is expected to be minimal due to the dissimilar nature of these activities and the areas of the refuge where these activities may be expected to occur.

The demand for non-consumptive wildlife-oriented use on Deep Fork NWR continues to grow. Conflicts between hunters and non-consumptive users may occur. Providing non- consumptive users access to wildlife viewing areas, notifications of when users are entering a hunting area and even closing a hunting area to non-consumptive users if appropriate will reduce conflicts. In addition, restrictions on hunting methods and restrictions on hunting near designated public use facilities and trails should aid in reducing potential conflicts between hunters and non-consumptive users. Should serious conflicts arise, considerations will be given to changes in time and space scheduling and/or zoning. Decisions will be based on minimizing impacts to various user groups, and best management practices for wildlife.

Affected Cultural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Cultural Resources No systematic archeological or historic site surveys have been conducted on the refuge. No cultural resource assessments or overviews are currently available for the refuge. As such, inferences about the archeological and historical contexts of the Deep Fork area can be extrapolated only from published reports of field investigations in neighboring districts of Oklahoma.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under this alternative, there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts to the cultural environment, as current conditions would be maintained, and no ground disturbance would occur.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts would be the same as Alternative A.

22

Affected Refuge Management and Operations Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Refuge Management and Operations At this time, few administrative conflicts are known to occur with hunting activities. Refuge management sets priorities, allowing visitor services staff sufficient time to administer the hunting program. The refuge posts boundary markers/signs around in-holdings and along refuge boundaries so that hunters are aware of the refuge’s boundary and so that hunters do not trespass on private land. The refuge does not open lands to hunting that have access through private lands or where there is limited acreage. Currently, the refuge employs a full-time federal wildlife officer. Additional law enforcement assistance may be sought from other refuges, Service special agents, or state game wardens, when deemed necessary.

Fall maintenance activities that occur during hunting seasons may include prescribed burns, maintenance of fences, gates, signs, water control structures, and roads. These activities can be managed to not interfere with hunting opportunities while allowing needed work to be accomplished. Some research activities may extend into the fall and will be separated from hunting areas when possible.

Direct and Indirect Impacts No additional facilities would be needed under the no action and proposed alternative. Maintenance or improvement of existing facilities (i.e., parking areas, roads, trails, and boat ramps) will cause minimal short-term impacts to localized soils and waters and may cause some wildlife disturbances and damage to vegetation. The facility maintenance and improvement activities described are periodically conducted to accommodate daily refuge management operations and other recreational users. These activities will be conducted at times (seasonal and/or daily) that cause the least amount of disturbance to wildlife. During times when roads are impassable due to flood events or other natural causes those roads, parking lots, trails and boat ramps impacted by the event will be closed to vehicular use.

Affected Socioeconomic Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Socioeconomics The refuge is located approximately 1 mile from the city of Okmulgee, Oklahoma, with a population of 12,321 as of 2012. Several other small towns are also within ten to twenty miles. The predominant land uses near the refuge are grazing and some oil and gas development. The refuge averages about 70,000 visitors per year.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) The economic and social condition of the area would remain the same. The refuge would continue to be one of the area’s main attractions. The presence and operation of the refuge provides economic benefits to the surrounding communities within a 30-mile radius in several ways. The refuge attracts visitors and by attracting visitors to the area, the refuge generates revenue for the local economy. Much of the refuge’s annual budget is recycled into local

23

Socioeconomics businesses through refuge staff, purchases of equipment and supplies, as well as contracts for local labor to accomplish refuge projects. The refuge provides full-time employment for five to six individuals that live in nearby communities.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Overall, the economic and social condition of the area would remain relatively the same as in Alternative A; increase of waterfowl hunting visitation is anticipated to result in more visits to the refuge and generate revenue to the local economy. These revenues represent a negligible impact in the context of the Okmulgee County economy. Climate Change Warming, whether it results from anthropogenic or natural sources, is expected to affect a variety of natural processes and associated resources. However, the complexity of ecological systems means that 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.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A The refuge believes that its hunt program will have negligible impacts on climate change; however, much is unknown about this subject. The Service has recently addressed the subject of climate change with the issuance of the publication "Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change." This five-year plan calls for developing long-term processes and protocols for biological planning and conservation at broad, landscape scales. This five-year action plan calls for baseline data to be established. Refuges to date have no information or data regarding their carbon footprint. This subject will be further addressed as future direction is developed and provided on how to step this Strategic Plan down to the field level.

Alternative B The refuge does not anticipate any additional impacts on climate change from the proposed action.

Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under current management, there will be mortality of ducks and feral hogs. All hunters must comply with ODWC’s regulations regarding the possession of Hunters Education certification. During this course, established hunter ethics and responsibilities to help ensure hunters are using good judgment related to humaneness and animal welfare are addressed. Accurate,

24

Socioeconomics clean shots are expected. The target should be within the effective range of the firearm, ammunition, bow and arrow, and the skills of the hunter; and a humane kill is likely.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) This alternative will be the same as Alternative A with the addition of mortality to dark geese, mergansers and coots.

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

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

Indian Trust Resources A private Native American cemetery is located on refuge, but is not within the areas open to hunting.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Because the cemetery is not in an area open to hunting, no Indian trust resources will be impacted by either alternative described in the EA.

Anticipated Cumulative Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Natural Resources Waterfowl populations throughout the United States are managed through an administrative process known as flyways. The refuge is located in the Central Flyway. In North America, the process for establishing waterfowl hunting regulations is conducted annually. In the United States, the process involves a number of scheduled meetings (Flyway Study Committees, Flyway Councils, Service Regulations Committee, etc.) in which information regarding the status of waterfowl populations and their habitats is presented to individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, public hearings are held and the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public comment.

Annual waterfowl assessments are based upon the distribution, abundance, and flight corridors of migratory birds. An Annual Waterfowl Population Status Report is produced each year and

25

Natural Resources includes the most current breeding population and production information available for waterfowl in North America (USFWS 2010a). The Report is a cooperative effort by the Service, the Canadian Wildlife Service, various state and provincial conservation agencies, and private conservation organizations. An Annual Adaptive Harvest Management Report (AHM) provides the most current data, analyses, and decision-making protocols (USFWS 2010b). These reports are intended to aid the development of waterfowl harvest regulations in the United States for each hunting season.

We believe that hunting on the refuge will not add significantly to the cumulative impacts of migratory waterfowl management on local, regional, or Central Flyway waterfowl populations because the percentage likely to be taken on the refuge, though possibly additive to existing hunting takes, would be a tiny fraction of the estimated populations. In addition, overall populations will continue to be monitored and future harvests will be adjusted as needed under the existing flyway and state regulatory processes. Several points support this conclusion: 1) the proportion of the national waterfowl harvest that occurs on national wildlife refuges is only 6 percent (US DOI 2009); 2) there are no waterfowl populations that exist wholly and exclusively on national wildlife refuges; 3) annual hunting regulations within the United States are established at levels consistent with the current population status; 4) refuges cannot permit more liberal seasons than provided for in Federal frameworks; and 5) refuges purchased with funds derived from the Federal Duck Stamp must limit hunting to 40 percent of the available area.

Past and present hog control strategies include incidental take during existing big game hunting and various control methods including trapping, limited use of hog baying dogs, shooting and refuge personnel, volunteers, or contractors. All these activities result in the removal of approximately 350 hogs per year. Fewer feral hogs will reduce the impacts of their destructive behavior, such as the spread of invasive species, uprooted plants, destroyed bird nests, impacted amphibians and reptiles, and fewer de-vegetated wallows. The ODWC states an estimated 600,000 to 1.5 million feral hog population in Oklahoma. Feral hogs are prevalent in 70 of the state’s 77 counties (ODWC 2018). Though hunting of feral hogs may result in a small reduction locally, the removal of hogs as outlined in the proposed action is incrementally negligible when put in the context of the estimated state population and rapid hog reproductive rates.

Most of the private landowners surrounding the refuge are ranchers whom allow hunting of deer, feral hog, waterfowl, and turkey through leases. As far as public lands near the refuge, the Okmulgee Lake and Recreation Area and Dripping Springs State Park are closed to hunting, and the Okmulgee Wildlife Management Area/Wildlife Production Area is open to hunting of most state species.

No cumulative impacts are anticipated from increased opportunities for migratory bird and feral hog hunting on the refuge on any of the aforementioned natural resources for the following reasons.

26

Natural Resources Although hunting of feral hogs may result in a small reduction locally, minimal impacts to refuge habitats, other wildlife, and threatened and endangered species that depend on them is expected because the feral hog population is unlikely to be affected by increased hunting.

Seventy thousand visitors came the refuge in FY 18 and visitation, including hunter visits for big game, has steadily increased over the last ten years. Visitation for migratory bird hunting has remained virtually unchanged during the same time period. Increased overall visitation may increase disturbance effects on the refuge, but we anticipate a minimal increase or no change in the number of waterfowl hunters and other visitors and associated disturbance levels. Non-hunting visitors of the refuge are likely to remain in areas specifically designed for high public use, and the amount of habitat free from disturbance should not decrease.

The refuge is planning a 65-acre reforestation project and a 16-acre wetland restoration project in the next year or two. While these projects are occurring, there are some expected short-term negative impacts on resident wildlife that use those areas due to disturbance of the areas, vegetation that is removed including pole-size willow trees in the wetland area, soils from trampling and use of heavy machinery, and air quality from increased dust and particulate matter in the air. We also anticipate that these projects will have beneficial long-term impacts on wildlife species that prefer forested and wetland habitats, air quality from increased vegetation, and water quality from improved filtration.

The disturbance effects to threatened and endangered species may be negligible in the short- term and are not likely to affect piping plovers or other imperiled species cumulatively.

No cumulative impacts are expected to vegetation from increased hunting opportunities because the number of hunters, hunt days, and hunt areas are expected to remain similar to current management, and hunting for migratory birds occurs during the fall and winter when vegetation on the refuge is dormant.

The proposed action may result in minor cumulative impacts from disturbance to surface soils by compaction from foot and vehicle traffic from possible minor increases in visitation of other user groups during the 15-year life of the hunt plan. Visitation by all users has almost tripled since 2008 and continued visitation increases are likely, although hunter use may stay the same or increase only slightly.

No cumulative impacts to air quality are expected from the proposed action. Although there may be a limited increase in hunter visits and a slight increase in vehicle emissions and stirring of dust, this impact is expected to be negligible and short-term at the local scale. Even with a potential increases in visitation by all other user groups on top of the slight increase in hunt visits, no changes to air quality are anticipated. There is oil and gas infrastructure in areas around the refuge that release natural gas and oil into the air. The amount released is not expected to have major impacts on refuge resources.

No cumulative impacts are expected to water quality from opening additional migratory game bird and feral hog opportunities because impacts are expected to be very similar to current

27

Natural Resources conditions. Hunt visits would not increase significantly and may only contribute negligibly to improved water quality. External factors may negatively or positively affect water quality in the Deep Fork River, but refuge management actions have had no quantifiable effects to date on water quality. CP Kelco, a large company located within one mile of the refuge boundary in the southeast part of the city of Okmulgee, produces xanthan gum, cellulose, and whey protein. By dumping their wastewater directly into the Deep Fork River, CP Kelco was responsible for a large mussel kill several years ago. There is also a wastewater treatment plant also located on the southeast part of the city of Okmulgee. There have been several oil and brine spills in the past. These plants have a moderately negative cumulative impact on water quality of the Deep Fork River, sloughs, oxbows, ponds, and creeks of the refuge and thus may negatively impact wildlife and aquatic species that use these water sources for habitat, food, and water.

Visitor Use and Experience Oklahoma has limited public lands open for hunting, as roughly 97 percent of the state is privately owned. The additional dark geese, merganser, and coot hunts would provide increased opportunities for the hunting community in Oklahoma. Since there is very limited opportunity to publicly hunt dark geese, merganser, and coot throughout the state, creating this new opportunity may have incrementally minor beneficial impacts on the visitor experience, specifically for hunters.

The refuge would use an adaptive management approach for its hunt program, reviewing the hunt program annually and revising annually (if necessary). The refuge can adjust its season dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other options to ensure that the wildlife populations are sustainable and visitors have a variety of opportunities while visiting the refuge.

Other Wildlife-Dependent Recreation (i.e., road and trail development and use) There are no anticipated cumulative impacts from Alternative A.

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, as public use levels expand across time, unanticipated conflicts between user groups may occur. The refuge's visitor use programs would be adjusted as needed to eliminate or minimize problems and provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Experience has proven that time and space zoning (e.g., establishment of separate use areas, use periods, and restrictions on the number of users) is an effective tool in eliminating conflicts between user groups. This would continue under Alternative B. The refuge would control access under the Proposed Action to minimize wildlife disturbance and habitat degradation, while allowing compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. During times when roads are impassible due to flood events or other natural causes those roads, parking lots, trails and boat ramps impacted by the event will be closed to vehicular use.

Use of Lead Ammunition/Tackle There are no anticipated cumulative impacts from Alternative A or Alternative B as the refuge allows only federally approved non-toxic shot for the take of migratory birds and upland game (with the exception of rimfire weapons use). Lead ammunition is allowed for white-tailed deer, turkey, and upland game hunting but the refuge’s percentage of harvest is only a small

28

Natural Resources portion of the total state harvest. Therefore the continued allowance of lead ammunition has a negligible impact on the cumulative impacts of lead in the environment.

Cultural Resources Since establishment, the refuge had completed very little excavating or significant ground disturbing activities and all known or suspected sites are protected from disturbance. The slight increase in foot traffic from the additional hunting opportunities will have no impact on known or suspected sites; therefore, no cumulative impacts to cultural resources are anticipated.

Refuge Management and Operations Deep Fork NWR offers a variety of wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, interpretation, and environmental education) and conducts various administrative activities including a wetlands management program to support habitat management and recreational opportunities. These activities require staff time and resources (vehicle, heavy equipment operation, fuel, etc). All of these activities require the use of roads, trails, and parking. Periodic maintenance or improvement of the existing small parking areas, roads, and trails are needed depending on the number of visitors and volume of hunters. The additional hunting opportunities would be incorporated into the refuge’s operations and maintenance budget and will not diminish resources dedicated to other refuge management programs. Additionally, the migratory game bird species hunts added would use existing facilities and those that are slated to be improved under current management. Therefore, when looking at the current refuge management activities and the additional number of hunters, the proposed action would have negligible impacts on refuge management and operations.

Socioeconomics Development and Population Increase Under current management, there are no anticipated cumulative impacts.

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, beyond increases in traffic to the local area, the refuge is not aware of any past, present, or future planned actions that would result in a significant cumulative impact. The adverse direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on air, water, soil, habitat, and wildlife are expected to be minor and short term. The benefits to long- term ecosystem health provided by the refuge will far outweigh any of the short-term adverse impacts discussed in this document. Environmental education is vital to understanding the NWRS and our Nation’s wildlife heritage and outdoor experiences play a crucial role in helping shape positive lifelong attitudes toward wildlife and nature.

Development and population growth are the events, which are most likely to affect waterfowl. Population growth in Okmulgee County in stagnant, but Tulsa County is expanding. The continuing loss of wetland habitat to urbanization over time will result in smaller numbers of waterfowl along the Deep Fork River.

Agricultural Land Uses

29

Natural Resources Agricultural land use around the refuge is predominately pastureland or pecan orchard with a small acreage of cropland. Forested lands are being converted to ranching lands within two miles of the refuge boundary. This is resulting in additional wildlife moving onto refuge lands and increased habitat fragmentation. The refuge has no cooperative or refuge based farming programs. So no impacts from agriculture on the refuge are expected under Alternatives A and B.

Surrounding agricultural land use is not expected to change in the near future; therefore, there are no anticipated cumulative impacts on the refuge.

Climate Change No cumulative impacts on climate change are anticipated from either alternative.

Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns No cumulative impacts on humaneness and animal welfare are expected from either alternative.

Environmental Justice No cumulative impacts are expected on environmental justice from either alternative.

Indian Trust Resources No cumulative impacts to Indian trust resources are expected from either alternative.

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 the No Action Alternative, no direct impacts are expected to occur to dark geese, mergansers, and coots under current management. There would be no additional impacts on natural resources including air quality, soils, vegetation, and water quality.

No additional impacts would occur to the visitor experience through potential conflicts between migratory bird hunters and other user groups. However, conflicts would continue to be minor due to limited number of hunt days and the No Hunt Zone around the visitor center and non- hunting recreational facilities. The refuge would remain open to other public uses during these hunts. Minor beneficial impacts to the socioeconomic environment would occur through capital expenditures in the local economy by migratory bird hunters.

No additional impacts to cultural resources are expected to occur due to the majority of cultural resources occurring under the ground surface.

30

Minor adverse impacts would continue to occur to refuge administration and facilities. Under the no action alternative, migratory bird hunts would require no more staff time to conduct hunt briefings, and assist hunters. Costs are expected to remain the same because the refuge would use resources already available for current waterfowl hunts.

The no action alternative meets the purpose and needs of the Service as described in this EA because it provides wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. However, it limits the opportunity to have a sustainable harvest of dark geese, mergansers, and coots and better align with the ODWC seasons and dates.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative As described in this EA, dark goose, merganser, and coot hunting would have negligible impacts on natural resources including air quality, soils, vegetation, and water quality. Any impacts are reduced by the limited amount of hunters and hunt days. There would be minor beneficial impacts to water, soils, and vegetation due to the possible take of feral hogs. There would be minor adverse impacts to other wildlife through disturbance, which would be mitigated through only allowing a lower number hunt days from the State seasons. There would be minor beneficial impacts to threatened and endangered species (ABBs) and piping plover from the take of feral hogs.

Some minor adverse impacts would occur to the visitor experience through potential conflicts between migratory bird hunters and other user groups. However, conflicts would be minor due to limited number of hunt days and the No Hunt Zone around the visitor center and non-hunting recreational facilities. The refuge would remain open to other public uses during these hunts. Minor beneficial impacts to the socioeconomic environment would occur through capital expenditures in the local economy by additional migratory bird hunters.

Negligible impacts to cultural resources are expected to occur due to the majority of cultural resources occurring under the ground surface.

Minor adverse impacts would occur to refuge administration and facilities. The addition of species to the waterfowl and migratory bird hunts would require no more staff time to conduct hunt briefings, and assist hunters. No startup costs are expected because the refuge would use resources already used for current waterfowl hunts.

This alternative helps meet the purpose and needs of the Service as described in this EA, because it provides additional wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities and also creates additional opportunities to inform the public about the benefits of using hunting as a wildlife management tool. These hunts will help preserve the biological diversity on the refuge by reducing the negative environmental impacts associated with feral hogs. The Service has determined that the proposed action is compatible with the purposes of Deep Fork 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

31

conduct, deer, turkey, 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 and goose 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 at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/policies-and- regulations/FSEISIssuanceofAnnualRegulations.pdf.)

List of Sources, Agencies, and Persons Consulted • The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, OK

References Beach, R. 1993. Depredation problems involving feral hogs. Pages 67-93 in C.W. Hanselka and J.F. Cadenhead, eds. Feral Swine: A compendium for resource managers. Texas Agric. Ext. Service, College Station, Tex.

Taylor, R. 1991. The feral hog in Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Federal Aid Report Series No. 28. 21pp.

Tate, J. 1984. Techniques in controlling wild hogs in Great Smokey Mountains National Park; Proceedings of a workshop National Park Service Research/Resources Manage. Report SER-72, Nov. 1984.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Building of Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge Administrative Office and Visitor Contact Facilities: Environmental Assessment.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Hunting of Migratory Birds: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

List of Preparers Todd Gallion, Refuge Manager Carl Millegan, Refuge Supervisor Juli Niemann, Regional Hunt Coordinator

State Coordination Refuge staff met with ODWC representatives on June 11, 2018, to discuss the current hunting program and recommendations for the future. During that meeting, the ODWC offered a suggestion for the proposed alternative.

32

Tribal Consultation A letter was sent out to all the tribes in Oklahoma on January 16, 2019 identifying hunting and fishing opportunities that are being evaluated for each national wildlife refuge in Oklahoma beginning in the fall of 2019. The Service offered the chance for the tribes to consult on the proposals.

Public Outreach Public scoping was initiated September 10, 2018 through September 23, 2018, to request input from the public about the proposed update to the Deep Fork NWR Hunt Plan. A public notice was produced and displayed at the refuge headquarters, sent to local media, and posted on the refuge website.

Determination This section will be filled out upon completion of any public comment period and at the time of finalization of the Environmental Assessment.

☐ The Service’s action will not result in a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. See the attached “Finding of No Significant Impact”.

☐ The Service’s action may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and the Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

Preparer Signature: ______Date:______

Name/Title/Organization: ______

______

Reviewer Signature: ______Date:______

Name/Title: ______

33

Appendix 1 OTHER APPLICABLE STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS & REGULATIONS

34

Cultural Resources The proposed action includes no ground-disturbing activities, or other activities that might disturb undocumented American Indian Religious Freedom Act, as paleontological, archaeological, or historic sites. 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

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as There are no known federal threatened or endangered species amended, 16 U.S.C. 668-668c, 50 CFR 22 on the refuge (See ESA Section 7 Consultation). The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 13186 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, because the Environmental Assessment for Open and Expand 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 36 CFR Part 13; 50 hunting opportunities for migratory game birds (dark geese, CFR Parts 10, 17, 23, 81, 217, 222, 225, 402, merganser, and coot) on Deep Fork NWR evaluates the effects and 450 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

35

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 Deep Fork

NWR for wilderness designation and concluded that the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401- refuge does not meet the basic criteria for inclusion into the 7671q; 40 CFR Parts 23, 50, 51, 52, 58, 60, National Wilderness Preservation System. 61, 82, and 93; 48 CFR Part 23 The Service has evaluated the eligibility of streams on Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq. Deep Fork NWR for wild and scenic river designation and concluded no streams meet the basic criteria for inclusion Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. et seq. The proposed action would have negligible effects to

air quality. Executive Order 13112 – Invasive 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

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

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)

36