DRAFT Environmental Assessment for the Proposed 2019 Fishing Plan for the Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Date: February 2019

Correspondence 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. Other applicable statutes, executive orders and regulation compliance is addressed in the Appendix (Appendix A).

Proposed Action: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to open fishing opportunities for species open by state regulations on the Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) in accordance with the refuge’s proposed 2019 Fishing Plan. The refuge is authorized for 540 acres and is currently at 304 acres. All 304 acres in the refuge would be opened to fishing. As additional lands are acquired (up to 236 acres) they will also be open to fishing of all species identified in this plan after completing required compliance needs. The refuge ownership is constantly changing as new land is acquired.

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 partnering 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 Refuge-Specific Sport Fishing Regulations. The Service cannot open a refuge to fishing until a final rule has been published in the Federal Register formally opening the refuge to 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 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1956. Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1999 to protect, restore and manage coastal wetland, floodplain forest, and spring-fed stream habitat along the south shore of Lake Superior in Chequamegon Bay near Ashland, Wisconsin. The refuge is authorized for 540 acres along lower Whittlesey Creek and 1,260 acres of easements in the 12,000-acre Whittlesey Creek watershed. The purposes of the Whittlesey Creek Refuge derive from the Fish and

Wildlife Act of 1956: “...for the development, advancement, management , conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources…” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) [and]”...for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude…” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).

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.

In an effort to eliminate confusion over legal access to state waters that are currently open to fishing that lie within the refuge we are proposing to align refuge regulations with state regulations by opening the refuge to fishing. Refuge regulations currently do not allow fishing, but according to state law, individuals may walk in the creek and legally fish.

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action:

The purpose of this proposed action is to provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on Whittlesey Creek 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 Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015) identified opening the refuge to fishing in accordance with state regulations as a strategy. Refuge regulations currently do not allow fishing, but according to state law, individuals may walk in the creek and legally fish. By aligning refuge regulations through Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Wildlife and Sport Fisheries with state regulations, we hope to minimize confusion for the visiting public.

Alternatives Considered

Alternative A –Open Refuge to Sport Fishing Pursuant to State Regulations – Proposed Action Alternative:

The refuge has prepared a fishing plan (Appendix B), which is presented in this document as the Proposed Action Alternative.

Under the Proposed Action Alternative,the refuge will be open pursuant to Wisconsin state fishing regulations. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin DNR) publishes their regulations each year and are available on line at: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/regulations/.

Specific information related to trout fishing is also included in the state fishing regulations: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/regulations/TroutRegs.html.

Specific information related to spearing, netting, and bait harvest regulations is also included in the state regulations as they relate to sport fishing on the refuge: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/documents/regulations/

Whittlesey Creek is specifically listed in the state trout regulations with the following restrictions: WHITTLESEY CREEK (LS)—Downstream from Town Hall Road Open season: May 4 at 5:00 a.m. to November 15 Daily bag limit: 5 trout and salmon in total, only 2 of which may be brown trout over 15" and only 1 of which may be a rainbow trout and all brook trout must be immediately released. Length limit: brown trout 10", salmon 12" and rainbow trout 26".

Areas open to fishing would include 304 acres in the refuge and as additional lands are acquired they would also be opened to fishing after completing required compliance needs. The refuge ownership is constantly changing as new land is acquired.

Fishing periods will correspond with state regulations. As additional lands are acquired and refuge management programs are instituted, it may become necessary to impose some

regulations that are more restrictive than state laws (i.e. closed areas, size limits). These modifications will be included during the annual amendment process through the Federal Register and the public will be informed through media and posting.

Refuge-specific regulations will be published in the Federal Register as part of the 2019-2020 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations. Refuge specific regulations include: 1. Fishing is permitted in daylight hours only 2. We prohibit the taking of any mussel (clam), crayfish, frog, leech, and turtle species by any method on the refuge (see §27.21 of this chapter).

Mitigation Measures to Avoid Conflicts: ● We do not anticipate any conflict between other recreational uses of the refuge and fishing. The boundary of most lands owned by the Service are posted with refuge boundary signs. Areas administratively closed to fishing will be clearly marked with “No Fishing Zone” or “Area Beyond This Sign Closed” signs. ● Refuge management activities can be accomplished without conflict with fishing activities through the use of administratively closed areas, timing of fishing, size limits, and methods of fishing. There may be times when refuge stream habitat restoration programs or fish surveys need to occur and would limit fishing access on certain areas of the refuge. Habitat restoration activities would generally close a short length of creek for an extended period of time while fish surveys would impact the entire creek for less than a week.

Under the proposed action alternative, fishing would occur on the refuge consistent with state law. This experience provides a recreational opportunity to the public. The estimated cost to operate a fishing program on the refuge is estimated to be less than $500. Under this alternative additional signage will be necessary as well as administrative changes to the website and other notifications to the public.

This alternative offers increased opportunities for public fishing and fulfills the Service’s mandate under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Service has determined that the fishing plan is compatible with the purposes of the Whittlesey Creek Refuge and the mission of the NWRS (Appendix B).

Alternative B – Continue Water Access Only For Fishing Pursuant to State Regulations– [No Action Alternative]:

Under this alternative the refuge continues to be open to fishing by water access only pursuant to Wisconsin state regulations. The refuge would not provide over land access to fishing locations and refuge parking lots would not be available for use by anglers. Under the existing conditions, the refuge does not promote fishing and would not provide educational materials to anglers. Impacts on refuge resources would continue at the same level as current with some anglers accessing the creeks via water.

Affected Environment

The refuge consists of approximately 304 acres in Bayfield County, Wisconsin. A map of the refuge shows the refuge boundary and areas currently in refuge ownership (Appendix C). The entire refuge is open to fishing.

Whittlesey Creek Refuge is primarily floodplain forest, spring fed stream habitat and coastal wetland. The proposed action to open fishing would cover the entire refuge.

Tables 1-6 provides additional, brief descriptions of each resource affected by the proposed action.

For more information regarding the affected environment, please see Chapter 3 of the refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/103395.

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

Tables 1-5 provide: 1. A brief description of the affected resources in the proposed action area; 2. Impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives on those resources, including direct and indirect effects.

Table 6. provides a brief description of the cumulative impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives.

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.

TABLE 1. AFFECTED NATURAL RESOURCES AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

NATURAL RESOURCES

AFFECTED RESOURCE ANTICIPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Species to Be Fished Alternative A: Fish species open to harvest per Wisconsin DNR regulations. For Coaster Brook Trout: Since Whittlesey Creek is designated a no-kill Whittlesey Creek Refuge these species zone or catch and release for brook trout we do not anticipate any would also include coho salmon, impacts to this population. Catch and release may result in a low level brook trout, brown trout and steelhead of mortality for fish. Although estimates may vary according to water in the fall. Steelhead would also be a temperature and other variables, a study in northern Wisconsin in popular spring species. Douglas County estimated that short term mortality for rainbow trout averaged less than 4% (DuBois and Dubielzig, 2004). Brook Trout: According to the summary in the Experiment to Other Fish Open to Wisconsin Regulations: Wisconsin DNR in Establish A Self-Sustaining Brook cooperation with partners manages fish populations and harvest limits Trout Population in Whittlesey Creek in Lake Superior and Lake Superior tributaries. Whittlesey Creek (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015), Refuge is a very small part of the overall harvest of Lake Superior brook trout abundance and distribution tributary streams so we do not anticipate any impacts to overall harvest was determined during surveys from opening the refuge to fishing. conducted by Wisconsin DNR in 1997 Alternative B: and by the Wisconsin DNR and the Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative A. However, Service in 2001 and 2002. anglers would not be crossing refuge lands to access streams so fishing Comparative data from these surveys would continue to be limited to those individuals fishing in the stream. indicates that abundance declined 7% from 1977 to 2001. The apparent Coaster Brook Trout: Fishing in the stream is allowed under this decline in abundance may be a result alternative and since Whittlesey Creek is designated a no-kill zone or of in-stream habitat changes caused by catch and release for brook trout we do not anticipate any impacts to floods over the 24 year time period this population. Catch and release may result in a low level of mortality between surveys. Brook trout are a for fish. Although estimates may vary according to water temperature catch and release species on and other variables a study in northern Wisconsin in Douglas County Whittlesey Creek. estimated that short term mortality for rainbow trout averaged less than 4% (DuBois and Dubielzig, 2004). Other Species: Wisconsin DNR sets limits and size Other Fish Open to Wisconsin Regulations: Wisconsin DNR in for all species of fish harvested in cooperation with partners manages fish populations and harvest limits Wisconsin. Fish species to be in Lake Superior and Lake Superior tributaries. Currently fishing can harvested on the refuge vary with occur on the lake superior shoreline of the refuge, however the refuge is location from the creeks on the refuge a very small part of this overall harvest so we do not anticipate any to shore fishing on Lake Superior. impacts to overall harvest of Lake Superior. Wisconsin DNR is currently developing an updated Lake Superior fisheries management plan. https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Fishing/lakesu perior/LakeSuperiorFishManagementP lan.html Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species Alternative A: The refuge supports a diversity of wildlife species of northern We do not anticipate that the fishing program on Whittlesey Creek Wisconsin, including game and Refuge will impact wildlife and aquatic species on the refuge. There nongame species, reptiles, amphibians, may be a small increase in angler activity on the creek and the shore of and invertebrates, which are important Lake Superior. Migratory songbird use of the refuge peaks in mid May contributors to the overall biodiversity and mid September. Temporary disturbance by anglers may on the refuge. Songbirds, raptors, and temporarily displace some species foraging along the waterways on the some waterfowl breed at the refuge. refuge. Shorebird use along the beaches of Lake Superior may be Bald eagles forage in the refuge and temporarily disturbed by anglers but we anticipate a very low level of vicinity all year. They have nested angler use along the lake since there are better access points located within two miles of the refuge on the around Chequamegon Bay and negligible impacts to wildlife and shore of Lake Superior. No nests are aquatic species using the refuge. found on the refuge.In addition many

songbirds and shorebirds use the refuge as migratory habitat. The Alternative B: refuge is used as a migratory stopover Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative A. However, for many migrant bird species that are anglers would not be crossing refuge lands to access streams so there preparing to cross Lake Superior. The would be less potential for wildlife disturbance in some habitats. refuge is located on the southern end Impacts are expected to be negligible for other aquatic species and of Chequamegon Bay, which is an wildlife on the refuge. important migratory stopover for thousands of shorebirds, waterfowl and waterbirds. Annual spring and fall surveys have documented 33 species of shorebirds. For more information on wildlife species on the refuge see the 2006 Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge HMP and Environmental Assessment .https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Referenc e/Profile/16623 Threatened and Endangered Species Alternative A: and Other Special Status Species The Service completed an Endangered Species Act Section 7 evaluation Five threatened and endangered for the proposed fishing plan on the refuge to evaluate any impacts on species are known to occur on or near Federally threatened or endangered species and determined that the the refuge: piping plover, red knot, there would be no effect (Appendix D). gray wolf, Canada lynx and northern- long-eared bat. Piping plovers have been seen at the Alternative B: mouth of Whittlesey Creek during spring and fall. They have nested on There would be neutral impacts to any Federally threatened or sandy shores of the Apostle Islands endangered species under this alternative. An ESA Section 7 evaluation is not required for this alternative to continue and would have been National Lakeshore. Sandy shore addressed in any recover plans if it were seen as an issue. habitat at Whittlesey Creek is very limited. Red knot is a rare spring migrant to coastal beaches in the Chequamegon Bay region. It has been observed at the mouth of Whittlesey Creek during migration. Canada Lynx is listed as threatened in Wisconsin. It is occasionally found in northern forest areas of the state. Bayfield and Ashland counties are included in the list of counties with the highest likelihood of occurrence, but lynx are considered to be very rare in Wisconsin, with only a few records in the state in the past 25 years. Gray wolf tracks and scat have been seen within the refuge. There are also incidental reports by local residents of wolves near the refuge and Fish Creek sloughs. Packs are known to occur in the Bayfield Peninsula, especially in and near large tracts of Federal and county forest lands. Sightings around the refuge are likely an individual wolf. The northern long-eared bat is listed as threatened in Wisconsin.

None of the refuge parcels have known suitable winter habitat or suitable spring staging/fall swarming habitat. However, most have the potential to include suitable summer habitat.

All five of these threatened and endangered species utilize the refuge incidentally to their use of the Lake Superior landscape and its mosaic of habitats. Vegetation (including vegetation of Alternative A: special management concern) Vegetation varies on the refuge from Using a 50 foot buffer along all waterways or potential fishing areas on lowland forest and scrub dominated by the refuge, approximately 30 acres (or 10%) of the refuge would be willow, alder, black ash and white directly impacted by angler use. Negligible effect is expected to cedar to coniferous forest restoration vegetation from trampling by anglers, because of the low number of sites dominated by white pine, spruce users and days of use expected. Due to the density of vegetation and and tamarack. Non-native crack topography along the creek banks most anglers will probably fish from willow was planted in the riparian within the creeks. zone in the 1940s and 1950s. Large American elm dominated the refuge Alternative B: riparian zone until the 1970s when Dutch elm disease nearly eliminated Since the creek is already used for fishing we anticipate that under them. Today few mature trees are alternative B there would be less of an impact to refuge vegetation since found along refuge creeks. anglers would be restricted to the waterway to access and use the refuge. Impact to non-aquatic vegetation will be neutral while impact to For more information on the habitat aquatic vegetation will be negligible. found on the refuge as well as management goals see the Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge HMP and Environmental Assessment https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Referenc e/Profile/16623.

TABLE 2. AFFECTED VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

AFFECTED RESOURCE ANTICIPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Currently Whittlesey Creek Refuge Alternative A: promotes the big six wildlife Archery deer hunting is allowed on the refuge. Only tracts of land dependent recreation opportunities greater than 20 acres are open to hunting in an effort to avoid trespass including wildlife observation, issues with neighbors. Since safety is imperative, archery is not allowed photography, hunting, fishing, outdoor near the refuge’s Coaster Classroom or Visitor Center boardwalk education and environmental adjacent to the refuge. interpretation. Archery deer hunting is allowed on several refuge fee land Waterfowl hunting is allowed east of Highway 13, an area that includes tracts that are larger than 20 acres the shoreline of Chequamegon Bay in Lake Superior. The area is (Appendix C). Big game hunter visits relatively small and mainly provides opportunities for shore hunting of were estimated at 168. Waterfowl diving ducks. hunting is also allowed on refuge tracts east of state highway 13 with an As the refuge receives relatively low archery deer and waterfowl estimated 100 visits per year. An hunting pressures it is unlikely there will be conflicts between these estimated 100 individuals walking in user groups and sport fishing. Archery deer hunting takes place in the streams and along the lakeshore mostly upland areas while fishing pressure is mostly in and along the are currently thought to be engaged in stream banks. Fall waterfowl hunting on the refuge usually occurs fishing activities on the refuge. mainly at the mouth of Whittlesey Creek where it meets Lake Superior. Whittlesey Creek Refuge is a partner Members of the public engaged in fishing will likely have a low chance in the multi-agency Northern Great of encountering others engaged in waterfowl hunting on the Lake Lakes Visitor Center which is located Superior shoreline as they have many other nearshore options on immediately south of the refuge. The Chequamegon Bay to fish undisturbed. Center also serves as headquarters and contact station for the refuge. In 2018 There are no anticipated impacts of fishing to wildlife observation, an estimated 99,000 visitors came to photography and environmental education and interpretation. the Center, where they can access refuge information and view the Whittlesey Creek exhibit, along with Alternative B: many other Great Lakes focused Since there is limited fishing pressure on the refuge already through cultural, historical and natural water access, we anticipate the impact under alternative B would be resource exhibits. The Service also slightly less than the Alternative A description. provides interpretive and education programs at the Center in cooperation with partners with about 8,500 participants each year. A three-season environmental education shelter with accessible trails and parking is the only visitor facility on the refuge. An estimated 1000 visits to the refuge are members of the public engaging in hiking, wildlife observation and photography.

TABLE 3. AFFECTED CULTURAL RESOURCES AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

CULTURAL RESOURCES

AFFECTED RESOURCE ANTICIPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Twenty-two sites in Bayfield County Alternative A:

have been placed on the National Though no archaeological resources have been identified on the refuge, Register of Historic Places, but none refuge fishing activities are not expected to disturb archeological of these properties is located within resources that may be as yet undiscovered and buried in the ground. the boundaries of the refuge. Thirteen New parking or other facility enhancement will be reviewed for buildings or farmstead complexes are archeological compliance before constructed. Fishing as proposed will within the approved boundary. One of not affect cultural resources and there will be no cumulative impacts to these buildings may have been the such resources. Activities that might cause an effect to a historic home of Asaph Whittlesey, founder of property would be subject to a case-by-case Section 106 review. Ashland, Wisconsin in 1860, and after whom the creek was named. Also within the proposed boundaries could Alternative B: be the site of the cabin built in 1664 Though no archaeological resources have been identified on the refuge, by Pierre Esprit Radisson, a French refuge fishing activities are not expected to disturb archeological fur trader and explorer. No National resources that may be buried in the ground. Existing fishing will not Historic Landmarks are located within affect cultural resources and there will be no cumulative impacts to the refuge. such resources. Activities that might cause an effect to a historic property would be subject to a case-by-case Section 106 review. In May and June of 2016, the Chequamegon Bay Archaeological Survey project ground-truthed two existing site polygons recorded in the Wisconsin Archaeological Site Index. The primary goal of this work was to relocate a historically-documented multi-ethnic diaspora village attributed to Wendat-Tionnantaté peoples who briefly settled near the shore of the bay c. 1661 to 1670. Archaeological survey along the shore of Chequamegon Bay and the banks of Whittlesey Creek and Fish Creek, in Bayfield County, Wisconsin, produced no evidence of a 17th- century Native American habitation site. Shovel testing on private property adjacent to the bay did lead to the identification of one new site, a temporally and culturally non- diagnostic lithic scatter (Creese and Walder 2016).

TABLE 4. AFFECTED REFUGE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

REFUGE MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS

AFFECTED RESOURCE ANTICIPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Land Use: Whittlesey Creek National Alternative A Wildlife Refuge is managed from the St. Croix Wetland Management Any increase in traffic due to bank fishing on the refuge can be District (WMD) in New Richmond, sustained by the current road system which is all public roads (township

Wisconsin approximately 160 miles and state highway). The refuge will be working with partners such as away. A fish and wildlife biologist the Town of Barksdale to develop and sign a designated parking area (currently vacant) position is stationed for anglers on existing township property that is adjacent to refuge at the refuge with an office located in property at the Town Hall and Cherryville roads intersection. the NGLVC. Management, maintenance and administrative support are coordinated from the St. There is no need to improve the refuge trail system for increased access Croix WMD office. since angling along the creeks in the refuge will be dispersed along the waterways resulting in numerous points of entry to the water. Facilities: The refuge is currently 304 acres in size. The refuge has a Alternative B: screened-in facility for educational Under alternative A we anticipate similar levels of activities as in the programming (Coaster Classroom), a past. Anglers are utilizing existing roads and pull offs. At this point we small storage shed, and a pole barn for have not had any significant challenges to the current road system storage of equipment and supplies. supporting refuge visitation. There is a designated parking lot at the end of Wickstrom road along with an informational kiosk. The parking lot is large enough to accomodate a school bus. The refuge has five other field approaches perpendicular to public roads that can accommodate a single car at various locations throughout the refuge. The refuge office is located in the 32,000 square foot NGLVC which has an exhibit area, auditorium, classrooms, and gathering areas. Travel to and through the refuge is via several public roadways under the jurisdiction of the Town of Barksdale and include, Terwilliger, Cherryville, Town Hall, and East Ondossagon roads as well as state highway 13. Access to the Lake Superior shoreline through the refuge is via a forested coastal marsh or by boat from Lake Superior. Administration: Whittlesey Creek Alternative A: Refuge is currently a single individual Initial start up costs are anticipated to be $500 for improved signage and staffed station down from three boundary posting updates. After the first year it is anticipated that the permanent positions in 2003. Most annual costs for the fishing program will be paid by operations and recently (2018), the refuge was staffed maintenance funding. It is estimated that the fishing programs annual with a fish and wildlife biologist. The costs will be less than $500. In addition this will require approximately position is currently vacant with plans 2% of the refuge staff person’s time to answer visitor questions and to fill the position with a wildlife coordinate with the Wisconsin DNR and the Ashland Fish and Wildlife refuge specialist sometime in calendar Conservation Office on brook trout surveys. Brook trout surveys will year 2019. be conducted as part of the ongoing habitat restoration project on the refuge and therefore would occur whether or not the fishing program is The refuge budget is part of the St. changed on the refuge. Refuge harvest limits mirror state regulations, Croix Wetland Management District which allows Wisconsin conservation officers to assist in law and Whittlesey Creek Refuge enforcement. Law enforcement activities will be conducted jointly by complex. The combined budget for Service law enforcement personnel and the local Wisconsin DNR both stations in fiscal year 2018 was conservation officers. While this would impact the administration of the about $800,000. refuge, it would not be significant because the refuge would still be able to carry out its other priority actions and obligations in meeting the

The Whittlesey Creek staff person is purpose of the refuge and the mission of the NWRS, such as habitat expected to spend about 60% of their restoration and management and environmental education programs. time on habitat restoration efforts within or adjacent to the Whittlesey Creek watershed, 20% on monitoring Alternative B: and research of the aquatic resources It is estimated that the existing fishing use of the refuge will be less than on the refuge, 10% refuge $500 annually. Like alternative A, approximately 2% of the refuge staff administration which includes person’s time to answer visitor questions and coordinate with the oversight of public use activities, and Wisconsin DNR and the Ashland Fish and Wildlife Conservation 10% on environmental education and Office on brook trout surveys. While this would impact the interpretive programming. administration of the refuge, it would not be significant because the refuge would still be able to carry out its other priority actions and obligations in meeting the purpose of the refuge and the mission of the NWRS, such as habitat restoration and management and environmental education programs.

TABLE 5. AFFECTED SOCIOECONOMICS AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

SOCIOECONOMICS

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ANTICIPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Local and regional economies Alternative A: The refuge is located in northern Wisconsin on the shore of Lake Fishing visitation is anticipated to result in 140 visits to the refuge with Superior, approximately two miles each visit representing $186.83 in expenditures (Carver and Caudill from the city of Ashland, Wisconsin 2007). Total expenditures associated with 140 visits associated with with a population of 8,200. Several fishing would total approximately $26,189. These revenues represent a other small towns are also within minor impact in the context of the overall economy of northern twenty to thirty miles away such as Wisconsin as affected by the NGLVC (Hokans et al. 2013). Washburn and Bayfield, Wisconsin. The predominant land uses in the Alternative B: vicinity of the refuge are old hayfield, Existing fishing activity, limited by access would continue resulting in recreation, residential and lake shore. the same economic impact as has been occuring in the local area. This is In a 2013 study, the University of estimated to be a minor impact to the northern Wisconsin economy as Wisconsin-Extension determined that total expenditures associated with this current use is approximately the roughly 91,000 non-local visitors $18,683. (not residents of Bayfield or Ashland counties) who frequented the NGLVC spend between $5 to $6 million annually in the Chequamegon Bay Area, making the NGLVC an engine of rural economic development. The total economic impact of this private sector stimulus can be measured in terms of 84 local jobs and $1.6 million in locally accrued employee compensation (Hokans et al. 2013).

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

The Lake Superior basin of the current Alternative A and B: State of Wisconsin was included in Both the Bad River and Red Cliff bands of Lake Superior Chippewa lands ceded by the Ojibwa to the Indians have reservation lands located within 40 miles of Whittlesey United States in a treaty in 1842, Creek Refuge. The Service has not identified any potential high and under which the Ojibwa bands adverse environmental or human health impacts from this proposed retained rights to use the ceded action of opening the refuge to bank fishing nor from any of the territory for hunting, fishing, and alternatives.The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission gathering. These rights are exercised (GLIFWC) represents eleven Ojibwe tribes in Minnesota, Wisconsin on public lands. Special regulations and Michigan who reserved hunting, fishing and gathering rights in the are detailed in 50 CFR Part 20: 1837, 1842 and 1854 Treaties with the U.S. government. GLIFWC Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations provides natural resources management expertise, conservation on Certain Federal Indian enforcement, legal and policy analysis, and public information services Reservations and Ceded lands for the in support of the exercise of treaty rights during well-regulated, off- 2018 and 2019 season that apply to reservation seasons throughout the treaty ceded territories. As the Whittlesey Creek Refuge as the refuge refuge falls within the 1842 ceded territory off-reservation rights may lies within the 1842 ceded territory be exercised on these public lands for hunting, fishing (see Ceded area. Territory walleye regulations https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/regulations/index.html) and gathering Executive Order 12898, Federal including special regulations regarding take of Migratory Birds as Actions to Address Environmental coordinated with GLIFWC for the local bands (50 CFR Part 20). Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires all The Service has not identified any potential high and adverse Federal agencies to incorporate environmental or human health impacts from this proposed action or environmental justice into their any of the alternatives. Minority or low income communities will not be missions by identifying and disproportionately affected by any impacts from this proposed action or addressing disproportionately high or any of the alternatives. adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations and communities.

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).

TABLE 6. ANTICIPATED CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activity Impacting Affected Environment Descriptions of Anticipated Cumulative Impacts Fishing Alternative A: The refuge is located in the coastal We do not have an anticipated harvest for each species since there are no area at the mouth of Whittlesey Creek, harvest rates for Lake Superior streams to use as a basis. Wisconsin which is a part of a large wetland DNR conducts limited creel surveys to determine harvest rates: complex which extends from just north https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/lakesuperior/. We anticipate fishing of the mouth of Whittlesey Creek to pressure may increase due to an official opening of the refuge. General the west edge of the City of Ashland. open season for trout and salmon in inland streams (including streams

This coastal wetland complex is a flowing into Lake Superior (LS) and their tributaries upstream to the first significant part of the wildlife habitat impassable barrier) opens the first Saturday in May ending late and aquatic resources of Chequamegon September - November, depending on the tributary and presence/absence Bay. Whittlesey Creek currently has of fall spawning trout species. Numerous LS tributary, Bayfield county good water quality, is classified as an streams have specific trout season dates, daily and species bag limits and outstanding resource water and is a slot length regulations. By contrast, trout (rainbow, brown, brook and class I trout water supporting both splake) fishing on adjacent Wisconsin LS waters is open all year salmonid and non-salmonid fish https://dnr.wi.gov/files/pdf/pubs/fh/fh0301.pdf. species. It is also a regionally The Service believes that fishing on the refuge will not add significantly important spawning area for to the cumulative impacts of the fishery in the Lake Superior tributary anadromous trout and salmon from streams that run through the refuge on local, regional or Lake Superior Lake Superior. Past overfishing and basin-wide scales. The percentage likely to be taken on the refuge, habitat alteration are identified as the though possibly additive to existing fishing takes that are already primary causes for extirpation of occurring from stream access, would be a small fraction of the estimated coaster brook trout in refuge waters. populations. Several points support this conclusion: 1) Regulations for The current state regulation of catch Lake Superior streams (located in Ashland, Bayfield, Douglas and Iron and release for Lake Superior inland counties) are tailored to the life histories of river resident and lake-run tributary waters helps protect the migratory trout and salmon: 2) Current state regulations identify these coaster brook trout from overfishing. streams as catch and release for brook trout thereby mitigating impacts The existing harvest regulations have to this priority species and 3) overall fishery populations will continue to been in place for many years and are be monitored and future harvests will be adjusted as needed under the consistent with Lake Superior inland existing state and Lake Superior basin regulatory processes. tributary. Harvest regulations for trout and detailed annually in Guide to Alternative B: Wisconsin Trout Fishing Regulations, Guide to Wisconsin hook & line fishing Fishing pressure will remain about the same as it is today. The regulations for non trout species as percentage currently taken on the refuge, though possibly additive to well as Guide to Wisconsin spearing, existing fishing takes that are already occurring from stream access, netting, and bait harvest regulations would be a small fraction of the estimated populations. It is estimated that specifies regulations on rough fish this would have negligible cumulative impacts on local, regional or Lake spearing and netting and the harvesting Superior basin-wide fishery resources. of turtles, frogs, crayfish and minnows. Other wildlife-dependent recreation Alternative A: (i.e. road and trail development and Infrastructure, trails, lake accesses, and roads used for wildlife- use) dependent recreation on the refuge and in the local area have negatively No additional roads, trails or public use affected the environment, to a marginal degree, through invasive species areas will be constructed for the spread, habitat fragmentation and loss, or overall disturbance. However, purpose of fishing access. Existing there are positive impacts of how wildlife-dependent recreation (that is roads, trails and parking areas will reliant upon that infrastructure for access) is contributing to the local provide access for this opportunity. economy. Wildlife dependent recreation is an important economic driver There are a network of roads and trails in the local area. that are causing some cumulative As one example the annual Chequamegon Bay Birding Festival in May impacts on the local area. However, attracts between 200 and 300 visitors for the three day festival. some wildlife-dependent recreation is Economic impact estimates were an addition of $75,000 and higher to reliant upon those roads and trails for the local economy. The cumulative impact of a small increase in fishing access. Outdoor recreation is an opportunities in the local area would be marginal when compared to the important component of the lives of existing outdoor recreational opportunities that exist in Bayfield County. most Wisconsin residents. In similar neighboring states like Minnesota, nearly 60 percent indicate that outdoor Alternative B: recreation is “very important” to their life, while another 25 percent indicate We anticipate similar impacts from the existing condition although there that it is “moderately important” (Kelly would not be the small anticipated increase in angling pressure on the 2005). This same report states that refuge. No new facilities would be added.

nearly one in five adults believes that outdoor recreation is of “little importance”. Outdoor recreation is an important part of the economy of the Bayfield peninsula.

Development/Population Increase Alternative A and B: Population is an important contributing Because the refuge uses an adaptive management approach for its factor to both the pattern of settlement fishing program, reviewing the program with state partners on a regular and development of an area (Bayfield basis, the Service’s fishing program can be adjusted to ensure that it does County 2003). Significant increases or not contribute to cumulative impacts due to increased outdoor decreases in the number of inhabitants recreational use of the area. impact land use. In 2017, Bayfield and Ashland County, Wisconsin had estimated populations of 15,008 and 15,500 respectively. Both experienced population decreases of -0.1% and - 4.1% (2010 - 2017) respectively (Town Charts 2019). The economy of Bayfield County, is specialized in agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting; arts, entertainment, recreation; and construction. The economic input from the first two categories is likely attributed to the land use which is closely linked to the natural resource base and land ownership. Forested lands account for nearly 82% of the total land area in Bayfield County. Public lands in the county account for 48.2% of the total land area and are comprised of county, state and Federal parks and forests as well as large blocks of industrial forest (Bayfield County Land Use Plan 2003). The area has a high level of seasonal residency with many second or seasonal homes owned by individuals from the Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota metro area. Hunting and fishing are important recreational and social activities in Bayfield County. These activities are also economically important to the county as a component of tourism. Over the period 1992-2001 tourism expenditures has increased by nearly 170 percent in Bayfield County (Bayfield County 2003). Total visitor spending in Bayfield County continued to rise, increasing by 2.84% from 2015-2016 (Travel Wisconsin 2010 ). Use of lead ammunition/tackle Alternative A and B: Lead tackle is allowed for fishing. Whittlesey Creek Refuge and other refuges within the region have been Anglers are encouraged to use non- educating hunters about the risk to wildlife from lead ammunition. toxic tackle on the refuge and are given

educational information regarding non- Refuge staff provide information on websites, signage and through other toxic tackle. means to ensure hunters have relevant information to voluntarily switch to lead ammunition. As part of this initiative use of lead tackle for fishing will also be discussed. Bald eagles are present and common in the area and around Lake Superior. Eagles nest in the area as well. Lead fishing tackle is widely used in Lake Superior and in local streams and rivers.. Eagles and other wildlife may consume lead from their prey such as fish or birds that may have ingested lead tackle. It takes only a small amount of lead to cause illness or death in wildlife. Fishing on the refuge will not add a great deal to the lead already presently used in the area. However, the refuge will provide education to anglers about the use of lead tackle and alternative gear to use. Climate Change Alternative A and B Under this approach the refuge uses an adaptive management approach Warming, whether it results from to compensate for any anticipated impacts from climate change. anthropogenic or natural sources, is Through the refuge Habitat Management Plan the refuge has identified expected to affect a variety of natural critical restoration strategies to improve habitat for brook trout and other processes and associated resources. fish in Whittlesey Creek. In addition, the refuge also identified and However, the complexity of ecological worked with partners to remove fish barriers along the creek, thereby systems means that there is a opening new sections of the creek to fish passage. tremendous amount of uncertainty about the impact climate change will According to the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts, actually have. In particular, the northern Wisconsin has experienced additional rainfall, an increase in localized effects of climate change are heavy precipitation events as well as predictions of increased still a matter of much debate. temperatures, precipitation and heavy precipitation events (Nelson According to the Wisconsin Initiative Institute and Wisconsin DNR 2011). on Climate Change Impacts, brook trout are very sensitive to changes in The refuge would review the fishing program annually as well as water temperature and other information about coaster brook trout population status to determine if environmental conditions (Nelson any changes are necessary for the fishing program to ensure that it does Institute and Wisconsin DNR 2011). not contribute further to the cumulative impacts of climate change on Other fishery resources on the refuge fisheries populations. may also be impacted by climate change.

Monitoring Through the coaster brook trout restoration experiment, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ashland Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office coordinates stream surveys on Whittlesey Creek. This survey is mainly intended to monitor for coaster brook trout populations in order to track progress toward objectives as detailed in the document An experiment to establish a self- sustaining brook trout population in Whittlesey Creek that exhibits a migrating life history (coaster) by stocking, enacting protective regulations and implementing habitat improvements (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2003).

Refuge specific fish monitoring surveys may include a fish index (annual index station electrofishing survey), comprehensive fish survey (watershed-wide), brook trout PIT tag stations, macroinvertebrate monitoring and stream habitat monitoring. A complete list of surveys, objectives and methods can be found in the Revised Inventory and Monitoring Plan, Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge (2018).

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 – Proposed Action Alternative Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the refuge will be open pursuant to state fishing regulations. Areas open to fishing would include 304 acres in the refuge as well as additional lands as they are acquired after completing required compliance reviews. The refuge ownership is constantly changing as new land is acquired.

Fishing periods will correspond with state regulations. As additional lands are acquired and refuge management programs are instituted, it may become necessary to impose some regulations that are more restrictive than state laws (i.e. closed areas, size limits). These modifications will be included during the annual amendment process through the Federal Register and the public will be informed through media and posting.

Fishing already occurs on the refuge because people can fish in the stream as long as they are in the water. Opening fishing on the refuge will allow for more access to the stream. Because fishing already existed, little conflict or impact is expected.

This alternative helps meet the purpose and needs of the Service as described above, because it provides additional wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities on the refuge. The Service has determined that the proposed action is compatible with the purposes of the Whittlesey Creek Refuge and the mission of the NWRS. The Compatibility Determination is available in the Sport Fish Plan (Appendix B).

Alternative B – No Action Alternative Under this alternative the refuge continues to be open to fishing by water access only pursuant to Wisconsin state regulations. The refuge would not provide over land access to fishing locations and refuge parking lots would not be available for use by anglers. Under the existing conditions, the refuge does not promote fishing and would not provide educational materials to anglers. Impacts on refuge resources would continue at the same level as current with some anglers accessing the creeks via water.

List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Bad River band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians Red Cliff band of Lake Superior Chippewa U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ashland Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, Ashland, WI Wisconsin DNR Fisheries USFWS Personnel: St. Croix Wetland Management District Staff, Maggie O’Connell, Cathy Nigg, Kristin Rasmussen, Mike Mlynarek (retired).

List of Preparers:

Tom Kerr Bridget Olson

State Coordination: Wisconsin DNR Fisheries staff were contacted in January of 2019.

Tribal Consultation: Notifications were sent by email in January 2019 to the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa Tribe and the Red Cliff band of Lake Superior Chippewa natural resource directors.

Public Outreach: Public input was sought regarding adding sport fishing on the refuge as a recreational opportunity several times over the last 20 years; as part of public outreach and open comment period during the planning stages for 1) the Public Use Plan, Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge (2001); and 2) Comprehensive Conservation Plan (2015). One comment in support of hunting and fishing on the refuge was received in 2001 from the general public and no specific comments regarding the opening of the refuge to sport fishing were received in 2015.

References:

Bayfield County Land Use Plan 2003. Bayfield County Land Use Plan Steering Committee. Bayfield County, WI. Unpublished report.

Creese, J.C. and Walder, H. 2016. Chequamegon Bay Archaeological Survey: Report of 2016 Investigations at Whittlesey Creek and fish Creek in Bayfield County, Wisconsin. Report to US Fish and Wildlife Service. ARPA Permit number 2016-WI/3-1 02/20/2017.

DuBoid, R.B. and Dubeilzig, R.R. 2004. Effect of hook type on mortality, trauma, and capture efficiency of wild stream trout caught by angling with spinners. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 24, 609-0616.

National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. Pub. L. No. 105–57, 111 Stat. 1252 (2007).

(Nelson Institute and Wisconsin DNR) Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2011. Wisconsin’s Changing Climate Impacts and Adaptation. Available from: http://www.wicci.wisc.edu/report/2011_WICCI-Report.pdf

R.Hokans, J. Maloney, D. Marcouiller, J. Mich and T. wojciechowski 2013. Community Economic Impacts of Interpretive Centers: A case study of the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center. University of Wisconsin Extension 2013. Extension Report 13-03.

Town Charts. 2019. Bayfield County, Wisconsin Demographics Data. Available from: http://www.towncharts.com/Wisconsin/Demographics/Bayfield-County-WI- Demographics-data.html. Accessed February 2019.

Travel Wisconsin. 2017. The Power of Wisconsin Tourism: Bayfield County. Available from: https://www.bayfieldcounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/6624/TOURISM-STATS?bidId=

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001. Public Use Plan Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge Bayfield, WI. Internal report.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003. An Experiment to Establish a Self-Sustaining Brook Trout Population in Whittlesey Creek that Exhibits a Migrating Life History (Coaster) by Stocking, Enacting protective regulations and Implementing Habitat Improvements. Internal report.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006. Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management Plan and Environmental Assessment 2006. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Bloomington, MN.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015. Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Ashland, WI.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018. Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge, Revised Inventory and Monitoring Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Bloomington, MN.

United States Geological Survey 2016. Status and Trends of Lake Superior Fishery Community, 1978-2015. U.S. Department of the Interior.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 2018. Guide to Wisconsin Hook and Line Fishing Regulations 2018-2019. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 2018. Guide to Wisconsin Trout Fishing Regulations 2018-2019. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.

World Population Review. 2018. Bayfield County, Wisconsin Population 2019. Available from: http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/wi/bayfield-county-population/. Accessed February 2019.

APPENDIX A OTHER APPLICABLE STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS & REGULATIONS

STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS Cultural Resources This alternative will not have any impacts to cultural resources. No buildings or structures exist on-site that are listed on the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, as National Register of Historic Places. Fishing is not expected to amended, 42 U.S.C. 1996 – 1996a; 43 CFR cause ground disturbance. Any activity that might cause an Part 7 effect to a historic property would be subject to a case-by-case Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431-433; Section 106 review. 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 Section 7 consultation for endangered species impacts was Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as completed by the refuge manager. Concurrence by local amended, 16 U.S.C. 668-668c, 50 CFR 22 ecological sciences office was not needed as there was determined to be no effect. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 36 CFR Part 13; 50 CFR Parts 10, 17, 23, 81, 217, 222, 225, 402, and 450

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

Lacey Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 10, 11, 12, 14, 300, and 904

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 703-712; 50 CFR Parts 10, 12, 20, and 21

Executive Order 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, 66 Fed. Reg. 3853 (2001)

Natural Resources No additional steps were required to comply with these laws. Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401- 7671q; 40 CFR Parts 23, 50, 51, 52, 58, 60, 61, 82, and 93; 48 CFR Part 23

Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species, 64 Fed. Reg. 6183 (1999)

Water Resources No additional steps were required to comply with these laws. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 923, 930, 933

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 320- 330; 40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 230- 232, 323, and 328

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 114, 115, 116, 321, 322, and 333

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

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

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

APPENDIX B Draft Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge Sport Fishing Plan 2019

APPENDIX C Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge Map

APPENDIX D ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7 EVALUATION