Environmental Assessment

OPENING TURKEY HUNTING WITH THE INCIDENTAL TAKE OF FERAL HOGS

May 2019

Prepared by

Darrin Unruh, Damon Taylor, Chad Ford Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge Vian, Oklahoma Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose and Need ...... 4 Proposed Action ...... 4 Background ...... 4 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ...... 6 2.0 Alternatives ...... 6 Alternatives Considered ...... 6 Alternative A – Current Management – [No Action Alternative] ...... 6 Alternative B – Open Turkey Hunting with the Incidental Take of Feral Hogs – [Proposed Action Alternative] ...... 8 Alternative(s) Considered, But Dismissed from Further Consideration ...... 9 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 9 Affected Environment ...... 9 Environmental Consequences of the Action ...... 9 Cumulative Impact Analysis ...... 10 Affected Natural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ...... 10 Hunted Species – Wild Turkey ...... 10 Hunted Species – Feral Hog ...... 11 Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species ...... 11 Threatened and Endangered Species and other Special Status Species ...... 12 Vegetation ...... 15 Soils...... 17 Air Quality ...... 17 Water Resources ...... 18 Affected Visitor Use and Experience Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ...... 18 Visitor Use and Experience ...... 19 Affected Cultural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ...... 20 Cultural Resources ...... 20 Affected Refuge Management and Operations Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives...... 20 Refuge Management and Operations ...... 20 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 ...... 24 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 ...... 28 Refuge Management and Operations ...... 29 Socioeconomics ...... 29 Climate Change ...... 29 Environmental Justice ...... 30 Indian Trust Resources ...... 30 Summary of Analysis ...... 30 Monitoring ...... 31 List of Sources, Agencies, and Persons Consulted ...... 31 References ...... 31 Determination ...... 33 Appendix 1 ...... 35

List of Tables

Table 1. Hunting Units, Types of Hunts, and Permits at Sequoyah NWR ...... 7

3 Environmental Assessment for turkey hunting with the incidental take of feral hogs

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 new hunting opportunities for wild turkey and feral hog on the Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge (NWR/refuge) in accordance with the refuge’s Big and Upland Game and Feral Hog Hunt Plan. Wild turkey hunting would occur in the Sandtown, Vian Creeks, Cook, Webbers, Hisaw/Shelby, Girty, Possum Hollow, Delta Islands, and Haskell Units of the refuge. The incidental take of feral hog during wild turkey hunts would also occur on these units. 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 a new species until a final rule has been published in the Federal Register; formally opening the refuge to wild turkey hunting.

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 Cooperative Agreement No. DACW56-3-71 on December 11, 1970, to “…be administered by him [Secretary of the Interior] directly or in accordance with cooperative agreements…and in accordance with such rules and regulations for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon,…” 16 U.S.C. 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). Migratory waterfowl are the main management thrust of the refuge. Wading birds, shorebirds, white-tailed deer, and other resident wildlife species thrive on the refuge.

4 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 NWRS.

Sequoyah NWR opened to hunting soon after its establishment date of December 11, 1970. The refuge operated under an Interim Plan in 1971 with revisions in 1972. The species hunted at that time included bobwhite quail, coot, squirrel, rabbit, goose, and duck. A comprehensive hunt plan was written in April 1973. A fur management plan was issued in 1976 with a targeted species of beaver. A revised hunt plan was issued in May 1988 to restrict the hunting days to Saturdays, Sundays, Mondays, and Tuesdays. An opening package with a hunt plan for white- tailed deer was completed in May 1996. In 2010, the refuge manager decided to stop quail hunting on the refuge due to low population numbers. In 2014, a feral hog management plan was implemented that allows the refuge to use staff and other agencies to conduct control efforts, but public hunting was not considered at that time. The Big and Upland Game and Feral Hog Hunt Plan was completed in 2017 and it opened new areas for big and upland game hunting, which included white-tailed deer, eastern gray squirrel, fox squirrel, swamp rabbit, and eastern

5 cottontail rabbit. It also allowed the incidental harvest of feral hogs during the big and upland game seasons. Wild turkey hunting was not considered at that time.

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of this proposed action is to add wild turkey to the hunt program on the refuge and to provide additional hunting opportunities on Sequoyah NWR. The need of the proposed action is to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the NWRSAA to “recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the NWRS” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses” (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)). The proposed action also gives the refuge the opportunity to inform the public about the benefits of using hunting as a wildlife management tool. These hunts would help preserve the biological diversity on the refuge by reducing the negative environmental impacts associated with feral hogs.

This action is also needed to effectively implement Secretarial Order 3356, which directs bureaus and offices within the Department of Interior (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.

2.0 Alternatives Alternatives Considered This chapter discusses the alternatives considered for expanding hunting opportunities on the refuge.

Alternative A – Current Management – [No Action Alternative] Under the No Action Alternative, current management direction would continue. The refuge currently allows hunting of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), fox squirrel (S. niger), swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus), and eastern cottontail rabbit (S. jloridanus). Hunting for the sole purpose of taking a feral hog (Sus scrofa) is not allowed, but the incidental take of feral hogs is allowed in conjunction with the previously mentioned hunts. Vehicles are confined to public access roads and designated parking areas. Currently, hunting (waterfowl, upland game, and big game) occurs on both sides of the Arkansas River. There is a waterfowl sanctuary area within a portion of the Sandtown Bottom Unit, which is closed to all public entry (except for the controlled deer hunts) from September 1 to March 31 of each year. Upland game hunting on the Sandtown, Vian Creeks, Webbers, Girty, and Possum Units would continue.

The refuge estimates (based on traffic counters) that there are approximately 215 visits per year for upland game hunting. This suggests that a low number of squirrels and rabbits are taken by upland game hunters annually. Rabbit, gray squirrel, and fox squirrel are open to hunting on Saturdays, Sundays, Mondays, and Tuesdays in accordance with State of Oklahoma season dates from September through January 31. Hunters may only use plugged shotguns capable of holding no more than three shells in the magazine and chamber combined and .22/.17 rimfire rifles. Only legal non-toxic shot (non-toxic ammunition is made from bismuth, tungsten, tin, or copper) is allowed on the refuge. Except for waterfowl hunts, the incidental take of feral hogs is currently allowed in conjunction with all other hunts. Hunters wishing to participate in one of

6 the special draw hunts for deer must apply through the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) website (www.wildlifedepartment.com). ODWC is responsible for handling all applications and conducting the draws. Hunters are notified by ODWC that they have been selected for one of the hunts and a complete package with permits and instructions are sent to the hunters.

On average, a total of 30 permits per hunt are issued for four adult deer hunts (muzzleloader and/or archery) and 25 permits per hunt issued for one youth hunt. There are a total of four adult hunts and one youth hunt. Two ADA-compliant hunts are also conducted in conjunction with the adult hunts. Currently, hunted refuge units are Sandtown Bottom, Vian Creeks, Cook Bottom, Webbers, Hisaw, Girty, Possum, Delta Islands, and Haskell. The adult muzzleloader hunts will continue to give hunters the option of harvesting up to two antlerless deer. If deer populations exceed desired levels (0.33 buck to doe ratio, Sequoyah NWR White-tailed Deer Management Plan, 1996), the hunters will be allowed to harvest antlered deer. The youth and adult archery hunts would give hunters the option of harvesting up to two deer. One deer is antlerless and the other deer is an option of antlered or antlerless, regardless of the buck to doe ratio. The Sandtown Bottom Unit is closed to public entry (except vehicles on the tour loop and deer hunters) beyond Tuff Boat Ramp during the special deer muzzleloader hunts that occur on the Sandtown Bottom Unit. Deer hunts are allowed in the waterfowl sanctuary as a population control measure. The maximum number of days the unit may be closed to other public entry during any calendar year is 20 days. See Table 1 for hunting units, types of hunts, and number of permits at Sequoyah NWR.

Table 1. Hunting Units, Types of Hunts, and Permits at Sequoyah NWR # of Deer Max # of Deer Rabbit and Deer Hunting Hunt Units Permits per Permits Issued Squirrel (Y/N) Hunt per Hunt Hunting (Y/N) Sandtown (5,571 Y 20–25 50 Y ac) Cook (1,305 ac) Y 6–10 20 N Vian Creeks Y 3–5 10 Y (1,115 ac) Webbers (1,075 Y 3–5 10 Y ac) Hisaw/Shelby Y 3–5 10 N (1,123 ac) Girty (1,127 ac) Y 3–4 8 Y Possum (1,193 ac) Y 2–4 10 Y Delta Islands Y 2–4 8 N (2,080 ac) Haskell (1,431 ac) Y 3–4 8 N

7 Alternative B – Open Turkey Hunting with the Incidental Take of Feral Hogs – [Proposed Action Alternative] Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the hunting of white-tailed deer, squirrel, and rabbit would remain the same as Alternative A, but the hunting of wild turkey would be allowed on all hunt units, which totals approximately 16,023 acres. A limited number of turkey hunting permits would be issued to hunters through the ODWC’s controlled hunt process. A maximum of ten permits may be issued during a season depending on turkey population numbers. The maximum harvest of one tom turkey would be allowed per hunter. Turkey hunts would be a minimum of two days but not exceed ten days, and would occur during the statewide spring youth (March 30– 31) and general spring turkey hunting seasons (April 6–May 6). Turkey hunting during the state fall season would not be allowed due to potential conflicts with other hunting programs. This alternative provides a recreational experience to the public while maintaining a sustainable turkey population. The estimated cost to operate a limited spring turkey hunt program is estimated to be $2,000.00 annually. Under this alternative, the refuge law enforcement officer and/or ODWC wardens monitor the hunt. They would conduct license, bag limit, and access compliance checks. Refuge staff and trained volunteers would administer the hunt and check all harvested turkeys.

In addition, the take of feral hogs incidental to the proposed turkey hunts would be allowed. This incidental take would provide a control measure that is complimentary to the current take opportunities and the measures described in Sequoyah NWR's Feral Hog Management Plan (Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge 2013), which includes the take of hogs by refuge staff, State/Federal wildlife officers, volunteers, and contractors using a variety of control methods (e.g., trapping, limited use of hog baying dogs, shooting, aerial control).

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

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. ● A limited number of permits would be allowed to avoid conflicts between hunters and limit impacts on turkey populations. ● Hunters will be assigned to hunt units. ● The use of non-toxic shot would be required. ● All hunters must attend a pre hunt briefing. ● Turkey hunts would be limited to spring only to eliminate potential conflicts with other refuge hunts in the fall/winter.

8 Alternative(s) Considered, But Dismissed from Further Consideration The Service considered opening the entire refuge to turkey hunting in accordance with state regulations without restrictions. This alternative was considered but dismissed from detailed analysis because it was found infeasible due to impacts on other recreational uses and safety concerns. In addition, the cost to operate a hunting program of that size would be considerably more than current hunting program costs. This cost would include additional law enforcement officers, printing of additional hunting brochures, and maintaining roads, parking lots and signs. The refuge currently does not have the staff or funding to administer this type of a hunt program.

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Affected Environment The refuge is an overlay project of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) established on the 42,000-acre Robert S. Kerr Reservoir by Cooperative Agreement No. DACW56-3-71 on December 11, 1970. The refuge supports a variety of wetland and upland vegetation within the 20,800 acres managed for resident and migratory fish and wildlife species. Current and proposed hunting areas are located across the breadth of the refuge. The following resources are not discussed in this EA because the proposed hunting activities are not expected to have any impacts on them: physiography, geology, minerals, water quantity, visual resources, and wilderness. The following tables describe the resources that could be impacted (directly or indirectly) by the alternatives discussed in this document.

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.

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

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 – Wild Turkey Wild turkeys occur throughout the entire refuge. The highest concentrations can be found in Sandtown Bottom, Cook, and Hisaw Units. In the winter, turkeys gather and create large flocks. These flocks use the refuge as their winter range. Turkeys use the refuge’s agricultural grounds to help meet their caloric demands for building fat deposits and increasing poult survival. They also use large bottomland trees for roosting and cover from adverse winter weather. When spring arrives, these large flocks of turkeys begin to break up and disperse within and outside of the refuge to breed and nest. Observations by refuge staff during the winter months indicate a turkey population on the refuge of approximately 200 birds.

Regional Analysis ODWC wildlife biologists conducted winter turkey flock surveys in the northeast region of Oklahoma to develop turkey population estimates by county. These surveys were conducted across 15 counties during the winter months when turkeys were flocked together. Regional analysis of the northeast region of Oklahoma indicates turkey populations increased during the last 10 years. From 2009 to 2018, there was a population increase of approximately 23 percent. In contrast, population numbers from 2016 to 2018 increased by 2 percent.

Local Analysis The refuge is located in Sequoyah, Haskell, and Muskogee Counties. These counties were part of the regional winter turkey flock estimates that are referenced in the regional analysis above. Analyses of these counties indicate turkey populations increased during the last 10 years. From 2009 to 2018, there was a population increase of approximately 12 percent. In contrast, population numbers from 2016 to 2018 increased by 2 percent.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

10 No direct impacts are expected to occur to wild turkey populations under current management. However, some indirect negative impacts may occur due to feral hog depredation of turkey nests and broods, which could affect the individual mortality of poults.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) It is expected that minor adverse effects to turkey populations would occur through the disturbance and the take of a range of 0.00 to 0.05 percent of the estimated turkey population (maximum of 10 turkeys annually). The number of permits issued beyond 10 will be contingent upon a new turkey population survey conducted by the refuge in coordination with the State and completion of appropriate NEPA documentation and hunt plan update. These impacts are considered to be negligible due to the small number of hunters (max of 10 hunters) and a maximum of 10 days per year on which these impacts occur. Turkey hunters that take feral hogs would likely be harvesting feral hogs from general areas where turkey nesting occurs, therefore resulting in less nest and brood mortality caused by feral hogs.

Hunted Species – 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, the presence of substantial feral hog populations on surrounding private land, and the transport and introduction of feral hogs by private individuals. Approximately 1,000 hogs have been removed from the refuge in the last five years through trapping, aerial shooting, and by incidental shooting by law enforcement officers and refuge staff. 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) Minor feral hog mortality would continue from the incidental take of feral hogs during current hunts.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Under the proposed action alternative, impacts to feral hogs would be similar to Alternative A with little to no increase in the harvest of feral hogs anticipated.

Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species 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. Many species of waterfowl, game birds, and endangered species have been Service priorities since the 1930s. Conservation of migratory birds is often considered the focal point of the NWRS throughout the United States. The refuge was established primarily for the conservation and management of migratory birds and to serve as a stopover and resting place for waterfowl during their spring and fall migrations. Species that depend on the refuge, especially during the winter or as migratory bird stopover habitats include the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), gadwall (A. strepera), northern shoveler (A. clypeata), northern pintail (A. acuta), blue-winged teal (A. discors), green- winged teal (A. crecca), American widgeon (A. americana), canvasback (Aythra valisineria), and redhead (A. americana). The refuge has documented 272 species of birds, 46 species of mammals, 94 species of reptiles and amphibians, and 73 species of fish. Management of many of these species remains a collaborative effort with the ODWC. The refuge's rich mixture of bottomland hardwood forests, open lakes, and wetland habitats also support other rare and declining migratory birds, particularly neo-tropical songbirds and federally listed species such as the interior least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos).

11

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

Feral hogs have an extremely high reproduction rate and compete with native wildlife for resources and cause direct wildlife mortality through nest predation and opportunistic consumption of birds, reptiles, and amphibians. 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.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts from hunter activity would be similar to those described in Alternative A with an increase in hunter disturbance in the spring when the proposed hunts occur. This includes temporary displacement of other resident wildlife from foot traffic moving through the area. However, turkey hunting would not occur for the entire state season and would only be open for two draw hunts ranging from 2 to 10 days. Under this alternative, turkey hunting and the associated incidental take of feral hogs would occur in all hunt units. Hunt units comprise approximately 16,023 acres of the 20,800-acre refuge. Although, the majority of the refuge is open to hunting, impacts would not affect the entire refuge because turkey populations occur only in small sections of the refuge and there would only be 10 permits issued annually.

Songbirds, raptors, and rails breed on 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 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 is expected to be negligible, because turkey hunting may only occur in the waterfowl sanctuary area from early April through early May when the waterfowl sanctuary re-opens for public use and winter waterfowl are no longer present.

The active breeding season for most birds (with the exception of winter breeding raptors) is between April and July. Hunting would occur within this period, but adverse impacts would be negligible because there are a limited number of hunters (max of 10 hunters) and a maximum of 10 days per year associated with the hunts. Raptors (e.g., bald eagles) may be nesting during periods of hunting activity. To avoid this possible conflict, during the nesting season, known bald eagle nests would be pointed out to hunters and hunters would be instructed to stay at least 600 feet from an active bald eagle nest.

Threatened and Endangered Species and other Special Status Species Interior Least Tern Interior least tern colonies are known to nest along the Canadian and Arkansas River systems adjacent to the refuge, during the months of May – August. Tern nesting is limited to these unique locations due to favorable conditions (i.e., sandbar islands, clear shallow water). Additionally, interior least

12 terns have occasionally been observed foraging within large, shallow wetlands scattered throughout the refuge. While interior least terns may occur in the units that are hunted, no hunting occurs during nesting season.

American Burying Beetle American Burying Beetles (Nicrophorus americanus) (ABBs) are known to inhabit and feed in a variety of habitats types and will travel up to 2 miles to utilize carrion (Creighton and Schnell 1998). In 1992, census surveys were conducted at Sequoyah NWR within the Sandtown Bottom management unit yielding three ABBs captured among grassland/brush habitats bordering intermittent woodlands, southwest of the refuge headquarters. A survey conducted in 2015 revealed two beetles in Cook Bottom and one beetle in Sandtown Bottom. A survey conducted in 2018 revealed one beetle in the Girty unit of the refuge. ABBs tend to use areas with level topography and a well formed detrital layer at the ground surface (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Very xeric, saturated, or loose sandy soils are not suitable for carcass burial (Ratcliff 1996), and therefore ABBs are less likely to occur in these areas. Roadways, areas that are permanently or frequently flooded, or agricultural areas are not considered suitable habitat for the ABB. In Oklahoma, the primary time ABBs are active is between May 20th and September 20th.

Northern Long-Eared Bat The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is known to occur in seven counties along the eastern edge of Oklahoma, including Sequoyah County (Stevenson 1986). There are no known suitable hibernacula within the refuge boundary, and therefore, no winter use is expected. Suitable summer habitat may occur at the refuge; however, the NLEB has not been documented on the refuge. Certain tree species, some of which occur on the refuge, will form suitable cavities or retain bark suitable (including live trees and snags) for their summer roosting sites (Foster and Kurta 1999). Non-reproductive females and males are also known to roost in caves during the summer (Amelon and Burhans 2006). With NLEB emerging at dusk, most foraging occurs above the understory; 1 to 3 meters above the ground; under the canopy (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993); on forested hillsides and ridges (as opposed to along riparian areas) (Brack and Whitaker 2001); and in mature forests (Caceres and Pybus 1997). Occasional foraging also takes place over forest clearings and water and along roads (Van Zyll de Jong 1985).

Gray Bat The gray bat (Myotis grisescens) occurs in the limestone cave areas of the southeastern United States. Smaller populations occur in surrounding states including Oklahoma. Gray bats inhabit caves year round, migrating each year between winter and summer caves (Hall and Wilson 1966). A portion of the gray bat population migrates to northeastern Oklahoma in the summer to raise their young in maternity caves. Large maternity colonies (around 5,000 bats or more) are known from caves in Adair, Cherokee, Delaware, and Ottawa Counties. A few individuals also are located within caves in Sequoyah County from time to time. Although a few individuals may also be found in Oklahoma caves during the winter, most gray bats that summer in Oklahoma migrate to northern Arkansas and southern Missouri for the winter. No hibernating colonies are known from Oklahoma. Further, there are no known suitable hibernacula within the refuge boundary, and therefore, no winter use is expected.

Gray bats are known to travel up to 35 kilometers from caves to prime feeding areas (La Val et al. 1977; Tuttle and Kennedy 2005). However, most caves are within 1–4 kilometers (0.6 – 2.5 miles) of foraging areas (Tuttle 1976). Gray bats feed on flying insects over bodies of water including rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs. Mayflies, caddisflies, and stoneflies make up the major part of their diet, but beetles and moths also are consumed (Tuttle and Kennedy 2005). In northeast Oklahoma, gray bats typically begin to arrive at caves during mid- to late-April; a single offspring typically is born

13 in late May or early June; young begin to fly 20–25 days after birth; and the maternity colony typically leaves the cave by August. In 2014, a few gray bats were detected near wetland and stream areas at Sequoyah NWR using Anabat survey equipment (BCID and Kaleidoscope software packages were in agreement for 4 individual detections). This is the first evidence that gray bats may seasonally forage at the refuge. However, due to the distance to the nearest known roosting cave, it is unlikely that more than a few individuals utilize the refuge.

Indiana Bat The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is primarily found in the eastern and Midwestern United States. The species is rare in eastern Oklahoma, which represents the western limit of its range. Only a small percentage of caves and cave-like structures meet the specific conditions required by Indiana bats, which explains why so much of the known population hibernates in just a few sites. Summer roosting habitat consists of trees (alive or dead) with exfoliating bark, cracks, or crevices or snags that are 2–3 inches diameter at breast height. Indiana bats forage for insects along forest edges, in or beneath forest canopy, over ponds, and along streams (USFWS 2007).

In Oklahoma, Indiana bats are known from a single hibernaculum on the Ouachita National Forest, LeFlore County, Oklahoma. The Indiana bat has never been documented on the refuge or on any counties located within the refuge. However, in 2014, a few Indiana bats were detected within riparian areas using Anabat survey equipment (BCID and Kaleidoscope software packages were in agreement for 6 individual detections). The Myotis spp. is notoriously difficult to detect using Anabat survey equipment and it is possible (and perhaps likely) that the software packages misidentified the species. Because, the refuge is on the far western portion of the species range and because there are no other known detections of Indiana bats on refuge or in surrounding counties, if Indiana bats were present, it is unlikely that more than a few individuals utilize the refuge.

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. Interior least tern colonies are known to nest along the Canadian River System within the southwest section of Sequoyah NWR during the months of May through June. Tern nesting is limited to this unique location due to favorable conditions (i.e., sandbar islands, open habitat, clear shallow water). Also, interior least terns have been observed foraging within large, shallow wetlands scattered throughout the refuge. Hunting activities would neither occur on, or directly adjacent to, open sandbar islands or known tern nesting habitat. Further interaction between foraging least terns and hunters is unlikely, as hunters generally prefer forested areas and terns generally use open water-bodies for foraging. Potential interior least tern nest depredation does exist, therefore control opportunities that reduce the feral hog population may reduce the likelihood of feral hog depredation on tern nests. Impacts on terns from this alternative are expected to be negligible.

ABBs are known to inhabit oak-pine woodlands, open fields, oak­hickory forests, open grasslands, and edge habitats adjacent to/within the refuge (Creighton et al. 1993). Censuses in 1992, 2015, and 2018 indicated a small population of beetles within the Sandtown, Cook, and Girty Units. 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. However, to our knowledge, there is no evidence that feral hogs compete with ABBs for carcasses. Direct impacts on ABBs from hunters are unlikely.

The endangered gray bat and the threatened NLEB could potentially utilize the refuge for foraging and cavity nesting (in the case of the northern long eared bat). However, their abundance is not likely to be affected by any changes to abundance or distribution of hunted species. Gray bats are unlikely to use

14 Sequoyah NWR as roosting habitat and all foraging activities occur at night or during dusk and dawn. Even though there is some overlap during the dusk and dawn periods for hunting, the limited number of hunters will be such that conflict between gray bats and hunters is unlikely. NLEBs have never been confirmed to utilize Sequoyah NWR for roosting habitat. As there are no known suitable hibernacula for NLEB at the refuge and NLEB would only utilize trees for roosting in spring through fall, the likelihood of conflict between hunters and NLEB is very low. Further, NLEBs have never been confirmed to use the refuge, so any conflict is unlikely.

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

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Similar to Alternative A, adverse impacts of Sequoyah NWR's hunting program to threatened and endangered species would be unlikely. However, as this alternative increases human presence on the refuge at a different time than other refuge hunts, effects to threatened and endangered species may be slightly higher than Alternative A. As identified in Alternative A, many listed species are not currently present on the refuge or hunt areas; therefore, impacts are expected to be negligible.

Further, reductions to the feral hog population via hunting may have a beneficial impact to threatened and endangered species through a decrease in soil disturbance (i.e., ABBs) and predation of interior least tern nests.

Vegetation South-Central Interior Large Floodplain This is likely the most prevalent habitat type found on the refuge and typifies the habitat commonly referred to as floodplain forest or sometimes bottomland hardwood forest. This habitat type has dramatically declined in the last century due to the waterway alterations of the Arkansas and Canadian Rivers. Very little floodplain forest habitat remains in Oklahoma, making those found on the refuge vital for wildlife use.

This habitat type occurs along large rivers or streams where topography and alluvial processes have resulted in a well-developed floodplain. A single occurrence may extend from river's edge across the outermost extent of the floodplain or to where it meets a wet meadow or upland system. Many examples of this system will contain well-drained levees, terraces, and stabilized bars, and some will include herbaceous sloughs and shrub wetlands resulting, in part, from beaver activity. A variety of soil types may be found within the floodplain from very well-drained sandy substrates to very dense clays. A variety of substrate types combined with a dynamic flooding regime creates a mosaic of vegetation. The peak of the hydrological cycle within this habitat is in the spring, as a majority of the habitat is flooded for at least some point each spring; microtopography determines how long the various habitats are inundated.

Vegetation varies quite widely, encompassing shrubby and herbaceous communities as well as forested communities with a wide array of canopy types. Although vegetation is quite variable in this broadly defined system, examples may include silver maple (Acer saccharinum), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), elm (Ulmus spp.), pecan (Carya illinoinensis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), willow (Salix spp.) and oak (Quercus spp.). Understory species are mixed, but include shrubs such as giant cane (Arundinaria gigantean), sedge, and smartweed (Polygonum spp.). Annual flooding events are confined to the main channel or lowlands bordering the river. However, floods occurring every 5–100

15 years typically overflow the banks, leaving residual water in back swamps, pools, sloughs, oxbows, and depressions (Jones 1996). These peak flood events scour bottomland habitat creating a disturbance regime, providing a variety of successional states. Inundation by reservoirs, a stabilized hydrological regime, and agricultural conversion are the primary threats to this system.

Ozark-Ouachita Riparian This system is found along streams and small rivers within the Ozark and Ouachita regions. In contrast to larger floodplain systems, this system has little to no floodplain development and often contains cobble bars and steep banks. Flooding and scouring strongly influence this system and prevent the floodplain development found on larger rivers. It is traditionally higher gradient than larger floodplains and experiences periodic, strong flooding. It is often characterized by a cobble bar with forest immediately adjacent with little to no marsh development. This habitat type exists along many of the tributaries to the Arkansas and Canadian River systems. Canopy cover can vary within examples of this system, but typical tree species include American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra), maple (Acer spp.), and oak (Quercus spp.). The richness of the herbaceous layer can vary significantly, ranging from species-rich to species-poor. These areas are typically dominated by primarily wetland obligate species of sedge, fem, and other herbaceous species. Flooding and scouring strongly influence this system and prevent the floodplain development found on larger rivers.

Sand Bars There are approximately 900 acres of sandbars located primarily in river habitat on the western portions of the refuge. The periodic fluctuations in reservoir levels and flood events have a significant effect on the quantity and type of vegetation on the sandbars. Typically, the succession of vegetation on the sandbars begins with emergent vegetation, sedges (Carex spp.), and horsetails (Equisetum arvense) followed by invasion of salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima), cattails (Typha spp.), and willows (Salix spp.).

Agriculture - Cultivated Crops The refuge utilizes a cooperative farming program to supplement the energetic and nutritional needs of wintering waterfowl. The refuge contains approximately 2,746 acres of cultivated farmland, of which a portion of the standing crop (of either corn, milo, or millet) is cultivated for wildlife use. An additional portion of the total cultivated acreage is cultivated as winter wheat. For example, in 2011, approximately 1,456 and 1,099 acres of soybeans and corn were farmed, respectively. Historically, alfalfa, harvest wheat, mungbeans, and hull peas were also cultivated in the cooperative farming program.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Damage to riparian areas and woodland habitats would remain the same or worsen. 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 Kentucky warbler, turkey, mallard, quail, reptiles, and amphibians would continue and likely increase as the hog population increases. Damage

16 to refuge roads, impoundments, streams, and farm fields through excessive rooting behavior would likely remain the same.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Under this alternative, impacts are expected to be beneficial. The incidental take of feral hogs by turkey hunters will reduce the impacts of their destructive behavior, such as the spread of invasive species, uprooted plants, and fewer de­vegetated wallows. Some adverse impacts are expected from turkey hunters trampling vegetation, but these impacts would be negligible due to limited number of hunters (maximum of 10 hunters) and a maximum of 10 hunt days per year.

Soils The soils of the refuge consist predominantly of sandy loams and silty loams (e.g., Coushatta silt loam) that are typical of the river alluvial deposits in the area. These soils consist of deep, well-drained, moderately slowly permeable soils that formed in calcareous, loamy alluvium and occur on natural levees along rivers. These types of soils can be agriculturally productive and provide excellent woodland habitat if flood events and inundation periods are not too extensive in length.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 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, increasing the potential for impacts on soil resources. Feral hogs damage farm fields and other infrastructure, which leads to increased soil destabilization and erosion. In addition, 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. Refuge regulations would not permit the use of off-highway vehicles (i.e., ATVs and utility vehicles). In addition, the increase in hunter visits compared to overall public use on the refuge is considered minor. Increased take of feral hogs would likely reduce potential impacts on soil resources. Feral hog damage to farm fields, infrastructure, and native habitat may be slightly reduced by the increased take of hogs. This alternative may slightly improve soil quality as the feral hog population is further reduced and there are fewer hogs to cause detrimental effects on soils.

Air Quality The EPA has developed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal air pollutants (also called "criteria pollutants"). They are ground-level ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead (Pb).

The ambient air quality within the boundaries of the refuge does not vary considerably. The refuge in Oklahoma has not recorded ambient criteria pollutant concentrations that approach the maximum concentration permitted by the NAAQS. It has met and continues to meet air quality standards for all six pollutants (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013).

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

17 The current level of public use on the refuge (which is approximately 82,882 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 6 percent (4,973 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) With additional hunt units open, we assume that there will be an 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 traffic that results from increased hunter activity would be spread out over a larger area than 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 Arkansas River is the major river that flows through the refuge. Most of the freshwater withdrawn from the alluvial and ten-acre deposits along the Arkansas River is used for agricultural and manufacturing purposes. Between the Canadian River junction and the Arkansas state line, the alluvium and alluvial terraces along the Arkansas River consists mostly of sand and gravel about 40 feet thick (U.S. Geological Service 1996).

Development, agriculture, navigation, and flood control measures have all negatively impacted water quality on the Arkansas and Canadian Rivers, which flow through the refuge. On the refuge's wetlands and moist soil units, sedimentation is also a concern since it may impact natural wetland function and, as a result, may alter the ability of the wetland to provide habitat for a variety of wetland-dependent species. Nutrients, pesticides, and runoff from farming operations may also degrade the quality of water on the refuge.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 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. Through hog control efforts, there will likely be a reduction in adverse effects on water quality.

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

18 Visitor Use and Experience The refuge has been open to public use activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography since its establishment in 1970. In 2018, total visitation was estimated to be 82,882 people. This includes approximately 28,376 visits for fishing, with catfish, largemouth bass, white bass, crappie, and striped bass being the more popular game fish sought on the refuge. Hunting is open to migratory birds (coot, snipe, mourning dove, and woodcock), upland game (rabbit, gray squirrel, and fox squirrel), all waterfowl species (ducks, geese, and mergansers), and big game (white- tailed deer) allowed by the Oklahoma hunting regulations. Total visitation for hunting in 2018 was approximately 4,414 visits, with 113 for migratory bird hunting, 224 for upland game hunting, 3,945 for waterfowl hunting, and 132 for deer hunting. Other public uses include 72,579 visits for wildlife observation, environmental education, interpretation, and photography. In 2018, there were approximately 66,670 visits for wildlife observation, 5,561 for photography, and 366 for environmental education.

Public use areas and access points on the refuge include 28 parking lots, three fully developed boat ramps with courtesy docks, six other less developed to primitive boat ramps, six fishing/observation decks, two photography/observation platforms, and two one-mile long paved hiking trails. Refuge hunting and fishing brochures complete with maps and regulations are available to the public at distribution boxes throughout the refuge and on the refuge website.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) In 2018, the refuge increased the number of units available for hunting and increased the amount of hunting opportunities/areas that are offered to the public, including upland game and white-tailed deer on the refuge and harvest of feral hogs when the opportunity presents itself.

The implementation of these hunts in 2018 resulted in the Sandtown Bottom Unit (beyond Tuff Boat Ramp) being closed (for safety reasons) to public entry (except deer hunters) for a maximum of 20 days during the special deer muzzleloader hunt. In order to mitigate conflicts with other uses during this time, the refuge notifies the public through press releases and website notifications prior to the hunt and by signs on the refuge during the hunt. If other conflicts arise, the refuge manager may limit or restrict other public uses during the hunting season to ensure public safety. The Sandtown Unit will be left open to other public uses during the special deer archery hunts and wild turkey hunts. The safety concerns during an archery hunt are minimal and keeping the refuge open reduces the conflict the archery hunts have on other public uses. The refuge is able to maintain a high level of management on the frequency hunt units are used and the number of hunters that are placed in these units. This high level of management results in limited conflicts between deer hunters/upland game hunters and other user groups, which increase the visitor experience for hunters.

A reduction in the hog population will also benefit the public and refuge staff by helping to minimize the chance of hog or turkey/vehicle collisions that result in numerous accidents, sometimes fatal, and millions of dollars in property damage throughout the United States annually. A reduction in the hog population will also reduce the potential of aggressive behavior of feral hogs on employees and visitors at the refuge.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) The impacts to visitor use and experience would continue as outlined under Alterative A.

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, refuge turkey hunts will provide additional hunting opportunities for both youth and adults in the local area, and statewide. In addition to the established upland and big game hunting program, hunters would be able to apply for refuge turkey hunts. The

19 limited number of permits available for the turkey hunt (10 permits) would allow for a quality hunting experience and reduce conflicts between hunters and other user groups. The low number of permits would have a minimal adverse impact on public use facilities, such as roads, trails, parking lots, and restrooms through additional wear and tear. Other public uses would be allowed while turkey hunts are conducted; therefore, turkey hunts would not restrict other public use activities. A benefit of the youth turkey hunt is the introduction to the refuge to young hunters. Refuge staff will inform youth hunters on the purposes and values of national wildlife refuges. Youth that are selected through the Oklahoma Youth Hunting program will be new to turkey hunting. The refuge would serve as their first place to experience this opportunity. The program would contribute to the recruitment of new hunters as addressed in the nationwide Service initiative referred to as the “3Rs” (Recruitment, Retention, and Reactivation).

Affected Cultural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Cultural Resources Approximately 43 archaeological sites are presently recorded within or partially within the boundary of the refuge. Many of the sites were documented during surveys conducted for the USACE on land within and around the Robert S. Kerr Reservoir; the rest were recorded during other contracted surveys or by avocational archaeologists (Sisson 2000). Sites on the refuge and surrounding area have yielded artifacts from all recognized prehistoric periods, burial mounds and village sites, 19th century trade goods (knives, ceramics, kitchen utensils, etc.), and early 20th century homesteads and cemeteries. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is identified on the refuge. Very little excavating has been done on the refuge. Known or suspected sites are protected from disturbance.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) This alternative would not result in any direct impacts to cultural resources. However, increasing feral hog populations could potentially negatively impact cultural resources through their foraging and digging behavior.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Further reduction of the feral hog population will decrease the likelihood that cultural sites could be damaged by feral hogs rooting and digging behavior.

Affected Refuge Management and Operations Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Refuge Management and Operations Land Use The refuge has one 3,000-square foot administrative office, which is used by staff, volunteers, and the visiting public. The refuge also has one maintenance building, one vehicle/equipment shed, two

20 equipment storage sheds, and two military surplus Quonset huts used for carpentry/wood working activities.

The refuge contains approximately 14 miles of public use roads and approximately 15 miles of service roads. The public use roads allow visitors to participate in all the recreational activities that are offered by the refuge. The service roads are not open to public use, but are used by refuge staff to conduct management activities.

The refuge consists of moist-soil units, croplands, floodplain forests, upland forests, creeks, and rivers. The refuge relies on water management infrastructure to control water for both farming and wetland management on the refuge. An extensive system of water control structures and portable pumps are used to flood and hold water to make moist-soil resources available throughout the year to maximize benefits to wildlife. Production of moist-soil units is maintained with properly timed disturbance such as prescribed fire, disking, and crop production. A Cooperative Land Management Agreement was established between the Service, Sequoyah NWR, and local area farmers. Under this agreement, the Service and the cooperators shall manage farm units for the production of high-quality food resources to benefit wildlife within the refuge. Each cooperator can cultivate an annually determined acreage on the refuge; approximately 75 percent of which the cooperator harvests for sale (e.g., corn, soybeans, and wheat) and the remaining 25 percent is left unharvested for migratory birds and other resident wildlife.

Administration The refuge receives funding and staffing for operations, infrastructure, and maintenance through the DOI appropriations approved by Congress, and allocates it to refuges through the Service’s Southwest Regional Office. The refuge has a fluctuating number of permanent full time staff that include:

• Refuge manager, GS-13 • Deputy refuge manager, GS-11/12 • Refuge biologist, GS-9/11 • Outdoor recreation planner, GS-9 • Law enforcement officer, GS-9 • Administrative technician, GS- 7 • Maintenance worker, WG-8/9

Additional staff and work volunteers include:

• 4 Youth Conservation Corps • Student Conservation Association and/or American Conservation Experience interns • 20–30 Volunteers

The refuge operation budget was $436,146 for fiscal year 2018. An estimated $10,400 was spent on running the refuge’s big game and upland game hunt program.

In the fall, the refuge conducts one youth and four adult deer hunts. Check stations for these hunts are operated by refuge staff and volunteers. These hunts typically take place during the regular work week when staff is present. Although, evenings and occasional weekend hunts do require extra staff time.

The refuge has an intensive management program for feral hogs. Refuge staff conducts trapping and night shoots on a continual basis. The refuge has a partnership with U.S. Department of Agriculture

21 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) in which aerial gunning, night shooting, and trapping are conducted by APHIS employees.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Administrative The annual costs for the hunting program is paid to law enforcement program (1264), visitor services program (1263), maintenance program (1262), and general station funds (1261). The hunt program’s annual cost is approximately $10,400. Since the hunting program for the refuge is already established for deer, squirrel, and rabbit (and feral hog), there should be no additional cost for the hunt program. Hunters participating in the deer hunts pay a $20 federal user fee to the ODWC. ODWC pays the refuge 100 percent of the money that is collected in this process. The refuge submits the fees to the recreational fee program and receives 80 percent of the funds in return. The refuge uses these recreational fee funds to pay salaries of staff that perform work on these hunts and also to purchase any needed materials that are associated with the hunting program.

Staffing is the most significant limiting factor for conducting the refuge hunting program. One law enforcement officer is tasked with addressing all enforcement needs of the public use program throughout the 20,800 acres of the refuge. The outdoor recreation planner administers all projects associated with wildlife observation, wildlife photography, hunting, fishing, environmental education, and interpretation. Volunteers are often utilized to enhance the public use programs provided by the refuge. All other refuge staff provides some support for public use programs such as hunting.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Land Use Under the proposed action, turkey hunting would occur during the planting season of some agricultural crops. Farming activities by cooperative farmers would be discouraged, but may still be allowed if farming activities are time-sensitive. Turkey on the refuge are accustomed to farming, and farming activities typically do not alter their movements. However, as farming activities would be discouraged, the likelihood of a conflict with the hunts is low.

Turkey hunts would have minimal impact on refuge land management practices. Hunts would mainly take place on weekends and outside of normal duty hours of staff. When hunts occur on weekdays, daily activities would be planned to reduce conflicts with the hunt.

Administration The refuge has an established big game hunting program and there are no expected startup costs. The annual costs for the hunt would be paid by the law enforcement program, visitor services program, maintenance program, and general station funds. The estimated hunt program’s annual cost is $12,400. Administrative conflicts are not anticipated. As the refuge encounters new needs for hunting, the refuge manager would set station priorities to assure that staff time required to administer the hunting program is adequate. Assistance may be sought from other refuges and from the state if serious conflicts do arise.

22

Affected Socioeconomic Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Socioeconomics Local and Regional Economies The refuge is located in three counties, with the majority of the refuge in Sequoyah County and smaller portions of the refuge in Haskell and Muskogee Counties. The socioeconomic impact of refuge operations is mainly in the neighboring communities of Vian (population 1,538) and Sallisaw (population 8,812), Oklahoma and Ft. Smith (population 85,544), Arkansas (Onboard Informatics 2010). The majority of the refuge's annual budget is used in the local economy through refuge staff spending, purchases from local stores for supplies, and service contracts. Youth and other cooperative programs provide occasional employment to members of the community.

The refuge's cooperative farming program yields an annual return to the cooperative farmers. The refuge provides various wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities with wildlife observation being the most popular, followed by fishing, hunting, and photography. According to traffic counts, the refuge receives over 82,000 visitors a year. The majority of visitors are from nearby locations, though proximity to the larger cities of Muskogee, Tulsa, and Oklahoma City allows for visitors from foreign countries to tour the refuge.

As required by the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1978, Public Law 95-469, the Service annually compensates counties for Service lands taken off county tax rolls. The revenue sharing payment is calculated using a formula taking into account the land's appraised value and money available under the program. However, since refuge lands are considered the property of the USACE, Sequoyah, Haskell, and Muskogee Counties do not receive a payment from the Service but from the USACE who makes a payment to the individual counties in lieu of taxes.

The economic area for the refuge is Sequoyah, Haskell, and Muskogee Counties in Oklahoma. It is assumed that visitor expenditures occur primarily within these counties. Total expenditures were $2.6 million with non-residents accounting for $1.5 million or 56 percent of total expenditures. Expenditures on hunting activities accounted for 39 percent of all expenditures, followed by non- consumptive activities and fishing at 34 and 27 percent, respectively (Banking on Nature 2006).

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) The economic impact of the current hunt program would be a relatively minor increase in sales of hunting licenses and ammunition to the limited number of people participating in these hunts. Local hotels may experience a slight increase in business as drawn hunters might utilize them.

The hunts would result in a net gain of public hunting opportunities in a region dominated by private land, which would have a beneficial impact on the public and on hunter retention and recruitment. The community would also benefit from a slight increase in tourism revenue.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Similar to Alternative A, the proposed action would allow a greater number of hunters. This could have a positive impact on the local economy through a minimal increase in the purchase of fuel, food, lodging, and supplies by hunters coming to the community.

23 Winter wheat and early planted corn crops can be adversely affected by high densities of wintering turkey pulling sprouted seedlings out of the ground. Hunting on the refuge would benefit agricultural practices by dispersing high concentrations of turkey off early season crops. Lower concentrations of turkey on these agricultural crops may lead to higher yields, resulting in a slight beneficial impact. Under this alternative, additional control of feral hogs could reduce the overall harvest yield losses incurred by farmers in the local area as well as degradation of neighboring lands. This result would not only minimize the economic loss experienced by farmers and adjacent landowners, but would contribute to better relationships between neighboring landowners and refuge personnel.

Climate Change Climate change is already affecting fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats around the globe. The Service's Southwest Region has been working with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the academic community, and other natural resource management agencies and interest groups to translate available and emerging science into concrete actions that reduce the impacts of a changing climate on the broadly diverse ecosystems in Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

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.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A The refuge believes that its hunt program would have negligible impacts on climate change; however, much is unknown about this subject.

Alternative B Impacts under the proposed action alternative are expected to be the same as those under Alternative A.

Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action) Under current management, there would be mortality of white-tailed deer, feral hogs, squirrel, and rabbit. 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, 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; a humane kill is likely.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) This alternative will be the same as Alternative A with the addition of mortality to turkey.

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

24 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 DOI Environmental Compliance Memorandum 97-2 requires that all agency environmental assessments must address explicitly whether there are or not any Indian Trust Resources that may be impacted by the action.

There are no Indian Trust Resources on Sequoyah NWR.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Because there are no Indian trust resources on the refuge, there are no impacts expected under either alternative.

Anticipated Cumulative Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Natural Resources Refuges, including Sequoyah 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 the hunting program.

Regional analysis of the northeast region of Oklahoma indicates turkey populations increased during the last 10 years. From 2009 to 2018, there was a population increase of approximately 23 percent. In contrast, population numbers from 2016 to 2018 increased by 2 percent. Anticipated annual turkey harvest on the refuge is an extremely small percentage (0.02) of the state’s annual harvest (total harvest of turkey for State of Oklahoma was 35,680 in 2018). The impact of harvest from the Sequoyah NWR would be incrementally negligible within the context of the estimated 114,000 wild turkey found in Oklahoma (Lovett 2018).

As with many other activities that occur on the refuge, turkey hunting may result in increased disturbance but it is likely to be temporary, and once hunters have left the area, normal wildlife behavior should resume. Therefore, impacts from the proposed action are expected to be incrementally negligible when put in context of all the other activities occurring on the landscape.

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 aerial control by refuge personnel, volunteers, or contractors. All these activities result in the removal of

25 approximately 500 hogs per year. Fewer feral hogs would 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. Therefore, impacts from the proposed action are expected to be incrementally negligible when put in context of all the other activities occurring on the landscape.

In general other wildlife and aquatic species are broadly distributed throughout the region and have limited home ranges. Hunting is not expected to affect any wildlife populations regionally. Some wildlife disturbance (increased human presence and sounds of gunshots) will occur locally during the hunting season; however, these impacts are expected to be minor. There would be no change in diversity or abundance of wildlife that use the area and the existing habitat conditions would be maintained. Management actions on the refuge are a small part of a number of integrated efforts to manage migratory birds on the flyway, continental, and hemispheric scales. The refuge contributes to and collaborates with waterfowl management efforts by the Service and ODWC in the Central Flyway. No additional cumulative impacts to other wildlife or aquatic species are anticipated from the current hunt program. A negligible increase in disturbance from 10 additional potential hunters annually may occur under Alternative B. No cumulative impacts are anticipated.

Threatened and endangered species may be affected by changes in local human population numbers or changes in land use patterns which reduce habitat availability or quality in the local area. Releases from upstream dams may have direct adverse impacts during the tern’s nesting season because high water may flood and displace nests and nestlings. However, during other seasons the scouring of sandbar islands used for nesting may be beneficial to the species. Agricultural and infrastructure development projects off-refuge could adversely affect ABB through ground disturbance and federally listed bats through removal of foraging, roosting, and maternity habitat. Nevertheless, the protection of habitat provided by the refuge would continue to result in a benefit to the long-term conservation of threatened and endangered species.

The current hunt program would have no cumulative impacts on threatened and endangered species or other special status species. Under the proposed action, reductions to the feral hog population via hunting may have a negligible beneficial impact on threatened and endangered species through a decrease in soil disturbance (i.e., ABBs) and predation of interior least tern nests. No cumulative impacts are anticipated because of the low likelihood of refuge hunts affecting special status species and because of the low level of increased feral hog harvest anticipated from the addition of 10 hunters annually. The refuge will continue to provide habitat and implement the recovery plans of each of the special status species known to use the refuge. Refuge management actions are not cumulatively significant.

Under both alternatives, the refuge would continue farming, wetlands management, native habitat enhancement, and invasive species control. There would also be cumulative adverse impacts on wildlife/habitat due to maintenance or construction of roads, trails, buildings, piers, blinds, and oil and gas facilities on and off the refuge. Based on current levels of visitation, potential impacts from visitors engaged in wildlife observation, photography, and associated uses include damage to vegetation. Groups of visitors typically use established foot trails and produce little impact to vegetation. Current hunting programs do not have cumulative impacts on refuge vegetation. Under the proposed action, a negligible increase in trampling of vegetation and increased harvest of feral hogs may occur. The addition of 10 hunters annually would not result in any new cumulative impacts to

26 vegetation in Alternative B, and impacts would be the similar to those existing under current conditions. These impacts would not be cumulatively significant.

The amount of soil disturbance could increase into the future on lands surrounding the refuge as population and associated development grow. Current and foreseeable future area impacts to soils include ground disturbance, which can result in erosion and sedimentation, and nutrient loss. Impacts are caused by land use activities such as construction, farming, and mechanical treatments facility, road and trail maintenance; prescribed burning; cooperative farming; invasive species control; public use activities; and maintenance of moist soil units both on and off the refuge.

The current hunt program has minor direct and indirect effects on soils; no cumulative impacts are expected. The adverse direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on soil are expected to be negligible, short-term, and local. The addition of 10 hunters annually would not result in any new cumulative impacts to vegetation in Alternative B, and impacts would be similar to those existing under current conditions. Air quality is generally not a concern in this area due to the rural location of the refuge and lack of large industry nearby that could impact air quality. Potential sources for emissions include heavy vehicle traffic on I-40 and barge traffic on MKARNS.

Refuge activities affecting air quality include prescribed fire, construction and maintenance of roads, public use structures, and wetlands; emissions from vehicles, heavy equipment and farm equipment; spraying of herbicides and the application of chicken litter on farm fields; control of invasive species; public use activities; restoration projects; and forestry practices. Projects on the refuge that result in effects to air quality would be about the same over time, with minimal differences based on conditions. Adverse impacts will occur through the cooperative farming program, prescribed burning, public use activities, moist soil management, and maintenance projects. The adverse effects are short- to long- term, negligible to moderate, and site-specific to local.

Both alternatives would essentially have the same effects to refuge air quality, even with the increased visitor use. Outside the refuge, air quality impacts would remain about the same for the foreseeable future, pending extreme population growth or an increase in industrial or oil and gas development activities. The impacts of the alternatives would not be cumulatively significant. The current hunt programs adverse direct and indirect effects and the effects of the proposed action are expected to have negligible and short-term effects. No other refuge management activities and public uses are expected to adversely affect air quality to any measurable degree.

The refuge lies at the confluence of the Arkansas and Canadian Rivers with approximately seven river miles of the Canadian River within the refuge before it enters Kerr Reservoir. Over the past century, waters of the Canadian and Arkansas Rivers have become increasingly degraded by municipal, agricultural and industrial input. Sequoyah NWR contains three waterbodies that are listed as impaired on the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (OKDEQ) 303(d) list. Nutrients, pesticides and runoff from farming operations throughout applicable watersheds have degraded the quality of water on the refuge. All of these activities, actions, and trends have had adverse implications for water resources in the area. These large detrimental influences work against and offset the refuge’s largely beneficial impacts on water quality, such as expansion of giant cane, forest and wetland management, use of agricultural Best management practices, development of an Integrated Pest Management Plan, etc.

Refuge activities would continue to impact water quality through the cooperative farming program (pesticide and fertilizer use, increased sedimentation), construction and maintenance projects, wetland maintenance projects, invasive species control, and public use activities (foot traffic, runoff from

27 visitor vehicles, and petroleum products from boat motors) generally have direct to indirect effects with adverse, short- to long-term, minor to moderate, site-specific to wide scale impacts.

The hunting of feral hogs by the public incidental to hunting other game species would have no direct impacts to water quality; however, there could be indirect beneficial, long-term effects because of reduced feral hog numbers. This alternative may slightly improve water quality as the feral hog population is further reduced and there are fewer hogs to cause turbidity. Other public use activities would have negligible to minor, and short-term impacts

The refuge maintains and conserves large areas of healthy, vegetated habitats that protect soil and water. These vegetated habitats filter out contaminants and minimize erosion. Minimization of erosion improves water quality by decreasing turbidity and sedimentation.

The activities conducted have a range of effects and impacts. Although many refuge activities have short-term site-specific to local minor impacts on water quality, the overall adverse impacts are minimal based on the frequent diluting effects of rainfall and abundance of aquatic organisms within the refuge. The current hunt program has only minor direct and indirect effects on water resources; therefore no cumulative impacts are expected. The beneficial direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on water resources are expected to be negligible and short-term.

Visitor Use and Experience Hunting/Fishing Oklahoma has limited public lands open for hunting as roughly 97 percent of the state is privately owned. The additional turkey hunts would provide increased opportunities for the hunting community in Oklahoma. Since there is very limited public opportunity to hunt turkey throughout the state, creating this new opportunity even with a minimal number of turkey permits (10) may have incrementally minor beneficial impacts on visitor, specifically hunter, use and experience.

Other Wildlife-Dependent Recreation (i.e., road and trail development and use) Under the Proposed Action Alternative, as public use levels expand across time, unanticipated conflicts between public user groups may occur. The refuge's visitor use programs would be adjusted as needed to eliminate or minimize problems and provide quality 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 Alternative to minimize wildlife disturbance and habitat degradation, while allowing compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Some areas, such as waterfowl sanctuaries or rookeries, could be closed seasonally to minimize disturbances by hunters or other recreational users.

Local minor beneficial impacts to the local area may include refuge hunters participating in recreational activities outside of the refuge, such as fishing, wildlife photography, and visiting other wildlife-oriented areas (i.e., Tenkiller State Park Nature Center).

Use of Lead Ammunition/Tackle Under the proposed action, turkey hunters would be required to use non-toxic shot; therefore, there are no anticipated cumulative impacts.

Cultural Resources

28 The Service is responsible for managing archeological and historic sites found on national wildlife refuges. Undertakings initiated on the refuge, as well as any ground disturbing activities, have the potential to impact cultural resources.

Since establishment, the refuge has 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 would have no impact on known or suspected sites; therefore, no cumulative impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. The consequences for cultural resources would be the same under each management alternative.

Refuge Management and Operations Sequoyah NWR offers a variety of wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography) and conducts various administrative activities including a cooperative farming 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 turkey hunts would use the same facilities that currently exist and those that are slated to be improved under current management. Therefore, when looking at the current refuge management activities and the number of new permits issued to hunters (10 annually), the proposed action would be incrementally negligible.

Socioeconomics Development and Population Increase Refer to the approved 2017 Big and Upland Game and Feral Hog Hunt Plan for cumulative impacts. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the increase in hunting opportunities is minimal and will have an incrementally negligible contribution to new development or population growth in the local area or region.

Agricultural Land Uses Sequoyah NWR utilizes a cooperative farming program to supplement the energetic and nutritional needs of wintering waterfowl. The refuge contains approximately 2,746 acres of cultivated farmland, of which a portion of the standing crop (of either corn, milo, or millet) is cultivated for wildlife use. An additional portion of the total cultivated acreage is cultivated as winter wheat. For example in 2011, approximately 1,456 and 1,099 acres of soybeans and corn were farmed, respectively. Historically, alfalfa, harvest wheat, mungbeans, and hull peas were also cultivated in the cooperative farming program. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the additional hunting opportunities would have no impact on local or regional agricultural land uses.

Climate Change One potential refuge activity, prescribed burning, releases CO2 directly into the atmosphere from the biomass consumed during combustion. The refuge prescribed fire program is primarily limited to small areas of early successional grasslands and wetlands, burn piles, site preparation for forestry plantings, and mature upland hardwood forests. Predicted long-term climate-change-related impacts would occur regardless of which alternatives under consideration is ultimately selected by the Service. No additional cumulative impacts to climate change are expected under either alternative.

29 Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns No additional cumulative impacts are anticipated under either alternative.

Environmental Justice No additional cumulative impacts are expected under either alternative.

Indian Trust Resources No cumulative impacts are anticipated.

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 Under this alternative the refuge would continue to allow hunting of white-tail deer, feral hog, squirrel and rabbit as described in the approved 2017 Big and Upland Game and Feral Hog Hunt Plan. No new areas or species would be open to hunting.

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

Some minor adverse impacts would occur to the visitor experience through potential conflicts between turkey hunters and other user groups. However, conflicts would be minor due to a limited number of hunters and hunt days. The refuge would remain open to other public uses during turkey hunts. Minor beneficial impacts to the socioeconomic environment would occur through capital expenditures in the local economy by turkey 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 new hunts would require staff time to conduct hunt briefings, assist hunters, and check in harvested turkeys. No startup costs are expected because the refuge would use resources already used for deer 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 educate the public about the benefits of using hunting as a wildlife management tool. These hunts would help preserve the biological diversity on the refuge by reducing the

30 negative environmental impacts associated with feral hogs. The Service has determined that the proposed action is compatible with the purposes of Sequoyah NWR and the mission of the NWRS.

Monitoring To ensure expansion of the refuge hunt program does not prove detrimental to turkey populations, we would conduct winter flock surveys of turkey on the refuge. The refuge would consult with ODWC biologists to understand regional and local turkey population trends. A comparison of local and regional trends and refuge populations would be made. The number of hunting permits allowed may be adjusted based on this analysis.

The refuge would also monitor bald eagle nesting activity and success to ensure that adding a turkey hunting program in the spring does not have a continual negative impact on nesting activities.

Turkey hunts would occur at a time of year when there is high use from other activities (i.e., photography and fishing). Because other high-volume public uses would occur during turkey hunt season, it may be hard to distinguish the cause of degradation to facilities and plant communities between the other uses and turkey hunts.

List of Sources, Agencies, and Persons Consulted

References

Amelon, S., and D. Burhans. 2006. Conservation assessment: Myotis septentrionalis (northern long-eared bat) in the eastern United States. Pages 69-82 in Thompson, F. R., III, editor. Conservation assessments for five forest bat species in the eastern United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, General Technical Report NC-260. St. Paul, Minnesota. 82 pp.

Brack, V., and J. 0. Whitaker. 2001. Foods of the northern myotis, Myotis septentrionalis, from Missouri and Indiana, with notes on foraging. Acta Chiropterol. 3: 203- 210.

Caceres, M.C., and M.J. Pybus. 1997. Status of the northern long-eared bat in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management Division, Wildlife Status Report No. 3, Edmonton, AB. 19 pp.

Creighton, J.C., C.C. Vaughn, and B.R. Chapman. 1993. Habitat preference of the endangered American burying beetle (Nicrophorns americanus) in Oklahoma. The Southwest Naturalist 38: 275-277.

Creighton, J.C., and G. Schnell. 1998. Short-term movement patterns of the endangered American burying beetle Nicrophorus americanus. Biological Conservation 86: 281-287.

31 Foster, R. W. and A. Kurta. 1999. Roosting ecology of the N01ihern bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and comparisons with the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Journal of Mammalogy 80(2):659-672.

Hall, J. S., and N. Wilson. 1966. Seasonal populations and movements of the gray bat in the Kentucky area. American Midland Naturalist 75:317-24.

Lovett, B. Turkey Hunting Forecast 2018. Outdoor Life. Web. 26 February 2018. https://www.outdoorlife.com/turkey-hunting-forecast-2018

Nagorsen, D. W., and R. M. Brigham. 1993. The Mammals of British Columbia. 1. Bats. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, and the University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. pp. 164.

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 2018. Feral Hogs in Oklahoma. Retrieved from https://www.wildlifedepartment.com/feral-hogs-in-oklahoma

Onboard Informatics. Advameg Inc., 2003-2010. Web. 20 January, 2011. http://www.citydata.com

Ratcliffe, B.C. 1996. The carrion beetles (Coleoptera: Silphidae) of Nebraska. Bulletin of the Nebraska State Museum Vol. 13.

Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge. 1996. White-Tailed Deer Management Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Vian, OK.

Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge. 2013. Feral hog management plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Vian, OK.

Sisson, F. 2000. A cultural resources overview and assessment for Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge, Oklahoma. A component of the refuge comprehensive conservation plan. Cultural Resources Consultant, Anadarko, OK.

Stevenson, L.K. 1986. Some ecological aspects of Myotiskeenii in Oklahoma. M.S. Thesis. Pittsburg State Univ.,Pittsburg, KS. 61 pp.

Tuttle, M.D. 1976. Population ecology of the gray bat (Myotis grisescens): philopatry, timing and patterns of movement, weight, loss during migration, and seasonal adaptive strategies. Occasional Paper No. 54, University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Lawrence. 38pp.

Tuttle, M.D. and J. Kennedy. 2005. Field guide to eastern cave bats. Bat Conservation International, Inc., Austin, TX. 41pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013. Available at https://www.epa.gov/criteria- air-pollutants/naaqs-table.

32 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. American Burying Beetle Recovery Plan. Technical/Agency Draft. Newton Comer, Massachusetts. 73 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First

Van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1979. Distribution and systematic relationships oflong-eared Myotis in western Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 57: 987-994.

List of Preparers Darrin Unruh – Refuge Manager Damon Taylor – Deputy Refuge Manager Chad Ford – Outdoor Recreation Planner

State Coordination Oklahoma refuge managers met with ODWC personnel in January 2018 to discuss how refuges could provide additional hunting and fishing opportunities on Oklahoma refuges. This meeting was a result of Secretarial Order 3356 (Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories). The refuge manager for Sequoyah NWR presented a proposal to the ODWC to open the refuge to controlled turkey hunts. The ODWC accepted this proposal. The hunting opportunities implemented in this plan will honor agreements with the ODWC and provide the public with quality recreational hunting opportunities while still maintaining protection for threatened and endangered species and their habitats.

Tribal Consultation On January 17, 2019, the Service sent out a letter to all 38 recognized tribes in Oklahoma inviting them to consult on the proposed hunting opportunities on 8 Oklahoma refuges.

Public Outreach The refuge posted a Public Notice about the proposed hunt plan and on the Facebook page for the refuge during the public scoping period (September 2018). The refuge plans to conduct additional public outreach for the Draft EA. A public outreach meeting will be held in Adair County during the public review period.

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.

33

Preparer Signature: ______Date:______

Name/Title/Organization: ______

______

Reviewer Signature: ______Date:______

Name/Title: ______

34 Appendix 1 OTHER APPLICABLE STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS & REGULATIONS

STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS Cultural Resources

American Indian Religious Freedom The proposed action includes no ground-disturbing activities, or other Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1996 – activities that might disturb undocumented paleontological, 1996a; 43 CFR Part 7 archaeological, or historic sites.

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 No changes are proposed to current refuge-specific hunting regulations Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668- for migratory birds and upland game birds. 668c, 50 CFR 22 Several federally-listed threatened or endangered species are known to occur on the refuge; an Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation was Endangered Species Act of 1973, as conducted with the Service’s Tulsa Ecological Services Field Office. amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 36 CFR Part 13; 50 CFR Parts 10, 17, The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 13186 because the 23, 81, 217, 222, 225, 402, and 450 Environmental Assessment for Turkey Hunting and Incidental Take of Feral Hogs on Sequoyah NWR evaluates the effects of agency actions on

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

35 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

Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q; 40 CFR Parts 23, 50, 51, 52, 58, 60, 61, 82, and 93; The refuge does not currently contain any designated wilderness areas. 48 CFR Part 23 There are no National Wild and Scenic Rivers on the refuge Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et The proposed action would have negligible effects to air quality. seq. The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 13112 because Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 stipulations in permits would be designed to prevent the introduction of U.S.C. 1271 et seq. invasive species.

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

Water Resources

Coastal Zone Management Act of The refuge is not within a coastal zone. 1972, 16 U.S.C. There would be negligible impacts of the proposed action on water quality 1451 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 923, 930, or water resources. 933 The refuge contains no drinking water sources and does not supply

drinking water to any community. Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 11990 because Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et implementation of the Hunt Plan would protect existing wetlands. seq.; 33 CFR Parts 320-330; 40 CFR The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 11988, because Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 230-232, implementation of the Hunt Plan would not result in the modification or 323, and 328 destruction of floodplains.

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)

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

37