Environmental Assessment

ADDITION OF ARCHERY DEER, FERAL HOG, MIGRATORY BIRD, AND WILD TURKEY HUNTING

TISHOMINGO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, JOHNSTON COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

February 2019

Prepared By

Rick Cantu Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge Tishomingo, OK

Table of Contents

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 4 2.0 ALTERNATIVES...... 6 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENSES...... 12 3.1 Natural Resources ...... 14 3.1.1 Affected Natural Resources ...... 14 3.1.2 Impact on Natural Resources ...... 20 3.1.3 Cumulative Impacts on Natural Resources ...... 26 3.2 Visitor Use and Experience ...... 29 3.2.1 Affected Resources ...... 29 3.2.2 Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience ...... 29 3.2.3 Cumulative Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience ...... 30 3.3 Cultural Resources ...... 31 3.3.1 Affected Resources ...... 31 3.3.2 Impacts on Cultural Resources ...... 32 3.3.3 Cumulative Impacts on Cultural Resources ...... 32 3.4 Refuge Management and Operations ...... 32 3.4.1 Affected Resources ...... 32 3.4.2 Impacts on Refuge Management and Operations ...... 33 3.4.3 Cumulative Impacts on Refuge Management and Operations ...... 34 3.5 Socioeconomics ...... 34 3.5.1 Affected Resources ...... 34 3.5.2 Impacts on Socioeconomics ...... 35 3.5.3 Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomics ...... 36 3.6 Climate Change ...... 36 3.7 Environmental Justice ...... 36 3.8 Indian Trust Resources ...... 37 3.9 Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns ...... 37 3.10 Summary of Analysis ...... 37 3.11 Monitoring ...... 38 3.12 List of Sources, Agencies, and Persons Consulted ...... 38

References ...... 39 3.13 Determination ...... 40 APPENDIX 1 ...... 41

List of Figures Figure 1. General Refuge Map ...... 8 Figure 2. Tishomingo NWR Hunt Units ...... 9 Figure 3. Tishomingo NWR Location ...... 13

Environmental Assessment for Hunting of Deer, Waterfowl, and Wild Turkey on Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge

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 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 expand hunting opportunities for deer and feral hog in addition to opening waterfowl hunting and wild turkey hunting on the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge (Tishomingo NWR/refuge) in accordance with the refuge’s Archery Deer, Feral Hog, Waterfowl, and Wild Turkey Hunt Plan and the 2010 Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). This will allow the controlled hunting of deer and wild turkey and the hunting of waterfowl (duck, teal, light geese, dark geese, snipe, gallinule, coot, and merganser) adhering to state bag limits and season dates, in addition to the incidental take of feral hog.

This proposed action is often iterative and evolves throughout 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 2018– 2019 Refuge Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations. The Service cannot open a refuge to hunting and/or fishing until a final rule has been published in the Federal Register formally opening the refuge to hunting and/or fishing.

Background National wildlife refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.

Tishomingo NWR was established in 1946 under the Public Land Order 312…”to provide refuge and breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife” …and in accordance with such rules and regulation for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife resources thereof, and its habitat thereon…16 U.S.C. (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act).”

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 sequ.), is: “... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” The NWRSAA mandates the Secretary of the Interior in administering the System to (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4):

● Provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within the NWRS; ● Ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the NWRS are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans; ● Ensure that the mission of the NWRS described at 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) and the purposes of each refuge are carried out; ● Ensure effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with owners of land adjoining refuges and the fish and wildlife agency of the States in which the units of the NWRS are located; ● Assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and water quality to fulfill the mission of the NWRS and the purposes of each refuge; ● Recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public uses of the NWRS through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife; ● Ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife- dependent recreational uses; and ● Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.

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

Tishomingo NWR is an overlay on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) Denison Dam and Lake Texoma Project. The Corps retains primary jurisdiction of Denison Dam and Lake Texoma reservoir lands, including the lands on which the refuge is located. The refuge is managed under a cooperative agreement between the Corps and the Service. In addition, there is a cooperative agreement between Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC), the Corps, and the Service for management of the 3,150-acre Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) located on the west side of the refuge. Within the WMU, the Corps still retains primary jurisdiction of lands for the operation of its project. The Service and ODWC share secondary jurisdiction and jointly manage the natural resources that occur in the WMU. The WMU is managed cooperatively based on the objectives and responsibilities of each agency. Creating quality public hunting opportunities is a main objective for the ODWC; therefore, game management, including public hunting and fishing programs, are the primary responsibility of ODWC. Habitat enhancement and restoration for a diversity of species are the main objectives

and responsibilities of the Service. The agencies work cooperatively to meet their respective responsibilities. The ODWC manages the hunting opportunities within the WMU. Currently, they allow hunting of the majority of game species for which there is a current season within the WMU. Throughout the remainder of the refuge, the Service manages the hunting opportunities. At this time, the only deer hunting is allowed on the north end of the refuge in units 1 through 20 (see Figure 1).

Purpose and Need for Proposed Action The purpose of this proposed action is to increase hunting opportunities on Tishomingo NWR. This action is needed to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the NWRSAA, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 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)). Hunting has been found to be compatible with the purpose of the refuge. This action is also needed to effectively implement S.O. 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. This action meets the objectives of the 2019 hunt plan, which identified the need for increasing hunting opportunities on the refuge by offering archery hunting of deer, waterfowl, wild turkey and feral hog hunting. The purpose of this EA is to evaluate the impacts of the proposed action. 2.0 ALTERNATIVES

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

Prior to development of this document a scoping period occurred from September 6–20 2018, seeking comments regarding implementing a refuge hunt for deer, feral hogs, waterfowl, and wild turkey. No comments were received during the comment period and no issues were raised by any party.

With the passing of S.O. 3356, ODWC identified potential hunting opportunities at each refuge in the state. A meeting early in 2018 between the state and refuges allowed for a healthy discussion regarding potential hunting opportunities at each refuge. Hunt plans were then developed as needed for each refuge, including Tishomingo NWR, expanding hunting opportunities where possible.

Alternative A – No Action Alternative: Continuation of Ongoing Current Management Activities Under the no action alternative, current management direction would continue. Current management efforts focus on farming, maintenance and/or enhancement of biological diversity,

preservation of native prairie and management of public use activities, including providing hunting opportunities on the refuge and WMU.

The refuge has many recreation facilities, roads, trails, and other features that support refuge management and visitor use. Visitors can access the refuge easily with four roadways into the refuge (see Figure 1). The main entrance road through the heart of the refuge is open year- round. The refuge is open to limited hunting, fishing, boating, camping, wildlife observation, photography, hiking, and picnicking. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation are priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses as defined by the Refuge Improvement Act, so they receive enhanced management consideration on the refuge.

In 2018, the refuge received 123,000 visitors with approximately 42,000 wildlife observers, 11,000 fishing visits, 6,750 wildlife photography visits, 2,020 hunting visits, 10,594 interpretation visits, and 3,292 environmental education visits.

This EA is focused on the hunting opportunities provided by the refuge. Currently, hunting occurs within the 3,150-acre WMU, which is managed by the State of Oklahoma. With few exceptions, the WMU allows for the hunting of nearly all of the game species for which a legal hunting season exists consistent with Oklahoma game regulations. Wildlife that can be hunted includes (but may not be limited to) waterfowl, deer, dove, other migratory birds, upland game, turkey, feral hogs, and furbearers. The remainder of the refuge does not allow hunting of small game and other species due to the inability to manage unlimited hunting, disturbance to nesting neotropical migrants, habitat damage by hunters, and protection of the sanctuary zone. Hunting outside of the WMU is limited to white-tailed deer hunting in Units 1 through 20.

For the purpose of this document, we will focus on the hunting opportunities provided by the refuge (outside of the WMU). Deer rifle hunting is permitted during season according to refuge specific and State hunting regulations. Three controlled hunts for white-tailed deer are currently conducted on the refuge, which includes a youth deer hunt held in October for up to 20 hunters under 18 years of age, a non-ambulatory deer hunt held in November for 10 hunters, and a general deer hunt held in December for an additional 20 hunters. Depending on weather and habitat conditions, the refuge hunts are held in areas that are generally closed to public access. Hunting units 1–20 (except Unit 10, which is an administrative unit and closed to hunting) encompass a total of 2,891 acres, which are designated for deer gun hunting only as a way to spread hunters out safely (see Figure 2). Hunts are two days in length, with a maximum of twenty hunters per day and are typically conducted in the middle of a week to avoid conflicts with other users on weekends. In order to spread hunters out safely, we place one hunter per unit. Each year, it is generally the case that not all 20 hunters are able to make it for their permitted hunt. In these cases, there will be enough units (19) to accommodate one hunter per unit. In the event all 20 permitted hunters arrive at the refuge for their hunt, refuge personnel will subdivide a larger unit into two smaller units and assign hunters to those units (See Figure 2). During these hunts, the refuge is closed to all other public use with the exception of the Bell Creek and Rock Creek units. The refuge would continue to be closed to other hunting opportunities, and therefore there would not be any new hunting opportunities for migratory birds, feral hog, archery deer, and turkey.

Figure 1. General Refuge Map

Figure 2. Tishomingo NWR Hunt Units

Alternative B – Proposed Action (Addition of Controlled Archery Deer, Feral Hog, Migratory Bird, and Wild Turkey Hunting on the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge) The refuge’s rifle deer hunt (in Units 1–20) and hunting within the WMU would remain the same as Alternative A. The refuge has prepared a hunt plan, which is presented in this document as the Proposed Action Alternative. The proposed action includes additional deer hunting opportunities and new opportunities to hunt feral hogs, certain migratory birds, and wild turkeys, as described below.

Deer - Archery Under the Proposed Action Alternative, we propose to expand deer hunting on the refuge by implementing an archery deer hunt in the newly formed hunt Unit 21 (3,410 acres) located on the south end of the refuge. Controlled archery deer hunting would be permitted during the State identified deer archery season according to refuge specific and State hunting regulations. Controlled archery hunting would be conducted on the refuge annually. There would be up to 50 permits issued. The controlled hunts would last three days and be held in November between the Non-ambulatory hunt and the general hunt. Hunting season dates would generally occur between mid-November and the start of early December and begin in the morning of the first day. An orientation would be held the day prior to the start of the hunt. The hunter selection process would be administered by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) in collaboration with the refuge. The bag limit for these hunts would be set at two deer, one of which must be a doe. For the controlled archery hunt, Unit 21 would be managed as a free roam area. In the event that Unit 21 has to be administratively closed for emergency purposes (i.e., flooding or inclement weather that prevents access), the archery deer hunt would be rotated into the existing firearm deer hunting Units 1–20, and hunters will be allowed to free roam hunt the area. Access and parking areas in Unit 21 are limited and would need to be developed in the future to accommodate up to 50 hunters. Migratory Birds Units 21 and 2 would be opened to hunting of certain migratory birds (duck, teal, merganser, coot, light geese, dark geese, snipe, and gallinule). Unit 21 is located south of the Washita River and Unit 2 is located on the west side of the refuge. The nearest area for hunters to reach Unit 21 are the boat ramps at Butcher Pen, which are located southeast of the refuge. In order for hunters to reach the unit, we would allow boating on the Washita River during the winter months as waterfowl hunters would need to boat the Washita River in order to reach the unit. Waterfowl hunting in both units would follow state season dates and bag limits.

Migratory bird hunting is permitted according to refuge specific and state hunting regulations and will follow season dates, legal hunting hours and daily bag limits. Hunting of migratory birds generally occur from September to November for gallinule, October to January for snipe, September to January for ducks, mergansers, and coots, and November through March for light and dark geese. Only approved non-toxic shot may be possessed when hunting migratory birds on the refuge. Hunters are required to sign in and out at check stations located at hunt unit access points.

The wetland areas south of the Washita River will be opened to waterfowl hunting to provide opportunity within the refuge, in addition to the WMU. Access to these areas is difficult and the majority of hunters will only be able to reach these sites by via boat and the Washita River. Formerly the Washita River has been closed to boating to provide a refuge to wintering waterfowl but in order to allow access to the wetlands south of the Washita, the river will be opened to winter boating. Unit 2, located on the west side of the refuge, will also allow waterfowl hunting. The absence of a full time law enforcement officer will also add to the complexity of administering these hunts. The hunting of waterfowl in these areas is not likely to create conflict with other public uses and is within the wildlife dependent public uses to be given priority consideration.

Wild Turkey A controlled turkey hunt would be held in Units 9, 13, 14, 15E, and 15W. The controlled hunt would last two days between April 6 and May 6 beginning the morning of the first day. An orientation will be held the day prior to the start of the hunt. The hunter selection process would be administered by the ODWC in collaboration with the refuge. The bag limit would be set at one tom turkey. The turkey population has never been considered large on the refuge, but in order to provide an opportunity on the refuge, a small number of permits (up to 5) will be issued and hunting will be limited to areas known to contain birds in order to increase success rate and provide a quality hunt. The number of permits issued beyond five 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. Shotgun or bow and arrow may be used for spring turkey hunts. Only approved non-toxic shot may be possessed when using a shotgun. All hunts will be in accordance with state regulations. Each hunter will be allowed to choose the type of weapon (archery or shotgun) they wish to use because a minimal number of hunters would occupy a unit within the same period of time. The refuge is typically closed during refuge hunts for public safety, but with limited number of permits issued and the units carefully assigned, the refuge will remain open to the public during this hunt.

Feral Hogs The incidental take of feral hogs would be allowed with all current and proposed hunts. There is no limit on the number of hogs that may be taken. The take of hogs would be allowed and encouraged as feral hogs are an invasive and nuisance species.

The following measure would be incorporated into Alternative B to minimize/avoid potential impacts and conflicts: • Vehicles must stay on established roads to avoid disturbing wildlife and vegetation. • Hunters must park in established parking areas to keep from blocking roadways and trails so that other user groups can access them. • The use of non-toxic shot would be required.

The proposed action offers increased opportunities for public hunting and fulfills the Service’s mandate under the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. The Service has determined that the proposed hunt activities are compatible with the purposes of the Tishomingo NWR and the mission of the NWRS.

Although the workload would increase as a result of implementing these additional hunts, actual administrative conflicts due to the hunts are not expected as the ODWC administers the selection process for each of the hunts requiring a permit. Educating the public, responding to inquiries, placing and removing boundary hunt signs, and adjusting work schedules to monitor hunts will still be required. The workload should not significantly impact required staff duties other than to highlight the need for a permanent full-time law enforcement officer at Tishomingo NWR. Additional assistance is sought from the zone officer, other refuges or state game wardens as necessary. The estimated funding requirement to operate current and proposed hunts is $15,000. 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENSES Affected Environment The refuge is an overlay project of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s Denison Dam and Lake Texoma Project located within Johnston and Marshall Counties in south central Oklahoma (See Figure 3). The 16,464-acre refuge supports a variety of habitats, including forests, prairies, riparian areas, wetlands, and agricultural areas that support and are managed for resident and migratory wildlife and fish 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 sections (3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, and 3.5.1) 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.

Figure 3. Tishomingo NWR Location

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.

Listed below are brief descriptions of each resource affected by the proposed action and anticipated impacts.

3.1 Natural Resources The refuge lies within the Oak and Bluestem Parkland of the Prairie Parkland Province and consists of the Osage Savanna and Mixed Grass Plains Biota and Eastern Cross Timbers, which form a gently rolling sandy belt and rugged topography marked by steep ravines on the south and east sides of the refuge. Most of the refuge lies within the floodplain of Lake Texoma. The north and west sides of the refuge consist of rolling hills divided by a wide and flat valley near the center. During years with significant flooding up to 85 percent of the refuge may be inundated for extended periods.

3.1.1 Affected Natural Resources

Hunted Species White-tailed Deer Regional Analysis In the early 1900s, there were an estimated 500,000 white-tailed deer in the United States. Unregulated commercial hunting and subsistence hunting threatened to eliminate the white-tailed deer from much of its range. At that time, many state wildlife agencies were formed with the goal of conserving the nations depleted wildlife resources. Hunting regulations were put into place, and the harvest of antlerless (female) deer was prohibited. The rebound of white-tailed deer populations that followed is considered a wildlife management success story. Today there are an estimated 30 million deer in the United States and numbers are rising (Swihart and DeNicola 1997). The anticipated annual deer harvest on the refuge and other national wildlife refuges open to deer hunting is an extremely small percentage of the state’s annual harvest and just a fraction of the national population.

Local Analysis Currently, white-tailed deer occur in every county in Oklahoma, with an estimated statewide population of about 325,000. Oklahoma has two species of deer inhabiting the state, the more common white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and the less abundant mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). The white-tailed deer is the only deer species found in Johnston County. In 2017, approximately 99,023 deer were harvested in the state during the 2016/2017 season, 1,192 were harvested in Johnston County with 34 deer harvested during the refuge hunts. Based on numbers reported to ODWC by hunters, the deer population appears to be present in fair numbers on the refuge.

Migratory Birds Regional Analysis Migratory Birds (duck, teal, coot, light geese, dark geese, snipe, gallinule, and merganser)- The hunting of waterfowl has typically been dependent on the amount of rainfall in a given year combined with the amount of food available in the area, whether green browse or wetland plants. Historically waterfowl played a very large role in the southeastern region of Oklahoma as Canada geese were the primary focus when peanuts were planted in the 1980s. As farming

practices shifted away from peanut farming, the Canada goose population began to decrease while the snow goose population began to expand.

Waterfowl populations throughout the United States are managed through an administrative process known as flyways. The refuge is located in the Central Flyway. In North America, the process for establishing waterfowl hunting regulations is conducted annually. In the United States, the process involves a number of scheduled meetings (Flyway Study Committees, Flyway Councils, Service Regulations Committee, etc.) in which information regarding the status of waterfowl populations and their habitats is presented to individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, public hearings are held and the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public comment.

Annual waterfowl assessments are based upon the distribution, abundance, and flight corridors of migratory birds. An Annual Waterfowl Population Status Report is produced each year and includes the most current breeding population and production information available for waterfowl in North America (USFWS 2010a). The report is a cooperative effort by the Service, the Canadian Wildlife Service, various state and provincial conservation agencies, and private conservation organizations. An Annual Adaptive Harvest Management Report (AHM) provides the most current data, analyses, and decision making protocols (USFWS 2010b). These reports are intended to aid the development of waterfowl harvest regulations in the United States for each hunting season. Winter Canada goose survey for the Central Flyway in 2018 was estimated at a total of 2,434,766 and waterfowl 2018 population data for the Central Flyway was estimated at 9,149,317; a coot 2018 survey for the Central Flyway was an estimated 224,393 (USFWS 2018).

Ducks The Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvest Report shows that 11.6 million ducks were harvested in the United States in the 2016–17 hunting season, increasing to 12.1 million ducks harvested in the 2017–18 season (Raftovich et al. 2018). The estimated average annual duck harvest for the Central Flyway was 2.4 million birds in 2017, which represent approximately 20 percent of the estimated average annual U.S. harvest of 12.1 million ducks (Raftovich et al. 2017). In Oklahoma, there were an estimated 197,400 ducks harvested in 2017, which represents approximately 8 percent of the estimated annual harvest of 2.4 million birds in the Central Flyway and 2 percent of the average annual harvest of 12.1 million ducks in the United States. Oklahoma harvest estimate hooded merganser (zero for other mergansers) was 670 in 2016 and 953 in 2017.

Canada Geese The Migratory Bird Activity and Harvest Report shows 6.8 million geese were harvested in the U.S. 2016–17 hunting season. In Oklahoma, 235,000 Canada geese were harvested during the 2016–2017 hunting season, which represents approximately 3 percent of the average annual harvest in the U.S.

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

Gallinule Hunters did not harvest any gallinules in 2016 or 2017 in Oklahoma. There were zero gallinules harvested in the Central Flyway in 2016 and 5,300 (±196%) in 2017.

Snipe Hunters harvested 1,700 (±196%) snipe in Oklahoma in 2016 and 1,300 (±196%) in 2017. Hunters harvested 18,500 (± 132%) snipe in the Central Flyway in 2016 and 4,000 (±94%) in 2017.

Local Analysis Refuge wetlands provide important wintering habitat for numerous migratory bird species, including, waterfowl, snipe, gallinule, and mergansers. Depending on existing environmental conditions, particularly weather patterns, peak populations of wintering waterfowl using the refuge have been estimated at 8,000 light geese, 20,000 dark geese, and 39,000 ducks including mallards, wood ducks, and other miscellaneous duck species. The sloughs, marshes, and overflow areas in the river bottoms also furnish vital nesting and rearing habitat for wood ducks. Waterfowl are present throughout the river, wetlands, and reservoir on the refuge and the refuge currently supports a sustainable population of waterfowl and other migratory game birds.

Wild Turkey Regional Analysis A prolonged drought early this decade reduced turkey numbers in many parts of Oklahoma and since then rainfall amounts and habitat conditions have normalized. Turkey flocks seem to be recovering in most counties, especially the Rio Grande subspecies, which inhabit about 80 percent of the state. The Eastern subspecies, which occupies eight or nine southeastern counties, is reported as “somewhat stable,” yet significantly reduced from the bountiful years back in the 1970s and early 1980s. The shorter season and single-bird bag limit will continue in the group of southeastern counties where eastern birds are found, but more liberal rules apply in many other counties populated by Rio Grande birds.

ODWC conducts winter turkey surveys throughout the state to develop turkey population estimates by county. Current wild turkey populations estimates, based on winter flock surveys conducted by wildlife biologists, game wardens and other Department personnel, are provided at http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/hunting/species/turkey.

Local Analysis The refuge is located in Marshall and Johnston Counties. According to the link provided about, current wild turkey populations are less than 750 turkeys in Marshall County and from 750 – 2,500 turkeys in Johnston County. The proposed units on the refuge are within Johnston County. Wild turkeys occur throughout the refuge where there is suitable habitat, but the turkey population on the refuge has never been considered to be large.

Feral Hogs Regional Analysis The U.S. has an estimated 6 million feral hogs in the U.S. that create $1.5 billion in annual damages for property owners. Feral hogs also pose risks to commercial swine populations and other animal species and humans, as they are known to carry more than 30 different diseases. The animals, which eat grasses, plants, roots and tubers, acorns, fruits, bulbs and mushrooms, root through soils at depths of 6 inches or more, damage crops and the habitat for both humans and wildlife. The Noble Research Institute estimates the population of feral swine in Oklahoma is between about 430,000 and 1.6 million.

Local Analysis 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. Feral hog populations are not monitored, but trapping/harvest numbers are recorded yearly. Since FY 2016, 543 feral hogs were removed from the refuge primarily via trapping. As previously mentioned, 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.

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. Songbirds, raptors and rails breed at the refuge, whereas shorebirds and waterfowl primarily utilize the refuge as wintering and migratory habitat. Wintering waterfowl concentrations on the refuge are highest from late November through February. The refuge maintains a waterfowl sanctuary (Cumberland Pool) that excludes access to the public from boaters from October through April. This area provides sanctuary and roosting areas for migratory birds and helps to offset potential disturbance effects.

The refuge has documented 284 species of birds, 30 species of mammals, at least 65 species of reptiles and amphibians, and 62 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.

Threatened and Endangered Species and other Special Status Species The refuge provides habitat for the following four threatened and endangered species:

Whooping Crane (Grus americana) The whooping crane was listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 (USFWS 2009). Once widespread in North America, by 1941 the species had declined to about 16 individuals in a single wild flock that migrated between Canada and coastal Texas (Lewis 1995). Several factors contributed to the historic decline of the species, including habitat loss and alteration, coastal and marine pollution, illegal hunting, disease, predation, collision with utility lines, loss of genetic

diversity within the population, and vulnerability to natural and human caused disturbances (Lewis 1995). Whooping cranes are associated with marshes, shallow river bottoms, potholes, prairies, and agricultural fields. Overall decline of the species is attributed to habitat loss and alteration; once reduced in numbers, killing and disturbance by humans, disease, and collision with manmade objects became important (Lewis 1995). The whooping crane has begun a slow but seemingly steady recovery, and as of March 12, 2003, the wild population of crane had increased to 292 (259 adults, 33 young). Of this number, the Aransas/Wood Buffalo population accounts for 185 birds (169 adults and 16 young). The historic wintering grounds included southwestern Louisiana, the Gulf Coast of Texas, interior west Texas, the highlands of northern Mexico, and Atlantic coastal areas of New Jersey, Delaware, South Carolina, and Georgia (De Hoyo et al. 2000). During migration, they feed and roost in a wide variety of habitats, including croplands, large and small freshwater marshes, the margins of lakes and reservoirs, and submerged sandbars in rivers. Whooping cranes have not been observed on the refuge, but are known to occur in Johnston County (USFWS 2010).

Interior Least Tern (Sternula antillarum) The interior least tern was listed as endangered on May 28, 1985. All subspecies of the least tern apparently were abundant through the late 1880s, but were nearly extirpated for their delicate plumage used for fashionable hats at that time. After the signing of the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, commercial harvesting became illegal, and the species began to increase through the 1940s. However, human development and use of tern nesting beaches for housing and recreation subsequently led to another rapid population decline. In the interior United States, river channelization, irrigation diversions, and the construction of dams contributed to the destruction of much of the tern’s sandbar nesting habitat. By the mid-1970s, least tern populations had decreased by more than 80 percent from the 1940s. This colonially nesting waterbird is a species that seldom swims, spending much of its time on the wing (Hubbard 1985). The least tern is the smallest North American tern with gray above, black cap and nape, and white below. The flight is light, swift, and graceful, and it is developed to the point that flight is the major means of foraging, allowing the birds to snatch fish, crustaceans, and insect food from the surface. They nest on the ground, on sandbars, in rivers, or along lake or pond edges, typically on sites that are sandy and relatively free of vegetation. Interior least terns are migratory and breed along the Red, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and Rio Grande River systems. Interior least terns are occasionally seen on the refuge during the summer months but potential for disturbance should be low to non-existent, as the deer and waterfowl hunts will not be held while the species is present. The only proposed hunt that would occur when the interior least terns are present is the wild turkey hunt; however, the hunt area does not overlap with areas occupied by interior least terns.

American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) The American burying beetle was originally listed as endangered on July 13, 1989. This species is the largest within its genus and has two distinct markings of orange-red scallops upon its shiny black wings and a large orange-red marking on the raised portion of the pronotum (unique to this species). The American burying beetle is nocturnal, lives for one year, and typically reproduces only once. They are beetles which emerge from the soil in search of food and mating when soil temperatures reach 60 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. The American burying beetles are scavengers, dependent on carrion, and play an important role in breaking down decaying matter.

They reproduce by utilizing a small carcass to bury and lay their eggs within for the growing larvae. The American burying beetle is unusual in that both parents provide care to their young. The distribution for the American burying beetle includes the eastern half of North America, from southern Ontario, Canada, to the southern Atlantic coastal plain. The range of the American burying beetle within Oklahoma occurs on the eastern half of the state, with confirmed sightings in over 20 counties. The decline in population is still uncertain, due to a lack in data; however, declines could possibly be attributed to habitat loss and degradation, habitat fragmentation, carcass limitation, pesticides, disease, and possibly light pollution, or a combination of these factors. Ecological Service has confirmed that they have been known to occur within Johnston County (USFWS, 2010) but surveys conducted in 2017 and 2018, did not document any occurrences within any of the areas surveyed.

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) The Great Lakes population (found in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ontario, and Great Lakes of Canada) of the piping plover was listed as endangered in 1985, while all other populations are listed as threatened. Critical habitat has not been designated. Piping plovers migrate north in the spring to breed and nest, seeking habitat in open, sparsely vegetated areas near the water, such as sand bars, prairie sloughs and sandy beaches. Nesting begins in late April or early May and can last into September. The piping plover is rarely seen on the refuge during migration. Although wild turkey hunting occurs while piping plovers are present on the refuge, the hunting locations are not expected to overlap with areas used by piping plovers.

Vegetation (including vegetation of special management concern) The general vegetation within the refuge is classified as mid-grass prairie and Eastern Cross Timbers (Hoagland 2000). General plant communities found on the refuge are forest, prairie, riparian/wetland, and agriculture. The hunt units (Units 1–21) identified in the proposed action include a variety of habitats, including forest, riparian areas, creeks, rivers, wetlands, and agricultural lands.

Forest The area where hunting of deer, wild turkey and feral hogs would occur include the hardwoods in the lowland valleys and the steep bluffs of low relief found along Big Sandy Creek and Rock Creek. Forest types range from bottomland hardwood timber to heavy brush in the floodplains and into savannah and scattered brush uplands. Species adjacent to the proposed sites include winged elm, osage orange, hackberry, and eastern red cedar.

Riparian/Wetland The river and creek channels feature riparian species such as boxelder (Acer negundo), black willow (Salix nigra), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).

Agriculture The refuge currently farms approximately 340 acres to provide browse (typically winter wheat) for wintering waterfowl and spring feeding needs for geese and resident wildlife. All refuge

farm fields are farmed force account with refuge personnel. The proposed hunt units occur in or near some agricultural areas.

Soils The refuge upland soils (where Units 1–20 area located) are a conglomeration of sand, blackland, light clay, heavy clay, gravel, and sandy loam. Fertility is low and the soils are highly erodible. The south (where proposed Unit 21 is located) and east sides of the refuge are almost completely limestone with a light cover of loam. Konaw-Dougherty soils make up about 40 percent of the refuge and located primarily on the northwest side of the refuge.

Air Quality The major sources of air pollution in the region are oil and gas production and/or refining, agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, and fires (both wild and prescribed). Prescribed burning is conducted by the refuge, ODWC, and some private landowners as part of agricultural practices and habitat management. Prescribed burning is conducted by the government agencies only under specific meteorological conditions and approved burn plans. Each individual project or activity in the region that produces air emissions could affect the region’s air quality but the overall impact will depend on a variety of factors including: project activity, length of time, wind direction, etc. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for monitoring several pollutants throughout the state including: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, fine particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Monitoring stations are set-up throughout the state and typically allow the public to view and monitor air quality from each specific site.

Water Resources Several water resources are located within and around the proposed hunt areas. This includes the Washita River, Big Sandy Creek, Pennington Creek, and the following wetlands located south of the Washita River: Bell Creek, Polecat Lake, Upper Rock Creek and Rock Creek. Several other wetlands are found on the refuge, including Cottonwood Pond, Twin Ponds, Goose Pen Pond, and Dick’s Pond. The proposed waterfowl hunting would occur on the wetlands found south of the Washita River and Twin Ponds located on the west side of the refuge.

3.1.2 Impact on Natural Resources

Hunted Species White-tailed Deer Alternative A – No Action Alternative White-tailed deer hunting would continue within the WMU and Units 1–20. We anticipate similar levels of mortality to continue. In the 2016–2017 season, 1,192 deer were harvested in Johnston County; of this, 34 deer were harvested during the refuge hunts. The current level of white-tailed deer hunting that occurs on the refuge within the WMU and Units 1–20 (with three deer hunts per season for 20 youth hunters, 10 non-ambulatory hunters, and 20 general hunters). This allows for up to 100 deer to be taken by rifle hunters. However, refuge hunters took 34 deer in past hunt seasons. The current level of harvest appears to be sustainable based on

observations of habitat conditions and population levels. These hunts, which have occurred for years, have not resulted in any discernible adverse impacts to the population.

Alternative B – Proposed Action The proposed action includes allowing a controlled archery deer hunts on the refuge for a total of 2.5 days. This will raise the number of days that deer are hunted on the refuge to a total of 8.5 days. Implementation of the proposed action would result in additional but limited mortality to deer as hunts are already occurring for the species on the refuge. Archery deer hunting would occur in Unit 21. There would be up to 50 permits issued, which provides for a potential take for up to 100 deer. However, archery hunters typically average a 15–20 percent success rate. Therefore, we anticipate no more than an additional twenty deer to be harvested, annually. The three-day controlled archery deer hunt occurring in mid-November to early-December would not result in adverse impacts to local deer populations. The harvest on the refuge is a small percentage of the county and state harvest totals. Holding both firearm and archery hunts would allow for improved control of the population as an over-population of deer could result in negative impacts on other wildlife species due to adverse impacts to vegetation.

Migratory Birds (Waterfowl, etc.) Alternative A – No Action Alternative There would not be any additional impacts to waterfowl as no new hunts would be implemented and the proposed hunt areas are currently closed to public access.

Alternative B – Proposed Action The proposed action will also allow waterfowl hunting south of the Washita River adhering to the season dates, which are set by the state. Implementation of the proposed action would result in direct mortality as a hunt would be implemented for the species. Estimated harvest is unknown as these will be new hunts but less than 100 ducks and geese are estimated to be taken during the refuge waterfowl hunts as access to Unit 21 will require a boat. Hunting of the unit may also result in redistribution of waterfowl north of the Washita River to the Cumberland Pool, which is closed to hunting.

Wild Turkey Alternative A - No Action Alternative There would not be any impacts to wild turkey as these hunts would not be implemented.

Alternative B - Proposed Action Implementation of the proposed action would result in limited mortality to turkey as a hunt would be implemented for the species. This impact could be considered negligible due to the extremely limited number of tags to be issued for wild turkey (up to 5) per season.

Feral Hogs Alternative A – No Action Alternative There would be no additional incidental take of feral hogs, since feral hog hunting is not currently permitted. Feral hogs would continue to have negative impacts on habitat and other species.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Implementation of the proposed action would result in some mortality to feral hogs, but this incidental take would be limited and any indirect beneficial impacts (reduced nest depredation; reduced competition for resources; reduced direct consumption of small mammals, amphibians, and snakes) would likely be negligible. The overall feral hog population on the refuge would not be greatly impacted by this action.

Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species Alternative A – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the current hunts would continue to result in minor disturbance to other wildlife species. While there is typically an impact to the majority of wildlife species whenever human presence is noted, many animals have developed a tolerance especially on refuges when visitors remain in vehicles. Many animals also remain motionless until the perceived threat from visitors has dissipated. This alternative currently results in some short- term negative impacts on small mammals, birds, and other wildlife due to minor disturbance in areas where human access for hunting occurs.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Increased hunting may result in additional short-term disturbance to wildlife over a larger area. This includes temporary displacement of turkey, deer, waterfowl, and other resident wildlife from foot traffic moving through the area.

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

There would be some short-term adverse impacts on small mammals, birds, and other wildlife such as reptiles and amphibians due to disturbance during the hunts; however, it is likely that similar habitat can be found on the refuge and no loss of species diversity or abundance is likely. These impacts from implementing the proposed actions are not expected to reduce the overall wildlife population in the area.

Most of the mammals listed may be encountered in the proposed action areas where the deer and wild turkey hunts will occur. This may result in short term disturbance during hunts. Many of the reptile and amphibian species listed above are forest and edge dependent species and may be affected by the proposed action however a reduction in population is not expected to occur. Approximately 62 fish species could potentially be found within the refuge boundary, any of which could experience a negligible level of disturbance and/or mortality during the waterfowl season.

The active breeding season for most birds (with the exception of winter breeding raptors) is within April–July. Most of the hunts will not occur within this period, therefore no conflict is

expected. The only proposed hunt that will occur during active breeding season is the wild turkey hunt; however, this is a very limited hunt with up to five permits so impacts are expected to be minimal. Breeding raptors (e.g., bald eagles) may initiate nesting during periods of hunting activity. To mitigate this possible conflict, during the active breeding season, hunters will be instructed stay at least 600 feet from an active bald eagle nest. Known bald eagle nests will be pointed out and mitigation methods will be described to the hunters during the safety orientation for each deer hunt (if active nesting were to begin that early in the season). The potential exists that short-term disturbance to bird species will occur during all the hunts identified for implementation. Numerous water resources are located within the immediate area of the proposed actions for waterfowl so impacts to shorebirds, raptors and other avian species may occur as hunts would be held during the spring, fall, and winter months.

In comparison to Alternative A, disturbance effects to wildlife would increase, but they would be spread out over a larger area and would be short-term and are not likely to significantly affect wildlife populations.

Threatened and Endangered Species and other Special Status Species Alternative A – No Action Alternative Listed species within Johnston County, Oklahoma include the whooping crane (Grus Americana), American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) interior least tern (Sternula antillarum), and the piping plover (Charadrius melodus). There would not be any known impact, disturbance, or displacement of the whooping crane, as the species has never been confirmed on the refuge. Although, it is possible for the species to utilize the refuge during the fall and winter migration. American burying beetle surveys were conducted in 2017 and 2018 and no American burying beetles have ever been found on the refuge although they have been found in the county.

Tishomingo NWR has no documented resident endangered or threatened species. Least tern and piping plover do sporadically use the refuge shorelines along the Cumberland Pool. Existing and new hunting opportunities pose a minimal threat to the least tern and piping plover, as the least tern has usually completed nesting and departed the refuge by late August. Piping plovers are sometimes seen during migration and may be found in April and September, but they prefer sandy beaches and exposed sandy sites along the lakeshore where hunting will not be occurring.

Under the no action alternative, the proposed hunts would not be implemented; therefore, there would be no impact to threatened and endangered species.

Alternative B – Proposed Action The proposed hunts are not expected to negatively impact any threatened or endangered species. The archery deer hunt will occur in November. The least tern and piping plover should not be utilizing the refuge during that time. Waterfowl hunting will occur in October, November, December, and January. Listed species do not utilize the refuge during that period.

The turkey hunt will be held in April. This overlaps with the season of interior least terns and piping plovers could be in the area; however, the hunt areas do not overlap with occupied habitat.

Turkeys typically inhabit wooded areas and fields away from the Cumberland Pool so there should be no impact on least tern and piping plovers.

Access to the incidental hunting of hogs will be based primarily upon the various hunts mentioned above and should not impact threatened and endangered species.

Vegetation Alternative A – No Action Alternative Under this alternative, the existing vegetation and habitat conditions would likely remain the same. The current level of hunting in Units 1–20 (up to 50 hunters per season) has not had any detectable negative impacts.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Approximately 40 percent of the refuge would be open to controlled hunts for 8.5 days of the year. This includes the proposed 2.5-day archery and 1.5-day wild turkey hunt. Current hunts occurring on the refuge include a 1.5-day youth hunt, non-ambulatory hunt, and general deer hunt. The waterfowl season hunting dates will be set by the state. Negligible effects are expected to vegetation from trampling by hunters due to the low number of users and days of use expected. None of the proposed actions should negatively impact the vegetative communities discussed in this section. Impacts would be similar to those of Alternative A. There will be potentially twice as many hunters, but they would be distributed over an area about twice as large as the area currently being hunted. Therefore, impacts are expected to be minimal.

Soils 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, thus increasing the potential for impacts on soil resources. Feral hogs damage wetlands infrastructure, which leads to increased soil destabilization and erosion. Also, continued disruption of soil resources will hinder the establishment and maintenance of native habitats and wetlands by allowing invasive plant species to become established on disturbed sites.

Alternative B – Proposed Action The proposed action would result in a negligible increase in disturbance to surface soils by compaction from foot traffic compared to Alternative A. These impacts are expected to be negligible because vehicles would continue to be confined to public access roads and parking facilities. In addition, the increase in hunter visits compared to overall public use on the refuge is considered minor. Increased take of feral hogs, may reduce potential impacts on soil resources, wetland infrastructure and native habitat may be slightly reduced by the increased take of hogs. This small increase in the number of hunter visits when compared to overall public use on the refuge is considered negligible; no changes to soil resources are anticipated.

There should be no noticeable impact to the soils on the refuge by implementing the proposed action and allowing controlled hunts to occur for 8.5 days. There may be greater use in Unit 21 while waterfowl hunts are occurring. There should not be any noticeable impacts to soils.

Air Quality Alternative A – No Action Alternative No impacts to air quality are expected from continuation of current management. The current level of public use on the refuge (which is approximately 123,000 visits per year based on 2018 data) does not appear to be impacting air quality, as current air quality in the area meets air quality standards established by EPA. Hunting accounts for approximately 2 percent (2,020 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.

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

There should be no noticeable impact to air quality on the refuge by implementing the proposed action and allowing controlled hunts to occur for 8.5 days. There may be an impact in Unit 21 and 2 while waterfowl hunts are occurring and is occurring on the Washita River and Pennington Creek if gasoline powered boats are being used to reach those unit locations but impacts should be negligible and limited to dates those seasons are open. Each individual project or activity in the region that produces air emissions could affect the region’s air quality but the overall impact will depend on a variety of factors including: project activity, length of time, wind direction, etc.

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

Alternative B – Proposed Action There should be no noticeable impact to water resources on the refuge by implementing the proposed action and allowing controlled hunts to occur for 8.5 days. There may be an impact in Units 21 and 2 while waterfowl hunts are occurring on the Washita River and Pennington Creek if gasoline powered boats are being used to reach those unit locations. Boat use on the river and creek will lessen water clarity due to disturbance and increase wave action but impacts should be negligible and limited to dates those seasons are open.

3.1.3 Cumulative Impacts on Natural Resources 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 canceling 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. Under current management, there are no anticipated impacts.

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

Past and present hog control strategies include incidental take during existing big game hunting and various control methods including trapping, limited use of hog baying dogs, shooting and refuge personnel, volunteers, or contractors. All these activities result in the removal of approximately 350 hogs per year. Fewer feral hogs will reduce the impacts of their destructive behavior, such as (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.

Deer - Population estimates of huntable species are developed by 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 about the hunting program.

Oklahoma has an estimated deer population of 325,000. During the 2016/2017 season, approximately 99,023 deer were harvested in the state. In Johnston County, 1,192 deer were harvested with 34 deer taken during the three existing refuge hunts. A 20 percent success rate for the archery hunt would mean an additional six deer would be harvested on the refuge. The 39 deer that could potentially be removed from the refuge would represent three percent of the County harvest and less than one-half percent of the total state harvest. Locally, the impact of harvest at this rate from the Tishomingo NWR is negligible within the context of the estimated 325,000 white-tailed deer found in the state. Wildlife management of populations is important to ensure the health of the ecosystem, and the refuge’s hunt program provides minor, additional beneficial impacts to the cumulative impacts of wildlife management in the State.

Migratory Birds – Waterfowl populations throughout the United States are managed through an administrative process known as flyways. The refuge is located in the Central Flyway. In North America, the process for establishing waterfowl hunting regulations is conducted annually. In the United States, the process involves a number of scheduled meetings (Flyway Study Committees, Flyway Councils, Service Regulations Committee, etc.) in which information regarding the status of waterfowl populations and their habitats is presented to individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, public hearings are held and the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public comment.

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

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

the Canadian Wildlife Service, various state and provincial conservation agencies, and private conservation organizations. An Annual Adaptive Harvest Management Report (AHM) provides the most current data, analyses, and decision making protocols (USFWS 2010b). These reports are intended to aid the development of waterfowl harvest regulations in the United States for each hunting season.

The continued harvest of migratory game birds on the refuge is not expected to reduce populations below acceptable levels. We believe that hunting on the refuge will not add significantly to the cumulative impacts of migratory waterfowl management on local, regional, or Central Flyway waterfowl populations because the percentage likely to be taken on the refuge, though possibly additive to existing hunting takes, would be a small fraction of the estimated populations.

The refuge selects season dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other options using guidance in these reports. The refuge can be more restrictive, but cannot be more liberal than the AHM allows.

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

Wild Turkey – The turkey population has never been large on the refuge but a small number of permits will be issued (5) and hunting will be limited to areas known to contain birds in order to increase success rate and provide a quality hunt. The refuge is typically closed during refuge hunts for public safety but with the limited number of permits to be issued and the units carefully assigned, the refuge will remain open during this hunt. The units that will be open to turkey hunting are areas that are currently closed to public access. The hunting of wild turkey in this manner is not likely to have a cumulative impact due to the very limited number of permits to be issued.

Feral Hogs – There are an estimated 6 million feral hogs in the U.S. that create $1.5 billion in annual damages for property owners. Feral hogs also pose risks to commercial swine populations and other animal species and humans, as they are known to carry more than 30 different diseases. The animals, which eat grasses, plants, roots and tubers, acorns, fruits, bulbs and mushrooms, root through soils at depths of 6 inches or more, damage crops and the habitat

for both humans and wildlife. The Noble Research Institute estimates the population of feral swine in Oklahoma is between about 430,000 and 1.6 million.

Due to the fact that feral hogs are not a native species, there is no need or desire to sustain a population for any refuge objective. Removing as many of these destructive, exotic, feral animals as possible would benefit the refuge (and neighboring) habitat. Feral hog populations are not monitored per se, but trapping/harvest numbers are recorded yearly. Since FY 2016, 543 feral hogs were removed from the refuge, primarily with traps. As previously mentioned, 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. While trapping provides the best method for removing large numbers of hogs, providing additional recreational opportunities will also aid in overall reduction of the feral hog population. As a result, the incidental take of feral hogs will now be allowed during all hunts held on the refuge. There are no anticipated negative impacts regarding this activity.

3.2 Visitor Use and Experience

3.2.1 Affected Resources The refuge has been experiencing a wet cycle for the last several years, which caused historic flooding in 2015 with continuous flood events since then. The floods highlighted the need for constructing a new visitor center and maintenance shop at a much higher elevation. The refuge has experienced a drop in visitation since then as the center and maintenance shop are still under construction and have yet to be completed with staff currently housed in a temporary office. In 2018, the refuge received 123,000 visitors with approximately 42,000 wildlife observers, 11,000 fishing visits, 6,750 wildlife photography visits, 2,020 hunting visits, 10,594 interpretation visits, and 3,292 environmental education visits.

3.2.2 Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience Alternative A – No Action Alternative There is no change to visitor use and experience from continuation of current management.

The refuge currently holds a controlled youth, non-ambulatory, and general deer hunt. The refuge is currently closed to public access during each of the deer hunts to prevent non-hunters from interfering with hunters while reducing the possibility of hunting accidents.

Bank fishing occurs throughout the refuge year-round. Boating is permitted from March 1 to September 30, annually. Fishermen wishing to access the refuge for bank fishing during the deer hunt will be unable to reach their destinations. The fishermen would be directed to other areas such as the WMU to pursue that activity. The refuge would remain open during the archery deer hunt, waterfowl hunting season, and the wild turkey hunt, so visitor conflicts due to the proposed hunts are expected to be minor and short in duration.

Cedar tree cutting is a habitat/facilities management tool allowed on the refuge through the Special Use Permit process. Wood cutters are limited to specific units for cedar tree removal.

They are also prohibited from all activity while hunts are in progress. There should be no conflicts with any of the hunts.

Overall, the impacts to visitor services/recreational opportunities are considered short-term and minor since other parts of the refuge like the WMU are available for use by non-hunting visitors.

Alternative B – Proposed Action The activities described in Alternative A would continue with the addition of hunts for deer (archery), wild turkey, migratory birds, and feral hogs. The proposed action would increase the total number of hunt days from 4.5 to 8.5. The refuge would be closed to public access during each of the deer hunts to prevent non-hunters from interfering with hunters while reducing the possibility of hunting accidents. The refuge is scheduled to remain open when the archery hunt is held in Unit 21 as it is located on the south end of the refuge and should not impact visitor use on the north end. If the hunt is not held in Unit 21, the refuge would be closed during the archery deer hunt for visitor safety. The archery deer hunt would also occur in November during the week, which would reduce conflicts as there typically is greater visitor use during the weekend. Waterfowl hunting would occur in Units 21 and 2. Unit 21 is very difficult to access unless in a boat, which would result in little to no conflict with the activity as the average visitor would not be visiting the refuge in a boat. Unit 2 allows for easier access and is adjacent to the wildlife management unit, which is already open to waterfowl hunting. There are no anticipated conflicts with allowing this activity. The turkey hunt would be held in April. Turkeys typically inhabit wooded areas and farm fields near the Cumberland Pool. Turkey hunting in April should yield no conflicts as the hunt units identified for the turkey hunt are not located near roads or areas that are accessible to the public. The hunting of wild turkey in this manner is not likely to create conflict with other public uses and has been identified as a wildlife dependent public use to be given priority consideration. Feral hog hunting will be allowed during each of the proposed and existing hunts and also should not impact visitor use.

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

The refuge would use an adaptive management approach for its hunt program, reviewing the hunt program annually and revising annually (if necessary). The refuge can adjust its season dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other options to ensure that the wildlife populations are sustainable and visitors have a variety of opportunities while visiting the refuge. Refuge activities are not expected to contribute to cumulative impacts.

Hunting/Fishing Under current management, there are no anticipated cumulative impacts. Based on comments received during the development of the CCP in 2010, hunting was generally considered favorable. It is anticipated that the new hunting opportunities will be highly desirable

and appreciated by our consumptive users. Comments regarding development of the hunt plan and the species to be hunted yielded no responses during the comment period. Because the refuge uses an adaptive management approach for its hunt program, reviewing the hunt program annually and revising as necessary, the Service’s hunt program can be adjusted to ensure that it does not contribute to the cumulative impacts of population growth and development on migratory waterfowl.

Other Wildlife-Dependent Recreation (i.e., road and trail development and use) The refuge plans to develop several additional trails along the new visitor center currently under development. The unit in which the new center will be developed was formerly a hunt unit but it was closed for visitor safety. An additional new trail is scheduled for development on the West Road. None of these new trails will impact the proposed action as the refuge is closed to the public during the existing deer hunts but will remain open during the proposed archery deer and turkey hunt. The refuge would also remain open as waterfowl hunting is allowed on the south end of the refuge.

Use of Lead Ammunition/Tackle Under current management, there are no anticipated cumulative impacts. Hunters are required to use non-toxic shot when hunting waterfowl and wild turkey on the WMU and it would be required when hunting waterfowl and turkey on the refuge.

Non-toxic shot is mandatory for all shotgun hunting except single slugs regardless of the species being hunted. Rifle hunters are not required to use non-toxic bullets. Archery rules follow state regulations.

Under this alternative, the refuge only represents a small percentage of the deer hunters in the county and state. Therefore, the continued allowance of toxic shot for hunting of white-tailed deer has a negligible impact on the cumulative impacts of lead in the environment.

3.3 Cultural Resources

3.3.1 Affected Resources In 1938, Congress authorized the Corps to build a dam near Denison, Texas, thereby creating Lake Texoma along the Texas-Oklahoma border. The Chapman family, owners of what is also referred to as the Washita Farms, fought to save their farming showplace, but ultimately lost and their land was condemned by the Federal government. Dismantling of the farm began in 1941 and was completed in 1943 as the impounded waters began to flood the fertile fields. In 1928, the farm consisted of 42 five-room concrete homes for managers and tenants, a concrete hatchery building, a concrete hog barn housing 400 hogs, a concrete main office, a 10,000 square foot store, 14 concrete grain silos, and several additional farm houses, box houses, and barns. Only the concrete structures remain standing today.

The refuge complex has not been fully surveyed for cultural resources. Surveys that have occurred are usually initiated on a project-specific basis, such as water or construction projects,

and to comply with requirements of Section 106 regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 36 CFR Part 800.

3.3.2 Impacts on Cultural Resources Alternative A – No Action Alternative Under this alternative, there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts to the cultural environment, as current conditions would be maintained and no ground disturbance would occur.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Under the proposed action alternative, there could be some impacts to cultural resources. If any archeological sites or other historical items are found or any impacts to cultural resources are identified during hunts, the refuge will close the area and coordinate with the regional archeologist.

3.3.3 Cumulative Impacts on Cultural Resources Under current management, there are no anticipated cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action alternative, the following cumulative effects on cultural resources are anticipated. It is possible that hunters in some of the units may encounter standing concrete structures remaining from the Washita Farm. Signs are posted to inform hunters that the structures are closed to the public. We have not had any known issues of hunters violating these signs. The refuge does not anticipate any impacts to cultural resources due to the proposed action as the average hunter will be engaged in the activity of hunting rather than searching for or disturbing ground searching for cultural resources.

3.4 Refuge Management and Operations

3.4.1 Affected Resources

Land Use Prescribed burning: Tishomingo NWR has an active prescribed burning program. The refuge typically attempts to conduct winter/spring burns in February or March. Burn units vary in size from 16 acres to approximately 1,000 acres. None of the current or proposed hunts will conflict with prescribed burning efforts.

Mowing/farming: Refuge staff usually completes mowing and farming by November and resumes in July. Most of the access lanes in the hunt unit are mowed during the summer and fall. Scheduled mowing events are flexible and can be adjusted according to activities and weather patterns as needed. There will be no mowing/farming activities conducted in units while hunts are in progress, and as a result, there should be no conflicts with the proposed action.

Administration The staff consists of a refuge manager, education specialist, biologist, engineering equipment operator, and a maintenance worker. General budget for refuge operations and maintenance is approximately $600,000.00 per fiscal year. Although the staff workload will increase as a result

of the additional hunts, actual administrative conflicts due to the hunts are not expected as the ODWC administers the selection process for each of the hunts requiring a permit. Educating the public, responding to inquiries, placing and removing boundary hunt signs, and adjusting work schedules to monitor hunts will still be required. The workload should not significantly impact required staff duties other than to highlight the need for a permanent full-time law enforcement officer at Tishomingo NWR as our officer currently splits patrol duties between Tishomingo and Hagerman NWRs. Additional assistance is sought from the zone officer, other refuges, or state game wardens as necessary.

The biologist conducts deer surveys annually to determine the abundance of deer on the refuge and WMU. He then meets with the state biologist to discuss and schedule changes to the hunt program as needed. Turkey surveys are currently not conducted on the refuge but a survey will be conducted to help determine the population on the refuge. The turkey population has historically been low on the refuge with a greater population typically found on the WMU. The biologist will monitor the turkey population and hunter success in order to allow for adaptive management and will reduce or increase the number of permits offered as needed. The biologist also conducts Integrated Waterbird Management and Monitoring Surveys in order to provide habitat for wintering waterfowl and other waterbird species. The biologist also conducts surveys to determine the number of waterfowl and other bird species are utilizing the refuge.

There should be no other conflicts occurring in potential hunt units as the majority of the hunt units are closed to the public.

3.4.2 Impacts on Refuge Management and Operations Alternative A – Proposed Action Under this alternative, there are no anticipated or direct or indirect impacts to land use or administration, as current conditions would be maintained and proposed hunts would not be implemented.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Under the proposed action alternative, there could be some impacts to land use or administration.

Land Use Prescribed burning: Tishomingo NWR has an active prescribed burning program but winter/spring burns are usually conducted in February or March. None of the current or proposed hunts should impact prescribed burning efforts.

Mowing/farming: Refuge staff usually completes mowing and farming by November and resumes in July. Most of the access lanes in the hunt unit are mowed during the summer and fall. Scheduled mowing events are flexible and can be adjusted according to activities and weather patterns as needed. There will be no mowing/farming activities conducted in units while hunts are in progress, as a result, there should be no conflicts with the proposed action.

Administration Staffing requirements for hunts include manning of check stations during hunts, additional law enforcement patrols, early gate opening/closures, boundary posting, mowing areas as needed, the

planting of food plots, putting up and taking down signs, wildlife surveys, printing hunting brochures, and fuel. Funding requirements for current and proposed hunts are estimated to be $15,000 for current and proposed hunts. Wildlife population surveys are currently being conducted and would occur with or without a hunting program. The surveys directly related to hunted species cost about $2,000 annually for salaries and fuel.

Summary of cost for Hunt Program: Staff Salaries for deer and turkey hunts $9,000 Wildlife Surveys $2,000 LE Annual cost $3,500 Hunt Brochure $ 500

Hunters apply for refuge hunts via the ODWC website. There is a $5 application fee to apply for controlled hunts which his retained by the state. A ($20) permit will be required to participate in the archery deer hunt or the wild turkey hunt. There are no additional fees required for hunting waterfowl other than meeting the general hunting license requirements and signing in and out at check stations.

In 2017, the $20 permit fee for the current deer hunts generated $1,000 to fund the hunt program. With additional fees from proposed archery deer and turkey hunts, an additional $640 will be collected annually, which will be used primarily for managing the hunt program. Any funds in excess of hunt program needs will be used to improve visitor services facilities and access.

3.4.3 Cumulative Impacts on Refuge Management and Operations Tishomingo NWR offers a variety of wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography, interpretation and environmental education programs) and conducts various administrative activities including a wetlands management program to support habitat management and recreational opportunities. These activities require staff time and resources (vehicle, heavy equipment operation, fuel, etc). All of these activities require the use of roads, trails and parking. Periodic maintenance or improvement of the existing small parking areas, roads, and trails are needed depending on the number of visitors and volume of hunters. The additional hunting opportunities would be incorporated into the refuge’s operations and maintenance budget and will not diminish resources dedicated to other refuge management programs. Additionally, the dark geese, merganser and coot species added to the migratory bird 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 additional number of hunters, the proposed action would be incrementally negligible.

3.5 Socioeconomics

3.5.1 Affected Resources Local and Regional Economies The 16,464-acre Tishomingo NWR is located within Johnston and Marshall Counties in south central Oklahoma. The refuge is south-southwest of Oklahoma City and due north of the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area. The refuge is also located within 125 miles of six million

people, although it is still considered a rural setting approximately three miles southeast of the city of Tishomingo in Johnston County, Oklahoma. The primary economic sectors (categories of economic activities) in the region include manufacturing, public administration, healthcare services, retail, and agriculture. However, there has been a steady decline in agricultural occupations over the years, with those jobs being replaced by manufacturing, retail, and healthcare services (Citydata.com 2009).

The estimated median household income for Tishomingo in 2013 was $28,365, with an estimated median home value of $74,568. The median real estate property taxes paid for housing units in the area during 2013 were $400 (0.5 percent). The average unemployment rate for the region in 2015 was 6.4 percent.

The economic impact of refuge operations is felt mainly in the neighboring communities of Tishomingo, Madill, Milburn, and Durant, Oklahoma respectively as most refuge employees live and shop within these areas. Youth and other cooperative programs also provide occasional employment to members of the community.

The refuge provides various wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, with fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation being the most popular. In 2018, the refuge received 123,000 visitors with approximately 42,000 wildlife observers, 11,000 fishing visits, and 2,020 hunting visits, respectively. While the refuge has many out-of-state visitors, the majority of visitors are from nearby communities. Local community businesses, including restaurants, grocery stores, motels, service stations, and sporting goods stores, profit significantly from these public use programs.

The refuge’s annual budget is approximately $600,000 and the majority of this money is recycled in the local economy through refuge staff salaries, purchases from local suppliers, and service contracts.

Johnston and Marshall Counties do not receive payments from the Service under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1978, public law 95-469, because all refuge lands in Johnston and Marshall Counties are considered the property of the USACE and that agency makes a payment to the county in lieu of taxes. However, Johnston County does receive payment in lieu of taxes from the Service for the 235 acres occupied by the Tishomingo National Fish Hatchery, which was established in 1929.

3.5.2 Impacts on Socioeconomics Alternative A – No Action Alternative The economic and social condition of the area would remain the same. The refuge would continue to be one of the area’s main attractions. The presence and operation of the refuge provides economic benefits to the surrounding communities within a 30-mile radius in several ways. The refuge attracts visitors and by attracting visitors to the area, the refuge generates revenue for the local economy. Much of the refuge’s annual budget is recycled into local businesses through refuge staff, purchases of equipment and supplies, as well as contracts for local labor to accomplish refuge projects. The refuge provides full-time employment for five individuals that live in nearby communities.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Overall, the economic and social condition of the area would remain similar to Alternative A. Increased opportunities for deer, turkey, waterfowl, and feral hog hunting should result in increased visitation and generate additional revenue to the local economy. The proposed action would have a direct positive impact on the local economy by providing increased hunting opportunities for visitors thereby increasing business potential for vendors in our region of Oklahoma. Convenience stores and restaurants in the local area would also see short-term benefits from hunter visits to the area. A slight increase in business for these types of facilities would likely result from the increased visitation and recognition provide by having additional hunting opportunities at Tishomingo NWR located near the city of Tishomingo.

3.5.3 Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomics Population growth continues north from Dallas, Texas at a very fast rate. Several counties in north Texas are ranked among the fastest growing counties in the nation (Denton, Collin, and Dallas Counties). While expansion continues northwards in Texas, it is uncertain whether the growth will stop at the Red River or continue into Oklahoma. Either way, population growth, which results in loss of habitat, does not have to be immediately adjacent to the Tishomingo NWR in order to place stress upon an ecosystem. Depending upon the amount of habitat lost due to construction of new homes, roads, highways, etc., a displacement or mortality of wildlife will likely occur. This will stress remaining habitats as resources on those habitats will be depleted at a faster rate due to the increase in population caused by displaced species. Development and population growth are events which are most likely to affect waterfowl and other migratory species. The continued loss of wetlands over time may also result in smaller numbers of waterfowl in the future.

3.6 Climate Change Climate change, whether it results from anthropogenic or natural sources, is expected to affect a variety of natural processes and associated resources. However, the complexity of ecological systems means that there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty about the impact climate change will actually have. In particular, the localized effects of climate change are still a matter of much debate. That said, the combination of warming temperatures and increased frequency and severity of drought could reduce the amount and quality of habitat. Under the proposed action alternative, the refuge would use an adaptive management approach for its hunt program, reviewing the hunt program annually and revising annually (if necessary). The Service’s hunt program can be adjusted to ensure that it does not contribute further to the cumulative impacts of climate change on resident wildlife.

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

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 the proposed action or any of the alternatives.

3.8 Indian Trust Resources No Indian Trust Resources have been identified on the refuge. There are no reservations or ceded lands present. Because resources are not believed to be present, no impacts are anticipated to result from implementation of either alternative describe in the EA.

3.9 Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns Alternative A – No Action Alternative Under current management, there will be mortality of white-tailed deer. 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 authorized weapons and the skills of the hunter; and a humane kill is likely.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative This alternative will be the same as Alternative A with the addition of mortality to migratory birds, wild turkey, and feral hog.

3.10 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 the No Action Alternative, the refuge would continue current refuge management activities, providing existing levels of public use, visitor services, ecological enhancement and overall refuge improvement. Current management efforts would continue to focus on farming, maintenance and/or enhancement of biological diversity, preservation of native prairie and management of public use activities which includes providing hunting opportunities on the refuge and WMU when and where possible.

Important impacts of the no action alternative include, no mortality would occur to deer, waterfowl, wild turkey, rough fish and feral hogs. No trampling of vegetation would occur due to no hunts being implemented and no increase in the local economy would occur as a result of no additional hunts taking place.

Alternative B – Proposed Action (Controlled Archery Deer and Wild Turkey Hunting, and Waterfowl hunting on the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge)

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, an archery deer hunt would be held in the newly formed hunt Unit 21. Waterfowl hunting would be allowed in Units 21 and 2. Wild Turkey hunting would also be allowed on the refuge. The incidental take of feral hogs would also be allowed while other hunts were in progress, as feral hogs are an invasive and nuisance species. The refuge does not anticipate having to close the refuge to visitors during the proposed hunts, as these hunts would occur in areas currently closed to the public.

Direct mortality would occur to the species listed above. Trampling of vegetation and minor disturbance would also occur to non-target species as hunters search for target species. The local economy would benefit from having the hunts implemented as stores, gas stations, and restaurants would see an increase in visitation due to hunters participating in refuge hunts.

This alternative helps meet the purpose and needs of the Service as described above, because it provides additional wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities on the refuge while helping control the deer and feral hog population. The Service has determined that the proposed action is compatible with the purposes of the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge and the mission of the NWRS. The Compatibility Determination is attached (Attachment D).

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

3.12 List of Sources, Agencies, and Persons Consulted Juli Niemann, NEPA Coordinator, R2 NWRS Justin Roach, Biologist, Tishomingo NWR Joanne Ryan, Visitor Services, Tishomingo NWR

References Citydata.com 2009. Avameg, INc. http://www.citydata.com/county/johnston county Accessed February 2010.

Hubbard, J.P., 1985. Interior Least Tern, Handbook of Endangered Species in New Mexico, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

Lewis, J. C. 1995. Whooping Crane (Gus Americana), The birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 153:28

Raftovich, R.V., S. C. Chandler, and K.K. Fleming. 2018. Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest during the 2016-17 and 2017-18 hunting seasons. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA.

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

Swihart, R. K., and A. J. DeNicola. 1997. Public involvement, science, management, and the overabundance of deer: Can we avoid a hostage crisis? Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:382- 387.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Tom Stehn, Species Status and Fact Sheet, USFWS, North Florida Ecological Services Office. http://www.gov/north florida/Whooping Crane. Accessed November 2009Waterfowl Population Status, 2009

United States Geological Survey. 2009. http://tin.er.usgs.gov/geology/state. Accessed November 2009

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Threatened and Endangered Species List by County. USFWS Southwest Region Ecological Services Office. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/ES/endangered species/list/Accessed February 2010.

List of Preparers Rick Cantu, Refuge Manager, Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Tishomingo, Oklahoma

State Coordination A meeting was held with the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation on January 31, 2018, to discuss potential hunts which could be developed at each National Wildlife Refuge located in Oklahoma. The meeting played a significant role in the development and implementation of the hunts proposed for implementation at Tishomingo NWR.

Tribal Consultation

A TREES meeting was held on October 16, 2018, where the refuge manager informed the friends group of the proposed hunts to be implemented at the refuge. One of the members present at the meeting acts as a liaison with the Chickasaw Nation Tribe. The member may provide comments regarding the proposed hunts after further consultation with tribal leaders.

Public Outreach A public notice seeking comments regarding the development of a hunt plan was placed on the Tishomingo refuge website, county courthouse and library and refuge office in September 2018. The proposed plan would allow archery deer hunting, Migratory Bird hunting, and wild turkey hunting at the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge. No comments were received during the comment period. A comment period will also be held for the draft EA before it becomes final.

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

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

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

Preparer Signature: ______Date:______

Name/Title/Organization: ______

______

Reviewer Signature: ______Date:______

Name/Title: ______

APPENDIX 1 OTHER APPLICABLE STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS & REGULATIONS

STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS

Cultural Resources

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1996 – 1996a; 43 CFR Part 7

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

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

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470- 470x-6; 36 CFR Parts 60, 63, 78, 79, 800, 801, and 810

Paleontological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa – 470aaa-11

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; 43 CFR Part 10

Executive Order 11593 – Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 36 Fed. Reg. 8921 (1971)

Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites, 61 Fed. Reg. 26771

(1996) Fish & Wildlife

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668- 668c, 50 CFR 22

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 36 CFR Part 13; 50 CFR Parts 10, 17, 23, 81, 217, 222, 225, 402, and 450

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

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

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

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

Natural Resources

Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q; 40 CFR Parts 23, 50, 51, 52, 58, 60, 61, 82, and 93; 48 CFR Part 23

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

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

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

Water Resources

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 923, 930, 933

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

323, and 328

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

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

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

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