Compatibility Determination for Upland Game Bird and Waterfowl Hunting on National Antelope Refuge

Uses: Upland Bird Hunting (chukar partridge, California quail); Waterfowl Hunting (duck, mergansers, geese, and coots)

Refuge Name: Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge (NAR; Refuge)

County and State: County, Oregon

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

• Executive Order 7523, December 21, 1936; • Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. §715-715r); and • Oregon Public Lands Transfer and Protection Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-321)

Refuge Purposes

• “as a range and breeding ground for antelope and other species of wildlife” (EO 7523, December 21, 1936; and • “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. section 715d, Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18, 1929).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge System] (NWRS) 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 within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. §668dd–668ee]).

Description of the Use

Current Use

Upland Game Hunting-- Hunting for chukar partridge is allowed only on the western escarpment of Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge (the western slopes of Hart Mountain and Poker Jim Ridge, 29,536 acres), where the majority of chukar partridge are found within the refuge. Hunting seasons for upland game birds begin in October and end in late January. The number of visitors allowed to hunt upland birds within the refuge is not limited. It is estimated about 100 visitors participate in upland bird hunting within Hart Mountain Refuge each year. There were an estimated 100 chukar partridge hunter use days in 2014 (USFWS 2016).

California quail hunting ( an introduced species) was previously closed to allow for reintroduction of native mountain quail. Mountain quail do not occur on the Refuge, and the refuge remains closed to hunting for California quail even though hunting California quail is not currently believed to pose a risk to the species even if reintroduction is attempted.

Hart Mountain NAR Compatibility Determination – Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting 1

Hart Mountain Refuge is currently not open to waterfowl hunting. When water is available, waterfowl hunting opportunities are available on , which is adjacent to the refuge, and hunting occurs along the shoreline of Hart Lake between the Hart Lake access road and the refuge boundary. There is no data available to estimate the number of waterfowl hunters at Hart Lake. State lands (below mean high water mark of Hart Lake) are open to waterfowl hunting. The proximity of refuge uplands to the lakeshore has resulted in some hunters inadvertently hunting on the refuge.

Supporting Uses

Public Access—Public access to areas within Hart Mountain Refuge is provided by a network of vehicle roads and informal backcountry routes and trails. Roads include three maintained gravel roads, and numerous primitive and unmaintained dirt roads. Trails throughout the refuge backcountry areas are primarily abandoned vehicle routes historically used for access to livestock developments and private inholdings later purchased by the Service.

Vehicles (both motorized and nonmotorized) are allowed only on open routes (see Attachment 1, Public Use Map). Roads marked as closed are not open to vehicle access at any time.Vehicle use off- road is prohibited. Visitors may pull off the road one vehicle length, subject to seasonal fire danger restrictions. Hiking, horseback riding, use of pack stock, and other non-mechanical modes of access are allowed on trails, routes, and other areas of Hart Mountain Refuge open to the public. Overnight use of stock is limited to Post Meadows Campground.

Camping—Camping itself is not a priority public use on Service lands, but because of the size, remoteness, and quality of roads within Hart Mountain Refuge, it is important in supporting priority uses, including hunting. There are four types of camping opportunities currently provided within Hart Mountain Refuge: developed, semi-primitive, and backcountry/wilderness. Camping within Hart Mountain Refuge is allowed up to 14 consecutive days in four designated campgrounds, and by Refuge Backcountry Camping Permit for backcountry camping. Campground development and capacity within Hart Mountain Refuge are limited to ensure recreation settings are maintained consistent with refuge management goals and objectives identified through the Hart Mountain Refuge Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP).

Changes to the Use

Upland Game Hunting—We propose to allow hunting for chukar partridge on all areas of the Refuge that are open to hunting (260,256 acres). We also propose to re-open the Refuge to hunting of California quail on all areas that are open to hunting (260,256 acres) consistent with Oregon harvest seasons and regulations. We still expect that most chukar partridge hunting, and most chukar partridge will be taken, from Hart Mountain and Poker Jim Ridge since this is where the majority of chukar partridge are found within the refuge.

Waterfowl Hunting—We propose to open Hart Mountain Refuge to hunting for waterfowl hunting, consistent with Federal and State of Oregon harvest regulations and seasons. Although we would allow waterfowl hunting on all areas of the Refuge that are open to hunting (260,256 acres), we would expect that most hunting would occur along the shoreline of Hart Lake between the Hart Lake access road and the refuge boundary (the portion of the refuge south of County Road 3-12, north of Crump Lake Narrows, and between the refuge boundary (mean high water level of Hart Lake) and the Hart Lake Road; see Attachment 1, Public Use Map). Waterfowl hunting seasons begin in September and extend through early March. There are no estimates available for the number of

Hart Mountain NAR Compatibility Determination – Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting 2

visitors to Hart Lake who participate in waterfowl hunting each year, but numbers are likely to be low.

Why the use is being proposed: The purpose of this proposed action is to provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge and to offer additional hunting opportunities and greater alignment with the state as mandated by Secretarial Orders numbers 3347 and 3356. The need of the proposed action is to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (NWRSIA) of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). The NWRSIA “recognize(s) 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 is considered a wildlife-dependent public use of the Refuge, as defined by statute (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) and must be given priority over nonwildlife-dependent uses. Hunting of waterfowl, other migratory birds, and upland game are defined as priority public uses under the NWRSIA.

This expansion of chukar partridge hunting and addition of California quail to upland game birds that can be hunted on the Refuge would provide additional recreation opportunity similar to those currently provided at other refuges, including Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge.

The Service is proposing to open the Refuge to waterfowl hunting to add additional hunting opportunities and provide greater alignment with the state as mandated by Secretarial Orders numbers 3347 and 3356. We note that waterfowl hunting is currently allowed on Hart Lake below the mean high water mark, adjacent to the Refuge lands which lie above the mean high water mark. The fact the refuge is currently closed to waterfowl hunting may cause confusion and has the potential to result unintentional hunting violations. Although there is no evidence that hunting violations are occurring, allowing waterfowl hunting on the Refuge would have the added benefit of reducing confusion and eliminating the potential for inadvertent violations by people hunting waterfowl along lakeshore areas above the mean high water mark.

Availability of Resources

Most administration and management of hunting, including issuing of licenses, permits, and harvest tags, is conducted by ODFW. Maintenance of campgrounds, access roads, stock corrals, and other supporting facilities and routine law enforcement patrols are conducted primarily by the Service. Average annual commercial outfitter/guide permit fees provide about $1,000 in offsetting revenue annually. The Service has relied on volunteers and conservation organizations to adequately maintain facilities necessary to support sport hunting within the refuge. Several key staff positions for Hart Mountain Refuge have remained vacant for several years. This has reduced the Service’s ability to maintain public use facilities, recruit and supervise campground volunteers, and enforce refuge hunting regulations. As a consequence, maintenance efforts would primarily address public health and safety. Some facilities may be closed or out of service for prolonged periods or removed entirely due to budget limitations. Periodic law enforcement patrols will be conducted by staff from other refuges and the State of Oregon. Although these deficiencies will limit the Refuge’s ability to support overnight camping and access, they will not preclude hunting nor prohibit the Service from fulfilling its mission or the purposes for Hart Mountain Refuge. Therefore, Hart Mountain Refuge currently has adequate funding and staffing to administer this use.

Hart Mountain NAR Compatibility Determination – Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting 3

Category and Itemization Annual Cost

Administration and management (volunteer $10,000 campground hosts, volunteer supervision, law enforcement patrols) Maintenance and Operations (campgrounds, $19,000 campground host campsites, roads, vehicles, utilities) Offsetting revenues -$1000 Total $28,000

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Effects from Hunting

Impacts to

The primary impact of hunters walking off road is the trampling of vegetation and the potential creation of social trails. Pedestrians can cause structural damage to plants and increase soil compaction and erosion (DeLuca et al. 1998; Whittaker 1978). Because hunting requires off-trail use in the pursuit and/or recovery of game, plants may be trampled, and biotic soil crusts may be disturbed.

The most noticeable effects to vegetation and soils occur along the network of maintained primitive roads and unmaintained dirt roads, at Warner Pond, and at the four designated campgrounds, which support recreation uses and activities within the Refuge. Effects associated with vehicle use are primarily vegetation loss and erosion. Seasonal vehicle restrictions on most unimproved roads within the refuge mitigate impacts to fish, wildlife and road conditions and ensure the wildlife-dependent uses which these road support remain compatible with the purposes for Hart Mountain Refuge. No adverse impacts have been observed from hiking visitors, horseback riding, or use of pack stock.

Roads and trails often function as conduits for movement of nonnative, invasive plant species (Benninger-Truax et al. 1992; Hansen and Clevenger 2005). Most invasive plants also need some form of transportation to reach new areas (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Several potential modes of transportation, or “vectors,” continually travel throughout Hart Mountain Refuge in the form of vehicle traffic on roads, people, pets, domestic stock, wildlife, and tools and equipment taken onto the refuge. Use of the Refuge by hunters, and therefore the potential increase in introduction of invasive plants, would increase slightly compared to current levels; therefore the impact would be minor and negative.

Overnight use of stock is limited to Post Meadows Campground for several reasons, including to mitigate habitat impacts. This limitation on the use of stock and the requirement that only certified weed-free hay be brought into the refuge, minimizes likelihood of introduction of invasive plants and impacts to habitat.

Hart Mountain NAR Compatibility Determination – Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting 4

Campgrounds and their use within Hart Mountain Refuge cause direct impacts to water quality and habitats, and indirect impacts to fish and wildlife populations. Limiting campground use to designated campsites and seasonally restricting vehicle access to Guano Creek Campground during the wettest period of the year is necessary to mitigate impacts from camping. With these restrictions in place, impacts from increased sedimentation into streams, increased water temperatures from reduced vegetation and shading, and loss of vegetation from trampling, vehicle traffic and campsite use would be maintained at acceptable levels and are expected to cause only minor, long-term, adverse impacts to refuge resources.

The majority of direct habitat impacts associated with hunting would be to upland habitats. The impact of waterfowl hunters on habitat for waterfowl is expected to be negligible due to the very limited waterfowl habitat on the Refuge and the small number of hunters involved in this activity.

Impacts to Wildlife: General

Hunting, by its nature, results in the intentional take of individual animals, as well as wounding and disturbance (DeLong 2002). It can also alter behavior (e.g., foraging time), population structure, and distribution patterns of wildlife (Bartelt 1987; Madsen 1995; Owens 1977; Raveling 1979; White- Robinson 1982). In addition to loss of individual target species, hunting also causes disturbance to nontarget species because of noise (most notably the report of a firearm), human presence, and general disturbance associated with the activity. Hunting results in the increase of nontarget species being injured or killed (accidentally or intentionally) in addition to target species being crippled or killed and not retrieved. Disturbances to waterfowl caused by human activity (including hunting) are manifested by alertness, fright (obvious or unapparent), flight, swimming, disablement, or death in nontarget species (Korschgen and Dolgren 1992).

Immediate responses by wildlife to recreational activity can range from behavioral changes including nest abandonment, altered nest placement, and change in food habits to physiological changes such as elevated heart rates, increased energetic costs due to flight or flushing, or even death (Belanger and Bedard 1990; Kight and Swaddle 2007; Knight and Cole 1995; Miller and Hobbs 2000; Miller et al. 1998; Morton et al. 1989). The long-term effects are more difficult to assess but may include altered behavior, vigor, productivity or death of individuals; altered population abundance, distribution, or demographics; and altered community species composition and interactions.

According to Knight and Cole (1991), there are three wildlife responses to human disturbance: avoidance, habituation, and attraction. The magnitude of the avoidance response may depend on a number of factors including the type, distance, movement pattern, speed, and duration of the disturbance; the time of day, time of year, weather; and the animal’s access to food and cover, energy demands, and reproductive status (Fernández-Juricic et al. 2007; Gabrielsen and Smith 1995; Knight and Cole 1991).

Habituation is defined as a form of learning in which individuals stop responding to stimuli that carry no reinforcing consequences for the individuals that are exposed to them (Alcock 1993). A key factor for predicting how wildlife will respond to disturbance is predictability. Often, when a use is predictable—following a trail or boardwalk or at a viewing deck—wildlife will habituate to and accept human presence (Oberbillig 2000). Gabrielsen and Smith (1995) suggest that most animals seem to have a greater defense response to humans moving unpredictably in the terrain (as hunters do) than to humans following a distinct (and repeated) path.

Hart Mountain NAR Compatibility Determination – Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting 5

Hunting can contribute indirectly to the well-being of wildlife by providing financial, educational, and sociological benefits to hunters. Hunting has given many people a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a better understanding of the importance of wildlife and habitat conservation, which ultimately contributes to the NWRS mission. The hunting community remains the largest support base for funding wildlife management programs, and refuges provide an opportunity for a high- quality waterfowl hunting experience to all citizens regardless of economic standing. Many individual refuges have developed extensive public information and education programs bringing hunters into contact with refuge activities and facilitating awareness of wildlife issues beyond hunting. Hunting is one of the six priority public uses of the NWRS.

Impacts to Wildlife: Hunting Impacts on Target Species (chukar partridge, quail, and waterfowl)

Chukar Partridge and California Quail: ODFW’s harvest framework for upland game birds is based on the State’s policy to maximize upland game bird hunting opportunities consistent with the adequate protection of the bird populations (ODFW 2015). The 10 year average annual chukar harvest in Oregon from 2008-2017 was 41,410; in any given year more than half of these birds are taken in Harney, Lake, and Malheur counties (ODFW 2016). Hunter numbers averaged 5,904 so an average of 7 birds per hunter were harvested (ODFW 2018). Chukar populations throughout most of their range in Oregon are not limited by hunter harvest. Factors most affecting chukar populations are severe winters, spring drought, and/or wet conditions during the hatching period. As a result chukar populations can be cyclical, but they can rebound quickly (ODFW 2015). Like chukar, populations of California quail are not limited by hunter harvest. The species is considered underutilized in Oregon (ODFW 2015). The 10 year average annual California quail harvest in Oregon (2008-2017) was 33,305 birds. Hunter numbers averaged 6,522, so an average of 5 quail per hunter were harvested (ODFW 2018).

Waterfowl: The hunting of waterfowl in the United States is based upon a thorough regulatory setting process that involves numerous sources of waterfowl population and harvest monitoring data. Waterfowl populations throughout the United States are managed through an administrative process known as flyways, of which there are four (Pacific, Central, Mississippi, and Atlantic). Oregon is included in the Pacific Flyway. A review of the policies, processes, and procedures for waterfowl hunting is covered in a number of documents.

The Service annually promulgates regulations (50 C.F.R. 20) establishing the Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks. The Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks provide season dates, bag limits, and other options for states to select from, which should result in the level of harvest determined to be appropriate based upon Service-prepared annual biological assessments detailing the status of migratory game bird populations. The number of waterfowl hunters and resulting harvest are closely monitored through both the Harvest Information Program and the Parts Survey (in which biologists gather at “wing bees” to identify duck wings and goose tails submitted by hunters). Since 1995, such information has been used to support the adaptive harvest management (AHM) process for setting hunting regulations for waterfowl. Under AHM, a number of decision-making protocols determine the choice (package) of predetermined regulations (appropriate levels of harvest) that make up the framework offered to states that year. Each state’s wildlife commission then selects season dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other options from their respective Flyway package. Their selections can be more restrictive but cannot be more liberal than AHM allows. Thus, the level of hunting

Hart Mountain NAR Compatibility Determination – Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting 6

opportunity afforded each state increases or decreases each year in accordance with the annual status of waterfowl populations.

Hunting on refuges as a whole or on Hart Mountain NAR specifically is not likely to have an adverse effect on the status of any recognized waterfowl population in North America. Several points support this contention: (1) the proportion of national waterfowl harvest that occurs on national wildlife refuges is small; (2) there are no waterfowl populations that occur wholly or exclusively on national wildlife refuges; (3) annual hunting regulations within the United States are established to levels consistent with the current population status; and (4) refuges cannot permit more liberal seasons than provided for in Federal frameworks.

Impacts to Wildlife: Local Impacts to Upland Game Birds and Waterfowl

Chukar Partridge and California quail: Hunting pressure on chukar of the Refuge is low (an estimated 100 upland game bird hunters annually during the State season (October 5-Jan 31), and the total take of chukar on the Refuge is less than 1,000 birds or less than 2 percent of the total State harvest, assuming all hunters took the bag limit). The proposed expansion of the hunt area for chukar partridge would likely result in only a small increase in the number of birds taken on the Refuge. We still expect that most hunting for chukar partridge, and most birds will be taken, from Hart Mountain and Poker Jim Ridge since this is where the majority of chukar are found within the refuge. Assuming number of quail hunters on the Refuge are similar to chukar hunters, we would expect approximately 500 quail to be harvested on the Refuge annually, or about 1.5 percent of the total State harvest. These species are managed by the State for a sustainable harvest; therefore impacts of the Refuge hunt would be negligible in terms of total state population.

Waterfowl: Although the entire Refuge would be opened to waterfowl hunting, we expect that most waterfowl would be taken within that portion of the refuge south of County Road 3-12, north of Crump Lake Narrows, and between the refuge boundary (mean high water level of Hart Lake) and the Hart Lake Road (see map). Most waterfowl hunters would continue to take birds on, or from the shoreline of, Hart Lake.

Over the last 10 years, Oregon hunters have harvested an average of 426,476 ducks and 66,347 geese annually, with Canada geese making up about 83% of the annual harvest on average (ODFW 2016).. There are no data available to estimate the number of waterfowl hunters at Hart Lake, however, given the short season, relatively low numbers of hunters, the fact that there is very limited waterfowl habitat on the Refuge, and variability of water levels in Hart Lake from year to year, harvest is likely to be a negligible percentage of total numbers harvested in the state and even smaller in the Flyway. Therefore, adverse impacts to waterfowl populations is expected to be detectable but negligible in the context state and flyway populations.

Besides mortality, other effects to target species cause by hunting include disturbance and, if disturbance is frequent or there is not adequate sanctuary or escape habitat, loss of body condition and/or reproductive fitness. Waterfowl are wary, seeking refuge from all forms of disturbance but particularly those associated with loud noise and rapid movement (Korschgen and Dolgren 1992). Numerous studies show human activities associated with hunting (boating, vehicle disturbance, human presence) cause increased flight time in waterfowl species, which requires a considerable amount of energy (Havera et al. 1992; Kahl 1991; Kenow et al. 2003; Knapton

Hart Mountain NAR Compatibility Determination – Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting 7

et al. 2000). Human disturbance compels waterfowl to change feeding habits, so that they may feed only at night or may desert feeding areas entirely, resulting in weight loss (Korschgen and Dolgren 1992). However we expect these effects to be minor given the large size of the Refuge and the relatively low numbers of hunters.

Impacts to Wildlife: Nontarget Species Nearly all of Hart Mountain Refuge is currently open to public use, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, interpretation, and rock collecting. All recreation uses and activities are regulated and managed to avoid significant effect to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. The most noticeable disturbance effects occur along the network of maintained primitive roads and unmaintained dirt roads, at Warner Pond, and at the four designated campgrounds, which support recreation uses and activities within the Refuge. We presume impacts such as wildlife disturbance, displacement, and habituation which have been well documented and studied in other areas (Hammitt and Cole 1987), and impacts to habitats from hunting occurring in Hart Mountain Refuge occur seasonally and are short-term in nature due to the relatively low number of refuge visitors. We propose to allow waterfowl and upland bird hunting on 260,256 acres of the Refuge that are currently open to big game hunting. However, while the presence and activity of additional bird hunters may cause temporary disturbance to other wildlife in the area, there are no foreseeable detrimental impacts to these species, due to the limited number and very low density of hunters that would be present on the Refuge at any given time, the seasonality of the current and proposed hunts, and the availability of adjacent habitat for escape.

Potential Impacts to Priority Public Uses Conflicts between waterfowl and upland game bird hunters and other user groups could arise; however, this is not expected to be a significant issue because most non-hunting visitation occurs late May through mid-October. Maximum use occurs on summer holiday weekends and near the beginning of and hunting seasons (August and September). Conflicts between waterfowl and upland game bird hunters and big game hunters are expected to be minimal, because numbers of upland game birds hunters expected to use the Refuge are low, and because the chukar and quail seasons (October 5-January 31) occur after the Refuge’s controlled pronghorn hunts (August and September), and only partially overlap with the mule deer muzzleloader and archery seasons. Hunting activities (e.g., gunshot noise) have the potential to disturb Refuge visitors engaged in other wildlife-dependent recreational uses. The impacts would be minor for the reasons described above, and because only small numbers of upland game bird hunters would be present on the Refuge at any given time.

Public Review and Comment:

Public review and comments for the Draft Compatibility Determination was solicited in conjunction with release of the Draft Hunting Plan and Environmental Assessment for Upland Game Bird and Waterfowl Hunting on Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge (USFWS 2020) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service policy. Public review of the Draft Hunt Plan was conducted concurrently with public review of the Environmental Assessment, before implementing changes to the Refuge’s hunting program.

Hart Mountain NAR Compatibility Determination – Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting 8

Determination

___ The use is not compatible.

_X_ The use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

• We allow hunting of chukar partridge, California quail, and waterfowl (duck, merganser, light goose, dark goose, and coot), in accordance with state regulations. • We prohibit hunting within 3 miles (4.8 km) of the Refuge headquarters; within 0.25 miles (0.15 km) of designated campgrounds and camping area; and within all areas adjacent to the refuge complex headquarters. • We allow vehicles only on roads and routes during those times of the year specified and that are designated “open” on maps and that are signed or otherwise marked for such use. Roads marked as “Closed” are not open to vehicle use at any time. Off-road use is prohibited. • We allow overnight camping within designated campgrounds that are signed or otherwise marked for such use. We allow camping outside of designated campgrounds by refuge Backcountry Camping Permit only. • Unless otherwise indicated by sign, permit, or regulation, the maximum number of consecutive nights any person or attended vehicle may remain at a designated refuge campground is 14 nights. • Open fires are allowed only at Camp Hart Mountain and Hot Springs Campground within fire rings provided, subject to additional seasonal fire restrictions and/or closures. • Pets must be leashed, except dogs used for hunting waterfowl or upland birds. Hunting dogs must be under strict voice control at all times. • Riding or packing with horses and mules is allowed in all areas open to public use. All horses and mules must be haltered, branded, tagged, or otherwise visibly marked as a domestic animal and must be tied, hobbled, high-lined, corralled, or otherwise under direct control at all times. • We do not allow grazing of domestic animals within Hart Mountain Refuge. • All hay, pellets, straw, and other livestock feed used within Hart Mountain Refuge must be certified weed-free.

Justification

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, identifies recreational hunting as one of six priority public uses on national wildlife refuges. The law states that, when managed in accordance with principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, hunting and the other priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses “have been and are expected to continue to be generally compatible uses.” The Act further states that these priority public uses should receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in refuge planning and management, and directs the USFWS to provide increased opportunities for the public to safely engage in traditional outdoor activities such as fishing and hunting.

Hart Mountain NAR Compatibility Determination – Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting 9

Sport hunting does result in harm to individual animals and can result in additional disturbance or displacement of wildlife. Based on the number of hunting tags issued, and the average size of hunting groups during the hunting seasons, we estimate visitation associated with upland game bird hunting is less than 100 people per year, and the majority of visitors who engage in hunting stay in designated campgrounds and travel on roads throughout the refuge primarily by four-wheel drive truck or OHV. We expect that waterfowl hunting would continue to be conducted primarily on adjacent state lands, with minimal impacts to Refuge resources.

By establishing seasonal vehicle restrictions to mitigate adverse impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat, we expect overall adverse impacts to wildlife from motorized vehicles and vehicle use during the hunting seasons would occur at a level that does not result in significant impact to fish, wildlife, or their habitats within Hart Mountain Refuge. Other requirements for hunting seasons, the use of designated campgrounds, and requirements for backcountry camping permits would also minimize wildlife disturbance and displacement from important habitats. Stipulations identified in this compatibility determination are expected to minimize impacts from hunting within Hart Mountain Refuge to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats.

In sum, although sport hunting does result in harm to individual animals and can result in additional disturbance or displacement of wildlife, the relatively limited number of individual animals and plants expected to be adversely affected would not cause wildlife populations to materially decline. The physiological condition and production of refuge species would not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns would not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare would not be negatively impacted. It is anticipated that wildlife populations would find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the refuge would not be measurably reduced from allowing these activities to occur. Thus, allowing hunting to occur under the stipulations described above would not materially detract or interfere with the purposes for which the refuge was established or the refuge system’s mission.

Hunting of upland game birds and waterfowl on Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge has been determined to be compatible with stipulations.

Signature:

Refuge Manager:______Date:______

Concurrence:

Regional Chief:______Date:______

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): __2035 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses)

Hart Mountain NAR Compatibility Determination – Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting 10

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision:

Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References

Alcock, J. 1993. Animal behavior: an evolutionary approach. 5th ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. Bartelt, G.A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of family groups in east central Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:517-522. Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36-41. Benninger-Truax, M., J.L. Vankat, and R.L. Schaefer. 1992. Trail corridors as habitat and conduits for movement of plant species in Rocky Mountain National Park, CO. Landscape Ecology 6(4):269-278. Cole, D. N. and R. L. Knight. 1990. Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Utah State University, Logan, UT. Cole, D.N. 2004. Environmental impacts of outdoor recreation in wildlands. Pages 107–116 in: M.J. Manfredo, J.J. Vaske, B.L. Bruyerre, D.R. Field, and P.J. Brown, eds. Society and natural resources: a summary of knowledge. Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho. DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds—a literature review of impacts and mitigation measures. Prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix L in: Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Boundary Revision (Volume II). Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 114 pp. Available at: www.fws.gov/stillwater/litreview. DeLuca, T.H., W.A. Patterson, W.A. Freimund, and D.N. Cole. 1998. Influence of llamas, horses, and hikers on soil erosion from established recreation trails in western Montana. USA Environmental Management 22(2):255-262. Fernández-Juricic, E., P.A. Zollner, C. LeBlanc, and L.M. Westphal. 2007. Responses of nestling black-crowned night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax) to aquatic and terrestrial recreational activities: a manipulative study. Waterbirds 30(4):554-565. Gabrielsen, G.W. and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 95-107 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Hansen, M.J. and A.P. Clevenger. 2005. The influence of disturbance and habitat on the presence of nonnative plant species along transport corridors. Biological Conservation 125(2005):249- 259. Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20(3):290-298.

Hart Mountain NAR Compatibility Determination – Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting 11

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19(3):242-248. Kenow, K.P., C.E. Korschgen, J.M. Nissen, A. Elfessi, and R. Steinbach. 2003. A voluntary program to curtail boat disturbance to waterfowl during migration. Waterbirds 26(1):77-87. Kight, C.R. and J.P. Swaddle. 2007. Associations of anthropogenic activity and disturbance with fitness metrics of eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Biological Conservation 138(1-2):189-197. Knapton, R.W., S.A. Petrie, and G. Herring. 2000. Human disturbance of diving ducks on Long Point Bay, Lake Erie. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):923-930. Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:238-247. Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Factors that influence wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 71-79 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Knight, R.L., and Temple, S.A. 1995. Origin of wildlife responses to recreationists. In: Wildlife and recreationists–Coexistence through management and research. Washington, D.C., Island Press, p. 81–91. Korschgen, C.E. and R.B. Dahlgren. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: causes, effects, and management. Waterfowl Management Handbook. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.15. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 pp. Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74. Miller, J.R. and N.T. Hobbs. 2000. Recreational trails, human activity, and nest predation in lowland riparian areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(4):227-236. Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162-169. Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American black ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:401-410. Oberbillig, D.R. 2000. Providing positive wildlife viewing experiences. Deborah Richie Communications. Missoula, MT. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2015. Oregon Upland Game Bird Hunting Season Framework; Effective dates: September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2020. Wildlife Division; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 4034 Fairview Industrial Drive SE. Salem, Oregon 97302. Available at: https://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/upland_bird/docs/2015- 2020_OR_Upland_Game_Bird_Hunting_Season_Framework.pdf Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2016. 2016 Game Bird Hunting Statistics. https://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/upland_bird/docs/2016_Game_Bird_Hunting_Stat s.pdf Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2016b. Sensitive Species List. Available at: https://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/docs/2016_Sensitive_Species_List.pdf Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2018. Upland birds harvest information, August 3, 2018. Available at: https://myodfw.com/articles/upland-birds-harvest-information Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14. Raftovich, R.V., K.K. Fleming, S. C. Chandler, and C.M. Cain, 2019. Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 hunting seasons. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA. Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference to control of reproduction. Auk 96:234-252. USFWS. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 1994a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Hart

Hart Mountain NAR Compatibility Determination – Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting 12

Mountain National Antelope Refuge Comprehensive Management Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. USFWS. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 1994b. Record of Decision for the Hart Mountain Comprehensive Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2020. Environmental assessment for the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge Upland Game Bird and Waterfowl Hunting Plan. On file at Sheldon- Hart National Wildlife Refuge Complex Headquarters, Lakeview, OR. USFWS and U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. 2006 national survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife- associated recreation. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2012. White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and salt marsh feeding of wintering brent geese in Essex. Wildfowl 33:113-118. Whittaker, P.L. 1978. Comparison of surface impact by hiking and horseback riding in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. Management Report 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 80 pp.

Hart Mountain NAR Compatibility Determination – Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting 13

Attachment 1

Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge Public Use Map

Hart Mountain NAR Compatibility Determination – Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting 14

Hart Mountain NAR Compatibility Determination – Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting 15