May 2019

Prepared by

Amber Zimmerman Washita National Wildlife Refuge

20834 E 940 Rd Butler, OK 73625

Environmental Assessment Washita National Wildlife Refuge Hunt Plan

1.0 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................... 4 Proposed Action.......................................................................................................................... 4

Background................................................................................................................................. 4 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ................................................................................ 5

2.0 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 6 Alternatives Considered.............................................................................................................. 6

Alternative A – Current Management [No Action Alternative] ............................................. 6 Alternative B – Implement the Washita NWR Hunt Plan [Proposed Action Alternative]..... 7

Mitigation Measures to Avoid Conflicts .................................................................................... 8 Alternative(s) Considered, But Dismissed from Further Consideration..................................... 8

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ..................................................... 11 Affected Environment............................................................................................................... 11

Environmental Consequences of the Action............................................................................. 11 Cumulative Impact Analysis..................................................................................................... 11

Affected Natural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 12

Hunted Species – White-tailed Deer..................................................................................... 12 Hunted Species – Turkey...................................................................................................... 14 Hunted Species – Feral Hog ................................................................................................. 16 Hunted Species – Waterfowl and Sandhill Crane................................................................. 17 Hunted Species – Dove......................................................................................................... 19 Hunted Species – Quail and Rabbit ...................................................................................... 19

Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species ..................................................................................... 21 Threatened and Endangered Species and other Special Status Species................................ 22

Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 23 Soils....................................................................................................................................... 24

Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 24 Water Resources ................................................................................................................... 25

Affected Visitor Use and Experience Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ................................................................................................... 26 Visitor Use and Experience .................................................................................................. 26

Affected Cultural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 27

Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 27

Table of Contents

2

Affected Refuge Management and Operations Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ................................................................................ 27

Refuge Management and Operations .................................................................................... 27 Affected Socioeconomic Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed

Action Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 28 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................................... 28 Climate Change..................................................................................................................... 29

Environmental Justice........................................................................................................... 30 Indian Trust Resources ......................................................................................................... 30

Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns ........................................................................ 30 Anticipated Cumulative Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ........... 30

Natural Resources ................................................................................................................. 30 Visitor Use and Experience .................................................................................................. 33

Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 33 Refuge Management and Operations.................................................................................... 33

Socioeconomics .................................................................................................................... 33 Summary of Analysis................................................................................................................ 34

Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 35 List of Sources, Agencies, and Persons Consulted................................................................... 36

References................................................................................................................................. 36 Determination ........................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix 1.................................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 1. Washita NWR Hunt Areas Map ................................................................................... 10 Figure 2. Deer Spotlight Survey Data, 2007 – 2017.................................................................... 13 Figure 3. Wild Turkey Spring Distribution in the Continental U.S. and Canada (Source: BBS) 14 Figure 4. Wild Turkey Sub-species Distribution in Oklahoma ................................................... 15 Figure 5. Wild Turkey Numbers at Washita NWR...................................................................... 15 Figure 6. Feral Hog Distribution by County, 1982 – 2015.......................................................... 16 Figure 7. Goose Use Days per Season at Washita NWR............................................................. 18 Figure 8. Average Number of Quail Counted per 20-mile Survey Route by ODWC in the Northwest Area. ............................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 9. Number of Quail Coveys Detected During Covey Call Surveys at Washita NWR..... 21

Table of Figures

3

Environmental Assessment

Washita NWR

This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to evaluate the effects associated with this proposed action and complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1509) and Department of the Interior (43 CFR 46; 516 DM 8) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (550 FW 3) regulations and policies. NEPA requires examination of the effects of proposed actions on thenatural and human environment.

1.0 Purpose and Need

Proposed Action The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to adopt the updated Washita National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or refuge) Hunt Plan. The refuge’s Hunt Plan would continue big game and upland game hunting and expand hunting opportunities for migratory birds. Waterfowl and crane hunting would be expanded to selected agricultural fields for a total of 1,618 acres, and for the hunting of merganser. Dove hunting would be opened on 2,637 areas of the refuge that are currently open to quail and rabbit hunting.

This proposed action is often iterative and evolves over time during the process as the agency refines its proposal and learns more from the public, tribes, and other agencies. Therefore, the final proposed action may be different from the original. The final decision on the proposed action will be made at the conclusion of the public comment period for the EA and the Draft 2018–2019 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations.

Background National wildlife refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.

The refuge was established in 1961 as an overlay refuge on Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) lands and the waters of Foss Reservoir pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 664), as amended; and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d), as amended.The primary purpose of the refuge is to serve as a wintering and migratory stopover forwaterfowl and other migratory birds. The refuge “…shall be administered by him [Secretary ofInterior] directly or in accordance with cooperative agreements…and in accordance with suchrules and regulations for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources,thereof, and its habitat thereon…” 16 U.S.C. § 664 (Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act), and“…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds”16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).

4

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

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

The NWRSAA mandates the Secretary of the Interior in administering the System to (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4):

● Provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within the NWRS;

● Ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the NWRS are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans;

● Ensure that the mission of the NWRS described at 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) and the purposes of each refuge are carried out;

● Ensure effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with owners of land adjoining refuges and the fish and wildlife agency of the states in which the units of the NWRS are located;

● Assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and water quality to fulfill the mission of the NWRS and the purposes of each refuge;

● Recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority 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.

Washita NWR receives approximately 30,000 to 40,000 visitors annually. Fishing visits account for about half of the total annual visitation. At the present time, hunting of big game (white-tailed deer, turkey, and feral hogs), small game (rabbit and quail), and migratory birds (geese, ducks, and sandhill cranes) is permitted in accordance with refuge regulations in various locations on the refuge. The Hunt Plan includes the expansion of the areas open to waterfowl and crane hunting, the addition of merganser to the hunt, and the opening of dove hunting in areas currently open to quail and rabbit hunting.

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of this proposed action is to increase hunting opportunities on Washita NWR. The need of the Proposed Action is to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the NWRSAA to “recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the NWRS” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible

5

wildlife-dependent recreational uses” 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)). The Proposed Action also aligns with the refuge’s vision in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan’s (CCP), which states that “…Hunting programs will be expanded to provide additional educational and recreational opportunities focusing on introducing this traditional wildlife use to area youth, while providing an effective tool for managing the refuge wildlife populations,” and with CCP Goal 5: Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Uses, Objective 6: Continue to offer a variety of public hunting opportunities on the refuge. One strategy to achieve this objective is to “periodically evaluate refuge hunting program for effectiveness and appropriateness of adding or reducing the number of hunter permits or species allowed to be hunted.”

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

2.0 Alternatives

Alternatives Considered

Alternative A – Current Management [No Action Alternative] A total of 5,878 terrestrial acres would be open to hunting for white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and feral hog. Deer and wild turkey hunting would be permitted through the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) Controlled Hunts Program, which requires fees. The incidental take of feral hog would be allowed during permitted deer hunts. There would be an unlimited bag limit on feral hogs allowed during the deer hunts. During the hunts, other public use of areas open to hunting will be closed for safety. Hunters would be provided maps of their assigned hunt units, and access points during a mandatory safety/orientation meeting prior to the hunt. Hunters would be required to access their hunt areas by foot from access points to the final hunting destinations unless otherwise permitted by the refuge.

Two youth hunts and one general deer hunt would be held on the refuge, which may be scheduled outside the state season on selected dates in October, November, and/or December. Each of the hunts would last for one and one-half days (from 1:00 pm through the end of legal shooting hours the following day) for a total of six days of deer hunting. Youth hunt participants would hunt from assigned blinds, while general hunt participants are assigned hunt areas. As a management tool, bag limits and the game allowed to be taken (antlered vs. antlerless deer) would subject to change annually. Scouting would not be allowed as the hunt area is off-limits to the public. Hunters are welcome to visit the refuge prior to the hunt to familiarize themselves with the general layout of the area, but entry into the hunting area would not be permitted. Harvested deer would have to be checked at the refuge headquarters by Service and/or ODWC staff in order to record hunter success and to monitor health indicators of the deer population. Legal weapons would include centerfire rifles and muzzleloading rifles and shotguns.

A limited wild turkey hunt would be held during the spring turkey season. Up to two 3-day hunts may take place during the spring turkey season in April or May. Up to 20 permits would be issued as determined by assessment of local turkey population numbers. Legal weapons

6

would be shotgun (no shot larger than BB) and bow and arrow. Bag limits would be one tom per hunter. Only federally approved non-toxic shot would be allowed in possession if using a shotgun while hunting turkeys on the refuge. Scouting would be allowed after the orientation meeting. Hunters would be provided maps of their assigned hunt units, and access points during a mandatory safety/orientation meeting prior to the hunt. Hunters would be required to access their hunt areas by foot from access points to the final hunting destinations unless otherwise permitted by the refuge.

The refuge would operate controlled waterfowl (ducks, geese) and sandhill crane hunts, with ten blinds available on selected Wednesdays and weekends in November, December, and January on 212 acres of the refuge for up to three days of hunting per week. Hunts would only be filled by telephone reservation on a first call first served basis. Weekend hunts would require a non-refundable fee of $20.00 and Wednesday hunts would require a non-refundable fee of $10.00 for a refuge permit. The refuge would repair and continue to maintain 10 hunt blinds. Hunters would not be allowed to enter the hunt area after 6:00am. Shooting hours would be from 1/2 hour before sunrise to 11:30am. Hunters would not leave their assigned blinds except to reposition decoys or to retrieve dead or wounded birds until 11:30am.

Bobwhite quail, cottontail rabbit, and jackrabbit hunting would be permitted during state seasons on 2,637 acres primarily located on the east side of the refuge in accordance with state regulations. Legal weapons would be shotgun only with federally approved non-toxic shot. Upland game hunting would be closed during any controlled deer hunts. No permit would be required to hunt upland game.

Under this alternative waterfowl and crane hunt areas would not be expanded and would require a hunt fee for access. Dove and merganser hunting would not be allowed.

Alternative B – Implement the Washita NWR Hunt Plan [Proposed Action Alternative] The refuge has prepared a Hunt Plan, which is presented in this document as the Proposed Action Alternative.

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the hunt program for white-tailed deer, wild turkey, feral hog, bobwhite quail, cottontail rabbit, and jackrabbit would remain the same. Waterfowl and crane hunting would be expanded from the existing 212 acres to an additional 1,406 acres, bringing the total area open for waterfowl and crane hunting to 1,618 acres in selected agricultural fields on the refuge. The hunting of merganser would be opened in conjunction with other waterfowl and sandhill crane hunting. Dove hunting would be opened on 2,637 acres located in public use areas as shown in Figure 1.

Waterfowl species to be taken would include all species of ducks, geese, and mergansers as permitted under state and federal regulations and sandhill cranes. Hunting for waterfowl and sandhill cranes under the proposed expansion would be allowed on a first-come first-served basis in designated fields on selected days during the state season up to 4 days per week. Hunters would be able to enter fields up to 2 hours prior to shooting hours and must leave the field by 12:00 pm. The refuge would only maintain up to two accessible hunt blinds. All temporary blinds and hunting equipment would have to be removed at the end of the hunt day. Using vegetation from outside the refuge or from the refuge would not be allowed to make temporary

7

blinds. Waterfowl and sandhill crane hunters would be required to have a current signed refuge hunt tearsheet to hunt on Washita NWR. Free tearsheets with applicable information would be available at parking areas and online.

Dove species to be taken include mourning dove, white-winged dove, and Eurasian collared-dove. Dove hunting would be allowed in areas that are currently open to quail and rabbit hunting per state season. Dove hunt areas would be closed during any controlled deer hunts. The seasons and bag limits would be in accordance with state regulations, with the exception that non-toxic shot would be required. No refuge permit would be required for dove hunters. Hunters pursuing dove at Washita NWR would be required to obtain all necessary licenses and permits as specified by the ODWC.

Migratory bird hunting would be by walk-in access to designated areas as shown in Figure 1 from public parking areas or roads. Hunters would be allowed to possess only approved non-toxic shot while in the field. Refuge officials would work with hunters with mobility-impairments to arrange reasonable hunting access. Hunters requiring special access would contact refuge officials for additional details. Pre-hunt scouting would be allowed year-round for the migratory bird hunts in areas that are open to public access and may be permitted in areas closed to public access upon request.

Mitigation Measures to Avoid Conflicts • Waterfowl and sandhill crane hunting will be limited to selected days during the state

waterfowl season totaling no more than 4 days per week. • Waterfowl and sandhill crane hunters will be provided with educational materials to

prevent accidental take of whooping cranes. • Waterfowl and sandhill crane hunting will be closed if whooping cranes are observed

in the area. • Sanctuary fields will be held in reserve for waterfowl and sandhill crane use. • Waterfowl and sandhill crane hunting will be excluded from the portion of Foss

Reservoir on Washita NWR and from moist soil units to provide undisturbed roosting/loafing habitat for waterfowl and cranes.

• The use of vegetation from outside the refuge or from the refuge to make temporary blinds would not be allowed.

• Dove hunting will be restricted to those areas open to quail and rabbit hunting to provide a portion of the refuge for undisturbed feeding, loafing, and roosting.

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

Alternative(s) Considered, But Dismissed from Further Consideration

The Unrestricted Hunting of Migratory Birds The refuge considered allowing the hunting of migratory birds on the entire refuge in accordance with state regulations. There would be no restrictions on areas open to hunting or number of

8

days during the season that hunting would be allowed. The hunting conditions would be the same as the Proposed Action with the addition of unrestricted waterfowl and crane hunting on all agricultural fields, moist soil units, and the waters of Foss Reservoir during all state open seasons and unrestricted dove hunting on all terrestrial habitats of the refuge. This hunt program design would not have allowed the refuge to meet requirements in its establishment legislation that requires that no more than 40% of the refuge be open for migratory bird hunting and would make the hunt program not compatible.

Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices The possibility that wintering whooping crane individuals may be disturbed or potentially killed does exist. Therefore, Washita NWR would implement measures to reduce those possible effects to the insignificant and discountable level.

• Limiting waterfowl hunting to only the locations specified, ceasing these activities at 12:00 pm, requiring hunters to carry a tearsheet that provides information on waterfowl and crane identification, and closing waterfowl hunting when whooping cranes are observed are all measures aimed at deterring the accidental take of a whooping crane and minimizing disturbance within whooping crane habitat.

• Waterfowl and sandhill crane hunting will take place in agricultural fields where whooping cranes have been very rarely observed in the past. Waterfowl and crane hunting would only be allowed on selected days, up to 4 days per week, during the state waterfowl season.

• Law enforcement personnel would ensure compliance with refuge regulations and state laws for the protection of refuge resources.

9

ttNllo~ Washita NWR Hunt Areas

N ...

' ...

Legend

I I i

Et:) Washita Headquarters

• RecAteas

~ No Hunting Area

C open fo, o.e, -Tu,key Hunting '"

~ Proposed Dove Hunt A rea.

~ Open for Quail-Rabbit Hunting

WiJ Moist Soi Units

~ Wa:erfowl-Crane Hunt Fields

c:J Proposed Wa.terlowl-Crane Field s

f;~:·•;;~\M] Farm Fields 20 18

0 0 .5 .,.1 t..tites

t l! II~

I

ll'I-• ~'

I

?

Souroe-s Esri, HERE, Gann:n. USGS~ lntennap. INCREMENT ?, NRCan, Esn Japan, METt, Esri Chila {Hong Kong), Esri Korea. Esri (Thailand). NGCC, C OpenStrfftMap contributors, and the G&S User Comrl'MnTty

10

Figure 1. Washita NWR Hunt Areas Map

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Affected Environment Washita NWR consists of approximately 8,116 acres in Custer County, Oklahoma. (See Figure 1). The refuge encompasses gently rolling hills with uplands vegetated predominately in grasslands and areas adjacent to streams vegetated by shrubs and trees. Approximately 2,000 acres of the refuge are cultivated and planted primarily in small grains such as wheat with other crops such as grain sorghum grown on a rotational basis. Approximately 1,800 acres of the refuge are included in Foss Reservoir. The Washita River winds through the refuge and is the primary watercourse feeding Foss Reservoir. Other tributary creeks include Big Panther Creek, Little Panther Creek, Pitts Creek, and Crooked Creek.

The waterfowl and sandhill crane hunting expansion is located in designated agricultural fields and dove hunting is located in designated areas currently open for quail and rabbit hunting (See Figure 1).

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.

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

11

impact on the resource. The refuge is surrounded by private lands that are sparsely populated and the Foss Reservoir State Park. Other non-federal and state activities occurring on those lands include farming, ranching, oil and gas development, fish, hunting and recreation. On the refuge, there are also active oil and gas wells and other management activities include prescribed burning, farming, and a variety of other recreational activities.

Listed below are brief descriptions of each resource affected by the alternatives considered and anticipated impacts.

Affected Natural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives 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 country’s 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. There are now an estimated 30 million white-tailed deer in the continental United States. 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.

The ODWC collects deer harvest data on lands within the state. About 600 to 800 deer per year are harvested in Custer County. In response to increasing deer numbers, state hunting bag limits have increased to a point where currently a licensed hunter may take up to six deer annually. The ODWC reduced the season bag limit for antlered deer in 2007 from three to two as part of their efforts to encourage harvest of antlerless deer as a means to improve skewed sex ratios. The ODWC also developed an education campaign to improve the age structure and sex ratios of the deer herd. The ODWC issues depredation permits to landowners adjacent to the refuge to kill deer outside the normal hunting season when necessary to decrease agricultural crop damage.

Local Analysis White-tailed deer numbers on the refuge increased dramatically since the refuge was established. Sightings during the 1960s ranged between zero and four deer annually, while in the 1970s, observations increased to about 40 deer annually. Survey data collected since 1989 indicate the deer population grew an average of 30 percent per year, resulting in more than a ten-fold increase in overall numbers by the early 2000s. The highest number of deer observed during a survey on the refuge occurred during a spotlight count in September of 2002 when 972 deer were observed along the survey route during a 3-hour count. Damage to habitat conditions (browse lines, absence of mast, etc.) was readily observable at this time, and indicated that the population was above the carrying capacity of the habitat. When deer populations are above carrying capacity, deer consume large quantities of mast, browse, and cultivated crops and can damage habitats and negatively impact other species.

12

• • • •

Spotlight counts are conducted in September to provide population data for use in setting bag limits and determine issuance of antlered vs antlerless tags (Figure 2).

Washita NWR September Spotlight Deer Survey

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Buck Doe Fawn Unknown

Figure 2. Deer Spotlight Survey Data, 2007 – 2017

The refuge adjusts the number of permits per year to meet population objectives. Controlled hunts beginning in 2001 were successful in reducing the total number of deer on the refuge and resulted in improvements in the sex ratio of the local deer herd. Permits were reduced to allow the deer herd to stabilize, and a sustainable harvest occurred for several years. A severe drought struck western Oklahoma beginning in 2010 and lasted through 2015, resulting in poor habitat quality and subsequently increased mortality and decreased fawn production. The numbers of permits were drastically reduced to prevent adverse impacts to the deer herd during the drought through adaptive management based on spotlight count data. As the herd has rebounded following the drought, the number of permits have been increased accordingly.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) When white-tailed deer numbers are at or above carrying capacity, the overutilization of forage plants and agricultural crops can damage the habitat and cause adverse effects to other species of wildlife. Deer hunting is not only compatible with refuge objectives but is instrumental in meeting them. Harvest is essential to maintain the herd at or below carrying capacity. The primary objective of the hunt is to harvest a percentage of the deer population by legal methods to lessen the negative impacts to all native species, including migratory waterfowl, quail, turkey, and neotropical migratory birds. Hunting deer on the refuge under controlled conditions using adaptive management techniques should not negatively impact the deer herd. Under adaptive management, the refuge changes the available deer tags yearly depending on the results of annual surveys conducted on the refuge. Deer harvest numbers

13

Above100

■ :>30-100

■ :>10-30

■ :>3-10

0 :>1-3

0 0.05-1

D None Counted

have ranged from a low of 8 in 2004 to a high of 122 in 2004.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts to white-tailed deer would be similar to Alternative A.

Hunted Species – Turkey Regional Analysis Wild turkeys are found throughout much of North America (Figure 3). Oklahoma hosts three sub-species of wild turkey: the Eastern, Rio Grande, and Merriam’s (Figure 4). The sub-species found on Washita NWR is the Rio Grande wild turkey, which has an estimated population of 112,000 birds statewide in Oklahoma (ODWC communication – Rod Smith, Southwest Region Supervisor, 2014). Historically, Rio Grande wild turkeys were found throughout western Oklahoma. However, due to loss of habitat and over hunting, this species was almost extirpated from the state by the mid-twentieth century. The ODWC worked with landowners and conducted restocking activities, successfully restoring the Rio Grande wild turkey in Oklahoma more than a decade ago.

Figure 3. Wild Turkey Spring Distribution in the Continental U.S. and Canada (Source: BBS)

14

□ □ □ □

Current Wild Turkey Distribution

Merriam's or Rio Grande/ Merriam's Hybrid s

Eastern

Rio Grande / Eastern Hybrids

Rio Grande

400

Figure 4. Wild Turkey Sub-species Distribution in Oklahoma

Local Analysis Data from refuge surveys (Figure 5) indicates a growing population of wild turkeys on the refuge. Around 250 birds have been seen on average during surveys.

Washita NWR Turkey Roost Survey

2015 2016 2017 2018 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Figure 5. Wild Turkey Numbers at Washita NWR

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) The primary purpose of Washita NWR is to provide habitat for wintering and migrating waterfowl and sandhill cranes. The hunting of wild turkey in April or May should pose no threat to these target species because the majority of the waterfowl and cranes have started

15

Swine Distribution by County 1982-2015

USDA -----

their northward migration by mid-March. Washita NWR would continue to monitor the turkey population and hunter success to allow for adaptive management and reduce or increase the number of permits offered as needed to ensure sound management. During the two 3-day hunts, a total of 20 permits would be issued. During refuge surveys, around 250 birds have been seen on average and the trend is an increasing population. The potential harvest of turkeys is a small percentage of the refuge and state population and poses only minor short-term negative impacts to the species.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts to wild turkey would be similar to Alternative A.

Hunted Species – Feral Hog Regional Analysis Feral hogs are widely recognized as a damaging invasive species. They were originally imported as a food source and escaped from domestication or were intentionally released. The distribution of feral hogs has been steadily expanding over the past several decades (Figure 6), with feral hogs only recently infesting the vast majority of Oklahoma.

Figure 6. Feral Hog Distribution by County, 1982 – 2015

Local Analysis Feral hogs first appeared at Washita NWR in 2012. A total of 58 feral hogs have been counted on the refuge from 2012 to 2018. Feral hogs may be taken incidentally during controlled deer hunts, but the refuge does not host any dedicated feral hog hunts in an effort to prevent the intentional unlawful introduction of this invasive species for sport. The refuge monitors for feral hogs year-round, and eliminates hogs through trapping and shooting whenever they are detected with a success rate of 93 percent using current methods.

16

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) The refuge has not directly studied habitat competition between the target species and other wildlife. However, competition through population management of hogs is expected to reduce intra- and interspecies competition within available habitat. Feral hogs compete with native wildlife for food, cover, water, and space. They are highly adaptable, have high reproductive capabilities, and can be found in a wide range of habitat types. Rooting and digging activities damage vegetative communities, soil properties, and plant successional patterns (Tolleson et al. 1995). Feral hogs are opportunistic omnivores and compete with game and non-game wildlife species for available food resources.

In “Feral Hogs in the Rolling Plains of Texas: Perspectives, Problems, and Potential” (Tolleson et al. 1995), one of the many problems encountered with feral hogs is their competition for available resources with native wildlife and destruction of habitat. Feral hogs can impact ground-nesting species, particularly quail and turkey, through nest destruction and predation. Beach (1993) also found that feral hogs prey on fawns and ground-nesting birds. The hunting of feral hogs incidental to deer hunting in addition to other control programs reduces the negative impacts associated with the species on other species and refuge habitats.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts to feral hog would be similar to Alternative A.

Hunted Species – Waterfowl and Sandhill Crane Regional Analysis Ducks, geese, mergansers, and sandhill cranes are popular migratory game birds throughout the United States. The 2018 Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey conducted by the Service indicates that total duck numbers are 14 percent below last year’s at 5.2 million birds, but equivalent to the long-term average. Central Flyway Arctic Nesting Canada Goose numbers have increased to 2.6 million birds, which is up 35 percent from 2017, but still slightly lower than the 10-year average. The mid-continent population of Lesser Snow geese is estimated at 11.9 million birds, which is 29 percent above 2017, but 3 percent below the 10-year average. Ross’s goose numbers are estimated at 447,000 birds, coming in 29 percent below 2017 and 4 percent below the 10-year average. According to the Status and Harvests of Sandhill Cranes: MCP, RMP, LCRVP and EP (Dubovsky 2018), the mid-continent population of sandhill cranes is estimated at just over 1 million birds, which is 77 percent above the previous year’s count and a record high estimate for this population.

Local Analysis Waterfowl surveys indicate an average of 2.9 million use days annually, ranging from approximately 1.1 million to 4.5 million use days annually at Washita NWR (Figure 7). Cranes are not very numerous on the refuge, usually ranging from 200 to 1,200 birds counted during each weekly survey. Waterfowl numbers have fluctuated over the years as water levels change in Foss Lake and on the surrounding landscape and migratory patterns vary depending on climate and weather conditions along the Central Flyway.

17

I I I

Washita NWR Goose Use Days 5000000 4500000 4000000 3500000 3000000 2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000 500000

0 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18

Season

Figure 7. Goose Use Days per Season at Washita NWR

Goo

se U

se D

ays

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Ducks, geese, and sandhill cranes are popular migratory game birds throughout the United States. The 2018 Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey conducted by the Service indicates that total duck numbers are 14 percent below last year at 5.2 million birds, but equivalent to the long-term average. Central Flyway arctic nesting Canada goose numbers have increased to 2.6 million birds, which is up 35 percent from 2017, but still slightly lower than the 10-year average. The mid-continent population of lesser snow geese is estimated at 11.9 million birds, which is 29 percent above 2017, but 3 percent below the 10-year average. Ross’s goose numbers are estimated at 447,000 birds, coming in 29 percent below 2017 and 4 percent below the 10-year average. According to the Status and Harvests of Sandhill Cranes: MCP, RMP, LCRVP and EP (Dubovsky 2018), the mid-continent population of sandhill cranes is estimated at just over 1 million birds, which is 77 percent above the previous year’s count and a record high estimate for this population.

Waterfowl surveys indicate an average of 2.9 million use days annually, ranging from approximately 1.1 million to 4.5 million use days annually at Washita NWR (Figure 2). Cranes are not very numerous on the refuge, usually ranging from 200 to 1,200 birds counted during each weekly survey. Waterfowl numbers have fluctuated over the years as water levels change in Foss Lake and on the surrounding landscape and migratory patterns vary depending on climate and weather conditions along the Central Flyway. Waterfowl and crane harvest at Washita NWR is a minuscule amount compared to the national and flyway populations of these birds. The refuge receives approximately 200 visits per year to engage in waterfowl and sandhill crane hunting on 212 acres. The rest of the refuge receives no hunting pressure for these species and is available for resting, feeding, and loafing.

18

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts to waterfowl and sandhill cranes are expected to be similar to Alternative A. We do not anticipate a significant increase in hunters engaging in the hunting of these species. There is a very low likelihood that mergansers would be taken during these hunts as the hunts are located on agricultural fields and not on waterbodies. Although there would be an increase in the total acreage opened to hunting, there would still be a sufficient amount of habitat on the refuge for these species to find areas free from disturbance. The hunts would also be limited to no more than four days a week and hunters would leave the area by noon each hunt day.

Hunted Species – Dove Regional Analysis The mourning dove is one of the most numerous birds in North America, occurring throughout most of the continent. The Service Mourning Dove Population Status (Seamans 2016) indicated that an estimated 166 million mourning dove were present in the Central Management Unit (CMU) during the fall survey. An estimated 7.2 million mourning dove were harvested by hunters in the CMU in 2016. White-winged dove have recently expanded into Oklahoma and are present in such numbers that the ODWC includes them in the bag limits. The Eurasian collared-dove is considered an invasive species and as such, there is no bag limit on their take.

Local Analysis Mourning dove, white-winged dove, and Eurasian collared-dove are present on Washita NWR. Dove numbers fluctuate seasonally, with fall and spring migration seeing the highest numbers, though dove are a common sight year-round on the refuge.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) The refuge would remain closed to dove hunting; therefore, there would be no impacts to dove populations.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Mourning dove, white-winged dove, and Eurasian collared-dove are present on Washita NWR. Dove numbers fluctuate seasonally, with fall and spring migration seeing the highest numbers, though dove are a common sight year-round on the refuge. The anticipated harvest of dove by hunters in the proposed dove hunts is extremely small compared to overall take regionally and on adjacent properties and would result in no additional impacts. We anticipate that the majority of hunters in the areas open to upland game and dove hunting would continue to prefer the hunting of quail. Dove hunting would increase hunter access by approximately 30 days in September in the upland game area, but we anticipate dove hunter use of the area to be infrequent and dove hunting is most likely to be incidental to quail hunts during the state quail season, as has been the case for rabbit hunting.

Hunted Species – Quail and Rabbit Regional Analysis Bobwhite quail are a highly sought-after game bird in western Oklahoma. The ODWC surveys quail along 20-mile survey routes in August and October annually to determine a

19

15

10

5

0

--- -

II- -

I -

I 1111 o~N~~~~~~~o~N~ ~m~O - NM~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~□□□ 0000000--~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ a □□□□ o □ o □□ o □□□□□□□ ----------N N NNN

■ Average

- LTA

- 10 Year Average

20

population index. The August 2017 data indicate that quail numbers are below the 10-year and long-term averages both statewide and in the northwest geographic region (Figure 8), which includes Washita NWR. The ODWC roadside survey report for August 2017 indicated that ODWC personnel believed the decrease from 2016 to 2017 was due to detectability issues as vegetation was very dense during the surveys and late peak production occurring in July rather than in mid-June. Cottontails and jackrabbits are popular small game species but for the purposes of our CFRs, we list them as upland game. Cottontail rabbits are common throughout Oklahoma, while black-tailed jackrabbits occur primarily in the western half of the state. The ODWC does not conduct surveys for eastern cottontails or black-tailed jackrabbits, but these species are present in sustainable numbers in western Oklahoma.

Figure 8. Average Number of Quail Counted per 20-mile Survey Route by ODWC in the Northwest Area.

Local Analysis Hunting for quail and rabbits has occurred on the refuge since 1965. There are 2,637 acres available for upland game hunting. Recent hunter surveys show that less than 50 upland game hunters participate in refuge hunts per year, harvesting an average of 46 quail per year. No rabbits have been reported harvested and no hunters reported specifically hunting rabbits in recent years. Rabbit hunting is not a popular sport in this area of the country. Cottontails and jackrabbits are prolific breeders and their populations have never been threatened by hunting in western Oklahoma even prior to the passing of modern hunting regulations.

Quail covey counts show that quail numbers have varied greatly, with lower numbers of coveys observed during the extended drought between 2010 and 2015, and higher numbers before and after the drought (Figure 9). The refuge survey numbers of coveys and number of

20

birds per covey in areas of the refuge that are hunted compared to areas where hunting does not occur reveal no significant difference.

# of

Qua

il Co

veys

Washita NWR Quail Coveys Survey

160 137

140

120

100 88 87

80 71 71 62

5360 39

40 24 20

0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year Figure 9. Number of Quail Coveys Detected During Covey Call Surveys at Washita NWR

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Hunting for quail and rabbits has occurred on the refuge since 1965. There are 2,637 acres available for upland game hunting. Recent hunter surveys show that less than 50 upland game hunters participate in refuge hunts per year, harvesting an average of 46 quail per year. No rabbits have been reported harvested and no hunters reported specifically hunting rabbits in recent years, though cottontail is regularly observed. Rabbit hunting is not a popular sport in this area of the country. Cottontails and jackrabbits are prolific breeders and their populations have never been threatened by hunting in western Oklahoma even prior to the passing of modern hunting regulations. Quail covey counts show that quail numbers have varied greatly, with lower numbers of coveys observed during the extended drought between 2010 and 2015, and higher numbers before and after the drought (Figure 8). The refuge survey numbers of coveys and number of birds per covey in areas of the refuge that are hunted compared to areas where hunting does not occur, reveal no significant difference. An average of 50 hunters spread out over 2,637 acres, over an approximately 176-day period creates only a minor disturbance to hunted species on the refuge from escape responses caused by hunter presence.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts to quail and rabbit would be similar to Alternative A.

Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species Other resident wildlife species are also present on the refuge, including songbirds, wading birds, and raptors; small mammals such as voles, moles, mice, shrews, and bats; reptiles and

21

amphibians such as snakes, skinks, turtles, lizards, salamanders, frogs, and toads; and invertebrates such as butterflies, moths, other insects, and spiders. Most of these species are common and widespread. In general, these species are broadly distributed throughout the region and have limited home ranges. Hunting is not expected to affect any wildlife populations regionally.

Many species of small mammals, including bats, are nocturnal, which reduces hunter interactions with small mammals. Amphibians and reptiles will be actively breeding when hunting occurs in the spring. The restricted duration and areas open for hunting will minimize interactions with small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) There would be limited short-term negative impacts to small mammals, birds, and other wildlife due to disturbance in areas where human access for hunting activities occurs. These impacts are considered to be negligible due to the small number of hunters (approximately 300 hunt visits in 2018) and the limited number of days per year on which these impacts occur.

Many species of small mammals, including bats, are nocturnal, which reduces hunter interactions with small mammals. Amphibians and reptiles will be actively breeding when hunting occurs in the spring. The restricted duration and areas open for hunting would minimize interactions with small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Impacts to resident and other wildlife and aquatic species are expected to be similar to Alternative A.

Threatened and Endangered Species and other Special Status Species The whooping crane (Grus americana) and interior least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos) utilize the refuge during migrations or are seasonal residents of the refuge. Whooping cranes rarely stop over at Washita NWR during their spring migration, and have very rarely been seen in the general area during the fall. Interior least terns are rarely observed in the spring and summer. The Arkansas river shiner (Notropis girardi) is found within the county but has not been observed on the refuge. The lesser prairie chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus), recently listed as threatened, is present within the county, but has not been observed on the refuge in many years. The refuge is not designated critical habitat for any threatened or endangered species.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under the No Action Alternative, the possibility that wintering whooping crane individuals may be disturbed or potentially killed does exist, though it is extremely unlikely. Washita NWR implements measures to reduce those possible effects to the insignificant and discountable level by limiting waterfowl hunting to only the locations specified, ceasing these activities at 11:30 am, providing hunters with information on waterfowl and crane identification, and closing waterfowl hunting when whooping cranes are observed. However,

22

while disturbance issues have not been fully studied, whooping crane populations have increased in the presence of these hunting practices and no cranes have been taken by refuge hunters.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) The possibility that wintering whooping crane individuals may be disturbed or potentially killed does exist. Therefore, Washita NWR would implement measures to reduce those possible effects to the insignificant and discountable level. Limiting waterfowl hunting to only the locations specified, ceasing these activities at 12:00 pm, requiring hunters to carry a tearsheet that provides information on waterfowl and crane identification, and closing waterfowl hunting when whooping cranes are observed are all measures aimed at deterring the accidental take of a whooping crane and minimizing disturbance within whooping crane habitat. However, while disturbance issues have not been fully studied, whooping crane populations have increased in the presence of these hunting practices and no cranes have been taken by refuge hunters. Waterfowl and sandhill crane hunting will take place in agricultural fields where whooping cranes have been observed very rarely in the past. Waterfowl and crane hunting would only be allowed on selected days, up to 4 days per week, during the state waterfowl season. Waterfowl, cranes, and other wildlife have many opportunities to use these fields undisturbed throughout the rest of the day and season.

Vegetation The areas to be opened to migratory bird hunting identified in Figure 1 encompass all of the following habitat types:

Native Prairie The refuge is located in a transition area from the tall-grass prairie of the east to the short-grass plains of the west. Important grasses are switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), big bluestem (Andropogon scoparius), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), and sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula).

Riparian and Wetlands Trees and shrubs are present along the stream courses. Dominant species include hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), elm (Ulmus spp.), mulberry (Morus spp.), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and catalpa (Catalpa bignonioides). Black willow (Salix nigra) and common button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) are found along ponds and waterways throughout the refuge.

Cropland Refuge croplands produce more than one million pounds of browse to meet the forage requirements of geese, ducks, and cranes for roughly five months (a total of three million use days). Approximately 2,000 acres of the refuge are planted with winter wheat, winter peas, milo, and various other crops. Green browse and cereal grains are grown to be available to wintering waterfowl and cranes from October through February. White-tailed deer and wild turkey also extensively use these areas for food and cover.

23

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under Alternative A, minor long-term adverse impacts to refuge vegetation are expected from continuation of current management. The spreading of invasive plants through hunter access could occur, but is considered a minor negative impact due to the low number of hunt participants (approximately 300 hunt visits per year). Short-term damage to roadsides and trails would continue from hunter use.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Under Alternative B, minor long-term adverse impacts to refuge vegetation are expected similar to Alternative A.

Soils Sixteen soil types occur on the refuge. Six major range sites occur on the refuge: loamy bottomland, sandy prairie, loamy prairie, shallow prairie, eroded prairie, and deep sand. The majority of the refuge soils are well-drained. The soil is a deep sandy loam or sandy silt loam, which is highly erodible. The soil is over 10 feet deep in some areas of the refuge and generally overlies a sandy mineral horizon. Sand hills are encountered in some areas on the second terrace level where erosion has removed the topsoil. The Clairemont-Dale association is the most important soil type on the refuge. These sedimentary deposits make up the bottomland soils by the Washita River and are quite fertile. The major portion of the farming program is conducted on the highly productive Class I and Class II lands. Due to their silt-loam and sandy-loam composition, these soils are susceptible to wind erosion (physiography and soil descriptions summarized from Henson 1978).

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Current management would continue to result in disturbance to surface soils due to compaction by foot traffic. This impact is expected to be short-term, negligible, and local because current hunter densities are low across the refuge and do not add significantly to other foot traffic already occurring. Vehicles would be confined to public access roads and parking areas, so soils would not be impacted by off-road vehicle use.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) The Proposed Action would result in a negligible increase in disturbance to surface soils (compaction by 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 currently in existence. Refuge regulations would not permit the use of off-highway vehicles (i.e., ATVs and utility vehicles). In addition, the increase in hunter visits compared to overall public use on the refuge is considered insignificant. New areas opened for waterfowl and sandhill crane hunting would not experience more impacts as these areas are in agricultural production and are plowed on a yearly basis.

Air Quality The refuge is located in a rural environment and the overall air quality is considered good. The closest Air Quality Monitoring Station is in Weatherford, OK, 42 miles southeast of the

24

refuge and 70 miles west of Oklahoma City. Data collected by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality indicate that air quality in Oklahoma meets or exceeds national standards as listed in 40 CFR 81.337.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under Alternative A, no additional impacts to air quality are expected from continuation of current hunting programs. The current levels of public use on the refuge do not appear to be impacting air quality, as current air quality in the area is considered good. Hunter traffic on roads and trails may cause a slight decrease in air quality due to vehicle emissions and the stirring of road dust. These impacts are expected to be negligible, short-term, and local because the small number of vehicles (approximately 150) is not a noticeable percentage of the 30 to 40 thousand yearly refuge visits.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) 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.

Water Resources Primary sources of water at Washita NWR are the Washita River, Foss Reservoir, precipitation, and groundwater. Open water and lakes cover the largest habitat area over the refuge with approximately 1,800 surface acres inundated by Foss Reservoir. Washita NWR contains 25 river-miles of rivers and streams. Average annual precipitation is 26 inches, with most of the precipitation occurring between April and October. The refuge lies on top of Washita River Alluvium and Terrace’s aquifers.

Wetlands The refuge’s wetland habitat lies mostly along the shores of Foss Reservoir and along the Washita River and small tributaries. The refuge maintains four moist soil units comprising approximately 85 acres. Two units located south of the Washita River cover approximately 35 acres. Q-Field, located just south of Highway 33, encompasses approximately 40 acres. The fourth unit, located at Turkey Flats, is comprised of approximately 10 acres. Water for these moist soils units is pumped out of the Washita River in compliance with the refuge’s right to 300 acre-feet per year. As needed, additional water is pumped pursuant to an agreement with the BOR and Foss Reservoir Master Conservancy District (FRMCD) that allows the refuge to pump water not needed to meet FRMCD water delivery requirements.

Floodplains Most of the Washita NWR is located in the floodplain of the Washita River. Severe flooding occurred along the Washita River in the early 20th Century. Towns along the river were frequently flooded, as well as productive Washita River bottomlands. Not only were crops and livestock lost to flooding, but homes were flooded and lives were lost. Seventeen people lost their lives in and around Hammon, Oklahoma in April 1934 when the Washita River flowed out of its banks and flooded the small community in the middle of the night. Families who lived on what is now the refuge were impacted by this and other floods. Several flood

25

control dams are now in place on and around Washita NWR, and severe flooding has been greatly reduced.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) The current hunt program does not result in any impacts to the water resources on refuge.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Under the Proposed Action Alternative, no additional impacts to water resources are expected.

Affected Visitor Use and Experience Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Visitor Use and Experience The refuge currently receives approximately 40,000 visitors per year. These visitors take part in a variety of public use activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. Current hunting opportunities on Washita NWR include deer, quail, rabbit, goose, and sandhill crane hunting. Washita NWR is one of the top hunting refuges in the southwest region, with approximately 300 hunting visits during the 2017–2018 hunt season. The refuge also hosts an annual Wildlife Tour in January and an Anniversary Celebration in April each year.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) There would be no change in existing visitor services and recreational opportunities on the refuge. Portions of the refuge would remain open for other uses during migratory bird hunts, which are conducted in an area of the refuge that is closed to other visitors. Sound disturbance does occur during the hunts, which is minor and temporary.

Very few non-consumptive users utilize the refuge. Permanent non-hunting areas are available to participants in non-consumptive activities. Hunting blinds in both the open areas and closed areas may be reserved for wildlife observation and photography.

There are no known or anticipated conflicts between other refuge user groups.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) This alternative would offer additional visitor services and recreational opportunities on the refuge in support of the management direction outlined in the Washita NWR CCP, specifically Goal 5: Wildlife Dependent Recreational Uses, Objective 6. Expansion of waterfowl and crane hunting would increase hunter access while elimination of the application process will remove barriers to hunter access while reducing administrative burden on the refuge. Allowing dove hunting would provide additional hunting opportunities. Areas around the Centennial Trail, Riverside, Turkey Flats, and Owl Cove Recreation Areas would be closed to dove hunting for safety reasons. These areas can be used by hunters as access points, but a buffer around walking trails allows for the safety of all visitors during these hunts.

26

Non-hunters would be free to enjoy other wildlife-dependent recreational activities in areas held in reserve to reduce hunting conflicts. It is known that some visitors avoid the refuge during existing hunts. The noise and traffic associated with expanding hunting opportunities may temporarily impact other visitors.

Affected Cultural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Cultural Resources Archaeological finds on the refuge indicate a prior civilization of nomadic hunters. Bison horns, antlers, stone scrapers, and stone points chronicle the Native Americans’ dependence on wildlife resources. Pottery shards, fire rings, and pole marks have also been found. Initial surveys indicated the existence of a village site and burial grounds dating back to the 1500s. Nomads tended to use the same campsite year after year as they traveled through the area. Most activity occurred on the second terrace level overlooking the Washita River. The area was probably also used as a campground by General Custer’s 7th Cavalry. Very little excavation has occurred on the refuge. Known or suspected archaeological or cultural sites are protected from disturbance.

Direct and Indirect Impacts There are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts to the cultural resources as current conditions would be maintained and no new ground disturbance would occur under either Alternative.

Affected Refuge Management and Operations Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Refuge Management and Operations Land Use The refuge is composed of mixed-grass prairie, riparian woodland, wetland, and open water habitats, as well as areas farmed to produce forage for waterfowl and moist soil management areas. This mixture of habitats encourages a diversity of plant and animal species including migratory waterfowl. Approximately 2,000 acres of agricultural lands are planted annually. Warm season rotations include legumes and milo. Cool season crops are winter wheat, rye, and winter peas.

The Washita NWR transportation system is composed of paved roads, gravel roads, and native surface. The refuge is surrounded by county roads, which are either paved or gravel, and the northern third of the refuge is bisected by 2.5 miles of State Highway 33. Other public access areas are encompassed by refuge recreation area roads and parking areas. Parking areas are available at Lakeview, Pitt’s Creek, Owl Cove, Crooked Creek, Turkey Flat, Riverside, Centennial Trail, Vignal’s, headquarters, North Side, and McClure recreation areas. The refuge provides a perimeter auto tour route (22 miles) and two walking trails (Centennial Trail, 0.37 mile; and Riverside Hiking Trail, 0.57 mile).

27

Administration The refuge is administered as an overlay on Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) property and has had cooperative agreements with the BOR regarding the management of wildlife resources for the refuge dating from the inception of the reservoir in 1961. Most of the refuge, except for some administrative land, is an overlay of property originally acquired by the BOR. Agricultural lands on the refuge are administered through cooperative agreements between the refuge and cooperative farmers.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Administration No administrative impacts are anticipated under Alternative A. The refuge has provided public hunting opportunities since 1965. Increasing hunting opportunities is stated as a priority in the Washita NWR CCP.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Alternative B includes the expansion of waterfowl and crane hunting acreage and streamlining the administration of this hunt, which would result in moderate positive impacts on refuge administration by requiring less staff time and resources to administer this hunt. Law enforcement activities would still take place but would be shifted to different areas and dates under the Proposed Action, and result in no net increase in administrative burdens and would lower overall costs to administer the hunt program. Additional assistance would be sought from other refuges or state game wardens when necessary.

Affected Socioeconomic Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Socioeconomics Local and Regional Economies Washita NWR is located in Custer County (population 25,230), approximately 26 miles northeast of Elk City (population 10,510) and approximately 25 miles northwest of the city of Clinton (population 8,364). Oklahoma City, with a population of 523,303, is approximately 100 miles east of the refuge. Several small towns are within 60 miles of the refuge. Populations are estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau for 2003 or 2004.

The presence and operation of Washita NWR has a definite socioeconomic effect on the surrounding communities, especially the towns of Butler, Hammon, Elk City, and Clinton. Refuge employees live in and/or shop in these four towns. The refuge buys many of its supplies locally. The majority of the refuge’s annual budget is invested in the local economy through refuge staff, purchases with local stores for supplies, and contracts for local labor.

There are currently six gas-producing wells on Washita NWR. Mineral rights for the majority of the refuge were retained by the previous landowners. The refuge is located in a portion of the Anadarko Basin, a large natural gas resource.

28

As required by the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1978, Public Law 95-469, the Service annually compensates the county for federal lands taken off of county tax rolls. The revenue sharing check is calculated using a formula taking into account the land's appraised value and money available under the program. Checks are delivered annually to Custer County for the 14 acres of land that Washita NWR actually owns in fee title. The BOR still owns the remaining land.

Washita NWR receives approximately 30,000 to 40,000 visitors annually. Fishing visits account for about half of the total annual visitation. At the present time, hunting of big game (white-tailed deer, turkey, and feral hogs), small game (rabbit and quail), and migratory birds (geese, ducks, and sandhill cranes) is permitted in accordance with refuge regulations in various locations on the refuge. This plan also includes proposals to expand the areas open to waterfowl and crane hunting and to offer dove hunting in areas currently open to quail and rabbit hunting. The estimated annual cost for the hunt program is $20,000.

Estimated annual hunter visits or anticipated visits to the refuge: Deer, turkey, and feral hog 40 Geese, ducks, and sandhill crane 200 Quail and rabbit 50 Dove (anticipated) 45

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under current management, there are no anticipated impacts. There would be no change in revenues to the local economy associated with hunting on the refuge. The refuge would forgo public use benefits by not expanding migratory bird hunting. No additional manpower or funding would be required to implement the No Action Alternative.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Under the proposed action, minor positive impacts to local and regional economies are possible. Hunting visits may increase by approximately 45 visits annually. Hunters would likely purchase gas, food, lodging, and other supplies from local merchants. Economic impacts to the refuge would be minor. Resources required to maintain and replace existing waterfowl hunting blinds would lead to a significant cost savings that can be shifted to other refuge priorities.

Climate Change Warming, whether it results from anthropogenic or natural sources, is expected to affect a variety of natural processes and associated resources. However, the complexity of ecological systems means that there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty about the impact climate change will actually have. In particular, the localized effects of climate change are still a matter of much debate. The Service's southwest region has been working with the U.S. Geological Survey, the academic community, and other natural resource management agencies and interest groups to translate available and emerging science into concrete actions that

29

reduce the impacts of a changing climate on the broadly diverse ecosystems in Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Direct and Indirect Impacts The refuge believes that its hunt program will have negligible impacts on climate change under either alternative.

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

Direct and Indirect Impacts This EA has not identified any adverse or beneficial effects for either alternative unique to minority or low-income populations in the affected area. Additionally, neither of the alternatives will disproportionately place any adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on minority or low-income populations.

Indian Trust Resources There are no Indian trust resources on this refuge.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Because there are no Indian trust resources, no impacts are expected to occur under either alternative.

Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A Under current management, there will be mortality of white-tailed deer, turkey, feral hogs, bobwhite quail, cottontail rabbit, jackrabbit, waterfowl, sandhill crane, and mourning, white-winged, and Eurasian collared-dove. All hunters must comply with ODWC’s regulations regarding the possession of Hunters Education certification. During this course, established hunter ethics and responsibilities to help ensure hunters are using good judgment related to humaneness and animal welfare are addressed. Accurate, clean shots are expected. The target should be within the effective range of the firearm, ammunition, bow and arrow, and the skills of the hunter; a humane kill is likely.

Alternative B This alternative will be the same as Alternative A with a slight increase in the mortality of waterfowl and sandhill crane due to the expanded acres.

Anticipated Cumulative Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Natural Resources

30

Alternative A – No Action Alternative Migratory bird 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 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 migratory bird 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 2017b). 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 2017a). These reports are intended to aid the development of waterfowl harvest regulations in the United States for each hunting season. The state selects season dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other options using guidance in these reports.

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 refuge does not add significantly to the cumulative impacts of migratory bird management on local, regional, or Central Flyway populations because the percentage taken on the refuge, though possibly additive to existing hunting takes, is a tiny fraction of the estimated populations. In addition, overall populations will continue to be monitored and future harvests would 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 (USFWS 2013); 2) there are no 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 adjacent Foss State Park offers limited public waterfowl hunting opportunities. Few other public areas in western Oklahoma are available to the public for waterfowl hunting. Adjacent private properties regularly lease out fields or blinds for waterfowl hunting at prices greater than those charged for public hunts. The hunting opportunities provided on the refuge, when added to those activities on state and private land, will not result in adverse cumulative impacts on hunted species.

The continuation of limited wild turkey hunting on the refuge is expected to be an effective management tool ensuring a healthy turkey population while providing the public with a quality hunt. Refuge staff will continue to promote native flora and fauna diversity through

31

active habitat management activities that achieve Refuge wildlife habitat priorities and objectives. No cumulative impacts are anticipated.

It is well documented that the feral hog population is increasing and the state has a very liberal hunting program for feral hogs. Anticipated annual harvest of feral hogs on the refuge or other national wildlife refuges open to feral hog hunting is expected to be an extremely small percentage of the state’s annual harvest. The timing, duration, and anticipated harvest levels of the refuge’s hunt program would result no cumulative impacts to feral hog populations because significant reductions in their numbers is unlikely.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Although the Proposed Action Alternative will increase hunting opportunities compared to the No Action Alternative, the slight increase in hunter activity will not rise to a significant cumulative effect locally, regionally, or nationally to migratory birds, other wildlife and aquatic species, endangered and threatened species, vegetation, soils, and air quality for the following reasons.

Dove hunter use of the refuge would be infrequent and dove hunting is most likely to be incidental to quail hunts. The anticipated harvest of dove by hunters in the proposed dove hunts is extremely small compared to overall take regionally and on adjacent properties and would result in no cumulative impacts to dove populations.

Cumulative impacts to other wildlife and aquatic species is expected to be negligible. The hunt program would maintain a low amount of hunter use days, hunt times, and hunters numbers similar to existing levels of use. Expanded migratory bird hunting will take place in areas already open to hunting or in agricultural fields. Hunting would not be allowed on or close to water bodies on the refuge allowing sufficient resting and feeding areas free from disturbance for other wildlife. No additional cumulative impacts are expected.

No cumulative impacts to endangered or threatened species are expected. No refuge hunters have taken any endangered species, and the refuge would implement measures to reduce possible negative effects from the hunt program on special status species.

No cumulative impacts to vegetation or soils are expected because current and proposed hunter densities are low and would not add significantly to other foot traffic already occurring. Compacted roads, parking areas and regularly plowed agricultural fields would not experience any additional impacts from hunt program changes. Refuge staff will continue to promote native flora and fauna diversity through active habitat management activities that meet the refuge’s priorities and goals.

The current level of public use on the refuge does not appear to be impacting air quality, as current air quality in the area is considered good and proposed hunt program changes would only increase direct and indirect adverse impacts to air quality negligibly. No cumulative impacts are anticipated under either alternative.

32

In conclusion, the refuge’s current and proposed hunt programs, when considered with other activities occurring on the landscape, are not expected to have adverse cumulative impacts on natural resources in the area.

Visitor Use and Experience Hunting/Fishing There would be minimal cumulative impacts to hunting and fishing from both Alternative A and B. The potential increase in hunting visitation between Alternative A and B is expected to be nominal, and impacts to other visitors will be minimal. The new hunting opportunities in the Proposed Action would have minor impacts on of other hunting opportunities locally, regionally, or at the flyway level. The anticipated take due to hunting of any of the species proposed is minimal especially when compared to overall harvest throughout the state and flyway, and should not impact other uses like wildlife observation and photography. Other Wildlife-Dependent Recreation (i.e., road and trail development and use) There are no anticipated cumulative impacts from Alternatives A or B as hunter access is limited to walk-in access only. Areas around established walking trails are closed to hunting for safety. No additional access roads would be constructed, and traffic on existing roads is not expected to increase significantly.

Use of Lead Ammunition/Tackle There are no anticipated cumulative impacts from Alternative A or Alternative B as the refuge allows only federally approved non-toxic shot for the take of migratory birds, wild turkey, and upland game. The use of lead shot for harvest of dove is allowed in the general area, but the possession of lead shot on the refuge is prohibited. Lead ammunition is allowed for white-tailed deer and feral hog hunting, but that is a small percentage of the harvest in the county and state. Therefore, the continued allowance of lead ammunition for the take of white-tailed deer and incidental take of feral hog has a negligible impact on the cumulative impacts of lead in the environment.

Cultural Resources There are no anticipated cumulative impacts to the cultural environment under Alternative A or B as current conditions would be maintained and no new ground disturbance would occur under either alternative.

Refuge Management and Operations There are no anticipated cumulative impacts under either alternative.

Socioeconomics Lands adjacent to the refuge are predominantly agricultural and sparsely populated, and hunting is a common past time in the area, so the brief increase in activity on the refuge would have little to no cumulative effect on the socioeconomics of the area.

Alternative A Local and Regional Economies Under current management, there are no anticipated cumulative impacts. There would be no change in revenues to the local economy associated with hunting on the refuge. The refuge

33

would forgo public use benefits by not expanding migratory bird hunting. No additional manpower or funding is required to implement the No Action Alternative.

Agricultural Land Uses The majority of lands within the refuge boundary were farm and ranch lands hunted as private lands prior to being acquired by the Service. Other past land uses included cattle drives, homesteads, railroads, and oil and gas production.

Under current management, there are no anticipated cumulative impacts. Waterfowl and cranes will continue to utilize agricultural fields on the refuge as they have in the past.

Alternative B Local and Regional Economies Under the proposed action, there are no anticipated cumulative impacts. The proposed action could have a beneficial impact on the local economy. Hunters would likely purchase gas, food, lodging, and other supplies from local merchants. Economic impacts to the refuge would be minor.

Agricultural Land Uses Opening additional agricultural lands on the refuge to waterfowl and crane hunting on selected days during the season will likely result in slight alterations in field utilization by waterfowl and cranes. Opening some agricultural fields to dove hunting may cause minor alterations in habitat utilization by doves. Provision of sanctuary fields and roosting/loafing areas will allow migratory birds access to areas for feeding and resting undisturbed.

Climate Change There are no anticipated cumulative impacts.

Environmental Justice There are no anticipated cumulative impacts from either alternative.

Indian Trust Resources There are no anticipated cumulative impacts.

Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns The refuge anticipates that cumulative impacts will be negligible under either alternative.

Summary of Analysis The purpose of this EA is to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

34

Alternative A – No Action Alternative This alternative does not meet the purpose and needs of the Service as described above because it would not provide additional hunting opportunities.

There would be no additional costs or cost savings to the refuge under this alternative. There would be no change to current public use and wildlife management programs on the refuge under this alternative. The refuge would not increase its impact on the economy and would not provide new hunting and access opportunities. Although this alternative has the least direct impacts of physical and biological resources, it would minimize our mandates under the NWRSAA and Secretarial Order 3356.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative This alternative meets the purpose and needs of the Service as described above because it provides additional hunting opportunities on the refuge and meets the refuge establishing purposes, including maintaining at least 60 percent of the refuge as inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds. Increased access to agricultural fields for waterfowl and crane hunting is provided, as well as adding mergansers and dove as huntable species on the refuge. There would be cost savings to the refuge under this alternative associated with no longer maintaining hunt blinds and administration of the waterfowl and sandhill crane hunts. New hunting areas may be accessed using existing infrastructure (i.e., parking lots, walking trails, public roads), thereby minimizing habitat and wildlife disturbance and implementation costs. Areas around walking trails would remain closed to hunting and may offer other wildlife-dependent public use opportunities during hunting season. The Service has the resources necessary to carry out this alternative, and has determined that the Proposed Action described in this alternative is compatible with the purposes of the Washita NWR and the mission of the NWRS.

Monitoring Monitoring activities provide information on harvest levels, population size, and habitat conditions for migratory birds in the United States every year. The refuge and/or the state conduct quail, 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 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.)

35

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

References Beach, R. 1993. Depredation problems involving feral hogs. Pages 67-93 in C.W. Hanselka

and J.F. Cadenhead, eds. Feral Swine: A compendium for resource managers. Texas Agric. Ext. Service, College Station, Tex.

Dubovsky, J.A. 2018. Status and harvests of sandhill cranes: Mid-Continent, Rocky Mountain, Lower Colorado River Valley and Eastern Populations. Administrative Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Henson, O. G., Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station., United States. Soil Conservation Service. (1978). Soil survey of Custer County, Oklahoma. [Washington]: The Service.

Seamans, M. E. 2016. Mourning dove population status, 2016. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, D.C.

Tolleson, Douglas R.; Pinchak, William E.; Rollins, Dale; and Hunt, Leland J. 95. Feral Hogs in the Rolling Plains of Texas: Perspectives, Problems, and Potential. Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Hunting of Migratory Birds, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. USFWS, Division of Migratory Birds and Management, Laurel, MD. 418pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Adaptive Harvest Management: 2017 Hunting Season. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Waterfowl population status, 2017. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. USA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Waterfowl population status, 2018. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. USA.

36

________________________________________________________________________

List of Preparers Amber Zimmerman, Project Leader, Washita NWR Levi Feltman, Refuge Biologist, Washita NWR John Worthington, Wildlife Refuge Specialist, Washita NWR Ecological Services, Tulsa Office Carol Torrez, Region 2, NEPA Coordinator for Refuges Juli Niemann, Region 2, Division of Visitor Services Oklahoma Department of Wildlife and Conservation

State Coordination Refuge staff met with ODWC representatives on January 31, 2018 to discuss the current hunting program and recommendations for the future. During that meeting, the ODWC indicated that they are in favor of expanding public hunting opportunities.

Public Outreach The initial period of public review and comment occurred from 06/03/2019 through 07/02/2019. Public meetings will be held during the public review period.

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

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

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

Preparer Signature: __________________________________________Date:________

Name/Title/Organization: __________________________________________________

Reviewer Signature: ___________________________________Date:________

Name/Title: ______________________________________________________________

37

Appendix 1 OTHER APPLICABLE STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS & REGULATIONS

Cultural Resources

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

undocumented paleontological, archaeological, or historic Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431-433; 43 sites. 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)

There are two federal threatened or endangered species on the refuge: the whooping crane and the interior least tern. An Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation was conducted with the Service’s Tulsa Ecological Services Field Office.

The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 13186 because the Environmental Assessment for Hunting on Washita NWR evaluates the effects of agency actions on migratory birds.

Natural Resources

38

The Service has evaluated the suitability of the Washita Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q; NWR for wilderness designation and concluded that the 40 CFR Parts 23, 50, 51, 52, 58, 60, 61, 82, and 93; Refuge does not meet the basic criteria for inclusion into 48 CFR Part 23 the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq. The Service has evaluated the eligibility of streams on Washita NWR for wild and scenic river designation and

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq. concluded no streams meet the basic criteria for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species, 64 Fed. Reg. 6183 (1999) The proposed action would have negligible effects to air

quality.

The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 13112 because stipulations in permits would be designed to prevent the introduction of invasive species.

Water Resources

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. The refuge does not lie in a coastal zone, and contains no 1451 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 923, 930, 933 rivers, harbors, or navigable waters.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 There would be negligible impacts of the proposed action (commonly referred to as Clean Water Act), 33 on water quality or water resources. U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 320-330; 40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 230-232, 323, and 328 The Refuge contains no drinking water sources and does

not supply drinking water to any community. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 114, 115, 116, The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 321, 322, and 333 11990 because implementation of the Hunt Plan would

protect existing wetlands. Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 141-148 The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order

11988, because implementation of the Hunt Plan would Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management, not result in the modification or destruction of floodplains. 42 Fed. Reg. 26951 (1977)

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

39