Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and ... · The purpose of Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area (NWR or Refuge) visitor services program

Everglades Headwaters

National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area Draft Visitor Services Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region

2020

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Page 2

EVERGLADES HEADWATERS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND CONSERVATION AREA

Draft Visitor Services Plan Project Leader / Refuge Manager Date Refuge Supervisor Date Chief, Division of Visitor Services Date Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System Date


Table of Contents Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 6 I. Background Information ......................................................................................................... 7

A. Refuge Purpose .................................................................................................................... 7 B. Visitor Services Program Purpose and Scope of Plan .......................................................... 9 C. History of the Refuge Visitor Services Program ................................................................. 10 D. Visitor Services Issues, Concerns, and Factors To Consider ............................................. 10 E. Themes, Messages, and Topics ......................................................................................... 11 F. Visitor Facilities ................................................................................................................... 11 G. Visitor Services Map(s) ....................................................................................................... 13 H. Refuge Visitation Trends and identifying audiences ........................................................... 19 I. Visitor Capacity .................................................................................................................... 19

II. Implementation Strategies ................................................................................................... 20 Standard 1: Develop a Visitor Services Plan ........................................................................... 21 Standard 2: Welcome and Orient Visitors ............................................................................... 21 Standard 3: Hunting ................................................................................................................ 22 Standard 4: Fishing ................................................................................................................. 23 Standard 5: Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography .................................................... 24 Standard 6: Environmental Education ..................................................................................... 25 Standard 7: Interpretation ........................................................................................................ 26 Standard 8: Manage for Other Recreational Use Opportunities .............................................. 27 Standard 9: Outreach .............................................................................................................. 28 Standard 10: Volunteers and Friends ...................................................................................... 29 Commercial Recreational Uses ............................................................................................... 30

III. Visitor Services Annual Work Plan .................................................................................... 31 IV. Visitor Services Annual Partnership Planning ................................................................. 32 V. References ............................................................................................................................ 33 VI. Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 34

Appendix A: Hunt and Fish plan Appendix B: List of Preparers Appendix C: Appropriate Use Determinations Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations Appendix E: USFWS Hunting and Fishing MOU with FWC Appendix F: Environmental Assessment


List of Figures Figure 1: Arbuckle Unit location .................................................................................................. 13 Figure 2: Arbuckle Unit entrance, parking, and trails .................................................................. 14 Figure 3: Hatchineha Unit location .............................................................................................. 15 Figure 4: Hatchineha Unit entrance, parking, and trails .............................................................. 16 Figure 5: Okeechobee Unit location ............................................................................................ 17 Figure 6: Okeechobee Unit entrance, parking, and trails ............................................................ 18


List of Tables Table 1: Summary of goals and objectives that relate to visitor services .................................. 20 Table 2. Visitor Services Annual Work Plan ............................................................................... 31 Table 3. Visitor Services Annual Partnership Planning (Fiscal Year 2019) ................................ 32


Summary

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) established Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area (Refuge) on January 18, 2012. The Refuge currently includes approximately 3,854 acres of lands that support public uses. The Refuge is actively acquiring fee-title lands through a willing seller approach that will provide opportunities for public recreation among other attributes, including but not limited to connecting landscapes and helping to protect water resources for present and future generations of Floridians.

This draft Visitor Services Plan (VSP) was based on the Conceptual Management Plan (CMP) approved as part of the Everglades Headwaters Conservation Partnership: Land Protection Plan for the Establishment of the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area (LPP) in 2012 (USFWS, 2012). It ensures that recreational uses on the Refuge are compatible with the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) mission and purposes of the Refuge.

The following wildlife dependent recreational uses have been determined to be compatible on the Refuge: hunting, fishing (including frogging), wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation. Hiking/walking/jogging, off-road vehicle use (in support of hunting, and fishing), camping, bicycling, and horseback riding are supporting uses allowed under wildlife-dependent recreation. In addition, commercial recording, commercial tours, and pets on leash, are forms of non-wildlife dependent recreation that have been determined to be compatible in this draft plan.

An Environmental Assessment (EA) for this draft VSP was prepared based on and bridging from the recently developed 2012 Everglades Headwaters Conservation Partnership: Final Environmental Assessment for the Establishment of the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area (Establishment EA - USFWS 2012) to inform the public of the possible environmental consequences of implementing the VSP for the Refuge outlining management alternatives, rationale for selecting the preferred alternative, a discussion of the environmental effects of the preferred alternative and the potential adverse effects of the action in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. As part of the NEPA planning process, the Service consulted with the State of Florida, Tribes, and with the USFWS Ecological Services office, as further detailed in the EA. See Appendix E for the Intra-Service Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation.

The Service is actively acquiring fee-title lands, through a willing-seller approach identified in the 2012 LPP, and providing appropriate and compatible public recreational opportunities on these lands is one of the goals of the Refuge. All fee-title lands acquired will be evaluated for their potential to offer public use opportunities outlined in this draft VSP through consultation with the Tribes, Service imperiled species and cultural resources experts, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), and other state and local agencies, where appropriate.


I. Background Information A. REFUGE PURPOSE Emphasizing outdoor recreation, management of fish and wildlife resources, migratory birds, listed species, and wetlands, while protecting the important fish and wildlife resources of this landscape, the listed purposes have been developed for the establishment of the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge Conservation Area (EHNWR or Refuge), a unit of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). These purposes were developed as part of the Land Protection Plan (LPP) that established the Refuge on January 18, 2012 (USFWS 2012).

"... conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans..." 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

“…to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species…or (B) plants…” 16 U.S.C. 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) “…the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions ...” 16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) “…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds….” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) “…for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) “…for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources....” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4), (Secretarial powers to implement laws related to fish and wildlife) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) "…suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ..." 16 U.S.C. 460k-1 "... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ..." 16 U.S.C. 460k-2 [Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k- 460k-4), as amended]


The Refuge lies in the Lake Okeechobee watershed of south-central Florida, a largely rural area that has a long history of hunting, fishing, and many other forms of outdoor recreation, cattle ranching, agriculture, and forestry. The Lake Okeechobee watershed includes the Kissimmee River Basin, as well as several other sub-watersheds that drain to the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Everglades. As further detailed in the LPP, major habitat types in consist of sandhill and scrub; freshwater wetlands; prairies; mesic, scrubby, and hydric pine flatwoods; and pasture. Wildlife supported by the Refuge include various amphibians and reptiles that tend to stay in localized areas to wide-ranging species such as Florida black bear. Numerous bird species, both resident and migratory, utilize project area habitats for foraging, loafing, and breeding. Common mammal species include white-tailed deer and a host of other mammals, including raccoon, opossum, various rodents, and bats. Area waters provide habitat for at least 50 fish species, most of which are found across peninsular Florida. More than 400 amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal species have been identified within the Kissimmee River Basin, and the Refuge could support many of these species. Furthermore, there are 43 federally listed or candidate plant and animal species, and 161 state listed species that may be present in the Kissimmee River Basin, some of which are currently protected by existing Refuge lands. The vision for the Refuge as outlined in the Refuge LPP is to conserve, protect, and manage one of the great grassland and savanna landscapes of eastern North America for current and future generations, protecting the important wildlife and habitats of the working rural landscape of central Florida’s Kissimmee River basin that is home to abundant fish and wildlife resources; that is vital to restoration and protection of the water quantity and quality for the Everglades ecosystem; that is resilient to the effects of global climate change; and that offers outdoor recreational opportunities important to the region’s economy. The LPP describes four overarching goals developed for the Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area that are intentionally broad, descriptive statements of the desired future conditions. They embrace the purposes and vision statement. The goals address: 1) a functional conservation landscape; 2) habitat for fish and wildlife; 3) enhanced water quantity, quality, and storage; and 4) wildlife-dependent recreation and education. Goal 4 - Wildlife-dependent Recreation and Education of the LPP - describes the Refuge’s commitment to provide outdoor recreational opportunities for the public to enjoy. Specifically envisions that ‘Refuge visitors of all abilities will enjoy opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, while increasing knowledge of and support for conservation of the important grassland and savanna landscapes of the headwaters of the Everglades.’ (USFWS 2012).


B. VISITOR SERVICES PROGRAM PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF PLAN The purpose of Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area (NWR or Refuge) visitor services program is to foster understanding and instill appreciation of the fish, wildlife, and plants and their conservation by providing the public with safe, appropriate, and compatible wildlife-dependent recreational and educational programs and activities. In 1997, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Improvement Act) which identified six priority wildlife-dependent public use activities and programs that are compatible with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These uses include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation. The purpose of the visitor services program is to connect visitors with the Refuge’s fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats through safe, high quality, appropriate, and compatible wildlife-dependent recreational and educational programs and activities. This Visitor Services Plan (VSP or Plan) was prepared based upon these guidelines. With the adoption and implementation of a future Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and this step-down plan, all public use activities and programs on the Refuge would be in conformance with national guidelines and would ensure that all visitor activities are compatible with the Refuge’s overarching wildlife mission and purposes. The purpose of the draft VSP is to establish priorities and identify opportunities, which will guide the Refuge’s visitor services program over the next fifteen years. The Refuge was established on January 18, 2012 (USFWS 2012), and a CCP has not been developed. The Conceptual Management Plan (CMP), an appendix of the LPP, outlines visitor services goals and objectives, and interim compatible public uses on newly acquired lands. A draft Hunting and Fishing Plan, which is a step-down plan from this draft VSP, has also been prepared (Appendix A). The draft VSP addresses compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses on the Refuge, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation. The draft VSP also addresses several uses that support or facilitate wildlife–dependent uses, including camping, horseback riding, ORV use (in support of hunting and fishing), bicycling, and hiking/backpacking/jogging. In addition, commercial recording, commercial tours, and pets on leash, are forms of non-wildlife dependent recreation that have been determined to be compatible in this draft plan.


Currently, outdoor recreational opportunities are available to the public on Refuge fee-title lands as administered through the Refuge’s CMP. The CMP includes goals and objectives for wildlife-dependent and other public uses and related recreational activities that were analyzed for their compatibility with Refuge purposes. Furthermore, the potential environmental impacts of compatible recreational opportunities were evaluated in the associated Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2012). The CMP provides further details on the Service’s Preferred Alternative and how the lands identified therein will be administered (USFWS 2012). The LPP and Final EA examine the feasibility of establishing the Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area in the upper Everglades watershed. In Chapter III of the Final EA for the Establishment of the Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area, three alternatives for a potential refuge are described, with Alternative C (Conservation Partnership Approach) presented as the Service’s preferred management action (USFWS, 2012). The LPP lists all parcels in conservation focal areas that could potentially be acquired in fee from willing sellers. Imperiled species presence, habitat types, and other attributes associated with each parcel were considered in developing the conservation focal areas. The Service is actively acquiring fee-title lands, through a willing-seller approach, and providing appropriate and compatible outdoor recreational opportunities on these lands is one of the goals of the Refuge. All new fee-title lands acquired will be evaluated for their potential to offer public use opportunities outlined in this draft VSP through consultation with the Tribes, Service imperiled species and cultural resources experts, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), and other state and local agencies, where appropriate. Additionally, a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis will be conducted, and it is expected that the compatible public uses outlined in this plan will likely meet the criteria for Categorical Exclusion for each new tract of fee-title land. Outdoor recreational opportunities for all new fee-title units would be consistent with and therefore provided for through this draft VSP. Outdoor recreational opportunities as expressed in the draft VSP will be evaluated for each additional fee-title unit acquired for the Refuge. The process to provide outdoor recreational opportunities will remain consistent across newly acquired fee-title lands as analyzed and administered through this draft VSP and accompanying EA. C. HISTORY OF THE REFUGE VISITOR SERVICES PROGRAM The Refuge was established on January 18, 2012, and the first fee-title lands were acquired in 2015. Hence, the visitor services program is in its initial phase. Starting in 2015, public use opportunities were limited to youth hunts and wounded veteran hunts on the Arbuckle and Hatchineha Units. In 2017 and 2018, the Arbuckle Unit and Hatchineha Unit, respectively were added to the state’s Wildlife Management Area (WMA) program. Since their acquisition in 2015, the Refuge has readied both the Arbuckle and Hatchineha units for public use. In early 2016, the parking area and drive entrance at the Arbuckle Unit was enhanced. In addition, an informational kiosk was installed. A similar gravel parking area was provided at the Hatchineha Unit in 2017. On both units, trails have been maintained since the acquisition of these properties. Furthermore, several culverts were replaced or installed to maintain access to the entire units. The Okeechobee Unit was acquired in April 2019, and offers several miles of trails. D. VISITOR SERVICES ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND FACTORS TO CONSIDER Issues:

● All the Refuge Units are located in rural areas with low population densities. No public transportation to the units is available.


● A Friends group has not yet been established for the Refuge. ● Due to the geographic separation between Refuge units, there is difficulty in staff’s ability

to monitor visitor activity and maintenance needs in different areas. Concerns:

● Local communities are only recently becoming aware of the Refuge, which means visitation and support are still relatively low.

E. THEMES, MESSAGES, AND TOPICS Messages:

● Refuge personnel are working to increase the visibility of the Refuge in the local community and local support through conservation organizations, community groups, and private citizens.

● The Refuge anticipates increased public use and visitation as visibility of the Refuge increases and additional fee-title lands are acquired from willing sellers.

F. VISITOR FACILITIES Trails: Many designated trails exist throughout Refuge units. Trail and road facilities identified in this plan are not intended to represent all facilities and opportunities as additional designated trails may become apparent as a feature of the unit landscape, or additionally provided for through the life of this Plan. Visitors are encouraged to refer to the WMA regulations summary and associated map of a specific unit for the most up-to-date representation of designated trail and road infrastructure. Arbuckle Unit Most of the trails on the unit run along the boundary and are maintained for access and management purposes, and provide fires brakes. Hatchineha Unit A network of trails branch off of a large, well-maintained north to south grass road (Dairy Road) that bisects the site. All parts of the Hatchineha Unit are within 0.5 miles of this road and the maintained network of trails and fire lines. Okeechobee Unit There is a main grass road that bisects the property from east to west. A second main grass road connects the center of that road to the center of the southern boundary. In addition, firebreaks are accessible and maintained throughout the tract - predominantly located along perimeter boundaries. The unit has been actively managed as a cow/calf ranch and several equestrian trails exist throughout the unit as well. Parking: Arbuckle Unit A gated entrance existed and a parking area was enhanced with gravel and a boundary fence in 2016 on the east side of Old Avon Park Road. This entrance and parking area is located on the western boundary of Arbuckle Unit, just north of the centerline. Hatchineha Unit A gated entrance existed and a parking area was enhanced with gravel and a boundary fence in 2017 at the junction of County Road 542 (Lake Hatchineha Road) and the Hatchineha Unit’s main north-south road (Dairy Road).


Okeechobee Unit Currently, limited parking facilities exist on the Okeechobee Unit. Visitors can park along designated roads for access. Signs: Arbuckle Unit An entrance sign developed in coordination with the Florida Forest Service (FFS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has been placed at the entrance. Signs designating the property to be a refuge are posted per Service guidelines along the boundary. Hatchineha Unit An entrance sign developed in coordination with the FWC has been placed at the entrance. Signs designating the property to be a refuge are posted per Service guidelines along the boundary. Okeechobee Unit A sign developed in coordination with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), FFS, and FWC would be placed at the entrance. Signs designating the property to be a refuge are posted per Service guidelines along the boundary. Camping sites: Camping in this Plan is considered primitive, overnight cooking and sleeping accommodations at designated sites that facilitate access to remote areas of the Refuge that would otherwise be unavailable during priority public use activities such as hunting and fishing. Camping is only authorized in support of other approved refuge uses and to facilitate access to remote areas. Campsites will typically be located at the terminus of a designated trail. The Visitor Service Plan includes Appendices C and D, which evaluate the appropriateness and compatibility of camping on the Refuge and provide stipulations necessary to ensure camping is managed in a compatible manner consistent with the purpose for which the Refuge was established and with other uses provided for in this Draft Plan. Since camping rules vary between units, consult the most current FWC WMA brochure while planning a visit.


G. VISITOR SERVICES MAP(S) Figure 1: Arbuckle Unit location


Figure 2: Arbuckle Unit entrance, parking, and trails


Figure 3: Hatchineha Unit location


Figure 4: Hatchineha Unit entrance, parking, and trails


Figure 5: Okeechobee Unit location


Figure 6: Okeechobee Unit entrance, parking, and trails


H. REFUGE VISITATION TRENDS AND IDENTIFYING AUDIENCES The first fee-title lands were acquired in 2012, and while the units were being readied to accept visitors, several limited hunts (youth, disabled veteran) were conducted. Interim compatibility determinations were approved through the Refuge’s 2012 Land Protection Plan (USFWS 2012a) and uses such as hunting and fishing on newly acquired units were provided for. During 2016, approximately 30 hunters and their guides/chaperones visited the Refuge. In addition, in 2012, the Service entered into a Memorandum of Understanding agreement with the State of Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) for FWC to conduct hunting and fishing programs on Refuge fee title units through the WMA program (see Appendix F). The Agreement establishes our commitment to work together to establish hunting and fishing programs on Refuge lands, that FWC and the Refuge would cooperate together to evaluate hunting and fishing opportunities, and FWC would administer the hunting and fishing program on the Everglades Headwaters NWR (USFWS/FWC 2012). The Arbuckle Unit became part of the Arbuckle WMA in 2017 and provided hunting opportunities during the 2018/2019 season. The Hatchineha Unit was added to the WMA program in 2018, with hunting provided during the 2018/2019 season as well. The Okeechobee Unit was added to the Refuge in 2019 and will be added to the state’s WMA program, with future hunting and fishing opportunities to be provided in the future. As mentioned previously, future units acquired by the Services would be vetted for addition into the state’s WMA program. I. VISITOR CAPACITY Balancing the needs of visitors while protecting and managing natural resources can be challenging. In addition to resource protection, visitor capacity also impacts quality of experience for visitors. Visitor capacity is not only about managing the numbers of visitors; it is also about facilitating positive visitor experiences and limiting impacts to natural resources. Currently, the Refuge only has anecdotal data on visitor capacity, which appears to be minimal. Over time, the expected increase in visitation may require specific trails for various user groups (e.g. pedestrian-only trails), to minimize user conflicts and disturbance to natural resources.


II. Implementation Strategies This section uses the format of fourteen Visitor Services Standards of the Service in correlation with the relevant CMP goals and objectives. Visitor Services related objectives may be found within other CMP goals (i.e. Fish and Wildlife Populations, Habitat Management, Resource Protection, and Refuge Administration). This process will identify existing CMP strategies and develop additional strategies that will form the basis of the Visitor Services Plan. The Refuge is actively seeking to acquire new fee-title lands from willing sellers, and it is expected that the goals and objectives outlined in this plan will apply to all future fee-title units that become part of the Refuge. Table 1 lists all CMP goals and objectives that are relevant to Visitor Services: Table 1: Summary of goals and objectives that relate to Visitor Services

MANAGEMENT GOALS OBJECTIVES

GOAL 1 - Develop a Visitor Services Plan

Objective 1.1 - Develop a Visitor Services Plan within one year of acquisition of acreage suitable to support visitor programs.

GOAL 2 - Welcome and orient visitors

Objective 2.1 - Within the 15-year life of this draft VSP: regulatory signs; visitor information and interpretive materials, including brochures and electronic media; interpretive and information panels; kiosks; and exhibits will be updated to comply with Service standards. All text will be written interpretively; illustrations and text on panels will highlight refuge resources and management goals and activities.

GOAL 3 - Provide hunting opportunities

Objective 3.1 – Immediately upon fee acquisition, work cooperatively with FWC to evaluate the designation of Service lands as WMA and provide hunting opportunities.

GOAL 4 - Provide fishing opportunities

Objective 4.1 – Immediately upon fee acquisition, work cooperatively with FWC to evaluate the designation of Service lands as WMA and provide fishing opportunities.

GOAL 5 – Provide wildlife observation and photography opportunities

Objective 5.1 - Over the life of the plan, improve facilities and add new ones to enhance opportunities for wildlife observation and photography.

Objective 5.2 - Within five years of VSP implementation, improve the Refuge's recognition as one of Central Florida’s premier birding and wildlife observation areas.

GOAL 6 – Provide environmental education opportunities

Objective 6.1 - During the life of the plan, facilitate at least two opportunities per year for educational groups or private/nonprofit environmental organizations to conduct wildlife-dependent field trips or informal educational events.

Objective 6.2 - Within 3 years of suitable fee-title land acquisition, identify up to three sites suitable for development or restoration of facilities to engage the public in outdoor recreation and educational programs.


Goal 7 – Provide opportunities for interpretation

Objective 7.1 - During the life of this plan, provide an average of at least three interpretive programs per year.

Goal 8 –Evaluate other public uses

Objective 8.1 - Over the life of the plan, assess all public use activities on the refuge to ensure that impacts to natural resources are kept at acceptable levels.

Goal 9 – Engage the public through outreach

Objective 9.1: Ensure all informational resources and staff-based services promote an understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s fish, wildlife, habitat conservation, along with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Goal 10 – Initiate and nurture relationships with volunteers and Friends

Objective 10.1 Ensure all public use infrastructure, informational resources, and staff-based services support effective volunteer and Friends programs.

Goal 11 –Provide opportunities for commercial recreational uses

Objective 11.1 Ensure all public use infrastructure, informational resources, and staff-based services support an effective Commercial Recreational Use Program.

STANDARD 1: DEVELOP A VISITOR SERVICES PLAN Policy (605 FW 1.14 A) Refuge Managers will develop a VSP that addresses all compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses on their respective Refuge. CURRENT PROGRAM DISCUSSION: The Service anticipates finalizing the VSP during 2019. STANDARD 1 GOAL(S), OBJECTIVE(S), STRATEGIES Goal 1. Develop a Visitor Services Plan. Objective 1.1: Develop a Visitor Services Plan within one year of acquisition of acreage suitable to support visitor programs. Strategies: This plan fulfills Standard 1. STANDARD 2: WELCOME AND ORIENT VISITORS Policy (605 FW 1.14 B) We will assure that our Refuges are welcoming, safe, and accessible. We will provide visitors with clear information so they can easily determine where they can go, what they can do, and how to safely and ethically engage in recreational and educational activities. Facilities will meet the quality criteria defined in 605 FW 1, Section 1.6 of the Service Manual. We will treat visitors with courtesy and in a professional manner.


CURRENT PROGRAM DISCUSSION: The Refuge units provide a range of visitor use opportunities, ranging from bird watching to hunting. None of the units has public accommodations, except for a parking area, kiosk, and trails. STANDARD 2 GOAL(S), OBJECTIVE(S), STRATEGIES Goal 2. Welcome and Orient Visitors: Visitors will feel welcome and find accurate, timely, and appropriate orientation materials and information on visitor facilities, programs, and management activities. Objective 2.1: Within the 15-year life of the VSP: regulatory signs; visitor information and interpretive materials, including brochures and electronic media; interpretive and information panels; kiosks; and exhibits will be updated to comply with Service standards. All text will be written interpretively; illustrations and text on panels will highlight Refuge resources and management goals and activities. Strategies: 2.1.1 Collaborate with FWC, FFS and other partners to install and maintain signs along units. 2.1.2 Collaborate with partners to develop content information for kiosks and brochures. 2.1.3 Continue to maintain and update website and social media page(s). MONITOR AND EVALUATE:

● The visitor services program will be evaluated by each new resident volunteer, intern, and/or staff as they start their assignment, and at various intervals (e.g. 6 month, 12 month) thereafter.

● Monitor the comments provided by visitors on social media, (including analyzing meaningful metrics for reach and success), and via Refuge emails, and respond as needed.

STANDARD 3: HUNTING Policy (605 FW 2) Hunting is an historic use on the Refuge and throughout the landscape within which the Refuge was established, and an appropriate use of wildlife resources of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), when compatible. Hunting programs will be of the highest quality, conducted in a safe and cost-effective manner, and to the extent practicable, carried out in accordance with state regulations.


CURRENT PROGRAM DISCUSSION: The Service has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with FWC, which allows both agencies to work cooperatively in the management of the Refuge’s hunting program (see Appendix F for 2012 USFWS/FWC MOU). The MOU provides the mechanism for fee-title Refuge lands to be added to FWC’s WMA system. To this end, the Service would continue discussions with FWC regarding management opportunities of the hunting activities associated with this proposal. If possible, the Service would provide American with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant and youth hunting opportunities. Generally, the Service would allow hunting, based on state hunting seasons and consistent with the Refuge’s VSP, MOU with FWC, the current CMP, and future Comprehensive Conservation Plan, upon development. The Service would continue discussions and seek to establish suitable portions (e.g. of sufficient size) of the Refuge as state-managed Wildlife Management Areas. Currently, both the Arbuckle and Hatchineha Units have been added under FWC’s WMA system, and future Refuge units would be added to the WMA program, as per the MOU, and associated hunting opportunities would be provided consistent with the MOU and the VSP. STANDARD 3 GOAL(S), OBJECTIVE(S), STRATEGIES Goal 3. Hunting: Hunters will enjoy hunting experiences that lead to support for Refuge management. Objective 3.1: Immediately upon fee acquisition, work cooperatively with FWC to evaluate hunting programs and designation of Service lands as WMAs. Strategies: 3.1.1 Request FWC to evaluate each new Refuge tract for its hunting opportunities. 3.1.2 Deliver hunting program through existing Memorandum of Understanding including

designating Refuge lands as a unit(s) of the state’s Wildlife Management Area (WMA) program.

MONITOR AND EVALUATE:

● Work with FWC to evaluate all hunts at the end of each season. ● Hold an annual hunt meeting with stakeholders to collaborate with and share status and

updates of the hunt program. STANDARD 4: FISHING Policy (605 FW 3) Fishing is an appropriate use of the Refuge System, when compatible. Fishing programs will be of the highest quality, conducted in a safe and cost-effective manner, and to the extent practicable, carried out in accordance with state regulations.


CURRENT PROGRAM DISCUSSION: The Kissimmee River and the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes, together, is a world-renowned freshwater fishery. Access to the navigable waters in this region is governed primarily by public and private boat ramps, which are numerous and scattered throughout the region. However, many of the smaller lakes and ponds do not have public access. The Service, likely working through the WMA program administered by FWC, would provide opportunities for fishing access that are compatible with the reasons for which the Refuge was established. A cursory review of the lands within the LPP planning units, that are important for the Service to conserve, reveals that the majority of shoreline and boat access to the major waterways is currently protected and managed by the State of Florida, thus providing the Service limited opportunities to increase fishing and boating access to these areas. For future units where there are opportunities to provide fishing and boating access, the Service would work with FWC and other agencies and stakeholders, as appropriate, to provide access and fishing opportunities consistent with state regulations. The units currently owned by the Service do not border any navigable water. Bodies of water are small and often ephemeral, and fishing opportunities are limited by these conditions. STANDARD 4 GOAL(S), OBJECTIVE(S), STRATEGIES Goal 4. Fishing: Members of the fishing public will enjoy their fishing experiences, display ethical behavior, and support Refuge management. Objective 4.1: Provide sport fishing opportunities to the public. Strategies: 4.1.1 Collaborate with FWC to evaluate fishing opportunities on any new Refuge units

acquired, as per the MOU. MONITOR AND EVALUATE:

● Upon acquisition of units that have fishing opportunities, annually evaluate the program (e.g. based on user comments) and make appropriate adjustments as needed.

STANDARD 5: WILDLIFE OBSERVATION AND WILDLIFE PHOTOGRAPHY Policy (605 FW 4 and 604 FW 5) Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are appropriate wildlife-dependent recreational uses of Refuge System lands, when compatible. Visitors of all ages and abilities will have an opportunity to observe and photograph wildlife and habitat resources of the Refuge. Viewing and photographing wildlife in natural or managed environments will foster a connection between visitors and natural resources. CURRENT PROGRAM DISCUSSION: Combined, the current Refuge units (Arbuckle, Hatchineha, and Okeechobee) have over 30 miles of trails that are open to the public. These trails allow visitors to observe and photograph a diversity of habitats and associated wildlife. There are currently no photo blinds or observation towers. The Refuge would provide opportunities for wildlife observation and photography (see Appendix D for the compatibility determinations addressing these uses). Working with state and local agencies, the Service would study the feasibility of connecting existing hiking, bicycle, and horseback trails through Refuge lands.


STANDARD 5 GOAL(S), OBJECTIVE(S), STRATEGIES Goal 5. Wildlife Observation and Photography: Wildlife observers and photographers will enjoy and value the diversity of refuge wildlife and will support efforts to maintain wildlife habitat. Objective 5.1: Over the life of the plan, the Refuge will improve facilities and add new ones to enhance opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. Strategies: 5.1.1 Develop quarterly schedule for mowing, herbicide application, and/or clearing of walking

trails 5.1.2 Install at least one photography blind during the life of the plan. Objective 5.2: Within five years of VSP implementation, improve the Refuge's recognition as one of Central Florida’s premier birding and wildlife observation areas. Strategies: 5.2.1 Develop outreach plan targeted to birdwatchers and other wildlife observation

enthusiasts, focusing on seasonal abundance and migration trends, places to observe birds, and tips for ethical wildlife watching. Utilize press releases, Refuge web site, and other electronic media (e.g., birding list serves), as well as birding journals, and promotions with local chambers of commerce and tourism bureaus to reach this audience.

MONITOR AND EVALUATE:

● Monitor comments on social media/website and respond as appropriate. STANDARD 6: ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION Policy (605 FW 6) Through formal, curriculum-based environmental education tied to national and state education standards, the Refuge will advance public awareness, understanding, appreciation, and knowledge of key fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Each Refuge staff person will assess their potential to work with schools in providing an appropriate level of environmental education. We may support environmental education through the use of facilities, equipment, educational materials, teacher workshops, and study sites that are safe and conducive to learning. CURRENT PROGRAM DISCUSSION: For years, National Wildlife Refuges have been connecting children with outdoor activities. However, it is now apparent that such connections are of immense importance and that today, many children are spending less time outdoors and more time indoors watching television, video games, and computers rather than experiencing nature (Louv 2005). As the Nation’s primary conservation agency, the Service has a significant role in addressing this concern. The Service would also have a strong incentive to promote children in nature activities along with our other conservation partners. The Service would attempt to work with local school districts to develop environmental education programs featuring the unique species and communities of the Kissimmee basin, including contributions of ranching and farming to sustain a healthy environment and economy. The Service would work with partners to promote environmental education, thereby maximizing the use of resources and time commitments for each organization. The Service would also consider the role of the Refuge in other potential opportunities such as small habitat restoration


projects through the use of our Partners for Fish and Wildlife program in and around local schools, docent-led trail walks, birding festivals, guest lectures, youth hunting and fishing efforts, and even simple monitoring of various forms of wildlife on and off the Refuge. The Refuge does not currently offer a structured environmental education program that includes a written curriculum and periodically scheduled teacher workshops. None of the current Refuge units is easily accessible to school groups, due to their rural setting and lack of improved parking areas for school buses. STANDARD 6 GOAL(S), OBJECTIVE(S), STRATEGIES Goal 6. Environmental Education: Provide quality, appropriate, and compatible wildlife-dependent environmental education opportunities to promote understanding and awareness of the Refuge. Objective 6.1: During the life of the plan, facilitate at least two opportunities per year for educational groups or private/nonprofit environmental organizations to conduct wildlife-dependent field trips or informal educational activities. Strategies: 6.1.1 Seek at least two partners who may be interested in offering educational programs on

the Refuge and set schedules for trial courses or activities. 6.1.2 Seek and develop agreements for environmental education support and opportunities

from partners (e.g. National Wildlife Refuge Association). Objective 6.2: Within 3 years of fee-title land acquisition, identify up to three sites suitable for development or restoration of facilities to engage the public in outdoor recreation and educational programs. Strategies: 6.2.1 Examine the existing trails and sites adjacent to parking areas for feasibility to serve as

locations for walking educational tours. MONITOR AND EVALUATE:

● Solicit feedback from educators following a class or field trip. ● Require educators to provide lesson materials in advance of class or field trip.

STANDARD 7: INTERPRETATION Policy (605 FW 7) We will communicate priority fish, wildlife, habitat, and other natural resource issues to visitors of all ages and abilities through effective interpretation. We will tailor messages and delivery methods to specific audiences and present them in appropriate locations. Through heightened awareness, we will inspire visitors to take positive actions supporting Refuge goals and the Refuge System mission. CURRENT PROGRAM DISCUSSION: Currently, the Refuge’s interpretive program is virtual, through its website and social media pages.


STANDARD 7 GOAL(S), OBJECTIVE(S), STRATEGIES Goal 7. Interpretation: Enhance public understanding, appreciation, and support for protection of the Refuge’s natural resources. Objective 7.1: During the life of this plan, the Service will provide an average of at least three interpretive programs per year. Strategies: 7.1.1 Host special events in conjunction with existing Refuge System and other established

celebrations or commemorations (e.g., National Wildlife Refuge Week, Earth Day, and International Migratory Bird Day, National Hunting and Fishing Day).

7.1.2 Evaluate the feasibility of establishing an interpretive trail on one of the Refuge units and establish one interpretive trail, if feasible.

7.1.3 Work with partners to assist the Refuge with providing educational and/or interpretive opportunities

MONITOR AND EVALUATE: ● Monitor comments on social media/website and respond as appropriate. STANDARD 8: MANAGE FOR OTHER RECREATIONAL USE OPPORTUNITIES Policy (605 FW 1 and 603 FW 1) The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority public uses of the Refuge System (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation) and will receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses. Volunteers, partners, recreation fees, and concessions are tools available to assist in providing for and managing these uses. We will only permit other uses when we determine that they are legally mandated, provide benefits to the Service, occur due to special circumstances, or facilitate one of the priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. CURRENT PROGRAM DISCUSSION: Where any of the priority public uses may conflict with the conservation of federally-listed, endangered or threatened species, appropriate measures (e.g., buffers and seasonal restrictions) would be identified and implemented to avoid adverse effects. This would be done in consultation with the Service’s Endangered Species Program. Additionally, public uses other than the six priority public uses, such as horseback riding, biking, and hiking trails must pass the same standards of appropriateness, compatibility, and conservation planning. While activities such as camping and off-road vehicle (ORV) use may not pass standards of appropriateness and compatibility in and of themselves, these uses may be allowed as components in support of other compatible uses (e.g., camping in remote locations during hunting seasons, ORV access on designated trails and roads during hunting seasons). Appropriate use and compatibility determinations for non-wildlife-dependent uses such as camping can be found in Appendix C and D, respectively. STANDARD 8 GOAL(S), OBJECTIVE(S), STRATEGIES Goal 8. Other Recreation Opportunities: Analyze all public use activities for appropriateness and compatibility. Visitors will support priority public use activities that minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance.


Objective 8.1: Over the life of the plan, assess and mitigate all public use activities on the Refuge to ensure that impacts to natural resources are kept at acceptable levels. MONITOR AND EVALUATE:

● Maintain a list of all appropriate use and compatibility determinations and dates to be renewed.

● Annually evaluate requests by the public for additional recreational opportunities for appropriateness.

STANDARD 9: OUTREACH Policy (605 FW 1 and 603 FW 1) Effective outreach depends on open and continuing communication and collaboration between the refuge and its many publics. Effective outreach involves determining and understanding the issues, identifying audiences, listening to stakeholders, crafting messages, selecting the most effective delivery techniques, and evaluating effectiveness. If conducted successfully, the results we achieve will further refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. CURRENT PROGRAM DISCUSSION: Outreach is a two-way communication between the USFWS and the public to establish and promote involvement, and influence attitudes and action, with the goal of improving joint stewardship of our natural resources. Outreach includes but is not limited to the following: relations with news media, congressional, corporate, constituent groups, community, state and local government, state wildlife agencies, environmental education and interpretive activities, public involvement, traditional public information activities such as open houses, information products such as brochures, leaflets, exhibits, slide shows, videos, public service announcements, and web based media. Media outreach at the Refuge typically occurs in the form of news releases, radio and television interviews, and phone contacts. Staff maintain good working relationships with local media sources, and a number of articles are printed each year covering various Refuge topics. Refuge staff, volunteers, and Friends are invited to participate in a number of outreach events each year such as special events, festivals, and workshops. All requests are considered with actual participation based on staff schedules and availability, as well as budget considerations for the cost associated with participation. Over the years, the staff has typically participated in numerous outreach events at other refuges within the Complex, including Annual Pelican Island Wildlife Festival, various other environmental festivals, Career Days at local schools, and through repeated engagements with partners including, environmental education centers, Boys and Girls Clubs, other organizations. STANDARD 9 GOAL(S), OBJECTIVE(S), STRATEGIES Goal 9. Engage off-site public in effective outreach. Objective 9.1: Ensure all informational resources and staff-based services promote an understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s fish, wildlife, habitat conservation, along with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.


Strategies: 9.1.1 The Refuge web-based media will be maintained to provide the public with current information regarding national outreach messages and initiatives, visitor services, resource management, and the permitted and prohibited activities for all Refuge units. 9.1.2 Expand and maintain relationships with regional television stations, radio stations, and news media. 9.1.3 Expand and maintain media contact lists, local government lists, colleges and universities, chambers of commerce, and other civic organizations MONITOR AND EVALUATE:

● Monitor comments received through social media/website and respond as appropriate.

STANDARD 10: VOLUNTEERS AND FRIENDS Policy (605 FW 1) Volunteer and Friends organizations fortify refuge staffs with their gifts of time, skills, and energy. They are integral to the future of the Refuge System. Where appropriate, refuge staff will initiate and nurture relationships with volunteers and Friends organizations and will continually support, monitor, and evaluate these groups with the goal of fortifying important refuge activities. The National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 strengthens the Refuge System’s role in developing effective partnerships with various community groups. Whether through volunteers, Friends organizations, or other important partnerships in the community, refuge personnel will seek to make the refuge an active community member, giving rise to a stronger Refuge System. CURRENT PROGRAM DISCUSSION: The Refuge’s volunteer program is gradually being developed. Currently, volunteers primarily support the Refuge by helping address maintenance and repair needs. A Friends group has not been established. It is anticipated that as local area residents and visitors become more aware of the Refuge, there will be an increased interest to help support the variety of infrastructure, visitor services, and biological needs. STANDARD 10 GOAL(S), OBJECTIVE(S), STRATEGIES Goal 10. Ensure Refuge staff initiate and nurture relationships with volunteers and Friends organizations. Objective 10.1: Ensure all public use infrastructure, informational resources, and staff-based services support effective volunteer and Friends programs. Strategies: 10.1.1 Promote volunteer opportunities on www.volunteer.gov webpage. 10.1.2 Conduct periodic volunteer, orientations, trainings, and meetings. 10.1.3 Support the establishment of a Friends group. MONITOR AND EVALUATE:

• Solicit feedback from volunteers on a regular basis. • Conduct exit interviews with all volunteers that leave the program. • Assess volunteer program regularly and make adjustments as needed.


• Visitor service program reviews will be conducted periodically to ensure the Refuge is meeting visitor service standards. These programmatic reviews will also assess if the VSP goals and objectives are being met. To ensure a thorough external and internal review of the program or service, we will monitor and evaluate the program or service using a variety of methods, including program reviews, literature reviews, site visits, focus groups, personal interviews, economic analyses, and surveys.

• Incorporate public input from planning meetings and written input. COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL USES Policy (50 CFR 29.1; 50 CFR 27.97; 8 RM 16; 603 FW 1; 605 FW 5) A commercial recreational use is a use that generates revenue or that results in a commodity which is or can be sold for income or revenue. Before considering compatibility, the use must be determined to contribute to the achievement of the refuge purpose or the mission of the Refuge System, as outlined in Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, 29.1. To be allowed on a refuge, a commercial use must go beyond the “not materially interfere with…” requirement and must contribute to the achievement of the refuge purpose or mission of the Refuge System. The contribution must be clearly defined in the justification section of the compatibility determination for any commercial use (Appendix D). Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, 27.97, Private Operations, prohibits an unauthorized commercial enterprise on any national wildlife refuge. Thus, commercial tours are required to apply for a special use permit (SUP) from the Refuge Manager. By establishing a SUP system, the refuge staff is able to set sustainable limits on the number of permits issued. In determining if a commercial recreational use is compatible, one way to connect it to the mission of the System is to determine if the commercial recreation use will facilitate one of the wildlife-dependent priority public use activities which are “directly related to the mission of the System.” (Refuge Improvement Act – 1997). CURRENT PROGRAM DISCUSSION: The Refuge does not currently have any commercial recreational uses. However, it is anticipated that a public interest will develop to conduct commercial recording and commercial tours. The compatibility determinations for these uses are detailed in Appendix D. Goal 11: Provide opportunities for commercial recreational users to enjoy and benefit from compatible activities on the Refuge that minimize conflicts with other user groups. Objective 11.1: Ensure all public use infrastructure, informational resources, and staff-based services support an effective Commercial Recreational Use Program. Strategy: 11.1.1 Offer opportunities for the public to inquire about commercial use opportunities, regulations, and the permit processes. MONITOR AND EVALUATE:

• Upon permitting commercial recreational uses, conduct phone interviews with all commercial use SUP holders to ensure understanding of permit conditions and relay appropriate Refuge messages.


III. Visitor Services Annual Work Plan Table 4 provides a condensed overview of visitor services program plans for the year and associated deadlines for the task. Table 2. Visitor Services Annual Work Plan Category Event J F M A M J J A S O N D Comments

Annual Events

National Wildlife Refuge Week X

NWRS Anniversary X

National Public Lands Day X

Hunt Seasons X X X X X X X X X See WMA regulations

Intl. Migratory Bird Day X

Great Backyard Bird Count X

Christmas Bird Count X

Annual Meetings

Hunt meeting with FWC X

Friends Group Meeting X

Volunteer Recognition Day X

Public hunt/fish meeting X

Routine Activities

Infrastructure Maintenance Checks (e.g. gates, trails) X X X X X X X X X X X X

Special Projects As needed


IV. Visitor Services Annual Partnership Planning Table 5 tracks the Refuge’s formal and informal partnerships. This table could also cross reference with the Project Cost Table to help identify potential project funding opportunities, Table 3. Visitor Services Annual Partnership Planning (Fiscal Year 2019)

Partners

Type of Partnership (Academia, Non-profit,

Agency, etc.)

Agreement Type

(Grant, Challenge

Cost Share, Cooperative,

MOU, Donation,

Programmatic, etc.)

Partnership's Goal for Refuge

Type of Contribution

Time Frame of Project Comments

In-kind (materials

, labor) Monetary

FWC Agency MOU

Designate units as WMA; Conduct

hunting and fishing program

Labor - Ongoing

FDEP Agency MOU Land protection Labor - Ongoing

FFS Agency MOU Support fire and land management Labor - Ongoing

NWRA Non-profit Cooperative Land protection planning - Monetary Ongoing

TNC Non-profit MOU

Fire management and land

protection planning

Labor - Ongoing

FDEP=Florida Department of Environmental Protection, FFS=Florida Forest Service, FWC=Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, MOU=memorandum of understanding, NWRA=National Wildlife Refuge Association, TNC=The Nature Conservancy


V. References Louv, Richard. (2005). Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder." SCHOLE: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 21(1), pp. 136–137. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Land Protection Plan and Environmental Assessment. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/everglades_headwaters/. Accessed: August 2019.


VI. Appendices


APPENDIX A: HUNT AND FISH PLAN

36

Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area

Migratory Bird, Upland Game, and Big Game

Draft Hunt and Sport Fish Plan

2020

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge Complex 4055 Wildlife Way

Vero Beach, FL 32963

Submitted By: Project Leader

______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Concurrence: Refuge Supervisor

______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Approved: Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System

______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date

37

Table of Contents I. Introduction 3 II. Statement of Objectives 6 III. Description of Hunting and Fishing Programs 6 IV. Conduct of Hunting Program 16 V. Public Engagement 19 VI. Compatibility Determinations 20 VI. Measures Taken to Avoid Conflicts with Other Management Objectives 23 IX. References 25

List of Figures

Figure 1: Everglades Headwaters NWR Hunt/Fish units 9 Figure 2. Arbuckle Unit location 10 Figure 3. Arbuckle Unit entrance, parking, and trails 11 Figure 4. Hatchineha Unit location 12 Figure 5. Hatchineha Unit entrance, parking, and trails 13 Figure 6: Okeechobee Unit location 14 Figure 7: Okeechobee Unit entrance, parking, and trails 15

…

List of Tables Table 1. Species to be taken, hunting seasons, hunting access for the Arbuckle, Hatchineha, and Okeechobee Units 7

38

Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge

Migratory Bird, Upland Game, and Big Game Draft Hunt and Sport Fish Plan

I. Introduction 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 primary purposes (derived from establishing legislation) of the refuge are:

"... conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans..." 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act) “…to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species…or (B) plants…” 16 U.S.C. 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) “…the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions ...” 16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) “…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds….” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) “…for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) “…for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources....” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4), (Secretarial powers to implement laws related to fish and wildlife) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

39

"…suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ..." 16 U.S.C. 460k-1 "... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ..." 16 U.S.C. 460k-2 [Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k- 460k-4), as amended]

The vision for the Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area is to: conserve, protect, and manage one of the great grassland and savanna landscapes of eastern North America for current and future generations, protecting the important wildlife and habitats of the working rural landscape of central Florida’s Kissimmee River Basin that is home to abundant fish and wildlife resources; that is vital to restoration and protection of the water quality and quantity for the Everglades ecosystem; that is resilient to the effects of global climate change; and that offers outdoor recreational opportunities important to the region’s economy. Four overarching goals were developed for the Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area and identified in the 2012 LPP. The goals are intentionally broad, descriptive statements of the desired future conditions. They embrace the purposes and vision statement. The goals address a functional conservation landscape; habitat for fish and wildlife; water quality, quantity, and storage; and wildlife dependent recreation, as listed (USFWS 2012). Goal 1. Functional Conservation Landscape. The upper Everglades watershed will become a more connected and functional conservation landscape that will provide effective habitat connections between existing conservation areas and allow habitats and species to shift in response to urban development pressures and global climate change. Goal 2. Habitat for Fish and Wildlife. The Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area will provide a wide range of quality Kissimmee River Basin habitats to support migratory birds, federal and state listed species, state designated species of special concern, and native wildlife diversity. Goal 3. Enhanced Water Quality, Quantity, and Storage. Focusing on restoring or mimicking natural hydrologic processes, the Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area will contribute to water quality, water quantity, and water storage capacity of the upper Everglades watershed to support Everglades restoration goals and objectives and water quality and supply for central and south Florida. Goal 4. Wildlife-dependent Recreation and Education. Refuge visitors of all abilities will enjoy opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, while increasing knowledge of and support for conservation of the important grassland and savanna landscape of the headwaters of the Everglades.

40

The mission of the NWRS, as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), is to: “... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” The NWRSAA mandates the Secretary of the Interior in administering the System to (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4):

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

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

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

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

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

● Recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public uses of the NWRS through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife;

● Ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses; and

● Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge. Therefore, it is a priority of the Service to provide for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, including hunting and fishing, when those opportunities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Hunting and fishing are an integral part of south-central Florida’s culture. As part of the establishment of the Refuge, the public, along with local and state governments expressed their desire for the Service to provide opportunities for hunting and fishing on Refuge lands (USFWS 2012). Per agreement with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) when the refuge was established, lands acquired in fee title for the refuge would be managed for hunting and fishing following State Wildlife Management Area (WMA) regulations. To date, two units totaling approximately 2,000 acres have been added to the WMA program and hunting/fishing has been conducted since 2017.

41

II. Statement of Objectives The objectives of a hunting and fishing program on the Refuge including the Arbuckle, Hatchineha, Okeechobee, and future fee-title Units are to:

● Provide the public with a recreational experience on more Refuge lands and increase opportunities for hunters.

● Enhance biological diversity by preserving the natural diversity and variety of biotic communities occurring on Refuge lands and aid in reducing invasive hog populations.

● Educate the public and neighboring landowners about the effects of feral hogs on native wildlife and habitats.

● To allow sport fishing within the framework of FWC regulations, subject to additional regulation by the Service if needed to provide protection for sensitive wildlife species within the Refuge.

● To provide Refuge lands to all forms of traditional hunting through coordination with the FWC WMA program.

● To provide Refuge lands to all forms of traditional recreational fishing through coordination with FWC-enforced state fishing laws.

● To assure through FWC coordination, either spatially or chronologically, that hunting, fishing, and general public use Refuge lands do not conflict or encroach upon each other.

Hunting is consistent with the refuge’s Conceptual Management Plans larger goals as listed above. III. Description of Hunting and Fishing Programs A. Areas to be opened to hunting and fishing.

The entire 395-acre Arbuckle, 1,460-acre Hatchineha, 1,999-acre Okeechobee Units, and future units are available for hunting and fishing through the interim compatibility provided in the 2012 CMP. It is anticipated that future lands acquired in fee title by the Refuge will be open to hunting through the process outlined in the introduction. Though the entire properties will be considered open for hunting, through the collaborative and concurrent approach identified in the USFWS/FWC MOU, FWC will evaluate the timing and locations of these activities consistent with the MOU through the state’s WMA program. See maps below for hunt units (Figures 1 – 7).

42

B. Species to be taken, hunting periods, hunting access

Table 1. Species to be taken, hunting seasons, hunting access for the Arbuckle, Hatchineha, and Okeechobee Units

Species To Be Taken Seasons Access

White-Tailed Deer Coordinated and Conducted by FWC through WMA Hunting Program and Permit

Access Coordinated by FWC through WMA Hunting Program and Permit

Feral (Wild) Hog Wild Turkey Small (Upland) Game Migratory Game Birds Coordinated and

Conducted by FWC through State Hunting Program and Permit

Access Coordinated by FWC through State hunting permit

Alligator

Fishing & Frogging Year Round Year round when WMA is open and not closed for hunting

C. Justification for the permit, if one is required FWC requires hunting permits and recreational fishing licenses in order to hunt and/or fish on WMAs. Instructions for applying for hunting permits can be found at http://myfwc.com/license/recreational/how-to-order/. Instructions for applying for a recreational fishing license can be found at http://myfwc.com/license/recreational/how-to-order/.

http://myfwc.com/license/recreational/how-to-order/



43

D. Consultation and Coordination with the State Hunting and fishing at the Arbuckle, Hatchineha, and Okeechobee Units will be administered by FWC through an existing MOU under the WMA program. The 2012 MOU between the Service and FWC states that the Service and FWC collectively have complementary responsibilities and shall cooperate on the management of hunting and fishing programs in concert with other resource objectives (USFWS/FWC 2012). This memorandum also covers any new units added to the Refuge. Fishing will be allowed year-round on the Arbuckle, Hatchineha, and Okeechobee Units in accordance with FWC-enforced state laws. The Service and FWC will post alerts on unit-specific websites and signage at WMAs when a unit is closed for hunting. The Service recognizes that the State of Florida will have the lead on any disease which affects resident wildlife and Everglades Headwaters NWR will support the State in its prevention and surveillance efforts as appropriate. Everglades Headwaters NWR and the State agree to follow the guidance in the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Report on Best Management Practices for the Prevention, Surveillance, and Management of Chronic Wasting Disease and work jointly to implement the response plan for CWD or any other wildlife disease that surfaces in the State of Florida. E. Law Enforcement

The current Refuge units are adequately posted as would be any future units, and any trespass or other violations will be addressed by Refuge law enforcement, in cooperation with FWC game wardens and law enforcement, where applicable. This approach would be consistently conducted across all newly acquired units. F. Funding and Staffing Requirements It is expected that costs to help post and advertise hunts and maintain accessible for hunting and fishing programs would total no more than $5,000 annually per Refuge unit.

44

Figure 1. Everglades Headwaters NWR Hunt/Fish Unit locations

45

Figure 2. Arbuckle Unit location

46

Figure 3. Arbuckle Unit entrance, parking and trails

47

Figure 4. Hatchineha Unit location

48

Figure 5. Hatchineha Unit entrance, parking, and trails

49

Figure 6: Okeechobee Unit location

50

Figure 7: Okeechobee Unit entrance, parking, and trails

51

IV. Conduct of the Hunting Program A. Hunter Permit Application, Selection, and/or Registration Procedures (if

applicable) At the time of this Plan, instructions for applying for hunting permits can be found at http://myfwc.com/license/recreational/how-to-order/ . Instructions for applying for a recreational fishing license can be found at http://myfwc.com/license/recreational/how-to-order/ . The Refuge does not have any general requirements for the program. Specific FWC requirements for each WMA can be found at http://myfwc.com/hunting/wma-brochures/.

Florida residents and visitors need a Florida hunting, freshwater fishing or saltwater fishing license unless they are a member of one of the "exempted" groups of people listed at: https://myfwc.com/license/recreational/do-i-need-one/ . Your license is required to be with you when you are engaged the licensed activity. A fishing license is required to attempt to take fish. If you cast your line, catch nothing, catch and release, or catch and keep and you are not a member of one the groups listed below; you need a license. Licenses and permits are required to help or assist in the take. Someone who is passively participating (setting decoys, calling birds or baiting hooks), whether actively fishing or hunting or not, must have a license. A Management Area Permit or daily use permit is not required for recreational use other than hunting on most WMAs. A recreational fishing license is required to fish on WMAs unless you are exempt. A Management Area Permit is required to hunt on most of the lands owned, leased or managed by FWC. A hunting license is required unless you are exempt. Limited entry/quota permits may also be required to hunt during certain seasons. Additional permits may be required on areas owned by the U.S. Department of Defense. Cooperating landowners and lead agencies may require additional permits during non-hunting seasons. Access may be limited during special-opportunity hunts. A recreational use permit is required for some areas. Refer to the WMA brochure for area specific access information. Areas may also be closed by executive order due to weather conditions, drought, flooding, etc.




http://myfwc.com/hunting/wma-brochures/

https://myfwc.com/license/recreational/do-i-need-one/

52

Each year, alligator management units are established with appropriate harvest quotas to provide recreational opportunities for Floridians and non-residents who are at least 18 years old to take up to 2 alligators per permit. Applicants who are awarded a permit must pay for two CITES tags and an Alligator Trapping License, or provide proof of possession of an Alligator Trapping License valid through the end of the alligator harvest season. A Florida hunting license is not required to participate in the statewide alligator hunt. Hunter Safety License Requirement Persons born on or after June 1, 1975 may not be issued a license to hunt in Florida with the use of a firearm, gun (including a muzzle loading gun), bow or crossbow without first having successfully completed a hunter safety course. Anyone who meets the above description must present a valid hunter safety certification card prior to being issued a hunting license (excluding lifetime licenses). Individuals exempted from having a hunting license but born on or after June 1, 1975 are exempted from the hunter safety requirement. The exemption does not apply to persons with a Florida Resident Disabled Person Hunting and Fishing License or anyone hunting on military bases. Completion of a hunter safety course is required by the federal government to hunt on military bases. Lifetime license holders born on or after June 1, 1975 whose licenses do not indicate that they have completed a hunter safety course must have the hunter safety certification card in their possession while hunting. Out-of-state Hunters A hunter safety card or certificate issued for a course completed in another state is accepted in Florida. Hunter Safety Requirement Deferral Anyone 16 years or older and born after May 31, 1975 may hunt under the supervision of a qualified hunter without having to complete the state's hunter safety certification. Hunters using this Hunter Safety Mentoring Exemption need to be under the supervision of an adult, 21 years old or older, who has a valid hunting license or is exempt from the hunting license requirement and who has met the hunter safety requirement or is exempt from the hunter safety requirement. Hunters who pass a hunter safety course before their mentoring exemption license expires, and carry their license and certification card can hunt without supervision.

53

B. Refuge-Specific and State Hunting and Fishing Regulations Listed below are regulations that pertain to the Refuge as of the date of this plan. The regulations are a compilation for the various units, as there are different rules for each WMA. These regulations may be modified as conditions change or as warranted on new refuge lands. All visitors are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the specific WMA rules (available online) for each unit. The existing Refuge units fall within the Southwest and Southern FWC administrative region (FWC 2018), and additional units could fall within the Southwest, Northeast or Southern administrative regions. Regulations often vary across WMAs. Hence, before going afield, it is recommended that the public access the state’s WMA website for useful information when planning a visit and review the latest brochure for each WMA of interest for regulations. Additionally, the Refuge Manager or FWC WMA manager can be contacted directly for questions. Quota Permits Pursuant to the 2012 MOU between the Service and FWC, FWC conducts hunting and fishing programs across Refuge units through the WMA program. Quota hunts may be offered during an entire hunt or on specific days of the week. Hunters must submit electronic applications for quota and special-opportunity permits through FWC’s online permit site at https://gooutdoorsflorida.com/. Worksheets listing hunts, application periods, deadlines and instructions are available at county tax collector’s offices, FWC offices or MyFWC.com. Quota application periods occur throughout the year beginning April 1; please refer to the hunting handbook or MyFWC.com for specific dates. Worksheets will be available about 2 weeks prior to each application period. Types of hunts potentially available ● Archery ● Muzzleloading Gun ● Family Hunt ● General Gun ● Small Game ● Youth Turkey ● Spring Turkey ● Migratory Bird ● Waterfowl ● Big Game ● Alligator General Area Regulations All general laws and regulations relating to wildlife and fish shall apply unless specifically exempted for an area. Hunting or the taking of wildlife or fish on a Refuge unit shall be allowed only during the open seasons and in accordance with the regulations outlined for the specific WMA.

https://gooutdoorsflorida.com/

54

Public Access and Vehicles Each WMA unit has unique rules regarding access and what types of vehicles are allowed. Some WMA units allow licensed vehicles and/or unlicensed ORVs on designated roads, while others do not allow any vehicular access. Fishing and Frogging Fishing and frogging are activities allowed year-round in Florida. See the most current General Statewide Freshwater Fishing Regulations for details on methods of take, restricted species, bag limits, etc.

V. Public Engagement

A. Outreach for Announcing and Publicizing the Hunting Program The Refuge maintains a mailing list, for news release purposes, to local newspapers, radio, and websites. Special announcements and articles may be released in conjunction with hunting seasons. In addition, information about a proposed hunt will be available at Everglades Headwaters NWR Complex office and website at https://www.fws.gov/refuge/everglades_headwaters/ . Furthermore, FWC’s WMA website will have brochures available for each Refuge unit that part of their program.

B. Anticipated Public Recreation to the Hunting Program Based on the comments received during the development of the Land Protection Plan in 2011, little negative public reaction is expected with regards to hunting on the Arbuckle, Hatchineha, and Okeechobee Units. Similarly, future hunting on new Refuge lands is not likely to create any substantial controversy, since most rural lands in Florida have historically been hunted and/or are currently being hunted at some level. Hunting and fishing are an important historic, economic, and recreational use of Florida’s natural resources, and still play an important role in the cultural identity of the Kissimmee River Basin.

C. How Hunters Will Be Informed of Relevant Rules and Regulations All fee title units designated for hunting and fishing will be part of the FWC’s WMA program. Florida has one of the largest wildlife management area (WMA) systems in the country at nearly 6 million acres. FWC is the lead manager or landowner on over 1.4 million acres and works in partnership with other governmental or private landowners on another 4.5 million acres. Florida’s WMAs offer a wide range of hunting opportunities including quota/limited entry hunts, special opportunity hunts, and public hunting areas where people can walk on to hunt.

55

To hunt on a WMA, a hunter must possess a management area permit and a hunting license, (and often other permits depending on species and season), unless exempt. WMA regulations brochures are only available at MyFWC.com and the Fish/Hunt FL app. Before heading afield, print, hunters need to take a screenshot or download the WMA regulations brochure and map to a mobile device so they can access them without an internet connection. Before going afield, we recommend that hunters review the open/closed status of WMAs of interest. FWC continues to update their website with information about WMA openings/closures, including details about roads, entrances and more. VI. Compatibility Determinations Hunting and all associated hunt program activities proposed in this plan have been to be found compatible with purposes of the Refuge, and can be found in the VSP. Likewise, all proposed sport fishing and associated program activities have been also been found to be compatible. VII. Assessment This section provides a summary assessment on the viability of species populations and other conditions under which the hunt and fish program is designed. For a more detailed analysis of the potential impacts of take on game species refer to the Environmental Assessment (EA) (USFWS 2012)conducted as part of the refuge establishment (USFWS 2012) and the EA associated with this draft VSP. A. Are wildlife populations present in numbers sufficient to sustain optimum population levels for priority Refuge objectives other than hunting and fishing? White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Yes, priority, biological objectives can be met and optimal populations can be sustained with a Refuge sport hunting program. On existing Refuge lands, deer hunting is currently being coordinated with FWC to ensure that the hunts meet the goals and objectives of the “Strategic Plan for Deer Management in Florida 2008-2018.” In the FWC plan, the deer population goal is to, “Ensure the existence of robust deer populations that meet the public’s desires for recreational opportunities and protection of property while ensuring the long-term welfare of the species” (FWC 2007a). Deer hunting opportunities on any future Refuge lands that are added to the WMA program would be aimed toward supporting FWC’s deer management plan. Feral Hogs (Sus scrofa) Feral (wild) hogs are an invasive, non-native species. Complete eradication of feral hogs on Refuge lands is desirable, but currently is not feasible. Hunting of feral hogs, which is an activity widely enjoyed by local hunters, provides the Refuge with another management tool for reducing this detrimental species.

56

Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Yes, priority, biological objectives can be met and optimal populations can be sustained with a Refuge sport hunting program. Wild turkey in Florida are managed under the guidance of the FWC Wild Turkey Management Program (WTMP). The WTMP is charged with coordinating wild turkey management and research activities across the state and providing a statewide approach to conservation and management of Florida’s wild turkey population. As a part of the 10-year strategic plan (2008-2018) the following goal was developed, “Ensure healthy and sustainable wild turkey populations throughout the state while providing and promoting compatible uses of the resource” (FWC 2008). On existing Refuge lands, wild turkey hunting is currently being coordinated with FWC to ensure that the hunts meet the goals and objectives of their 10-year plan. Wild turkey hunting opportunities on any future Refuge lands that are added to the WMA program would be aimed toward supporting FWC’s management of this game species. Migratory Game Birds For the purposes of this plan, migratory game birds fall into the following two categories: 1. Waterfowl Waterfowl that are hunted in Florida include various ducks (e.g. mallards, canvasback, wood ducks), geese (e.g. Canada, snow, blue), teal and merganser. 2 Non-waterfowl Examples of migratory game birds in this category include rails, moorhen, snipe, coot, doves, crows, and woodcock. Yes, priority, biological objectives can be met and optimal populations can be sustained with a Refuge sport hunting program. The Service annually prescribes a framework, or outer limits, for dates and times when hunting may occur and the number of migratory game birds that may be taken and possessed. These frameworks are necessary to allow state selections of season and limits for recreation and sustenance; aid federal, state, and tribal governments in the management of migratory game birds; and permit harvests at levels compatible with population status and habitat conditions. Because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory game birds are closed unless specifically opened by the Secretary of the Interior, the Service annually promulgates regulations (50 CFR Part 20) establishing the frameworks from which states may select season dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other options for each migratory bird hunting season. Small Game For the purposes of this plan and for consistency and alignment with State of Florida regulations, small game includes several small to medium sized mammals, (e.g. squirrel, raccoon, rabbit, bobcat, coyote, opossum, otter, skunk) and bobwhite quail, a non-migratory bird species.

57

Yes, priority, biological objectives can be met and optimal populations can be sustained with a Refuge sport hunting program. Small game have consistently shown that eastern cottontail rabbit, marsh rabbit, raccoon, and grey squirrel populations are not significantly affected by hunting. These species are generally common, utilizing a range of habitats. Additionally, they reproduce rapidly and their populations are governed by density-dependent processes. This means that as the population declines (i.e. due to hunting), reproductive rates increase, compensating for the losses. Range-wide, the bobwhite quail population has declined since the 1950s (Dimmick et al. 2002), and FWC is actively working with state and federal agencies, landowners, and other partners to reverse that trend (FWC 2007b). During the 2018-2019 season, bobwhite quail were only legally hunted on WMAs designated as Quail Enhancement Areas or via a release permit on select WMAs and Wildlife and Environmental Areas (WEAs). Refuge lands currently within the WMA program do not offer quail hunts. However, there is the potential that current lands or new Refuge lands added to the WMA may provide this opportunity in the future. Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) Yes, priority, biological objectives can be met and optimal populations can be sustained with a Refuge sport hunting program. Historically, alligators were depleted due to market-hunting and habitat loss, resulting in their federally protected status in 1967. By 1987, through the combined efforts by the Service and state wildlife agencies, the species was recovered and removed from the endangered species list. Since 1988, Florida's statewide alligator harvest has been nationally and internationally recognized as a model program for the sustainable use of a natural resource. Each year, alligator management units are established with appropriate harvest quotas to provide recreational opportunities for Floridians and non-residents. It is estimated that there are approximately 1.3 million alligators in Florida (FWC 2019). Fishing Fishery populations present on Refuge lands are considered sufficiently healthy to support recreational fishing. In Florida, fishing regulations include the taking of most frog species, while imperiled species are specifically excluded. B. Is there competition for habitat between target species and other wildlife? No, there is not any competition for habitat between white-tailed deer, Eastern wild turkey, the above listed small game species, alligator, and other wildlife. All species are observed in good numbers in habitats across the Refuge. All are observed in similar habitat types. The Refuge has not directly studied habitat competition between the target species and other wildlife.

58

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 negatively impact vegetative communities, soil properties and plant successional patterns (Stevens 2010). Feral hogs are opportunistic omnivores and compete with game and non-game wildlife species for available food resources. Wood and Roark (1980) found oak mast to be one of the more important seasonal food items of feral hogs. Tate (1984) found that feral hogs compete with deer, turkey, squirrels, waterfowl and other wildlife species for this food resource. Feral hogs can impact ground-nesting species, particularly quail and turkey, through nest destruction and predation. Beach (1993) also found that feral hogs can prey on fawns and ground nesting birds. Hunting hogs is expected to reduce this interspecies competition within available habitat. C. Are there unacceptable levels of predation by target species on other wildlife?

Yes, there is likely unacceptable predation by feral hogs, which are opportunistic feeders that prey on many other species. Direct prey includes small mammals, deer fawns and ground-dwelling reptiles and amphibians. They also prey on ground-nesting bird species such as wild turkey by ingesting their eggs. Indirectly, they can harbor several infectious diseases, some of which can be transmissible to humans and some of which can be fatal to other wildlife. Therefore, the reduction or eradication of feral hogs would benefit many native species. Raccoons also have unacceptable levels of predation on birds, bird eggs, and ground-dwelling and nesting reptiles and amphibians. VIII. Measures Taken to Avoid Conflicts with Other Management Objectives A. Biological Conflicts Biological conflicts are expected to be minimal. Hunts would generally consist of groups of less than 10 people. Access to the interior of the sites would be on foot or established roads and trails, thus reducing any impacts to listed plants, sand skinks, or other species potentially adversely affected by vehicle traffic. Removal of feral hog would benefit the site, by reducing the numbers of an invasive species that destroys plants and feeds upon native wildlife. Prescribed fires needed to maintain the site’s biological diversity would be scheduled around any hunts. The prescribed fire program would not be impacted by this public use opportunity. Treatments of non-native invasive plants would also be scheduled around any hunts. B. Public Use Conflicts The Service coordinates with FWC to develop hunting and fishing regulations for each unit. Minimizing public use conflicts is an important consideration for FWC’s rule-making process, and each WMA has unique resources, as well as different public uses and associated challenges. As an example, Arbuckle falls under the Arbuckle WMA, which

59

presently prohibits equestrian use during hunts. It is expected that new Refuge lands will be analyzed for potential user conflicts, with proposed rules made accordingly. C. Administrative Conflicts No administrative conflicts are expected with hunting and fishing activities.

60

IX. References Beach, R. 1993. Depredation problems involving feral hogs. Pages 67-73 in C.W. Hanselka and J.F. Cadenhead, eds. Feral swine: a compendium for resource managers. Texas AgriLife Extension, College Station, Texas. Dimmick, R.W., M.J. Gudlin and D.F. Mckenzie. 2002. The northern bobwhite conservation initiative. Miscellaneous publication of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, South Carolina. 96 pp. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2007a. 2008-18 Strategic Plan for Deer Management in Florida. http://myfwc.com/media/464652/DeerManagementPlan2008_2018.pdf. Accessed: May 2015. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2007b. Strategic plan for northern bobwhite restoration in Florida. http://myfwc.com/hunting/by-species/quail/. Accessed: May 2018. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2008. 2008-18 Strategic Plan for Wild Turkey Management. http://myfwc.com/hunting/by-species/turkey/. Accessed: May 2015. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2018. WMA Brochures. http://myfwc.com/hunting/wma-brochures/#wma. Accessed: April 2018. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2019. Guide to Alligator Hunting in Florida. https://myfwc.com/media/16675/alligator-hunting-guide.pdf Accessed: October 2019. Stevens, L. 2010. The feral hog in Oklahoma. 2nd Edition. Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation. Ardmore, OK. Tate, J. 1984. Techniques in controlling wild hogs in Great Smokey Mountains National Park; Proceedings of a workshop National Park Service Research/Resources Manage. Report SER-72, Nov. 1984. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Land Protection Plan and Environmental Assessment. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/everglades_headwaters/. Accessed: August 2019. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2012. Agreement No. 40181CK005. Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 8pp.

http://myfwc.com/media/464652/DeerManagementPlan2008_2018.pdf

http://myfwc.com/hunting/by-species/turkey/

http://myfwc.com/hunting/wma-brochures/#wma

https://myfwc.com/media/16675/alligator-hunting-guide.pdf

61

Wood, G. W., and D. N. Roark. 1980. Food habits of feral hogs in coastal South Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:5–6–511.

62

APPENDIX B: LIST OF PREPARERS Names and titles of individuals involved in preparing the VSP. Lance Arvidson, Consultant, Common Ground Ecology Jeremy Edwardson, Deputy Project Leader, Everglades Headwaters NWR Complex Julie Morris, Consultant, National Wildlife Refuge Association William Miller, Project Leader, Everglades Headwaters NWR Complex Oliver van den Ende, Refuge Manager, Everglades Headwaters NWR

63

APPENDIX C: APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS Overview of Findings of Appropriateness and Determination of Compatibility of Refuge Uses An appropriate use finding is the initial decision process a refuge manager follows when first considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. As part of the Refuge’s LPP, interim appropriate use findings were provided as the initial step when land is first acquired and continuing until such time as a management plan is developed so that ongoing public use activities can continue during the interim period. The refuge manager must find that a use is appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of the use. The process is intended to clarify and expands on the compatibility determination process by describing when refuge managers should deny a proposed use without determining compatibility. If a proposed use is not appropriate, it will not be permitted and a compatibility determination will not be undertaken. Except for the uses noted below, the refuge manager must decide if a new use is an appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will deny the use without determining compatibility. Uses that have been considered and administratively determined to be appropriate or not appropriate are listed.

• Six wildlife-dependent uses as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The six wildlife-dependent uses include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation are determined to be generally appropriate on refuges. However, a particular refuge may have some, none or all of these uses and the refuge manager must also determine if these uses are compatible. In the case of the Refuge all six wildlife dependent uses occur.

• Take of fish and wildlife under state regulations. States have regulations concerning the

take of wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. The Service considers take of wildlife under such regulations appropriate, however, the refuge manager must determine if the activity is compatible. In the case of the Refuge take as listed above would be considered compatible.

64

Appropriate use determinations were conducted for the following uses listed below and further detailed on the respective forms:

USE APPROPRIATE?

Beekeeping No

Berry collecting (including palmetto) No

Bicycling Yes

Boating No

Camping Yes

Commercial Recording Yes

Commercial Tours Yes

Dog field trials/commercial/organized dog training No

Drones No

Environmental education and Interpretation, Wildlife Observation and Photography Yes

Fishing (including frogging) Yes

Hiking/backpacking/jogging Yes

Horseback riding Yes

Hunting Yes

Off-road vehicles (recreational) No

Off-road vehicle use for hunting and fishing Yes

Pets on leash (for purposes other than hunting) Yes

65

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE Refuge Name: Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area____________________ Use: ___Beekeeping______________________________________________________________________ This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Decision Criteria: YES NO (a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? √

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? √

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? √

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? √

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other document?

√

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been proposed?

√

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? √

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? √

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources?

√

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

√

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _√_ No ___ When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: Not Appropriate___√__ Appropriate_____ Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________

66

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE Refuge Name: Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area__________________________________ Use: _Berry Collecting (including palmetto)__________________________________________________________ This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.






√


√




√


√

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _√_ No ___ When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: Not Appropriate__√___ Appropriate_____ Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________

67

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE Refuge Name: Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area_______________________________ Use: ____Bicycling____________________________________________________________________________ This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.






√


√




√


√

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _√ No ___ When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__√___ Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

68

Refuge Name: Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area Decision Criteria: Bicycling (a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? Yes, the proposed use would occur within the Refuge boundary.

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? Yes, and the biking public must adhere to federal, state, tribal and local laws.

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? Yes. This use is consistent with applicable Executive Orders, Department and Service polices. If this use if deemed appropriate, it must be found compatible analyzed through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Compatibility Determination Policy, 603 FW 2.

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? Yes, signage and enforcement will be used to create conditions that keep the public safe.

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other document? Yes, this use was found to be compatible in the 2012 Land Protection Plan for the Refuge (USFWS 2012).

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been proposed? This use was found to be compatible in the 2012 Land Protection Plan for the Refuge (USFWS 2012).

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? Yes, the Refuge believes that current staff and budgets are capable of overseeing this activity.

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? Yes, due to the minimal Refuge resources necessary to manage this activity, the Refuge believes it will be able to manage this resource in the future with existing resources.

(i) Does this use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? Yes, bicycling to observe wildlife facilitates public uses of the Refuge, and providing this opportunity contributes toward fulfilling provisions of the Improvement Act. Visitors participating in biking are educated about the mission, habitats, and the ecosystem in such a manner as to leave them with a better understanding of resources. The experience can instill an appreciation for future stewards of the environment. Biking can be an excellent recreational activity, exposing visitors to the beauty of nature and the unique setting of the Refuge.

69

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality compatible wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? Yes, through limiting access to designated roads and trails, the Refuge believes it can accommodate this use without impairing current wildlife-dependent recreation.

70

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE Refuge Name: _Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area____________________________ Use: ___Boating (airboat, motorboat, self-propelled)______________________________________________ This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.


(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)?

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies?

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety?



(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff?

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources?




71

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE Refuge Name: Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area_________________________________ Use: ____Camping____________________________________________________________________________ This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.






√


√




√


√

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _√_ No ___ When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__√___ Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ .

72

Refuge Name: Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area Decision Criteria: Camping (a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? Yes, the proposed use would occur within the Refuge boundary.

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? Yes, and the camping public must adhere to federal, state, tribal and local laws.


(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? Yes, signage and enforcement will be used to create conditions that keep the public safe. Furthermore, the special use permit process will help ensure accountability and adherence to safety regulations.



(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? Yes, the Refuge believes that current staff and budgets are capable of overseeing this activity.


(i) Does this use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? Yes, camping to observe wildlife or for hunting facilitates public uses of the Refuge, and providing this opportunity contributes toward fulfilling provisions of the Improvement Act. Visitors participating in camping are educated about the mission, habitats, and the ecosystem in such a manner as to leave them with a better understanding of resources. The experience can instill an appreciation for future stewards of the environment. Camping can be an excellent interpretive activity, exposing visitors to the beauty of nature and the unique setting of the Refuge. This use may expand the reach of the Refuge’s environmental education programs.

73

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality compatible wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? Yes, the Refuge believes it can accommodate this use without impairing current wildlife-dependent recreation through limiting the use to primitive overnight cooking and sleeping accommodations at designated, upland habitat sites generally located at the terminus of designated roads and/or trails that provides access to remote areas of the Refuge that will otherwise be unavailable during priority public use activities such as hunting and fishing, and in support of other approved refuge uses. This would generally involve small groups managed through a permit process and will be limited in size to prevent impairments to existing and future wildlife-dependent recreation activities. .

74

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE Refuge Name: Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area ____________________ Use: __Commercial Recording_____________________________________________ This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.






√


√




√


√

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes ___ No _√__ When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__√___ Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ .

75

Refuge Name: Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area Decision Criteria: Commercial Recording (a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? Yes, the proposed use would occur within the Refuge boundary.

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? Yes, any permittees must adhere to federal, state, tribal and local laws. The Refuge will issue a Special Use Permit (SUP) describing any additional special conditions the permittee must abide by to maintain compatibility.



(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other document? Yes, this use could support wildlife observation and photography.

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been proposed? This is the first time the use is being proposed.

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? Yes. Current staff and budgets are capable of overseeing this activity. Related to this activity, the majority of staff time will be associated with reviewing and administering SUPs. Staff time may also be necessary in providing access to the Refuge and/or coordinating with permittees to have access to the Refuge.

76


(i) Does this use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? Yes. Compatible commercial recording in its various forms provides an excellent opportunity to inform and educate the public and promote the Refuge and the NWRS. Indirectly, the products (films, photographs, and educational media) of these activities will expose more people to the purpose, mission, and resources of the Refuge. Commercial operators will potentially bring new visitors to the Refuge and enhance the experience of repeat visitors by providing them with high-quality, environmental education, interpretation, wildlife photography, and wildlife observation programs. These activities will increase the participant’s understanding and appreciation of wildlife and their habitat as well as the role of the NWRS in resource conservation. .

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality compatible wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? Yes. Commercial recording activities will be managed through the SUP process, which will provide flexibility and oversight to minimize impacts or interference with Refuge visitors, public use programs, wildlife or natural and/or cultural resources on the Refuge.

77

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE Refuge Name: Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area ____________________ Use: __Commercial Tours_________________________________________________ This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.






√


√




√


√

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes ___ No _√__ When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__√___ Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ .

78

Refuge Name: Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area Decision Criteria: Commercial Tours (a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? Yes, the proposed use would occur within the Refuge boundary.

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? Yes. Commercial tour permittees and guests must adhere to federal, state, tribal and local laws while on the Refuge. The Refuge will issue a Special Use Permit describing any additional special conditions the permittee must abide by to maintain compatibility.

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? Yes. This use is consistent with applicable Executive Orders, Department and Service polices. If this use if deemed appropriate, it must be found compatible as analyzed through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Compatibility Determination Policy, 603 FW 2.


(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other document? Yes, this use could support wildlife observation and photography, as well as wildlife environmental education and interpretation.

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been proposed? This is the first time the use is being proposed.

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? Yes. Current staff and budgets are capable of overseeing this activity. Related to this activity, the majority of staff time will be associated with administering Special Use Permits to operators. Staff time may also be necessary in providing access to the Refuge and/or coordinating with permittees to have access to the Refuge.

79

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? Yes due to the minimal Refuge resources necessary to manage this activity, the Refuge believes it will be able to manage this resource in the future with existing resources.

(i) Does this use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? Yes. Visitors participating in commercial tours are educated about the mission, habitats, and the ecosystem in such a manner as to leave them with a better understanding of resources. The experience can instill an appreciation for future stewards of the environment. Commercial tours can be an excellent interpretive activity, exposing visitors to the beauty of nature and the unique setting of the Refuge. This use may expand the reach of the Refuge’s environmental education programs.

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality compatible wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? Yes. Commercial tours generally involve groups and more organized transportation services than consumptive uses; therefore, they will be managed through the Special Use Permit process and may be limited in size, type or number of commercial vehicles to prevent impairments to existing or future wildlife-dependent recreation activities.

80

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE Refuge Name: __Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area__________________________________ Use: __Dog Field Trials and Organized/Commercial Dog Training_______________________________________ This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.






√


√




√


√

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _√_ No ___ When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: Not Appropriate____√_ Appropriate_____ Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________

81

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE Refuge Name: _________Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area____________________________ Use: ______Drones____________________________________________________________________________ This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.






√


√




√


√


82

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE Refuge Name: __________Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area_____________ Use: ___Hiking (including backpacking, jogging, and walking)________________________________________ This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.






√


√




√


√

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _√_ No ___ When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__√___ Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________

83

Refuge Name: Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area

Decision Criteria: Hiking (including backpacking, jogging, and walking)

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? Yes, the proposed use would occur within the Refuge boundary.

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? Yes, the public must adhere to federal, state, tribal and local laws.





(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? Yes, current staff and budgets are capable of overseeing this activity.

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? Yes due to the minimal Refuge resources necessary to manage this activity, the Refuge believes it will be able to manage this resource in the future with existing resources.

(i) Does this use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? Hiking, backpacking, and jogging to observe wildlife facilitates public uses of the Refuge, and providing this opportunity contributes toward fulfilling provisions of the Improvement Act. Visitors participating in hiking (including backpacking, jogging, or walking) are educated about the mission, habitats, and the ecosystem in such a manner as to leave them with a better understanding of resources. The experience can instill an appreciation for future stewards of the environment. The use can be an excellent recreational activity, exposing visitors to the beauty of nature and the unique setting of the Refuge.

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality compatible wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? Yes, through limiting access to dedicated roads and trails, the Refuge believes it can accommodate this use without impairing current wildlife-dependent recreation.

84

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE Refuge Name: _____________Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area________________________ Use: _______Horseback Riding___________________________________________________________________ This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.






√


√




√


√

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _√_ No ___ When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: Not Appropriate____ Appropriate__√____ Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________

85

Refuge Name: Everglades Headwaters NWR Decision Criteria: Horseback Riding (a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? Yes the proposed use would occur within the Refuge boundary.

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? Yes the equestrian public must adhere to federal, state, tribal and local laws.

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? Yes, this use is consistent with applicable Executive Orders, Department and Service policies. If this use if deemed appropriate, it must be found compatible as analyzed through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Compatibility Determination Policy, 603 FW 2.






(i) Does this use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? Yes, horseback riding to observe wildlife facilitates public uses of the Refuge, and providing this opportunity contributes toward fulfilling provisions of the Improvement Act. Visitors participating in horseback riding are educated about the mission, habitats, and the ecosystem in such a manner as to leave them with a better understanding of resources. The experience can instill an appreciation for future stewards of the environment. Horseback riding can be an excellent recreational activity, exposing visitors to the beauty of nature and the unique setting of the Refuge.

86

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality compatible wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? Yes, through limiting access to dedicated roads and trails the Refuge believes it can accommodate the use without impairing wildlife-dependent recreation. .

87

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE Refuge Name: ______Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area_______________________________ Use: ____Off-road Vehicles (recreational)___________________________________________________________ This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.






√


√




√


√

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _√_ No ___ When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: Not Appropriate___√__ Appropriate_____ Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________

88

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE Refuge Name: __Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area ______________________________________________ Use: ___Off-road Vehicle Use for Hunting and Fishing____________________________________________ This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.






√


√




√


√

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _√_ No ___ When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__√___ Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ .

89

Refuge Name: Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area

Decision Criteria: Off-road Vehicle Use for Hunting and Fishing (a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? Yes, the proposed use would occur within the Refuge boundary.

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? Yes, off-road vehicle users (for the purposes of hunting and fishing) must adhere to federal, state, tribal and local laws.


(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? Yes, the use will be conducted for the purposes of hunting and fishing through coordination with FWC through the WMA program on dedicated roads and trails. Where provided signage and enforcement will be used to create conditions that keep the public safe.





(i) Does this use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? Yes, off-road vehicle use in support of hunting or fishing wildlife facilitates public uses of the Refuge, and providing this opportunity contributes toward fulfilling provisions of the Improvement Act.

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality compatible wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? Yes, through coordination of unit specific hunting and fishing management with FWC through the state WMA program, and where provided limiting use to designated roads and trails, the Refuge believes it can accommodate this use without impairing wildlife-dependent recreation.

90

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE Refuge Name: _______Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area______________________ Use: _______________Pets On Leash_____________________________________________________ This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.






√


√




√


√

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _√_ No ___ When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate___√__ Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________

91

Refuge Name: Everglades National NWR Decision Criteria: Pest on Leash (a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? Yes, the proposed use would occur within the Refuge boundary.

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? Yes, pet walkers must adhere to any federal, state, tribal and local laws.


(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? Yes, signage and enforcement will be used to create conditions that keep the public safe. With improvements to educational and interpretation signage and appropriate stipulations, risks to pets of responsible pet owners can be mitigated. In addition, the risks to visitors from pets will be mitigated by restraint (i.e. leash) and behavior restrictions. For example, dogs that bark excessively or are disruptive in nature may be required to vacate the premises.

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other document? Yes, dog walking is an approved use in some state wildlife management areas.

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been proposed? This is the first time the use has been proposed.

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? Yes, the Refuge believes current staff and budgets are capable of overseeing this activity.

92


(i) Does this use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? Yes, pet walking to observe wildlife facilitates public uses to a more diverse array of visitors of the Refuge, and providing this opportunity contributes toward fulfilling provisions of the Improvement Act. Allowing pets on the Refuge, provides visitors with a much sought-after opportunity for non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation, and can foster positive public relations (especially with urban populations), and introduce the Refuge to new, non-traditional audiences. One of the stated goals of the NWRS is to “foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats”. This use, although not a priority public use, can increase the audience reached and increase the public’s exposure to understanding and appreciation of America’s flora, fauna, wildlife conservation, and the Service’s role in managing and protecting natural resources.

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality compatible wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? Yes. Through leash restrictions and appropriate signage, the Refuge believes it can accommodate this use without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreation or reducing the potential to provide this in the future.

93

APPENDIX D: COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS The legal provision (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) states that lands within NWRS are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is one that, in the sound professional judgment of the Refuge Manager, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of NWRS or the purposes of the Refuge. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on the mandates set forth in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57, USC668dd) (Improvement Act) as follows:

• Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as Refuge purposes and goals; • Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats; • Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants; • Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of

fish and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and, • Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with Refuge purposes.

The Improvement Act of 1997 further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation. As priority public uses on the NWRS, they receive priority consideration over other public uses in planning and management. The public use program will be reviewed annually to ensure that it contributes to Refuge objectives in managing quality recreational opportunities and protecting habitats, and is subject to modification if on-site monitoring by Refuge personnel or other authorized personnel results in unanticipated negative impacts to natural communities, wildlife species, or their habitats. Refuge law enforcement officer(s) will promote compliance with refuge regulations, monitor public use patterns and public safety, and document visitor interactions. Refuge law enforcement personnel will monitor all areas and enforce all applicable state and federal regulations. The Service is actively acquiring fee-title lands, through a willing-seller approach, and providing appropriate and compatible outdoor recreational opportunities on these lands is one of the goals of the Refuge. Environmental impacts associated with these uses can be found in the Draft Visitor Services Plan’s Environmental Assessment. Through the Refuge’s development of the 2012 Land Protection Plan and associated Environmental Assessment for the establishment of the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area, a Conceptual Management Plan and Interim Compatibility Determinations were developed (USFWS 2012). The Service received a wide array of public comments and through this open process reviewed and approved several uses for compatibility during which described, articulated anticipated effects, and approved outdoor recreational uses consistent with the purposes for which the Refuge and Conservation Area was established. As part of this Visitor Service Plan, additional uses are being considered to continue to provide outdoor recreation opportunities to a diverse array of Refuge visitors. Under the 2012 Land Protection Plan and associated Conceptual Management Plan (CMP), interim compatibility determinations were approved for 11 outdoor recreational uses listed below.

94

● Bicycling ● Camping ● Environmental education and interpretation, wildlife observation and photography ● Fishing ● Hiking (including backpacking, jogging and walking) ● Horseback riding ● Hunting ● Off-road vehicle use in support of hunting and fishing

As part of this draft VSP, compatibility determinations were conducted for the 11 uses listed above, and four additional uses are proposed:

• Commercial recording • Commercial tours • Pets on leash

Two of the uses cataloged in the list above; commercial recording and commercial tours can be categorically excluded from further NEPA analysis under the DOI Categorical Exclusion 43 CFR §46.210 (j): activities which are educational, informational, advisory, or consultative to other agencies, public, and private entities, visitors, individuals, or the general public. The use triggers no response to any extraordinary circumstances (43 CFR §46.215).

95

DRAFT COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Refuge Name: Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area Date Established: January 18, 2012 Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531) National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) Refuge Purpose(s):

"... conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans..." 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act) “…to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species…or (B) plants…” 16 U.S.C. 1531 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) “…the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions ...” 16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) “…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds….” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) “…for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) “…for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources....” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4), (Secretarial powers to implement laws related to fish and wildlife) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) "…suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ..." 16 U.S.C. 460k-1 "... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ..." 16 U.S.C. 460k-2 [Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended]

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The mission of the Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, is:

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

96

Public Review: In accordance with Service guidelines and NEPA requirements, public involvement is an important factor in the development of the EA and the draft compatibility determinations s for the Refuge. A 60-day public review and comment period on the EA and draft VSP will take place, which provides the public an opportunity to comment on the proposal. A public meeting will be held to accept public comments on the draft Plan. The meeting will be recorded and public comments will be accepted. Opportunities to review the draft will be via the Refuge’s website. Written comments and suggestions may be submitted by mail or email, and verbal comments could be submitted at a public meeting.

97


Use: Bicycling Description of Use

(a) What is the use? Non-motorized bicycling is not a priority public use.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? Bike riding will occur only on designated roads and

trails. Existing roads and trails are shown on the access and trails maps for the various units and additionally designated trails could be provided elsewhere on both existing and newly acquired Refuge units.

(c) When would the use be conducted? This use occurs all year during, but users are advised to refer to the latest WMA regulations for details on hours of day and possible temporary closures.

(d) How would the use be conducted? Only non-motorized bicycling is allowed, and all other WMA-specific regulations apply. The trail system is designed to support the six priority public uses and provide access to a variety of habitat types. Persons engaged in biking will use existing access points, parking lots, signage, and Refuge roads to access the trail system. Trail systems are monitored by staff and volunteers to educate and inform visitors about trail ethics and public regulations, to report safety issues and emergencies, to assist with closing of trails/grounds, and to remove trash and assist with gate closures.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Bicycling is a historic use on the Refuge that supports wildlife observation, photography, and other wildlife-dependent uses. This use is proposed to provide compatible recreational opportunities for visitors to enjoy the Refuge and to gain a better understanding and appreciation for fish and wildlife, ecology, and the relationships of plant and animal populations within various ecosystems, and to better understand wildlife management, the Refuge, and the Refuge System. This use can support wildlife observation and photography, which are priority public uses. This use may provide opportunities for visitors to observe and learn about wildlife and refuge lands firsthand and at their own pace in an unstructured environment. This use may also enhance the public’s appreciation for wildlife conservation and land protection. It is anticipated that participation in this use will produce a more informed public, with an enhanced stewardship ethic and enhanced support and advocacy for the Service and for natural resources. In a 2011 survey, 15 percent of surveyed visitors had participated in bicycling within the past 12 months of the survey (Sexton et al. 2011). This use will also provide wholesome, safe outdoor recreation in a scenic setting. The hope is that those who come strictly for recreational enjoyment will be enticed to participate in the more educational facets of the public use program and can then become informed advocates for the Service and for natural resources. In addition, this use promotes the national and Regional priority, Connecting People with Nature, and other health-related initiatives.

98

Availability of Resources: Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: To administer, maintain, and monitor the facilities would require some Refuge staff and volunteers. Law enforcement activities would also be needed to provide resource and visitor protection. It is expected that all these activities would total about one to two weeks’ worth of effort annually for all the units. Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None. Maintenance costs: Many existing roads and trails will be maintained for Refuge purposes and therefore will not constitute additional maintenance costs to support bicycling. Monitoring costs: If there is a noticeable increase in future use, the Refuge could initiate a monitoring program to assess the impact of use over time on natural resources and quality of the visitors' experience. These monitoring efforts would be covered by a combination of grants, Refuge staff, and volunteers. Offsetting revenues: None. Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Short-term effects: Minor effects may occur in association with bicycling, such as littering and wildlife disturbance. Refuge law enforcement officers will patrol regularly and Refuge staff and/or volunteers will regularly pick up litter. Cyclist can disturb wildlife that are resting, foraging, or breeding along trails. Wildlife that are disturbed may rest and feed less, which can affect their fitness. However, since the disturbance effects are likely to be greatest directly along trails, the overall negative effects are expected to be minimal. Likewise, breeding birds along trails may be disturbed and not be able to protect and feed their young as frequently as needed, possibly affecting the fitness of their nestlings. A study by Miller, Knight, and Miller (1998) indicates that species composition and nest predation was altered adjacent to trails in both forested and grassland habitats. It appears that species composition changes are due to the presence of humans and not the trail or roadway itself. Trails can facilitate nest predation by increasing opportunities for access by mammalian predators. Use of some roads and trails may cause direct mortality to amphibians crossing trails during migration. There may also be nest abandonment of bird species nesting on, or next to, trails should these uses become too frequent during breeding season. Bird communities can apparently be affected by the presence of recreational roads and trails, where common species (e.g., American robins) were found near trails and rare species (e.g., grasshopper sparrows) were found farther from trails. Songbird nest failure was also greater near trails (Trails and Wildlife Task Force 1998, Miller et al. 2001). However, the areas affected by bicycles would be relatively small compared to what is available for nesting, hence this effect is expected to be minimal. Long-term effects: Wildlife disturbance relative to bicycle riding has been poorly studied with most references using other activities such as walking, hiking, and operating vehicles and their impacts on wildlife; therefore, bicycle impacts are inferred (unless noted). In general, activities that occur outside of vehicles (including bicycling) tend to increase the disturbance potential for most wildlife species (Klein 1993, Gabrielson and Smith 1995; Burger 1981; Pease et al. 2005). Out-of-vehicle activities along wildlife observation trails and pullouts along the trails have the greatest potential for disturbing wildlife species.

99

A study conducted at Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge indicated that bike riding in an open habitat, such as marshes where the activity is highly visible to wading birds, shorebirds, and waterfowl, is disruptive (Laskowski 1999). As a result, marsh birds in open areas flee from joggers and bike riders (Laskowski 1999). Wildlife may receive different cues from different modes of transportation, since wildlife do not flee as readily from cars, perhaps because the person is hidden in the vehicle and not perceived as a threat (Klein 1993). A 2005 study at Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Pease et al. 2005) compared five different human activities (i.e., motorized tram, slow-moving truck, fast-moving truck, bicyclist, and pedestrian) in relation to waterfowl disturbance. The study found that people biking disturbed waterfowl more than vehicles. The Refuge will continue management strategies of educating trail and roadway users on how their activities affect wildlife and how to modify their use to minimize impacts on wildlife. Potential conflict with priority public uses will be minimized by using trailhead signs and other media to inform the various users about current public uses. Some trail and roadway use will be restricted during the Refuge-specific hunting seasons. The Refuge will take all reasonable measures to prevent or minimize any potential negative effects, and will evaluate trails periodically to assess whether they meet established suitability criteria and to prevent degradation. If evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts appears, the Refuge will reroute, curtail, or close trails to one or more uses as deemed appropriate. The Refuge will also post and enforce Refuge regulations, and establish, post, and enforce closed areas. Based on the current and anticipated levels of use and mitigation measures, bicycling is not considered to have significant negative long-term impacts to wildlife or Refuge habitats. Cumulative effects: Although wildlife responds differently to the presence of trail users, many wildlife species readily adapt (become habituated) to frequent, non-threatening recreational activities. These animals are less likely to change their feeding and other behaviors in the presence of cyclists. Hence, cumulative effects are not anticipated. Determination (check one below): ______ Use is Compatible

x Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The following stipulations are recommended in order for bicycling to be compatible on Refuge lands. • Bicycles will only be allowed on designated trails and improved roads on the Refuge and as

identified in the Refuge unit WMA brochure. • Evaluation of bike riding on designated roads and trails will be conducted annually to assess

if objectives are being met, if habitat impacts are within a tolerable range, and if wildlife populations are not being adversely affected. If evidence of unacceptable impacts begins to appear, it may be necessary to change the activity, move the activity, or eliminate the activity.

• Clearing of vegetation is prohibited. • All trash must be packed out and properly disposed of offsite.

100

• Visitors are encouraged to check specific WMA brochure for each Refuge unit for additional trail and road information.

Justification: Bicycling to observe wildlife facilitates priority public uses of the Refuge System. Providing opportunities for these activities contributes toward fulfilling provisions of the Improvement Act. Wildlife observation from bicycles in areas where there are few impacts to wildlife will provide an appropriate mode of transportation for promoting increased awareness, understanding, and support of Refuge resources and programs. At the anticipated and current levels of visitation, bicycling does not seem to conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the Refuge. Bicycling activities will be in support of priority public use activities and programs (e.g., wildlife observation). This activity will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the Refuge was established. In addition, this activity will fulfill one or more purposes of the Refuge or the National Wildlife Refuge System. This CD is based on best available science and sound professional judgement. NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision:

_ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

_ _ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References: Burger, J. 1981. The effects of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation. 21: 231-241. Gabrielson, G.W. and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 95-107 in R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds., Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372 pp. Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavior responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21: 31-39. Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169. Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29(1): 124-132. Laskowski, H., T. Leger, J. Gallegos and F. James. 1993. Behavior Response of Greater Yellowlegs, Snowy Egrets and Mallards to Human Disturbance at Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished report #51510-01-92. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 25 pp.

101

Pease, M.L., R.K. Rose and M.J. Butler. 2005. Effects of human disturbances on the behavior of wintering ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1): 103-112. Trails and Wildlife Task Force. 1998. Planning trails with wildlife in mind: A handbook for trail planners. Colorado State Parks, Denver Co. 51pp.

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2030

102


Use: Camping Description of Use:

(a) What is the use? Camping, as considered under this compatibility determination, is the primitive overnight cooking and sleeping accommodations (e.g. tents) erected at designated sites that facilitate access to remote areas of the Refuge that will otherwise be unavailable during priority public use activities such as hunting and fishing. Camping is not a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57).

(b) Where would the use be conducted? Campsites would be located at the terminus of a designated trail and accessible by foot, bike, ORV, or horse. Primitive campsites would be provided within upland areas and generally within already disturbed upland areas. It is anticipated that each campsite would only cover a fraction of an acre. Visitors are encouraged to refer to the Unit’s WMA brochure for site locations.

(c) When would the use be conducted? The use would occur year-round, but users are advised to refer to the most current WMA regulations for details on possible closures. During quota hunts, only authorized hunters would be issued camping permits. This use would require a non-fee, special use permit issued on a first-come, first-serve basis by the Refuge. The number of camping permits issued would be specific to each unit. There would also be stipulations regarding the number of campers allowed per camping permit. The duration of stay for any permit holder would be authorized through the SUP.

(d) How would the use be conducted? Camping will only be authorized in support of other approved refuge uses and to facilitate access to remote areas. Regulations regarding camping would be specific to each WMA, and users are advised to refer to the current WMA brochure for details. All campsites would be primitive in nature, with no available facilities. Camping would be “pack-in/pack-out”, therefore all trash and waste would need to be removed, since no trash receptacles or bathroom facilities would be on site. No open fire pits would be allowed. Campsite use by recreational vehicle or camper trailer, or camping at trailheads is not being considered.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Camping is a popular recreational activity in Florida. While camping is not a wildlife-dependent recreational use, it supports greater opportunity for wildlife dependent recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. The Refuge supports facilitating these opportunities for visitors as it promotes the associated wildlife-dependent recreation. Camping opportunities would allow each user group to learn about the Refuge, the unique opportunity to observe by sight and sound nocturnal wildlife, observe celestial phenomenon somewhat partially away from urban light pollution, and an opportunity to recognize the uniqueness of the Kissimmee River Basin ecosystem.

103

Availability of Resources: The resources necessary to provide and administer this use are available within current and anticipated Refuge budgets.

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: This use is expected to only require limited additional resources in its administration and management. Administration would involve the issuance of special use permits, a process that requires minimal staff effort and that may require a fee to administer. It is estimated that administration of special use permits associated with this activity consists of approximately five staff days or less than two percent of staff time. Less than three percent of the time of staff members involved may be required to support this use. Federal Wildlife Officers will spend time enforcing refuge regulations. This duty is already part of their everyday tasks and will not substantially increase the law enforcement workload. Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: No special equipment, facilities or improvements are anticipated in order to support this use. Maintenance costs: Since the campsites would be rudimentary, with or without limited infrastructure, it is anticipated that only occasional mowing would be needed for campsite maintenance. Annual Refuge operation and maintenance funds provided for the Everglades Headwaters NWR Complex will be used to support camping as an activity that supports the Refuge priority public use program. Refuge staff would maintain the campsites and may be assisted by Refuge volunteers or partners. Law enforcement would inspect campsites as part of their Refuge-wide patrols. It is expected that the annual cost of the program, primarily for site maintenance would be about $1,500 per site annually. Monitoring costs: Refuge staff will be required to periodically assess camping activities, including any public safety issues. Monitoring costs are expected to be about $500 per year for each site. Offsetting revenues: The Refuge may consider camping fees to support this activity through the special use permit process and/or through potential establishment of a recreational fee program. Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Short-term effects: Some negative effects, vegetation damage (Cole 1992, Marion and Cole 1996, Leung and Marion 2000, Marion 2003), and wildlife disturbance (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995, Leung and Marion 2000, Marion 2003), can be expected, but these are anticipated to be localized and minor. The impacts of camping on vegetation are usually locally severe, even with low to moderate use. They include loss of ground vegetation cover, reduced vegetation height and vigor, loss of rare or fragile species, and changes in plant community composition (Leung and Marion 2000). Vegetation may be removed or trampled. Shrubs and trees are commonly lost from the site or damaged. Axes or fire may scar tree trunks, branches may be broken, bark removed or damaged, or nails placed in trees.

104

Tree regeneration (seedlings and saplings) is generally lost, thus facilitating conversion to a non-forested site. Marion and Cole (1996) found on campsites they studied in Delaware that an average of 19 percent of trees had been felled and 77 percent of the standing trees had been damaged (primarily branches cut for firewood or trunks scarred by axes and nails). The potential for accidental wildfires exists. Vegetation resistant to trampling, including grasses or exotic species tend to replace existing understory vegetation (forbs) (Marion and Cole 1996). The indirect effects of vegetation disturbance include microclimate changes and increased erosion. The extent of camping impacts on vegetation is generally related to the frequency of use, their durability, and group size (Cole 1995). Larger groups are usually responsible for enlarging campsites more than small groups (Cole 1992, Marion 2003). Campsite enlargement is particularly a problem when campsites are located on flat, open sites. Campers may also enlarge the affected area by developing multiple, uncontrolled “social trails” between tents, to water sources, to viewing points, or favored fishing locations. Some visitors have a much greater impact on vegetation than others, because they may cut down vegetation, dig trenches around tents, and otherwise modify the sites. Overall, the negative effects of camping on vegetation are likely to be minimal, given that the size and number of campsites will be relatively small, and the total area affected kept to a minimum. Camping can alter or destroy wildlife habitat, or displace wildlife from preferred habitat or resources (food, water, nest sites). Camping may also modify or disrupt wildlife behavior. Larger groups are generally more likely to disturb wildlife (Marion 2003). The restrictions on the number of tents and occupants, through the special use permit process, should assist with limiting the level of impacts. Human visitors or their pets may “harass” wildlife. Even leashed pets may disturb wildlife. Pets may also transmit diseases to wildlife (Hammitt and Cole 1998). Disturbance related to camping may also affect wildlife health, fitness, reproduction, and mortality rates (Leung and Marion 2000). Indirect effects may include a change in vertebrate species composition near the campsite. Changes in vertebrate communities at campgrounds (as compared to control sites) have been reported for birds (Blakesley and Reese 1988, Garton et al. 1977, Foin et al. 1977, Knight and Gutzwiller 1995) and small mammals (Clevenger and Workman 1977). In the case of songbirds, changes in species composition were due primarily to a reduction in ground cover vegetation (for nesting, feeding) at campsites and different levels of sensitivity to human disturbance. Rarer species are generally absent from campgrounds. The presence of humans attracts some species, while others avoid it. The availability of food generally differs between campgrounds and undisturbed areas. Natural foods may decrease in availability while foods supplied by humans may increase. Humans may intentionally supply foods to wildlife, or unintentionally, because of littering, accidental spillage, or improper food storage (Garton et al. 1977). Human foods may be unhealthy for wildlife or promote scavenging behavior, which may increase vulnerability of animals to predation. Rodent populations often increase at campsites, in response to increased availability of human food, and may negatively affect nesting songbirds. Bears and other scavengers may be attracted to improperly stored food and may damage property or threaten visitor safety. Only leashed pets will be permitted at the campsite. The Refuge will work with FWC and other appropriate state and local agencies on managing the campsites and providing outreach to the public on how to avoid disturbing wildlife and the importance of not feeding wildlife and storing food properly.

105

Conflicts may arise between visitors as a result of noise and over-crowding. Conflicts may also develop between small and large groups and different user groups (anglers, hunters, wildlife photographers, etc.). Litter, noise, large group sizes, and crowding may impair the Refuge experience for some visitors. A limited number of campsites will be located across a large landscape. Therefore, conflicts with other users are not anticipated to be significant. Public outreach may help reduce potential conflicts by reducing littering and promoting considerate camping. Overall, the impacts associated with this use will be confined to a relatively small portion of the Refuge, in the immediate vicinity of the campsite. Periodic closures, when warranted, and the stipulations listed below, should ensure that disturbance of wildlife and impacts on Refuge resources are minimal. Long-term effects: Long-term effects on habitat may include a change in the species composition of vegetation in response to trampling and illegal cutting of firewood. Camping may result in the stunting or loss of trees around campsites, with an increase in shrubs or herbaceous groundcover. The total amount of habitat that may change as a result of camping is expected to be relatively small, and the overall effect is expected to be minimal. Long-term effects on wildlife could include habituation or attraction to humans, especially if wildlife learns to associate them with food. Other wildlife may permanently avoid the areas around campsites, which would decrease available habitat. None of these effects is expected to be significant, and through proper management and counter-measures, these negative effects should be kept at a minimum. The Refuge will provide outreach to the public through the permitting process, to educate campers on how to avoid disturbing wildlife, the importance of not feeding wildlife, and proper food storage. Some disturbance to wildlife and habitat will initially occur with the construction, maintenance, and use of the sites, and development of trail extensions as needed. Long-term disturbance will be minimal based on the amount of people permitted and number of campsites allowed in designated areas.

Cumulative effects: Cumulative effects are not anticipated on wildlife, their behaviors or their habitat. A slight increase in wildlife disturbance may occur due to the increase of visitor use and vehicular traffic to the unit, however, no significant biological or ecological impacts are anticipated as a result. Determination (check one below): ______ Use is Compatible


Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: • Camping will only be authorized to occur in association with an approved use of the Refuge. • Camping as a temporary or permanent residence will not be allowed. • Feeding wildlife is not permitted. • No pit fires would be permitted. • All litter/garbage will be required to be carried-off by campers. • Camping will only be permitted in designated sites.

106

• Certain areas of the Refuge may be restricted seasonally to protect breeding or nesting areas or to protect habitat.

• Camping will occur as a component of other priority public use programs to allow access to remote areas.

• To help ensure public safety, the Refuge will require registration for campers (e.g., self-registration at a trailhead or camping registration included in a hunt permit) with a limited length of stay (e.g., no more than 5 days within a 14-day period).

• If unacceptable impacts result from this activity, the Refuge will modify, move, or eliminate the use.

• A fee may be associated with camping permits. Justification: Primitive camping in designated campsites is a low-impact and low-cost activity that supports Refuge priority public use programs determined to be compatible (e.g., hunting). Furthermore, camping opportunities would allow each user group to learn about the Refuge, the unique opportunity to see or hear nocturnal wildlife, observe celestial phenomenon away from urban light pollution, and an opportunity to recognize the uniqueness of the Kissimmee River Basin ecosystem. Camping provides an increased opportunity for the public to participate in priority public uses in a remote setting. Providing the public with an opportunity to experience the Refuge wildlife and natural resources through camping, along with a public educational outreach program, will help motivate visitors to understand and develop a commitment to protecting healthy ecosystems. Experiencing the Refuge through camping and education are tools that can help build a land ethic and conservation support.

This activity will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the Refuge was established. In addition, this activity will fulfill one or more purposes of the Refuge or the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Based on the limited detrimental impacts of this use and the stipulations above, overnight camping at limited levels will not materially interfere with or distract from the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes for which the Refuge was established. This Compatibility Determination is based on the best available science and sound professional judgement. NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision:





References Blakesley, J.A. and K.P. Reese. 1988. Avian use of campground and non-campground sites in riparian zones. J. Wildl. Manage. 52(3):399-402.

107

Clevenger, G.A. and G.W. Workman. 1977. The effects of campgrounds on small mammals in Canyonlands and Arches National Parks, Utah. Trans. 42nd North Amer. Wildl. Conf.: 473-484. Cole, D.N. 1992. Modeling wilderness campsites: factors that influence amount of impact. Environ. Manag. 16(2):255-264. Foin, T.C., E. O. Garton, C.W. Bowen, J.M. Everingham, R.O. Schultz and B. Holton. 1977. Quantitative studies of visitor impacts on environments of Yosemite National park, California, and their implications for park management policy. J. Environ. Manage. 5:1-22. Garton, E.O., B. Hall and T.C. Foin. 1977. The impact of a campground on the bird community of a lodgepole pine forest In: T.C. Foin, Ed. Visitor impacts on national parks: the Yosemite ecological impact study. Inst. Ecol. Publ. 10. Univ. of Calif., Davis. Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildland recreation: ecology and management. 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, NY. Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller, Eds. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Wash., D.C. Leung, Y. and J.L. Marion. 2000. Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: a state-of-knowledge review In: Cole, D., McCool, S.F., Borrie, W.T., O’Loughlin, J. Comps. Wilderness science in a time of change conference. Vol. 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management: 1999 May 23-27, Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-Vol. 5: 23-48. Marion, J.L. 2003. Camping impact management on the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. Appalachian Trail Conference, Harpers Ferry, WV. Marion, J.L. and D.N. Cole. 1996. Spatial and temporal variation in soil and vegetation impacts on campsites. Ecol. Applic. 6(2): 520-530.

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2030

108

DRAFT COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION Use: Commercial Recording

Description of Use:

(a) What is the use? The use is commercial recording (digital or film) including but not limited to videography, photography, and audio recording, collectively called “commercial recording” Commercial recording is an economic, non-priority use. The use typically involves recording (both still and motion) wildlife or natural landscapes or recording natural sounds for commercial or educational purposes. “Commercial recording” means the film, electronic, magnetic, digital, or other recording of a moving image by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience that involves the advertisement of a product or service, the creation of a product for sale, or the use of actors, models, sets, or props (43 CFR 5.12). For the purposes of this definition, creation of a product for sale includes a film, video, television broadcast, or documentary of historic events, wildlife, natural events, features, subjects, or participants in a sporting or recreation event created for the purpose of generating income, such as for a documentary, television or feature film, advertisement, radio, print, audio, or similar project. “Still photography” conducted on lands managed by Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies requires a permit when it involves models or props that are not a part of the site’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities, or when it takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed, or where additional administrative costs are likely. The land use fee for still photography will apply only to still photography that requires a SUP. Commercial recording is guided by the following policies:

• 16 U.S.C. 668dd, 50 CFR 27.71. Motion or Sound Pictures The taking or filming of any motion or sound pictures on a national wildlife refuge for subsequent commercial use is prohibited except as may be authorized under the provisions of 43 CFR part 5.

• 16 U.S.C. 668dd, 50 CFR 27.97. Private Operations Soliciting business or conducting a commercial enterprise on any national wildlife refuge is prohibited except as may be authorized by special permit.

• 16 U.S.C. 668dd, 50 CFR, Subpart A, 29.1 Allowing Economic Uses on National Wildlife Refuges. We may only authorize public or private economic use of the natural resources of any national wildlife refuge, in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 715s, where we determine that the use contributes to the achievement of the national wildlife refuge purposes or the Refuge System mission.

• 8 RM 16, Audio Visual Productions 5 RM 17, Commercial & Economic Uses on National Wildlife Refuges.

• 43 CFR Part 5, Making Pictures, Television Productions or Sound Tracks on Certain Areas Under the Jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.

• Public Law 106-206, Commercial Filming. Commercial recording projects that are in support of conservation, Refuge purposes, the System mission, or for educational and interpretation purposes will be given first priority. Other filming may be approved if it does not interfere with refuge operations or the Refuge’s mission and goals. Requests that do not directly support these will be considered on a case-by-case basis to see if a secondary component can be considered to ensure compatibility.

109

Recordings of a non-commercial nature are addressed under a separate CD for Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation. Additionally, this CD does not apply to news media activities, which are regulated by 8 RM 16.

(b) Where will the use be conducted? Commercial recording could be conducted anywhere on the Refuge, as permitted by a SUP. Commercial recording activities that do not require a Refuge staff escort may be conducted in areas open to the public.

(c) When will the use be conducted? Recording may occur during the public operating hours of the Refuge, may take from one day to multiple days, and may involve multiple periods throughout the year. Requests for nighttime or after hours recording will be considered on an individual basis and reviewed carefully to minimize impacts on wildlife. Requests for recording during periods of nesting for threatened or endangered species or shore birds may be denied, scheduled to a more appropriate time, or permitted with a SUP outlining additional restrictions to maintain compatibility.

(d) How will the use be conducted? Commercial recording projects are required to apply for a SUP reviewed by the Refuge Manager. Special needs (e.g. access to closed areas or night recording) will be considered on a case‐by‐case basis, are subject to the Refuge Manager's approval, and may include a secondary component negotiated to ensure compatibility (if appropriate). All SUPs will have outlined the conditions in which the use can be conducted, and Refuge staff will ensure that each permittee maintains compliance with the SUP. A diversity of equipment may be used to record images and sounds, which may also include unmanned aerial systems (UAS or drones). The use of UAS may be authorized when in compliance of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations and with stipulations included in the SUP. Use of UAS will be conducted according to the USFWS 603 FW 1 (Appropriate Use), 50 CFR 27.34 (Harassment of Wildlife) and other applicable laws, regulations and policies. Access around sensitive resources (e.g. wading bird colonies, bald eagle nest sites, snail kite nests) may be granted and shall require Refuge staff accompaniment to ensure protection of the resources from inadvertent harm or harassment. Recording activities may occur in publicly accessible areas via biking, hiking, or other approved means. The Refuge Manager may approve other requested modes of travel if deemed appropriate and compatible. Recording in areas closed to the public may require staff or their designees to be present to escort the group via approved modes of transportation when resources are available.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? The USFWS provides the public opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation to appreciate the value of and need for fish and wildlife conservation. Commercial recording endeavors can be an excellent platform for exposing young people and urban dwellers to the unique sounds and beauty of nature. Because of its proximity to major urban areas, the Refuge could be attractive to commercial recording activities.

110

Availability of Resources: Issuing and monitoring SUPs for this use is within the resources available through the Visitor Services program at the Refuge, law enforcement personnel, and/or the Refuge Manager of the Refuge. Based on the history of requests and number of SUPs in relation to this activity, the Refuge has sufficient resources for managing current and expected levels of uses associated with commercial recording. Resources involved in the administration and management of the use – Staff responsibilities for projects by non-USFWS entities will primarily be limited to the following: review of proposals, preparation of permits and other compliance documents (e.g., Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act), and monitoring of project implementation to ensure that impacts and conflicts remain within acceptable levels (compatible) over time. Compliance with the terms of the permit is within the regular duties of Refuge staff and law enforcement officers. It is assumed that the permittee will provide appropriate support staff, equipment, and resources to accomplish tasks and objectives. If a permittee will need assistance from Refuge staff, the permittee must request the assistance in writing when applying for the SUP. Staff and resource availability will be determined by the Refuge Manager based on current Refuge priorities and work plans. The Refuge will not directly supply personnel or equipment for the proposed use unless arrangements have been made prior to the issuance of the SUP and the Refuge Manager has deemed it to benefit of the Refuge. Administration of SUPs associated with this activity consists of approximately five staff days. Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use – None proposed. Maintenance costs – None. Maintenance that may be associated with this use is already performed by staff and/or volunteers throughout the year, during the normal course of their duties. Examples include mowing, trail maintenance, signage, and parking areas. This use should not incur any additional maintenance needs. Monitoring costs – None. Existing staff monitors effects of current operations during the normal course of their duties such as compliance checks of permit conditions and periodic inspections by staff. Offsetting revenue – Fees associated with the SUP will be determined and assigned on a case-by-case basis, which will likely offset any incidental costs incurred. The proposed fee schedule for Commercial Filming and Photography may be used as guidance (Congressional Research Service 2014). Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Short-term effects: Any public use activity has the potential for impacts. However, the Refuge attempts to minimize any potential impacts to negligible or acceptable limits for all uses allowed. Possible impacts from this use include disturbance to nesting and resting birds and disturbance to other wildlife and visitors. The potential to disturb any threatened or endangered species on the Refuge during this use is extremely low, unless they are a focus of the product, in which case, further review will be required and addressed in the issuance of a SUP. Commercial recording can result in both positive and negative impacts. Conducting this use may cause short-term impacts/disturbance to flora or fauna.

111

Some requests may require further analysis of the impacts of the proposed activity, which may also require additional compliance with the NEPA and consultation under any other relevant laws. It is important to note that wildlife recording by professionals or amateurs can often cause disturbance depending on the manner in which it is pursued. SUP conditions and associated monitoring of permitted activities will be designed to minimize wildlife and habitat impacts of this use. Wildlife photography can negatively impact wildlife by altering wildlife behavior, reproduction, distribution, and habitat (Purdy et al. 1987, Knight and Cole 1995). Of the wildlife observation techniques, photographers tend to have the largest disturbance impacts (Klein 1993, Morton 1995, Dobb 1998). While wildlife observers frequently stop to view species, wildlife photographers are more likely to approach wildlife (Klein 1993). Even a slow approach by photographers tends to have behavioral consequences to wildlife species (Klein 1993). Other impacts include the potential for photographers to remain close to wildlife for extended periods of time in an attempt to habituate the wildlife subject to their presence (Dobb 1998), and the tendency of casual photographers, with low power lenses, to get much closer to their subjects than other activities will require (Morton 1995), including wandering off trails. This can result in increased disturbance to wildlife and habitat and/or trampling of vegetation. Klein (1993) recommended that Refuges provide observation and photography blinds to reduce these disturbances by visitors. Lighting for nighttime recording could potentially impact wildlife, including disorienting, momentary blindness, migration (in birds), circadian rhythms, preventing movement through the landscape, and even melatonin production to name a few (NIH 2017). This use will have minimal impacts to water quality because commercial recording will be managed in a way that ensures minimal physical disruption to natural resources. UAS/Drones are increasingly being tested or used as wildlife management tools across the globe (Goebel et al., 2015; Hodgson et al., 2013; Koh and Wich, 2012; Mulero-Pazmany et al., 2014; Sarda-Palomera et al., 2011). Yet, the science regarding wildlife effects associated with use of UAS remains young. Vas et al. (2015) studied the behavioral effects of a quadricopter drone on mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), flamingos (Phoenicopterus roseus), and common greenshanks (Tringa nebularia). The birds had no significant reactions to different drone speeds or different colored drones, and there appeared to be no cumulative effects of successive flights. Also, the birds had very little reaction to lower approach angles, but consistently reacted when the drones approached from directly overhead. These results are consistent with those of Sarda-Palomera et al. (2011) who monitored the effects among gulls of a UAS used for population monitoring; and with results of Goebel et al. (2015) who found no reaction among penguins or seals of UAS used for population monitoring. More powerful drones of larger size that make more noise may have a greater effect on birds and other wildlife. Refuge regulations include, but are not limited to, following the recommended buffers around all nesting sites during flight operations, conducting flights outside of nesting season if required, and systematic review of all photography or video documentation taken during flights. Should any unanticipated behavior be observed indicating adverse effects, the project approach will be reassessed and a Section 7 consultation will be initiated immediately.

112

Long-term effects: No long-term negative effects are anticipated on wildlife or habitats. Commercial recording activities may result in long-term beneficial effects to the visitor experience. Indirectly, the products (films, photographs, and educational media) of these activities will expose more people to the purpose, mission, and resources of the Refuge. Commercial operators could bring new visitors to the Refuge and enhance the experience of repeat visitors by providing them with high quality, environmental education, interpretation, wildlife photography, and wildlife observation programs. These activities may increase the participant’s understanding and appreciation of wildlife and their habitat as well as the role of the NWRS in resource conservation. Cumulative effects: There are no anticipated adverse cumulative impacts resulting from commercial recording. This activity will result in beneficial cumulative impacts by increasing public awareness about conservation issues and the NWRS. Ultimately, this will benefit the USFWS’s mission, the Refuge purposes, and the Refuge vision.

Determination (check one below):

______ Use is Compatible


Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Each request must comply with Special Conditions attached to their SUP to ensure compatibility. At minimum, the following standard SUP Special Conditions will be included. Additional stipulations may be identified for each individual request in the SUP. The Refuge will modify or eliminate any use that results in unacceptable impacts.

1. Any person(s) or entities conducting a commercial recording operation on the Refuge must possess a SUP issued by the Refuge Manager. This requirement ensures that private businesses are not unfairly making a profit from public lands and provides a mechanism to regulate where and when commercial activities occur.

2. Permittee shall provide a detailed written proposal on company letterhead including specifics such as site-specific location, support equipment, number of persons involved, client name, description of the project theme and key messages, and other details that will allow for evaluation of the project.

3. All activities must comply with 8 RM 16 and 43 CFR, Subtitle A, Section 5.1 and may require completion of a Commercial Audio-Visual Production Application and posting of a bond.

4. The permit is not transferable except for sub-contractors that have contact information included with the permit.

5. Production company must give at least a 72-hour advance notice of recording date following issuance of an SUP.

6. Failure to comply with all SUP conditions may result in the suspension or revocation of the permit, including the possible loss of future SUP privileges. Permit fees are not refundable.

7. The Refuge reserves the right to postpone or cancel any activity that may interfere with public safety or Refuge management activities.

8. Permittee must have the SUP in their possession at all times while on the Refuge. A copy of the permit must also be prominently displayed on the dash of permittee’s vehicle(s) at all times while on the Refuge. The permit must be presented to Refuge personnel upon request.

113

9. Permittee’s vehicle(s) must remain on designated roads and be parked in designated Refuge lots.

10. Recordings taken in areas of the Refuge closed to the public may require staff or their designees to be present to escort the group.

11. Production company will limit the crew size to the smallest number possible and necessary for recording.

12. Permittee(s), designated representatives, and associates will comply with all refuge rules, regulations, and the conditions of the SUP as provided by the Refuge Manager.

13. Production activities will be conducted so as not to impact or interfere with the resource. Plants and animals will not be disturbed, harassed, or injured. Any damage to landscape (tire rutting, damage to plants, etc.) or facilities will be repaired at the expense of the permittee and to the satisfaction of the Refuge Manager within ten working days after expiration of the permit. No domestic or foreign plants or animals will be introduced into the Refuge.

14. Permittee is responsible for acquiring and/or renewing any necessary state and federal permits prior to beginning or continuing the project.

15. Additional stipulations and documentation may be required when requesting the use of drones.

16. Staging of equipment for use on the project must be approved by the Refuge Manager. 17. All methodologies, e.g., aerial photography via drone or helicopter, must be requested

and approved through the SUP process prior to recording. 18. Permittee will be responsible for keeping the Refuge clear of all associated trash or litter. 19. All disturbances, including light and sound, should be minimized to the greatest extent

possible. 20. Disturbing, injuring, destroying or collecting or attempting to disturb, injure, destroy or

collect any plant or animal is prohibited without specific written permission from the Service.

21. Permittee will not capture or retain wildlife without specific written permission from the Service, as well as having all required permits.

22. Permittee will not clear, trim, cut, or disturb vegetation nor erect any facilities or structures, whether temporary or permanent, without written approval of the Refuge Manager.

23. Priority consideration is extended to producers of wildlife and natural resource related audio or visual materials. Producer’s credentials will be verified by the appropriate Refuge personnel.

24. Production activities will be conducted so as to minimize impact or interference with Refuge visitors, public use programs, wildlife or natural and/or cultural resources within the Refuge.

25. If a prop firearm is used, it must be clearly identified as a prop and kept cased when not in use.

26. Permittee may be required to provide public safety assets such as crowd or traffic control in coordination with the Refuge Manager.

27. Proper credit will be given for all commercial recording, including commercial recording of images and sounds collected on the Refuge. Permittee will give credit to the DOI, USFWS, and Refuge through the use of an appropriate title or announcement. The use of the logo of the USFWS will be consistent with the purpose, mission and goals of the USFWS, as well as any and all applicable laws, and will only be used with permission from the Service. It is not permissible for use of the logo in any combination with the business products or services of the permitted company or its subsidiaries, brands, affiliates, partners, or customers. The permitted company shall take all reasonably necessary steps to avoid endangering the validity or goodwill of the logo and use all

114

reasonable efforts to maintain the validity and distinctiveness of the logo and to enhance the goodwill symbolized by the logo.

28. The USFWS is not responsible for any mishaps or injuries that may occur during recording and associated activities. The permittee acknowledges and agrees to provide appropriate safety equipment and training to all people participating in the recording and associated activities with regard to hazards likely to be encountered on the Refuge.

29. Permittee assumes full responsibility for themselves, their associates, and their representative’s production equipment and gear in the event of loss or damage. Permittee agrees to strictly follow safety procedures and any other protocols as requested orally and in writing by USFWS employees. Failure to follow any protocols, oral or written, may result in immediate termination of the issued SUP. Should a situation occur in which USFWS deems participation by permittee and associates as inappropriate or unsafe, the permittees and associates shall immediately defer to any and all instructions given by USFWS. Attendance and participation to all safety briefings given by USFWS will be required by permittee crew members for the shoot because of the nature of the equipment involved.

30. Permittee shall provide the Refuge Manager with a copy of the final product of the commercial recording project within 180 days of completion of the project.

31. Footage shot with the assistance of the USFWS shall not be reused for or sold to other production companies without specific USFWS government approval.

32. Indemnification: The permittee shall save, hold harmless, defend and indemnify the United States of America, its agents, and employees for losses, damages, or judgments and expenses on account of fire or other peril, bodily injury, death, or property damage, or claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage of any nature whatsoever, and by whomsoever made, arising out of the activities of the permittee, its employees, subcontractors, or agents under this SUP.

33. Insurance a. The permittee shall purchase at a minimum the types and amounts of insurance

coverage as stated herein and agrees to comply with any revised insurance limits that the Refuge Manager may require during the term of this SUP.

b. Upon request of the Refuge Manager, the permittee shall provide a statement of Insurance and Certificate of Insurance.

c. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will not be responsible for any omissions or inadequacies of insurance coverages and amounts if such prove to be inadequate or otherwise insufficient for any reason whatsoever.

34. Public Liability. The permittee shall provide comprehensive general liability insurance against claims occasioned by actions or omissions of the permittee or its designees in carrying out the activities and operations authorized hereunder. Such insurance shall be in the amount commensurate with the degree of risk and the scope and size of such activities authorized herein, but in any event, the limits of liability shall not be less than ($300,000) per occurrence covering both bodily injury and property damage. If claims reduce available insurance below the required per occurrence limits, the permittee shall obtain additional insurance to restore the required limits. An umbrella or excess liability policy, in addition to a comprehensive general liability policy, may be used to achieve the required limits.

a. All liability policies shall specify that the insurance company shall have no right of subrogation against the United States of America or shall provide that the United States of America is named an additional insured.

b. The permittee agrees that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not take any responsibility or liability for the security, loss, damage, or otherwise of any

115

vehicle, machinery, equipment, or other goods or property owned by, or under the control of, the permittee.

35. All other Refuge rules and regulations remain in force.

Additional Special Conditions for UAS – the below conditions may be altered as new policies and directives are approved.

• To minimize disturbance to plants, wildlife, and habitats, all UAS activities involving recording wildlife will be coordinated with the Refuge Manager or designee. Specifically, the permittee(s) shall be very well organized, know exactly what they will do and how to do it before they initiate recordings.

• No threatened or endangered species may be monitored without appropriate federal or state permits and specific consent of the Refuge Manager.

• When the purpose of the project is to monitor wildlife during critical times (i.e. nesting), the use of UAS must be the less disrupting option than other methods of monitoring.

• Copies of the following documents are required at a minimum of 36 hours in advance of the first UAS flight: a) Pictures and specs of the specific UAS platform employed. b) A copy of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-approved Certificate of Authorization (COA), Section 333 Exemption, or Remote Pilot Certification. c) Aviation Risk Management or a Project Aviation Safety Plan document.

• UAS operators are responsible for meeting and following the minimum FAA rules and requirements in accordance with their certification: (a) keep the aircraft in sight (visual line-of-sight); (b) fly under 400 feet; (c) fly during daytime only; (d) fly at or below 100 mph; (e) yield right of way to manned aircraft; (f) do NOT fly over people, and (g) do NOT fly from a moving vehicle. Additional or varying stipulations may apply per the specific certification being used. These regulations are subject to change and permitees are responsible for keeping apprised of regulation changes.

• Service personnel may be present for any UAS mission conducted on the Refuge. • UAS operators shall report any wildlife disturbance to Refuge personnel and provide a

narrative similar to a “white paper”, photography or videography (captured during the flight) within 3 days after completion of the UAS flight.

a) If there are any sensitive species in the area when performing any authorized activity, the activity shall cease until the animal(s) depart the area, except as permitted for specific management of that species.

b) During descent, the UAS operator will ensure that no sensitive species are in the retrieval area.

c) Interactions with birds and other wildlife will be closely monitored; should significant interactions occur, operations will be halted.

d) Wildlife impacts will be assessed and analyzed on site and protocols modified accordingly. e) In the event of a bird strike, the UAS should immediately return to ground control station to

remove the threat of disturbance and assess damage to the aircraft. • In the instance of a crash, the UAS operator is responsible for reporting it per FAA policy and

shall provide copies of any documentation to the Refuge. • Additional special conditions shall be stipulated in the SUP as needed to further minimize

impacts. If adverse impacts to Refuge resources associated with UAS activities are identified in future years, modifications to that part of the program in question will be implemented immediately to minimize that impact. All current or future Refuge specific rules and

116

regulations apply to the proposed use.

Justification: Compatible commercial recording in its various forms provides an opportunity to inform and educate the public and promote the Refuge and the NWRS. Since production activities will be limited, any disturbances associated with recording will be minimal and readily controlled through the proper selection of locations, timing of production, and stringent SUP conditions and monitoring. While commercial recording is a secondary public use, it may support and enhance the priority public uses of wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation. By allowing commercial recording, the public may gain a better understanding and appreciation for America’s flora and fauna, wildlife conservation, and the USFWS’s role in managing and protecting natural resources. Furthermore, permitting appropriate and compatible commercial recording is consistent with the goals of the NWRS, as wells as the intent and purposes of the Refuge. The actions or effects of this use are not expected to interfere with or detract from the mission of the NWRS nor diminish the purposes for which the Refuge was established. This use will not pose substantial adverse effects on Refuge resources, interfere with public use of the Refuge, nor cause an undue administrative burden. This activity is a compatible use of the Refuge. NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement ___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement ___ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact ___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References: Congressional Research Service. 2014. Commercial Filming and Photography on Federal Lands. Retrieved April 9, 2019 from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43267.pdf Dobb, E. 1998. Reality check: the debate behind the lens. Audubon, January...February 1998. Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavior responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21: 31·39. Goebel, M.E., W.L. Perryman, J.T. Hinke, D.J. Krause, N.A. Hann, S. Gardner, and D.J. LeRoi. Feb 2015. A Small Unmanned Aerial System for Estimating Abundance and Size of Antarctic Predators. Polar Biology, 10.1007. Hodgson, A., N. Kelly, and D. Peel. Nov 2013. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for Surveying Marine Fauna: A Dugong Case Study. PLoS ONE 8(11): e79556. Koh, L.P., and S.A. Wich. 2012. Dawn of Drone Ecology: Low-Cost Autonomous Aerial Vehicles for Conservation. Tropical Conservation Science Vol. 5(2):121-132.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43267.pdf

117

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife response to recreationists. Pages 71-79 in R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds., Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372 pp. Morton J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59-F86 in W.R. Whitman, T. Strange, L. Widjeskog, R. Whittemore, P. Kehoe and L. Roberts, eds., Waterfowl Habitat Restoration, Enhancement and Management in the Atlantic Flyway. Third Edition. Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway Council Technical Section, and Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. Dover, Delaware. 1114 pp. Mulero-Pazmany, M., R. Stolper, L.S. van Essen, J.J. Negro, and T. Sassen. Jan 2014. Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems as a Rhinoceros Anti-Poaching Tool in Africa. PLoS ONE 9(1): e83873. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIH). The Impact of artificial lighting on nocturnal wildlife. Retrieved April 9, 2019 from https://kids.niehs.nih.gov/topics/natural world/wildlife/ecology/lighting/index.htm. Purdy, K.G., G.R. Goft, OJ. Decker, G.A. Pomerantz, and N.A. Connelly. 1987. A guide to managing human activity on National Wildlife Refuges. Office of Information Transfer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Collins, CO. 57 pp. Sarda-Palomera, F., G. Bota, C. Vinolo, O. Pallares, V. Sazatornil, L. Brotons, S. Gomariz, and F. Sarda. 2011. Fine-Scale Bird Monitoring from Light Unmanned Aircraft Systems. IBIS 10:1111. U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 2004. Chapter 8: Managing the NEPA Process—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Departmental Manual. Part 516. Release number 3618. Retrieved from https://elips.doi.gov/ELIPS/DocView.aspx?id=1739. Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2030

https://kids.niehs.nih.gov/topics/natural%0dworld/wildlife/ecology/lighting/index.htm

https://kids.niehs.nih.gov/topics/natural%0dworld/wildlife/ecology/lighting/index.htm

https://elips.doi.gov/ELIPS/DocView.aspx?id=1739

118

DRAFT COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION Use: Commercial Tours Description of Use:

(a) What is the use? Commercial tours for non-consumptive use directed toward environmental education, interpretation, and/or observation of wildlife and habitats is not a priority public use. However, it promotes and facilitates several priority public uses. Commercial tours include, but are not limited to, wildlife observation/photography excursions, environmental education, camping, and guided field trips. Non-consumptive commercial tours generally involve larger groups and more organized transportation services than consumptive uses; therefore, they may be limited in size, type or number of commercial vehicles. Should the Refuge Manager decide demand for this activity is sufficient, it may be necessary to convert to a concession contract by open competitive bids.

(b) Where will the use be conducted? The use would be allowed in any areas permitted under the SUP. Commercial tours that do not require a Refuge staff escort may be conducted in all areas open to the public.

(c) When will the use be conducted? Tours may take place year-round during the public operating hours of the Refuge, may take from one day to multiple days, and may occur throughout the year. Requests for nighttime or afterhours tours will be considered on an individual basis and reviewed carefully to minimize impacts on wildlife. Requests for tours near known locations of threatened or endangered species or during periods of nesting may be denied, scheduled to a more appropriate time, or permitted with a SUP outlining additional restrictions to maintain compatibility.

(d) How will the use be conducted? Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, 27.97, Private Operations, prohibits soliciting business or conducting a commercial enterprise on any national wildlife refuge except as may be authorized by special permit. Thus, commercial tours are required to obtain a SUP from the Refuge Manager. Special requests (e.g. access to closed areas or night tours) will be considered on a case‐by‐case basis, are subject to the Refuge Manager's approval, and may include a secondary component negotiated to ensure compatibility (if appropriate). All SUPs will outline the conditions in which the use will be conducted, and Refuge staff will ensure that each permittee maintains compliance with the SUP. Bicycling or hiking are some of the modes of transportation that may be used at the Refuge. The Refuge Manager may approve other requested modes of travel if deemed appropriate and compatible. Additionally, it is anticipated that use of SUPs will provide the Refuge a tool for managing uses; protecting natural and cultural resources; reducing user conflicts; and mitigating disturbance impacts. The SUP will also create an opportunity for communication and outreach between staff and commercial guides or tour groups to increase knowledge and awareness of Refuge regulations and ethical wildlife observation behavior.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? The Service provides the public with opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation to appreciate the value of and need for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. Visitors participating in commercial tours may be educated about the mission, habitats, and the ecosystem in such a manner as to leave them with a better understanding of resources. The experience can instill an appreciation for future stewards of the environment. Commercial tours can be an interpretive activity, exposing

119

young people, urban dwellers, and the community to the unique sounds and beauty of nature, and the distinctive setting of the Refuge. They may also expand the reach of the Refuge’s environmental education programs.

Availability of Resources: Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Resources required to administer and manage this use are available at the Refuge. Refuge staff responsibilities for commercial tours will primarily be limited to the following: review of proposals, preparation of SUPs and other compliance documents (e.g., Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act), and monitoring of implementation to ensure that impacts and conflicts remain within acceptable levels (compatible) over time. It is necessary for the permittee to provide appropriate support staff, equipment, and resources to accomplish tour objectives. If a permittee will need assistance from Refuge staff, the permittee must request the assistance in writing when applying for the SUP. Staff and resource availability will be determined by the Refuge Manager based on current Refuge priorities and work plans. The Refuge will not directly supply personnel or equipment for the proposed use unless arrangements have been made prior to the issuance of the SUP and the Refuge Manager has deemed it to benefit of the Refuge. Based on the history of requests and number of SUPs in relation to this activity, the Refuge has sufficient resources for managing current and expected levels of uses associated with commercial tours. Administration of SUPs associated with this activity consists of approximately 5 staff days.

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: Special equipment, facilities, or improvements to support this use are not proposed.

Maintenance costs: Maintenance that may be associated with this use is already being performed by staff and/or volunteers throughout the year, during the normal course of their duties. Examples include mowing, trail maintenance, signage, parking areas, and trash removal. This use should not incur any additional maintenance needs; however, it may influence the timing of when and how often maintenance should be performed.

Monitoring costs: Existing Refuge staff monitors effects of current operations during the normal course of their duties such as compliance checks of permit conditions and periodic inspections by staff.

Offsetting revenue: A permit-term administrative fee may be required. Administrative fees will be assessed on a case-by-case basis and may vary, depending on the size and complexity of the tour, number and frequency of demands for this use, and other applicable details. Although there is no standard fee schedule at this time, fees will be comparable to other use fees at refuges in the vicinity.

120

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Short-term effects: Any public use activity has the potential for negative effects; however, the Refuge attempts to minimize any potential impacts to negligible or acceptable limits for all uses allowed. In general, impacts from commercial tours will be similar to those expected from similar non-commercial recreational uses, however commercial uses could be more disturbing because commercial uses tend to occur in larger groups of people. Short-term impacts may be realized to wildlife and vegetation, including temporary damage resulting from trampling, disturbance to nesting birds, and disturbance to feeding or resting birds or other wildlife in the proximity. Consistent disturbance to wildlife may cause shifts in habitat use, abandonment of habitat, increased energy demands on affected wildlife, changes in nesting and reproductive success, and singing behavior (MacDonald 2015, Snetsinger and White 2009, Reed and Merenlender 2008, Gill et al. 2001, Miller et al. 1998, Gill et al. 1996, Schulz and Stock 1993, Knight and Cole 1991, Arrese 1987). Hammitt and Cole (1998) note that females with young are more likely to flee from a disturbance than those without young. Several studies have examined the effects of recreationists on birds using shallow-water habitats adjacent to trails and roads through wildlife refuges and coastal habitats in the eastern United States (Burger 1981; Burger 1986; Klein 1993; Burger et al. 1995; Klein et al. 1995; Rodgers & Smith 1995, 1997; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). Hammitt and Cole (1998) conclude that the frequent presence of humans in “wildland” areas can dramatically change the normal behavior of wildlife mostly through “unintentional harassment.” Overall, the existing research clearly demonstrates that disturbance from recreation activities always has at least temporary effects on the behavior and movement of birds within a habitat or localized area (Burger 1981, 1986; Klein 1993; Burger et al. 1995; Klein et al. 1995; Rodgers & Smith 1997; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). The potential to disturb any threatened or endangered species on the Refuge during this use is extremely low, unless they are a focus of the tour, in which case, further review and oversight will be required by Refuge staff.

Long-term effects: This use should not result in long-term effects on wildlife populations or the purposes for which the Refuge was established. Travel will occur on ruderal natural communities that can withstand repetitive use. The Refuge Manager will use professional judgment in ensuring that the request will have no considerable negative impacts; will not violate Refuge regulations; and that it will contribute to the achievement of the Refuge purpose and the NWRS mission. Stipulations may be placed on the size of the group or modes of transportation to reduce the potential for negative impacts, depending on the activity. Special needs will be considered on a case‐by‐case basis and are subject to the Refuge Manager's approval and may be modified to ensure compatibility (if appropriate). Any approved SUP will outline the conditions in which the use may be conducted, and Refuge staff will ensure compliance with the permit.

Cumulative effects: none anticipated.




Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Each permittee must comply with Special Conditions attached to their SUP to ensure compatibility. At minimum, the following standard SUP Special Conditions will be included.

121

• Proof of general liability insurance coverage with the Refuge named as co-insured must be provided prior to the issuance of the SUP.

• The Refuge Manager, or his/her designated representative, has the right to accompany any commercial tour visit, with proper notice, as an observer.

• The permittee(s) will disclose during all tours that this area is part of the NWRS administered by the Service. The Service’s and NWRS’s missions will also be summarized.

• All Refuge regulations will be adhered to by the permittee(s) and all commercial tour participants. Any violations of regulations witnessed by the permittee(s) will be reported to the Refuge Manager.

• For youth environmental education commercial visits, the Refuge requires that the students be supervised by a ratio of one adult for every ten students. Youth being defined as all minors under the age of 18.

• Permittee(s) or designated commercial representative will notify the Refuge at least two weeks in advance of any scheduled tours and give expected arrival time, date, number of participants, and the name of the tour leader. A copy of the permit will be carried by the permittee(s) or designated representative during each tour and presented on request to any Refuge official.

• Entry will be authorized only during hours specified in the corresponding WMA brochure and into open public use areas unless special permission has been granted by the Refuge Manager.

• The permittee(s) will provide the Refuge with a summary of visits conducted, number of participants, fees assessed, and tour or curriculum presented for the period covered by the SUP. This summary report is due to the Refuge’s administration office no later than one month after permit expires. Failure to provide a timely summary report may result in the denial of future permits.

• Advertisements concerning events must be approved by the Refuge Manager prior to printing or distribution.

• Permittee or designated representative will be required to sign and date a waiver and release of liability form.

Justification: The approved objectives of commercial tours on the Refuge – environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife observation – have been identified by the Improvement Act of 1997 as appropriate and compatible priority uses. This proposed use supports the Service’s goal of Connecting People with Nature in addition to multiple objectives and strategies stated in the Refuge’s Conceptual Management Plan. Commercial tours provide visitors an organized and educational opportunity to view wildlife safely under the use stipulations. Commercial tours provide a safe and informative educational experience for visitors that have no or little experience in nature and desire a more controlled and informative visit to the Refuge. Commercial tours provide a mechanism to educate large groups of visitors about Refuge resources, management and conservation. With limited staff at the Refuge, commercial tours are a way to inform and educate the public in a cost effective way. Thus, the use will not materially interfere with or detract from the NWRS mission, or the purposes for which the Refuge was established.

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision:

Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement


122

___ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact


References:

Arrese, P. 1987. Age, intrusion pressure and defense against floaters by territorial male Song Sparrows. Animal Behavior 35:773-784. Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation. 21:231-241. Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United States. Environmental Conservation 13: 123-130. Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, and L. J. Niles. 1995. Ecotourism and birds in coastal New Jersey: Contrasting responses of birds, tourists, and managers. Environmental Conservation 22:56-65. Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1998. Effects of ecotourists on bird behavior at Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Environmental Conservation 25:13-21. Gill, J.A., W.J. Sutherland, and A.R. Watkinson. 1996. A method to quantify the effects of human disturbance on animal populations. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:786-792. Gill, Jennifer & Norris, Ken & Sutherland, William. 2001. Why behavioral responses may not reflect the population consequences of human disturbance. Biological Conservation. 97. 265-268. 10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00002-1. Hammitt, William E. and Cole, David N. 1998. Wildland Recreation. John Wiley & Sons, NY. 361pp. Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 21:31-39. Klein, M. L., S. R. Humphrey, and H. F. Percival. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on distribution of waterbirds in a wildlife refuge. Conservation Biology 9:1454-1465. Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. Transactions of the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference pp.238-247. MacDonald, James. 2015. Outdoor Recreation Can Impact Wildlife. Retrieved April 9, 2019 from https://daily.jstor.org/outdoor-recreation-impacts-wildlife/ Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169. Reed S. E. and A. M. Merenlender. 2008. Quiet, nonconsumptive recreation reduces protected area effectiveness. Conservation Letters 1: 146-154.

https://daily.jstor.org/outdoor-recreation-impacts-wildlife/

123

Rodgers, J. A., and H. T. Smith. 1995. Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology 9:89-99. Rodgers, J. A., and H. T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:139-145. Schulz, R.D., and M. Stock. 1993. Kentish plovers and tourist-competitors on sandy coasts? Wader Study Group Bulletin 68 (special issue): 83-92. Snetsinger, S.D. and K. White. 2009. Recreation and Trail Impacts on Wildlife Species of Interest in Mount Spokane State Park. Pacific Biodiversity Institute, Winthrop, Washington. 60 p. Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2030

124


Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation, Wildlife Observation and Photography Description of Use:

(a) What is the use? Environmental education (EE) and interpretation, and wildlife observation and photography are non-consumptive, wildlife-dependent recreational activities defined as priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) as established in the Improvement Act of 1997. Interpretation includes activities and supporting infrastructure that explain management activities, fish, and wildlife resources, ecological processes, and cultural history among other topics to public users. EE includes activities that seek to increase public knowledge and understanding of wildlife and the importance of habitat protection and management. Typical activities include teacher or staff-guided onsite field trips, offsite programs in classrooms, and nature study, such as teacher and student workshops and curriculum-structured instruction. EE programs may involve the incidental collection of flora and fauna such as small fish, invertebrates, butterflies, caterpillars, leaves, seeds, stems, roots, flowers, soil, feathers, scat, discarded eggs, discarded fur, discarded hair, exoskeleton etc. Any sampling or collection activities by non-USFWS programs must be approved via a special use permit, and samples collected shall be for use only on the Refuge for approved environmental education curricula. Environmental education seeks to provide organized efforts to teach awareness, understanding, and appreciation of our natural and cultural resources and conservation history. Interpretation seeks to promote visitor understanding of, and increase appreciation for America’s natural and cultural resources and conservation history. Interpretation also aims to develop a sense of stewardship leading to actions and attitudes that reflect interest and respect for wildlife resources, cultural resources, and the environment.

(b) Where would the uses be conducted? These activities may be conducted by the general public on any portion of the Refuge open to public use. EE and interpretation consist primarily of youth and adult education and interpretation of the natural resources of the Refuge. Activities may include on-site Refuge-led or Refuge-approved environmental education programs; teacher workshops; and interpretation of wildlife, habitat, other natural features, and/or management activities occurring in the Refuge. These activities seek to increase the public’s knowledge and understanding of wildlife and their habitats and to contribute to wildlife conservation and support of the Refuge.

(c) When would the uses be conducted? These activities may be conducted year-round, during public operating hours except by special permission from the Refuge Manager. Visitors should consult current WMA regulations on the particular unit of interest to determine if there are any temporary closures.

(d) How would the uses be conducted? These uses are achieved through guided or self-guided tours and activities. Only modes of transportation permissible to the public on the Refuge may be used to conduct these uses by the public. Some supporting uses will include hiking and bicycling. Examples of EE activities include staff or teacher-led events, student and teacher workshops, and nature studies. Interpretive programs and facilities could include special events, special tours, visitor center displays, interpretive trails, visitor contact stations, auto tour routes, and signs. EE and interpretation programs will be conducted by the Service or by a Service-approved member. Any non-Service environmental education and interpretation activities must be reviewed and approved by the Service through a special use

125

permit issued by the Refuge. These permits will contain conditions to minimize impacts and ensure compatibility. This compatibility determination applies only to personal photography and not to other forms of photography (e.g., commercial photography and filming). Commercial photography or videography are covered under a separate CD for Commercial Recording and will require a special use permit issued by the Refuge with specific restrictions.

(e) Why are these uses being proposed? EE and interpretation and wildlife observation and photography are wildlife-dependent uses for the System. These uses comprise a variety of activities and facilities that seek to increase the public’s knowledge and understanding of wildlife and to promote wildlife conservation. These are tools used to inform the public of resource values and issues. Wildlife observation and photography are traditional uses in this landscape. The Refuge provides habitat for a wide array of wildlife and excellent opportunities for photography.

Availability of Resources:

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Staff time is associated with administration and law enforcement. Existing staffing and funding levels are adequate to support these activities at existing and projected levels. The management of a volunteer program will be essential to implement environmental education and interpretive programs. Volunteers would be utilized extensively to assist in successful programs and opportunities. Administration of SUPs associated with this activity consists of approximately five staff days. Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: Some informational kiosks may be needed to best orient and inform visitors. With the exception of a proposed photo-blind, no other additional infrastructure is proposed at this time. Construction of a photo blind(s) or other improvements would be contingent on future funding.

Maintenance costs: Annual refuge operation and maintenance funds provided for the Everglades Headwaters NWR Complex will be used to support the visitor services programs, including the uses described. Maintenance costs associated with this use are already performed by staff and/or volunteers throughout the year, during the normal course of their duties. Examples include mowing, trail maintenance, signage, and parking areas, which should not incur additional maintenance needs. Annual maintenance funds provided for the Refuge will be used to support activities (e.g. road/trail repairs). Most of these roads and trails will already be maintained for refuge use.

Monitoring costs: – Existing Refuge staff monitors the effects of current operations during the normal course of their duties. Voluntary evaluations would be provided to teachers and visitors for feedback on educational programs and experiences. Monitoring of the effects of these uses would be funded through a combination of grants, supplemented with Refuge/volunteer time as needed.

Offsetting revenues: The Refuge would charge for commercial companies that are using the Refuge for profit when conducting environmental education. Fees would be waived for environmental education groups that are conducting standards-based teaching or for Boy/Girl Scouts, home school, or faith-based groups that are following a curriculum as examples.

126

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Short-term effects: A primary concern for allowing any public use to occur on the Refuge is to ensure that impacts to wildlife and habitats are maintained within acceptable limits and potential conflicts between user groups are minimized. In most cases, the described activities would result in minimal disturbance to wildlife. Several studies have examined the effects of recreation on birds using shallow water habitats adjacent to trails and roads through wildlife refuges and coastal habitats in the eastern United States (Burger 1981; Burger 1986; Klein 1993; Burger et al. 1995; Klein et al. 1995; Rodgers & Smith 1995, 1997; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). Overall, the existing research clearly demonstrates that disturbance from recreation activities always have at least temporary effects on the behavior and movement of birds within a habitat or localized area (Burger 1981, 1986; Klein 1993; Burger et al. 1995; Klein et al. 1995; Rodgers & Smith 1997; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). The findings that were reported in these studies are summarized as follows in terms of visitor activity and avian response to disturbance. Presence: Birds avoided places where people were present and when visitor activity was high (Burger 1981; Klein et al. 1995; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). Distance: Disturbance increased with decreased distance between visitors and birds (Burger 1986), though exact measurements were not reported. Approach Angle: Visitors directly approaching birds on foot caused more disturbance than visitors driving by in vehicles, stopping vehicles near birds, and stopping vehicles and getting out without approaching birds (Klein 1993). Direct approaches may also cause greater disturbance than tangential approaches to birds (Burger & Gochfeld 1981; Burger et al. 1995; Knight & Cole 1995; Rodgers & Smith 1995, 1997). Noise: Noise caused by visitors resulted in increased levels of disturbance (Burger 1986; Klein 1993; Burger & Gochfeld 1998), though noise was not correlated with visitor group size (Burger & Gochfeld 1998). There are some situations that could be harmful to plant and animal life, which would warrant Refuge closures or the development of use restrictions. Examples of these situations include, but are not limited to, protection of trust and listed species (flora and fauna), impacted vegetation, nesting species, and the protection of and possible conflicts with other Refuge management programs. Potential impacts to wildlife and habitats include disrupting foraging or resting activities, repetitive flushing of nesting birds, and stress or change in behavior due to group size and/or volume. Negative responses from wildlife due to human impacts can include, but are not limited, to: • permanent disappearance of migratory bird species or individuals that are unable to adapt to

the presence of people by habituation; • increased nest predation due to the continued flushing of birds from their nests; • change of patterns of behavior due to repetitive flushing; • increase of energy demands for wildlife fleeing from human disturbance; and • variation in feeding behavior.

127

Even the most controlled wildlife observation and photography programs designed in part to limit wildlife disturbance have the potential for disturbing wildlife species. In general, activities that occur outside of vehicles tend to increase the disturbance potential for most wildlife species (Klein 1993; Gabrielson and Smith 1995; Burger 1981; Pease et al. 2005) as compared to similar activities conducted within vehicles. Refuge-led or refuge-approved opportunities will typically access refuge habitats on-foot via fire lines and/or unimproved roads and foot trails. Although this type of access could potentially disturb wildlife, it is expected to be minimal as a result of the limited and controlled character of such events and opportunities. Among wetland habitats, out-of-vehicle approaches can reduce wildlife foraging times and can cause water birds to avoid foraging habitats adjacent to the out-of-vehicle disturbance (Klein 1993). One possible reason for this result is that vehicle activity is usually brief, while walking requires a longer period of time to cover the same distance. Similarly, walking on wildlife observation trails tends to displace birds and can cause localized declines in the richness and abundance of wildlife species (Riffell et al. 1996). Wildlife photographers tend to have the largest disturbance impacts (Klein 1993; Morton 1995; Dobb 1998). While wildlife observers frequently stop their vehicles to view wildlife, wildlife photographers are much more likely to leave their vehicles and approach wildlife on foot (Klein 1993). Even a slow approach by wildlife photographers tends to have behavioral consequences to wildlife (Klein 1993). Other impacts include the potential for photographers to remain close to wildlife for extended periods of time (Dobb 1998) and the tendency of casual photographers with low power lenses to get much closer to their subject than other activities would require (Morton 1995). Long-term effects: Some wildlife may habituate or even be attracted to humans (especially if they associate them with food rewards), which could alter their behavior and habitat use. Orienting visitors through information kiosks and placement of appropriate signs decrease the likelihood that brief, yet sometimes frequent, disturbances would result in long-term impacts to wildlife. Generally, it is expected that these uses would only affect a limited number of wildlife species and individual animals, and overall this is expected to be a minimal negative long-term effect. Cumulative effects: Cumulative effects are not anticipated on wildlife, their behaviors or their habitat. A slight increase in wildlife disturbance may occur due to the increase visitor use and vehicular traffic to the unit, however, no significant biological or ecological impacts are anticipated as a result. Determination (check one below):


x Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations that may be employed include: ● Providing limited refuge-led and/or refuge-approved wildlife observation and photography

opportunities during refuge events and/or through special use permit will lessen species impacts.

● To mitigate potential disturbances, a combination of Refuge staff presence and informational kiosks will help educate visitors about the potential problems associated with their actions.

● Vegetation that effectively conceals visitors and provides cover for birds can help minimize impacts of people in busy areas.

128

● Establishing buffer zones that minimize disturbance around sensitive areas and establishing no-entry zones during Refuge-approved events and opportunities will help minimize impacts.

● Rerouting, modifying, or eliminating activities that have demonstrated direct species impacts should be employed.

● Education is critical for making visitors aware that their actions can have negative impacts on plants and wildlife.

● Law enforcement patrol of public use areas will continue to minimize violations of regulations.

● By design, wildlife observation and photography should have minimal species and habitat impacts. Nonetheless, as uses increase, species impacts are more likely to occur.

● Evaluation of the sites and programs will be conducted annually to determine if objectives are being met, if habitat impacts are minimized and if wildlife populations are being adversely affected.

● The Refuge will take corrective action to reduce or eliminate the effects on wildlife or habitats. If evidence of unacceptable impacts begins to appear, it may be necessary to change the activity or the program, relocate the activity or the program, or eliminate the program.

● All current and future Refuge-specific rules and regulations apply to the proposed uses. ● Law enforcement officers will be enforcing all laws and regulations and areas may be closed

as necessary. ● Specialized equipment requests will be evaluated by the Refuge Manager and an SUP will

be required. ● Approved staff led tours require up to a 14-day request in advance. Justification: Providing quality, appropriate, and compatible opportunities for these activities helps fulfill the provisions of the Improvement Act. Wildlife observation and photography will provide excellent forums for promoting increased awareness, understanding, and support of Refuge resources relative to wildlife/human interactions. Environmental education and interpretation are key components of the Service’s initiative to connect children with nature and are used to encourage all citizens to act responsibly in protecting natural resources. The stipulations outlined above should minimize potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions. Under a controlled level of limited visitation, these wildlife-dependent uses will not conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the Refuge represent two priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities under the Improvement Act. NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision:

Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement


___ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact


129

Categorical Exclusion: Wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and EE, as described in this CD, can be categorically excluded from further NEPA analysis under the DOI Categorical Exclusion 43 CFR §46.210 (j): activities which are educational, informational, advisory, or consultative to other agencies, public, and private entities, visitors, individuals, or the general public. The uses trigger no response to any extraordinary circumstances (43 CFR §46.215). Wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and EE are also covered by the following USFWS Categorical Exclusions (516 DM 8.5).

• A(2) - Personnel training, environmental interpretation, public safety efforts, and other educational activities, which do not involve new construction or major additions to existing facilities.

• B(7) - Minor changes in the amounts or types of public use on Service or state-managed lands, in accordance with existing regulations, management plans, and procedures.

• B(9) - Minor changes in existing master plans, comprehensive conservation plans, or operations, when no or minor effects are anticipated. Examples could include minor changes in the type and location of compatible public use activities and land management practices.

• C(3) - The issuance of special regulations for public use of Service-managed land, which maintain essentially the permitted level of use and do not continue a level of use that has resulted in adverse environmental effects.

References Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation. 21:231-241. Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United States. Biological Conservation 13:123-130. Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, and L. J. Niles. 1995. Ecotourism and birds in coastal New Jersey: Contrasting responses of birds, tourists, and managers. Environmental Conservation 22:56-65. Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1998. Effects of ecotourists on bird behavior at Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Environmental Conservation 25:13-21. Defenders of Wildlife. 2002. Out of Control: The Impacts of Off-road Vehicles and Roads on Wildlife and Habitat in Florida’s National Forests. August 2002. Washington, DC. 86 pp. Dobb, E. 1998. Reality check: the debate behind the lens. Audubon, January-February 1998. Fox, A.D. and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds in Europe: Implications for refuge design. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 1-13. Gabrielson, G.W. and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 95-107 in R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds., Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372 pp. Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 21:31-39. Klein, M. L., S. R. Humphrey, and H. F. Percival. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on distribution of waterbirds in a wildlife refuge. Conservation Biology 9:1454-1465. Knight R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 51-69 in R.L.

130

Knight and D.N. Cole, editors. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Washington, D.C., Island Press. Laskowski, H., T. Leger, J. Gallegos and F. James. 1993. Behavior Response of Greater Yellowlegs, Snowy Egrets and Mallards to Human Disturbance at Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished report #51510-01-92. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 25 pp. Morton J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59-F86 in W. R. Whitman, T. Strange, L. Widjeskog, R. Whittemore, P. Kehoe and L. Roberts, eds., Waterfowl Habitat Restoration, Enhancement and Management in the Atlantic Flyway. Third Edition. Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway Council Technical Section, and Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. Dover, Delaware. 1114 pp. Pease, M.L., R.K. Rose and M.J. Butler. 2005. Effects of human disturbances on the behavior of wintering ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1): 103-112. Riffell, S.K., J. Gutzwiller and S.H. Anderson. 1996. Does repeated human intrusion cause cumulative declines in avian richness and abundance? Ecological Applications 6(2): 492-505. Rodgers, J. A., and H. T. Smith. 1995. Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology 9:89-99. Rodgers, J. A., and H. T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:139-145. Texas Parks and Wildlife. 2011. The effects of off-road vehicles on ecosystems. By Richard Taylor, Certified Wildlife Biologist. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_t3200_1081.pdf. Accessed: May 2018. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Land Protection Plan and Environmental Assessment. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/everglades_headwaters/. Accessed: August 2019. Webb, R.H. and H.G. Wilshire. 1983. Environmental Effects of Off-road Vehicles: Impacts and Management in Arid Regions. Springer-Verlag, New York. Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2035

131


Use: Fishing including frogging

Description of Use:

a) What is the use? Fishing is defined as fishing with authorized recreational fishing gear for personal use only, and not for sale or barter (50 CFR §660.703). Frogging is the act of hunting for and harvesting of frogs. Recreational fishing is a wildlife-dependent recreational activity designated as a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) as established in the Improvement Act of 1997. Largemouth bass is the most sought after species by anglers in the Kissimmee River Basin. Florida gar, bluegill, redear sunfish, spotted sunfish, black crappie, warmouth, bowfin, chain pickerel, brown bullhead, and yellow bullhead are also popular game fish. Frog species that may potentially be sought after for harvesting include pig frogs, Southern leopard frogs, and bullfrogs.

b) Where would the use be conducted? Fishing will be allowed on Refuge lakes, rivers, and/or ponds along the banks of the Refuge. The Refuge will not have jurisdiction over state navigable waters, thus boating and access to navigable waters will continue according to state regulations. Motorized and non-motorized boating activities support fishing and the Service works with FWC to manage fishing access through the state’s WMA program.

c) When would the use be conducted? Fishing can occur year-round and visitors are encouraged to refer to the current WMA regulations specific to the Refuge unit they are visiting for information about potential temporary closures.

d) How would the use be conducted? Fishing (including frogging) will be administered in accordance with state freshwater fishing regulations. All recreational anglers must possess a valid Florida fishing license in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. Daily bag and possession limits are in accordance with Florida regulations. To review additional information, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Recreational Fishing Regulations may be found at www.myfwc.com/fishing. Frogs may be harvested for personal use only and in accordance with state law, a state recreational license is not required to harvest frogs. Frog species classified as threatened or endangered may not be possessed or taken.

e) Why is this use being proposed? In addition to fishing being one of the priority public uses,

on September 15, 2017, the Secretary of the Interior signed Secretarial Order 3356 with specific directives “to support and expand hunting and fishing, enhance conservation stewardship, improve wildlife management, and increase outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans”(DOI 2017). In addition, fishing is a traditional use in the landscape. The Service provides the public with opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation to appreciate the value of and need for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Refuge units are part of a landscape rich in fishing, hunting and outdoor recreation traditions. Visitors participating in recreational fishing activities are educated about the mission, habitats, and the ecosystem in such a manner as to leave them with a better understanding of resources. The experience can instill an appreciation for future stewards of the environment.

http://www.myfwc.com/fishing

132

Availability of Resources: Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Except for maintaining and periodically updating signs and printed materials, minimal costs will be involved as the program is collaboratively administered with FWC (Commission) through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (USFWS/FWC 2012). The MOU states: It is the intent of both the Service and the Commission to work cooperatively in the management of the Refuge’s hunting and fishing programs, with the Commission having the responsibility for the conduct of the hunting and fishing programs as part of their WMA program in accordance with procedures outlined in Commission document entitled Establishment and Rule Promulgation for Areas Managed Wholly or Cooperatively by FWC, December 2010 (USFWS/FWC 2012). FWC management of the WMA lands under this MOU shall be for the implementation of programs for fishing including responsibility for conducting fishing programs, establishing seasonal limits, amount of harvest allowed, off highway vehicle use on designated roads and trails, and for determining related public access for such activities under established FWC procedures for seeking public input and setting regulations on other WMAs in Florida as examples. FWC shall provide support, when possible, in the form of staff technical assistance, use of state owned equipment and facilities, and/or available funding. Refuge law enforcement, public use, administrative, managerial, and biological staff will allocate a portion of their time to this program. Law enforcement will be required to ensure compliance. The financial and staff resources necessary to provide and administer this use at its current level and at expected levels on the Refuge are now available and are expected to continue in the future.

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: Existing parking areas, roads and trails are available for visitors in order to access units. Maintenance costs: None beyond routine maintenance such as mowing, and road and trail repair of access points such as parking areas, trails and unit roads. Total yearly trail, road and parking maintenance is estimated at $3,000/year, however, this cost is a general cost for unit yearly maintenance, which provides for all visitor uses and not specific to the fishing program. Signage and brochure development/printing is estimated at $3,000/year. Monitoring costs: The Refuge would work together with FWC to secure funding of any monitoring effort, if needed. Existing Refuge staff and Federal Wildlife Officers monitor effects of and compliance with operations during the normal course of their duties and should not incur any additional costs.

Offsetting revenues: The state collects fees via fishing licenses. The Refuge reserves the right to charge fees in the future if the need arises. Fees will be used to offset cost of regulation enforcement and monitoring biological impacts.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Short-term effects: Short-term effects to vegetation could include temporary damage resulting from trampling. These effects are expected to be minimal, as the areas accessible to fishing will be relatively small in size, with only a reduced footprint being adversely impacted. Minimal damage is anticipated from shoreline fishing.

133

Casting may disturb some foraging/roosting birds as well as reptiles and small mammals. Occasionally anglers may hook turtles or other species as accidental by-catch. Potential risks to non-hunted wildlife such as aquatic species, small mammals, migratory song birds, raptors, and roosting/foraging wading birds and water birds include discarded fishing line and other fishing litter, which can entangle wildlife and cause injury or death (Thompson 1969, Gregory 1991). With the exception of fishing line entanglement, hook injuries, and increases in litter, overall disturbance to wildlife on the Refuge by anglers is expected to be commensurate with that caused by public users of other wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities that are compatible on the Refuge. Impacts to threatened and endangered species may increase slightly due to direct and indirect effects of this recreational use. However, many direct impacts are expected to be mitigated by regulations and management activities such as restricting fishing in the event of a snail kite nest or other threatened and endangered species nesting near a fishing area. If a conflict occurs, sensitive areas would be closed to anglers and/or a 500-foot buffer zone would be placed around nests. FWC regulations prohibit the harvest of any imperiled frog species. Long-term effects: The proposed use is not likely to adversely affect fish and frog populations. Fish harvest would occasionally occur; however, most anglers generally practice catch and release. There are no known imperiled fish species that could be affected by fishing activities. Although frogging may increase pressure on frog populations, the proposed season and bag limit restrictions should alleviate any pressure on populations or competition for wading birds. Participants are required to adhere to all FWC fishing and frogging regulations. These regulations are designed to protect species populations from the pressures of fishing and frogging by the public. Cumulative effects: None anticipated. Determination (check one below): ______ Use is Compatible


Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

• Fishing and frogging would be allowed anywhere open water could be legally accessed and in accordance with state law.

• Recreational fishing and frogging within state navigable waters will continue. • Closure of sensitive areas within or adjacent to refuge waters may be necessary at

certain times of the year to protect the wildlife resources. If evidence of unacceptable impacts begins to appear, it may be necessary to change the activity, move the activity, or eliminate the activity.

• Commercial fishing is prohibited. • Fishing programs will be administered as a component of a state-managed WMA unit or

a Refuge-sponsored management program.

134

Justification: The Improvement Act of 1997 identified fishing as one of the six priority, wildlife-dependent recreational uses to receive enhanced consideration over other public uses in planning and management. The Service attempts to provide opportunities for this use in the NWRS where compatible. This activity supports the Service’s goal of Connecting People with Nature and Secretarial Order 3356 in addition to multiple objectives and strategies stated in the Refuge’s VSP. Fishing allows visitors to enjoy the outdoors and connect with nature in a natural setting, which is not only healthy mentally and physically, but can build a life-long appreciation for wildlife and their habitats. Allowing these uses to occur on the Refuge will not materially detract from or interfere with the purposes for establishment of the Refuge and the mission of the NWRS. NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision:.





References Gregory, M.R. 1991. The Hazards of Persistent Marine Pollution: Drift Plastics and Conservation Islands. J. Royal Soc. New Zealand 21(2): 83-100. Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 71-79 in R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372 pp Thompson, J.D. 1969. Feeding behavior of diving ducks on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. M.S. Thesis, Iowa State Univ., Ames. 79pp. U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 2017. Order 3356. Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Everglades Headwaters Conservation Partnership: land Protection Plan for the Establishment of the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA, 152 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2012. Agreement No. 40181CK005. Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 8pp. Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2035

135

DRAFT COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION Use: Hiking (including backpacking, jogging and walking) Description of Use:

a) What is the use? Hiking, including backpacking, jogging, and walking are non-priority uses that support wildlife-dependent recreation.

b) Where would the use be conducted? This use would occur on designated roads and trails.

c) When would the use be conducted? This use would occur year round, but users are advised to check the latest WMA regulations for potential temporary closures.

d) How would the use be conducted? Users would utilize designated roads and trails. This use would be conducted in cooperation with the WMA regulations of that Unit as coordinated with the State of Florida.

e) Why is this use being proposed? Hiking, including backpacking, jogging, and walking are traditional uses in the area that can support wildlife dependent uses. The use will provide the opportunity for participants to become surrounded by the natural environment, instilling appreciation for plants, animals and habitats. Portions of the Florida Scenic Trail are found within the project area and the Refuge would work with the Partners to connect refuge units to these and system of trails as an example. In addition, connecting to other trail systems may be considered.

Availability of Resources: Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: The development of associated maps, signs, and brochures will be minor costs associated with these uses that will be supported by the Everglades Headwaters NWR Complex. It is anticipated that administrative costs for this use would total approximately $1,500 annually. Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None, existing Refuge roads and trails would be used. Maintenance costs: Existing roads and trails will be maintained for Refuge purposes and therefore will not constitute additional maintenance costs to support hiking. Monitoring costs: Costs associated with monitoring/enforcement of this use would be approximately $1,500 annually. Offsetting revenues: None. Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Short-term effects: The proposed use is anticipated to have the same level of effects as the priority public uses because the access and activities are very similar. Refer to the effects analyzed under CD for environmental education/interpretation and wildlife observation/photography for more details. These effects could include littering, vegetation trampling, and wildlife disturbance and are expected to be localized and of short duration.

136

Long-term effects: The use is anticipated to have the same level of effects as priority public uses because the access and activities are similar. Some wildlife may habituate or even be attracted to humans (especially if they associate them with food rewards), which could alter their behavior and habitat use. Orienting visitors through information kiosks and placement of appropriate signs decrease the likelihood that brief, yet sometimes frequent, disturbances would result in long-term impacts to wildlife. Generally, it is expected that these uses would only affect a limited number of wildlife species and individual animals, and overall this is expected to be a minimal negative long-term effect. Cumulative effects: Cumulative effects are not anticipated on wildlife, their behaviors or their habitat. A slight increase in wildlife disturbance may occur due to the increase visitor use and vehicular traffic to the unit, however, no significant biological or ecological impacts are anticipated as a result. Determination (check one below):



Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Hiking, backpacking, and jogging, will only be authorized in support of other approved refuge uses, and may be restricted to hours specified in the corresponding WMA brochure. Certain areas of the Refuge may be restricted seasonally for breeding or nesting seasons or to protect habitat. This use will be limited to existing, designated roads and trails. If evidence of unacceptable impacts begins to appear, it may be necessary to change the activity, move the activity, or eliminate the activity. Justification: Although hiking, walking, or jogging are not priority public uses, they facilitate priority public uses, providing visitors with the chance to view or photograph wildlife and engage in interpretation, as wells as, recreational hunting and fishing, thereby promoting public appreciation of the conservation of wildlife and habitats. NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision:





References U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Land Protection Plan and Environmental Assessment. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/everglades_headwaters/. Accessed: August 2019. Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2030

137

DRAFT COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION Use: Horseback Riding Description of Use:

(a) What is the use? This activity involves riders mounted on horses travelling on designated public trails within the boundaries of the Refuge. Horseback riding is a popular local activity that takes place primarily in the fall through spring seasons. The use mainly occurs in very small groups or individually. Although horseback riding is not a priority public use as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, when it is conducted responsibly it is supportive of wildlife-dependent recreational uses, including wildlife observation and wildlife photography.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? Horseback riding would only be allowed on designated roads and trails, as shown on the maps for each unit.

(c) When would the use be conducted? Horseback riding may occur year-round, during hours

specified in the corresponding WMA brochure, and users are advised to refer to current WMA regulations for potential temporary closures. Use is expected to be light and sporadic, occurring mostly during cooler weather (November through April), particularly on weekends.

(d) How would the use be conducted? Portions of the road and trail system may be temporarily

closed to support priority public uses, wildlife management, refuge operational needs, and some Refuge-specific hunting seasons. Persons engaged in horseback riding will use existing access points, parking lots, signage, and Refuge roads to access the trail system. All designated roads and trails have sufficient viewing distance for riders to detect the approach of other users and maneuver to accommodate them.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Horseback riding is a traditional use in this landscape and can support wildlife dependent activities. Horseback riding on the Refuge provides increased opportunity for public visitation to the Refuge. It also allows for opportunities to engage in some of the six priority public uses, specifically wildlife observation and photography. This use may provide individuals with a connection to the natural world and an increased appreciation of natural resources, in addition to exposing them to the Refuge System.

Availability of Resources: Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: The development of associated maps, signs, and brochures would be minor costs associated with horseback riding that would be supported by the Everglades Headwaters NWR Complex. These costs are expected to total approximately $1,500 annually. Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: Presently no special equipment, facilities or improvements are needed to be constructed to facilitate horseback riding. Horseback riding will be permitted on existing roads and trails. Over time, maintenance/improvements to parking areas may be necessary to continue to best accommodate all visitors including horseback riders.

138

Maintenance costs: Existing roads and trails are maintained for Refuge purposes, and it is not expected that additional maintenance costs would be incurred to support horseback riding. Designated trails are likely to be maintained by a combination of partners, volunteers, and Refuge staff. Monitoring costs: Minimal costs are associated with this use to monitor consequences of horseback riders having access to the Refuge, such as a degree of littering and/or vandalism. Plants and wildlife will be monitored to determine any impacts as a result of public use. If the use rises above anticipated levels, a monitoring effort could be initiated with funding pursued from grants and other sources. Monitoring costs would be approximately $1,000 annually. Offsetting revenues: None. Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Short-term effects: Although wildlife disturbance from horseback riding is not well-documented, some studies suggest that many wildlife species are habituated to livestock and that horseback wildlife observers can approach wildlife at closer distances than by other forms of travel (Bennett and Zuelke 1999). Any form of approach is expected to cause some disturbance, which will vary according to the species affected and the type, level, frequency, and duration of disturbance, as well as the time of day or year that it occurs. Horseback riding has both direct and indirect effects on habitat. Trampling causes mortality of plant (and animal) species by crushing them (Whittaker 1978, Hammitt and Cole 1987, Widner et al 1993). Grazing by horses can reduce vegetation. There is some risk of non-native, invasive plants being spread by horses (Campbell and Gibson 2001, Wells and Lauenroth 2007, Gower 2008, Quinn et al. 2010). Any trail or road can be a conduit for the introduction of nonnative plants, since exposed soil and abundant sunlight provide favorable conditions for establishment of these species. Horseback riding would continue on designated roads and trails. While it is possible for horses to transmit parasitic diseases, particularly Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia duodenalis, to humans via the water supply, these diseases are usually spread by pregnant mares and foals under six months old (Johnson et al. 1997). Horse manure is not harmful to human health, although it can cause conflicts with other trail users, since it can be odorous, unaesthetic, and a nuisance. While there can be user group conflicts or safety issues resulting from hikers, cyclists, and horseback riders using the same roads and trails, these are not anticipated effects due to the current levels of use. Horseback travel on the designated roads and trails is considered safe under current conditions and level of use. Horseback riding will be permitted only on designated roads and trails and would be prohibited on any established or future interpretive trails. Long-term effects: Long-term effects could include some added vegetation disturbance, especially along trails, but this is expected to be kept at a minimum. Long-term disturbance to wildlife is not anticipated; most wildlife habituate to a regular, non-threatening activity. Cumulative effects: None anticipated. Determination (check one below): ______ Use is Compatible x Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

139

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: • Horseback riding will only be authorized in support of other approved refuge uses. • Horseback travel to facilitate priority public use will only be compatible on designated roads

and trails. • Horses will not be allowed on interpretive foot trails. • Horseback riding will only be allowed during normal refuge hours. • Travel can be no more than two abreast. • All trash must be packed out and properly disposed of off-site. • Clearing of vegetation is prohibited. • Each visitor may only ride/walk one horse on the Refuge at a time. • Horseback riding may be prohibited during deer gun hunting season in all Refuge hunt

areas, depending on local WMA regulations. • All roads and trails will be monitored annually to determine if they meet compatibility criteria. • Monitoring will be designed to assess the long-term effects of horse riding on Refuge

resources, visitor use, and route maintenance needs. • Law enforcement patrols will be conducted throughout the year. The patrols will promote

compliance with refuge regulations, monitor public use patterns and public safety, and document visitor interactions. Patrols will include recording visitor numbers, vehicle numbers, visitor activities, and activity locations to document the current and future levels of refuge use.

• No corralling, tethering, or hitching of horses along trails will be allowed. • Other areas of the Refuge may be closed to the public seasonally to protect certain species

or habitat. • Riders will be able to gain entrance to the Refuge road system only at designated access

points. • If evidence of unacceptable impacts begins to appear, it may be necessary to change the

activity, move the activity, or eliminate the activity. Justification: While not listed as a primary, wildlife-dependent recreational use under the Improvement Act, as amended, horseback riding is believed to be a compatible public use under the stipulations outlined in this compatibility determination for the Refuge. Primary reasons for this determination include the following: wildlife observation can be an element of horseback riding; horseback riding will allow the Refuge to reach a target audience that it will not otherwise reach; horseback riders will be potential partners and a potential source of support for the Refuge; and impacts associated with horseback riding are not believed to exceed impacts already caused by other public use activities. Horseback riding activities will be in support of priority public use activities and programs, which are determined to be compatible with Refuge purposes. In addition, expanding Refuge access to horseback riding provides the public additional opportunities to experience wildlife and enhances the public use experience at the Refuge with minimal impacts to the Refuge resources. The Refuge strives to provide compatible uses that the public can enjoy on a National Wildlife Refuge. NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: __ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement ___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement _ _ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact ___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

140

References Bennett, K. A., and Zuelke, E. F. 1999. The effects of recreation on birds: A literature review. Smyrna: Delaware Natural Heritage Program. Campbell, J. E., &; Gibson, D. J. 2001. The Effect of Seeds of Exotic Species Transported via Horse Dung on Vegetation Along Trail Corridors. Plant Ecology, 157(1), 23-35. DeLuca, T.H., W.A.I. Patterson, W.A. Freimund, and D. Cole.1998. Influence of llamas, horse, and hikers on soil erosion from established recreation trails in Western Montana, USA. Environmental Management 22:255-262. Gower, Stith. T. 2008. Are horses responsible for introducing non-native plants along forest trails in the eastern United States? Forest Ecology and Management 256: 997–1003. Hammitt, W. E. and D. N. Cole. 1987. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 341 pp. Implications. Master Network, A publication of the National Outdoor Leadership School, part 1-1993: No. 5(pp.5,14); part 2-1994: No. 6(pp.5-6). Johnson, E, E. R. Atwill, M. E. Filkins, J. Kalush. 1997. The prevalence of shedding of Cryptosporidium and Giardia spp. based on a single fecal sample collection from each of 91 horses used for backcountry recreation. J Vet Diagn Invest 9:56-60. Quinn, Lauren D., Adda. Quinn, Mietek Kolipinski, Bonnie Davis, Connie Berto, Mark Orcholski, and Sibdas Ghosh. 2010. Role of Horses as Potential Vectors of Non-Native Plant Invasion: An Overview. Natural Areas Journal 30(4):408-416. Summer, R. 1986. Geomorphic impacts of horse traffic on montane landforms. Journal of Soil and Water conservation 41:126-128. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Land Protection Plan and Environmental Assessment. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/everglades_headwaters/. Accessed: August 2019. Weaver, T. and D. Dale. 1978. Trampling effects of hikers, motorcycles and horses in meadows and forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 15:451-457. Wells, FH and Lauenroth, WK. 2007. The Potential For Horses to Disperse Alien Plants Along Recreational Trails. Rangeland Ecology & Management 60:574-577. Whittaker, P. L. 1978. Comparisons of surface impact by hiking and horseback riding in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2030

141


Use: Hunting (big game, small game, migratory game birds, and alligator) Description of Use: a) What is the use? Hunting, the taking of big game (e.g., deer, feral hog, and turkey),

migratory game birds (e.g., waterfowl and non-waterfowl), small game (e.g. squirrel, rabbit, quail), and alligator. Hunting is a wildlife-dependent recreational activity designated as a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) as established in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

b) Where would the use be conducted? Hunts would be allowed in areas designated under current State of Florida WMA regulations, specific for any particular Refuge unit.

c) When would the use be conducted? Hunts would be allowed during timeframes outlined in current WMA regulations, specific for any particular Refuge unit.

d) How would the use be conducted? As detailed in the 2012 LPP and associated CMP, this Act also provides for the opportunity for compatible public uses on newly acquired lands to continue on an interim basis. The 2012 LPP also provides guidance on when a hunt plan (with updated CDs) would need to be developed, such as when an adequate land base is acquired. Since the 2012 establishment of the Refuge, several tracts have been acquired and were subsequently added to the state’s WMA program. Species hunted include big game including deer, feral (wild) hog, wild turkey, migratory game birds, small game, and alligator, in accordance with state regulations. Users would need to refer to the specific WMA regulations as to where, when, and how to hunt. The Refuge intends to continue to add any future Refuge tracts to the WMA program, where possible. Hunting will be subject to federal, state, and Refuge-specific regulations and occur within the state season framework, unless otherwise approved by FWC. Through the USFWS/FWC MOU, FWC will conduct the hunting program on Refuge units. Bag limits and methods of take will be evaluated through the FWC WMA evaluation procedures and guidelines. Pursuant to the purposes of the USFWS/FWC MOU, the Service will coordinate with FWC on all aspects of the hunting program. FWC management of WMA lands under the MOU shall be for the implementation of programs for the public including but not limited to evaluation procedures in cooperation with the Service.

e) Why is this use being proposed? Hunting has been identified as a priority, wildlife-dependent activity under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and is a traditional use in much of rural Florida. Additionally, Secretarial Order 3356 (issued September 15, 2017) provides directives “to support and expand hunting and fishing, enhance conservation stewardship, improve wildlife management, and increase outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans” (DOI 2017). This use can instill an appreciation for future stewards of the environment. Furthermore, hunting is a management tool to maintain wildlife populations at acceptable levels and reduce or eradicate and exotic species. The Service provides the public with opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation to appreciate the value of and need for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. Visitors participating in hunting activities are educated about the mission, habitats, and the ecosystem in such a manner as to leave them with a better understanding of resources. The experience can instill an appreciation for future stewards of the

142

environment. Furthermore, hunting is a management tool to maintain wildlife populations at acceptable levels and reduce or eradicate exotic species.

Availability of Resources: Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: The Service has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the FWC to cooperatively manage hunting on the Refuge. FWC management of the WMA lands under this MOU shall be for the implementation of programs for public hunting, including responsibility for establishing hunting programs, seasonal limits, amount of harvest allowed, off highway vehicle use on designated roads and trails, and for determining related public access for such activities under established FWC procedures for seeking public input and setting regulations on other WMAs in Florida. Furthermore, FWC would provide support, when possible, in the form of staff technical assistance, use of state owned equipment and facilities, and/or available funding to achieve the objectives of this MOU. Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: Refuge law enforcement, public use, administrative, managerial, and biological staff will allocate a portion of their time to support this program (e.g., with existing staff from existing refuges). Maintenance costs: Other than a potential hunter check station, no other special equipment, facilities, or improvements are necessary to support the use. Maintenance of roads and trails are costs that will be absorbed within the Refuge operating budget. Monitoring costs: Monitoring populations in support of maintaining sustainable hunts would likely be conducted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Offsetting revenues: Revenue will be generated from FWC fees collected from hunters. Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Short-term effects: Many of the negative effects associated with upland hunting are similar to those considered for other public use activities, such as wildlife viewing and photography, with the exception of direct mortality to game species, short-term changes in the distribution and abundance of game species, and unrestricted travel through the hunt area. Although hunting causes mortality and temporary disturbance to wildlife, harvesting populations within the carrying capacity of existing habitat ensures long-term health and survival of the species. Hunting, and its associated activities, can result in positive or negative impacts to wildlife and other Refuge resources. With proper management and monitoring, hunting is expected to cause only minor negative impacts. A positive effect of the Refuge hunting program would be the provision of additional wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, a better appreciation and more complete understanding of the wildlife and habitats associated with the Refuge, and an opportunity to utilize a sustainable, renewable resource. This can translate into more widespread and stronger support for the Refuge, the NWRS, and the Service.

143

Waterfowl harvest numbers and species are determined by nationwide annual waterfowl trends and population surveys. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service annually prescribes frameworks, or outer limits, for dates and hours when hunting may occur and the number of birds that may be taken and possessed. These frameworks are necessary to allow state selections of season and limits for recreation and sustenance; aid federal, state, and tribal governments in the management of migratory game birds; and permit harvests at levels compatible with population status and habitat conditions. Because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory game birds are closed unless specifically opened by the Secretary of the Interior, the Service annually promulgates regulations (50 CFR Part 20) establishing the frameworks from which states may select season dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other options for each migratory bird hunting season. The frameworks are essentially permissive in that hunting of migratory birds would not be permitted without them. Thus, in effect, federal annual regulations both allow and limit the hunting of migratory birds. Hunting may have some harmful, indirect effects. Spring turkey hunting can disrupt nesting (Kurzejeski and Vangilder 1992). Impacts of recreational small game hunting include harvest of target species--gray squirrel, rabbit, and raccoon. In addition to the harvest of legal game, killing of non-target species, such as snakes, is known to occur. Other impacts of hunting may include littering, disturbing wildlife, trampling vegetation, and removing dead/down wood. The harvest of feral hogs on the Refuge may have a beneficial effect to native wildlife and habitat. Hogs compete for mast; destroy native plants; and prey upon bird nests, small vertebrates, and invertebrates (Giuliano 2010), hence any reduction in the numbers of these non-native species will benefit the native habitats and wildlife. Hunter should use precautions when handling feral hogs, which may carry transmittable diseases such as brucellosis (Centers for Disease Control 2018). Brucellosis in people is called undulant fever. Symptoms include a recurrent fever, chills, night sweats, weakness, headaches, back pain, swollen joints, loss of appetite and weight loss. Hunters can be infected with brucellosis bacteria when blood, fluid or tissue from an infected animal comes in contact with their eyes, nose, mouth or skin. Deer hunting can maintain herd size and sex ratios at a healthy population level commensurate with available habitat. Deer populations in the historic past were controlled by predators; however, in most of Florida, predators have been extirpated from their historical range. Without predation, a deer population that is protected from hunting typically increases rapidly, exceeds carrying capacity, and damages its own range (McCullough 1997).

Applicable to all hunting on the Refuge: Potential impacts associated with hunting include direct mortality, short-term changes in game species distribution and abundance, and disturbance (to target and non-target species).

Long-term effects: Direct mortality can impact isolated, resident game species populations by reducing breeding populations to a point where the isolated population can no longer be sustained. This can result in localized extirpation of isolated populations. The structure and length of hunt seasons can minimize or eliminate these anticipated impacts.

144

Cumulative effects: Refuge management activities can be accomplished without conflicting hunting activities via administratively closed areas, timing of hunts, and methods of hunt. A slight increase in gas emissions may occur due to the increase in vehicular traffic. However, no significant biological or ecological impacts have been observed as a result, despite other priority public uses occurring via vehicular traffic on the Refuge for decades. With a conservative approach in allowing this use on the Refuge, cumulative impacts are expected to be minimal or negligible and within acceptable limits. This use should not result in long-term impacts that adversely affect the purposes for which the Refuge was established or alter any existing or proposed uses as stipulated in the Visitor Services Plan (VSP).





• Persons possessing, transporting, or carrying firearms on national wildlife refuges must comply with all provisions of federal, state, and local law. Persons may only use (discharge) firearms in accordance with Refuge regulations.

• All applicable state hunting licenses, state permits, Refuge CITES tags, federal stamps, and Refuge hunt permits must be in the possession of the hunter.

• Hunting programs will be administered as a state-managed WMA tract or a refuge-sponsored management program.

• For all hunts, weapon restrictions will be in accordance with State of Florida regulations. • Vehicles will be restricted to existing designated roads and trails. • Off-road vehicle (ORV) use may be allowed for access along designated roads and

trails. (See the compatibility determination for ORVs for additional details). • Camping may be allowed to access remote areas during the hunting season. (See the

compatibility determination for camping for additional details). • All hunts will be designed in cooperation with state biologists and managers, to provide

quality user opportunities based upon estimated wildlife population levels and biological parameters.

• Hunt season dates and bag limits will be adjusted to meet current hunter densities and activities and may be adjusted as needed to achieve balanced population levels within carrying capacities, regardless of impacts to user opportunities.

• Taking of any plants or other wildlife is prohibited. • As additional data are collected, Refuge-specific regulations or changes to the WMA

could be implemented. These changes to the regulations could include, but may not be limited to the following: season dates that differ from those in surrounding state zones; permit requirements; and closed areas on a permanent or seasonal basis to reduce disturbance to specific wildlife species or habitats, such as bird rookeries, wintering waterfowl, or threatened or endangered species, as well as to provide for public safety. If evidence of unacceptable impacts begins to appear, it may be necessary to change the activity, move the activity, or eliminate the activity.

145

Justification: Under the Improvement Act, hunting is a priority public use. Hunting is a historic use of refuge units and the landscape, and an acceptable form of wildlife-dependent recreation compatible with the purposes of the Refuge. The harvest of surplus animals is one tool used to maintain wildlife populations at a level compatible with habitat. Overabundance of animals, such as hogs and deer, can have detrimental impacts to native habitats. In addition to recreational opportunities, hunting to control populations of feral hogs and deer will be beneficial to native species and habitats, and will therefore be considered compatible with Refuge purposes. NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: __ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement ___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement _ _ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact ___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision References Centers for Disease Control. 2018. Hunters: Protect Yourself from Brucellosis. https://www.cdc.gov/Features/huntersbrucellosis/index.html. Accessed: September 2018. U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 2017. Order 3356. Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories. Giuliano, William M. 2010. Wild hogs in Florida: Ecology and Management. University of Florida IFAS Extension. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw322. Accessed: September 2018. Kurzejeski, E. W., and L. D. Vangilder. 1992. Population management. Pages 165–185 in J. G. Dickson, editor. Wild turkey biology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. McCullough, D.R. 1997. Irruptive behavior in ungulates. Pages 69-98 in W.J. McShea, H.B. Underwood and J.H. Rappole, editors. 1997. The science of overabundance: Deer ecology and population management. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. 402pp. U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 2017. Order 3356. Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Land Protection Plan and Environmental Assessment. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/everglades_headwaters/. Accessed: August 2019. Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2035

https://www.cdc.gov/Features/huntersbrucellosis/index.html

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw322

146


Use: Off-road Vehicle Use in Support of Hunting and Fishing Description of Use:

a) What is the use? ORV use, but only to support hunting and fishing.

b) Where would the use be conducted? ORV use, as intended, would only occur on designated roads and trails.

c) When would the use be conducted? The use would occur year-round on specific units only. Users are advised to check the current WMA regulations for each unit to determine if the use is allowed there, and if so, during what timeframes.

d) How would the use be conducted? For hunting and fishing activities, the Service will work with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to evaluate a particular property, the specific resources protected on that property, and hunting/fishing activities and access to help design the hunting and programs for that particular property (e.g., access roads and trails suitable for ORV access where minimal impacts to wildlife and habitat are anticipated). Specific regulations regarding ORVs need to be consulted prior to engaging in this activity on the Refuge.

e) Why is this use being proposed? On September 15, 2017, the Secretary of the Interior

signed Secretarial Order 3356 with specific directives to in order “to support and expand hunting and fishing, enhance conservation stewardship, improve wildlife management, and increase outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans” (USFWS 2017). Additionally, the 2012 Everglades Headwaters Conservation Partnership Land Protection Plan for the Establishment of the Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation addresses and found the use of ORV in support of hunting and fishing an appropriate and compatible use through interim compatibility determinations. ORV have been traditionally been used in the landscape to facilitate travel in areas that are remote. The Service would continue to provide the public with opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation to appreciate the value of and need for wildlife and plant conservation. ORV use in support of wildlife hunting and fishing can promote a greater understanding and appreciation for the Refuge habitats, wildlife, and the Kissimmee River Basin ecosystem. The experience can motivate and inspire future stewards and advocates of the environment and particularly the Kissimmee River Basin landscape.

Availability of Resources: Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Operational funds to support this activity will be minimal and limited to coordinating with FWC to evaluate and designate specific sites, certain existing roads, and certain existing trails for ORV use; and enforcing regulations prohibiting general recreational ORV use. Administration will primarily involve issuing permits, enforcement of regulations, and habitat monitoring. Administration of SUPs associated with this activity consists of approximately 10 staff days with annual administrative costs associated with this use is expected to be about $1,500. Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None, existing roads and trails used.

147

Maintenance costs: Some additional upkeep for roads and trails is expected, depending on the level of use. It is anticipated that the increased maintenance would be about $5,000 annually. Monitoring costs: Habitat degradation in areas nearby designated trails will need to be monitored, costing approximately $1,500 annually. Offsetting revenues: None. Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Short-term effects: Any public use activity has the potential for impacts; however, the Refuge attempts to minimize any potential impacts to negligible or acceptable limits for all uses deemed compatible. Potential impacts of ORVs include disturbance via noise, physical collision, disturbance to vegetation communities and spread of invasive species. In addition to the effect of these on wildlife, ORV use can impact visitors who desire solitude as a result of noise disturbance and visual impact on the landscape. Minimization of impacts is possible through effective management and regulation using a multi-use approach. Improperly used ORVs can have very serious consequences due to destruction of habitat and disturbance to wildlife (Backcountry Hunters and Anglers 2011, Webb and Wilshire 1983, Defenders of Wildlife 2002, Texas Parks and Wildlife 2011). Off-trail, ORVs can destroy herbaceous plants and seedlings, creating swaths of bare ground that have minimal wildlife value. Additionally, off-trail ORVs can destroy ground nests. However, ORV use of existing roads and trails to support hunting and fishing activities is likely to have minimal negative effects on vegetation or wildlife. There would be some wildlife disturbance similar to what has been previously discussed under other uses. These negative effects are expected to be limited to areas along trails and of short duration. Regular off-road vehicle operation through sawgrass and wet prairie habitats creates trails, which are open areas where native vegetation is sparser than surrounding areas due to physical disturbance and soil erosion (Pernas 1995; Duever et al. 1981; Duever et al. 1986). If animals are not able to adjust to the additional energy, outlay caused by disturbance: survival, reproduction, and growth may be negatively affected (DOI 1992). Some studies have found that some wildlife can adapt to environmental disruptions and learn to limit their energy expenditure in relation to human recreational activity. Harassing activity, which cause alarm and the expenditure of avoidance energy include: 1) unfamiliar or unpredictable behavior, 2) quick movements, sudden noises, loud noises and 3) close and direct approach. It was found that if the harassing activity was constant, the animal would become adapted to it and learn to adjust to the threat or permanently leave the area for other habitat. However, the animal may end up in less quality habitat than what it gave up and potentially suffer less reproductive success or a lower survival rate. In order to reduce impacts of use, ORV use is restricted to use by hunters and anglers on designated roads and trails, which is likely to have minimal negative effects on vegetation or wildlife. There would be some wildlife disturbance and these negative effects are expected to be limited to areas along roads and trails, and of short duration.

148

Long-term effects: These are not expected; if substantial vegetation damage or wildlife disturbance were documented, the use would be further restricted or halted. Cumulative effects: None anticipated. Determination (check one below): ______ Use is Compatible



• ORV use could have substantial negative impacts on Refuge resources. However, this activity will be limited to permitted hunters and anglers on designated roads and trails.

• For hunting activities, the Service will work with the FWC to designate specific sites, certain existing roads, and certain existing trails for ORV use and to monitor ORV use and impacts in order to help minimize any impacts.

• If impacts associated with compatible ORV use by hunters and/or anglers are determined by the refuge manager to exceed acceptable levels, the refuge manager will work with FWC and hunters and/or anglers to minimize these impacts (e.g., move or close certain access points, create a designated detour, and/or close a portion or all of an area to ORV use).

• All trash and waste must be carried out and properly disposed off-site. Justification: As described, ORV use would support hunting and fishing, which are priority, wildlife-dependent uses. Properly managed, negative effects can be kept at a minimum. NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision:





References Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. 2011. Cumulative and Universal: ATV Impacts on the Landscape and Wildlife: A Review of the Literature on the Subject. https://www.backcountryhunters.org/off_road_vehicle_use. Accessed: June 2019. Defenders of Wildlife. 2002. Out of Control: The Impacts of Off-road Vehicles and Roads on Wildlife and Habitat in Florida’s National Forests. August 2002. Washington, DC. 86 pp. Duever, M. J., Riopelle, L. A., and McCollum, J. M. (1986). Long-term recovery from experimental and old trail off-road vehicle impacts in the Big Cypress National Preserve.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/off_road_vehicle_use

149

Duever, M. J., Carlson, J.E., and Riopelle, L. A. 1981. Report T-614. Off-road vehicles and their impacts in the Big Cypress National Preserve. South Florida Research Center. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Pernas, A.J., Weeks, D. and Bates, C. 1995. "Dye trace field study – Ochopee Prairie." Unpublished data from the Ochopee Prairie Monitoring Program on file at Big Cypress National Preserve, Ochopee, FL. Texas Parks and Wildlife. 2011. The effects of off-road vehicles on ecosystems. By Richard Taylor, Certified Wildlife Biologist. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_t3200_1081.pdf. Accessed: January 2018. U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 1992. Draft environmental assessment of recreational boating and its potential impact on resources within the crocodile sanctuary of Everglades National Park: National Park Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Land Protection Plan and Environmental Assessment. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/everglades_headwaters/. Accessed: August 2019. Webb, R.H. and H.G. Wilshire. 1983. Environmental Effects of Off-road Vehicles: Impacts and Management in Arid Regions. Springer-Verlag, New York. Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2030

150


Use: Pets on Leash Description of Use: (a) What is the use? This CD does not examine or impose restrictions on Service Animals. This

CD examines the impacts of permitting visitors to enjoy the Refuge with their leashed or confined pet (dog or other companion animal) not in conjunction with hunting. Pets may include, but are not limited to, dogs, cats, pigs, and birds. Animals not permitted on the Refuge for this activity include all animals listed as Prohibited Nonnative Wildlife or Conditional Nonnative species by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/nonnatives/) or listed as Injurious Wildlife by the Service (https://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/).Although this use can enhance the experience for visitors enjoying priority public uses, this use is not a priority public use of NWRS under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act) (Public Law 105-57). This CD does not include uses for equine animals. Equine animals, specifically for horseback riding, is addressed in a separate compatibility determination.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? Pets on leash will be restricted to designated roads and trails. Pets must not prevent the general public from utilizing Refuge facilities or trails at any time.

(c) When would the use be conducted? This use would occur year-round, but users are advised to consult the most current WMA regulations for any potential temporary closures.

(d) How would the use be conducted? Pets may accompany their owners in limited areas while

enjoying their walking or hiking activities on the Refuge. As stated in the Code of Federal Regulations, 50 CFR 26.21(b): no unconfined domestic animals shall be permitted to roam at large on Refuge lands. Pets must be attached to a 6-foot (or shorter) leash with the owner in control of the leash and pet at all times. This leash requirement will be enforced to minimize wildlife and visitor disturbance. Any animal trespassing on Refuge lands may be impounded and disposed of in accordance with state statutes and federal regulations (50 CFR § 28.42). Dogs and cats running at large on the Refuge and observed harassing or molesting humans or wildlife may be disposed of in the interest of public safety and the protection of the wildlife (50 CFR § 28.43). Owners will be required to promptly remove feces from Refuge lands.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? The Refuge envisions that allowing pets on leash may

foster positive stakeholder/refuge relations. Enhancing current public uses by allowing pets, can potentially reach new groups of visitors and initiate a better understanding of Refuge resources and potential future recreation opportunities available. Dog walking is a traditional use in this landscape that can support wildlife observation and photography. Allowing pets while enjoying other priority public uses can be an excellent platform for exposing young people and urban dwellers to the sounds and beauty of nature and the unique setting of the Refuge. The Refuge is appealing to those looking for settings to enjoy outdoor pursuits in isolated areas. There is a risk of pets being injured or killed by wildlife on the Refuge. However, with improvements to educational and interpretation signage, risks to pets, pet owners, and other visitors can be mitigated. Allowing pets on the Refuge will benefit and promote the goals of the Program.

http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/nonnatives/

https://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/

151

Availability of Resources: Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Except for maintaining and periodically updating regulatory signs and printed materials, minimal costs will be involved. The financial and staff resources necessary to provide and administer this use at its current level and at expected levels on the Refuge is now available and is expected to continue in the future. Enforcement of regulations governing this use is part of normal law enforcement operations. Providing information to the public and administrative needs would total about $1,000 to institute the program. Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: – No special equipment or facilities are recommended for this use. Improvements necessary include removing and reposting signs to inform the public where the use is prohibited. First year costs for signs and installation will be approximately $1,500 - $2,000 with recurring costs of about $2,000 every five years. Staff time is estimated at five days of staff time for the first year and two days a year thereafter. Maintenance costs: None specific to this use. Users will be required to use already established roads and trails. Monitoring costs: $1,000 annually. Existing Refuge staff and Federal Wildlife Officers monitor effects of and compliance with current operations during the normal course of their duties. Offsetting revenues: None. Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Short-term effects: Dogs and other pets on the Refuge have the potential to negatively affect wildlife behavior. The presence of dogs may cause wildlife to move away, temporarily or permanently, thereby reducing the amount of available habitat in which to feed, breed, and rest. Wildlife may become less active during the day to avoid dog interactions. Furthermore, the scent of dogs can repel wildlife, and this effect remains for some time after the dogs are gone (Hennings 2016). Dogs that are unleashed increase the zone of disturbance beyond what it would be in the absence of a dog (Blumstein et al. 2006). Dogs (and likely other pets) elicit a greater response from wildlife than pedestrians alone (MacArthur et al. 1979; Hoopes 1993). In the case of birds, the presence of dogs may reduce bird diversity and abundance in woodlands (Banks and Bryant 2007) and staging areas (Burger 1986, Lafferty 2001), flush incubating birds from nests (Yalden and Yalden 1990), disrupt breeding displays (Baydack 1986), disrupt foraging activity (Hoopes 1993), and disturb roosting activity in ducks (Keller 1991). Many of these authors indicated that dogs with people, dogs on-leash, or loose dogs provoked the most pronounced disturbance reactions from their study animals. However, the greatest stress reaction results from unanticipated disturbance.

152

Sime (1999) concluded that maintaining control of pets while in wildlife habitats reduces the potential of disturbance, injury, or mortality to wildlife. In a study comparing wildlife responses to human and dog use on and off trails, Miller et al. (2001) recommended prohibiting dogs or restricting use to trails to minimize disturbance and that natural land managers can implement spatial and behavioral restrictions in visitor management to reduce disturbance by such activities on wildlife. Pet owners would be required to maintain physical control (i.e. leash or enclosure) of their animal while on the Refuge, thereby reducing the potential and severity of these impacts to wildlife. Any disturbance would be temporary and should not lead to loss of wildlife or their habitats. User conflicts are unlikely to occur since trails are lightly used and pets will be on-leash and so prevented from annoying others. However, dogs that bark excessively may cause disruption to other users seeking to enjoy their recreation activities in the tranquility offered by the remote and natural setting of the Refuge. Some visitors may also experience allergic reactions to or feel threatened by dogs and other pets, which may therefore reduce the enjoyment of their visit. Pet waste is unsightly for Refuge visitors, and can transmit diseases that may threaten the health of some wildlife and other domesticated animals. The role of dogs in wildlife diseases is not well documented. However, domesticated animals host endo- and ecto-parasites and can contract diseases from, or transmit diseases to, wild animals, and transport parasites to or from wildlife habitats (Overgaauw 2009, Sime 1999). Although unlikely, bringing pets from unknown locations with unknown pests can potentially introduce an infestation of particular pests on the Refuge. Any new pest introduction can cause undue financial and administrative burdens to the Refuge and staff for the cost of treatments and control or undergoing processes for pesticide approval and use. Additionally, dog waste is known to transmit diseases that may threaten the health of some wildlife and other domesticated animals (Overgaauw 2009, Sime 1999).The Refuge does not provide receptacles for animal waste, which if left on the Refuge, diminishes the quality of the visitor’s wildlife recreational experience. These impacts may be minimized by encouraging people to pick-up their dog’s waste. Negative effects to vegetation are expected to be similar to those from normal trail use as described in our wildlife observation compatibility determination. The use would be confined to existing trails and no new construction or vegetation clearing would be required. Impacts on wildlife would be minimal since the trails are not close to wildlife concentration areas, and the dogs will be leashed. Short-term disturbance may occur to wildlife directly adjacent to the trail. Because the use of the trail system is relatively light, and dog walking would be restricted to public trails where disturbance may already occur due to other public use activities, the potential impacts to wildlife and their habitats are expected to be minimal. In addition, the requirement for dogs to be kept on a 6-foot leash (or shorter) would minimize the impacts to other users and wildlife. Long-term effects: The role of dogs in wildlife diseases is poorly understood. However, dogs can host endo- and ecto-parasites, and can contract diseases from or transmit diseases to wild animals. In addition, dog waste is known to transmit diseases that may threaten the health of some wildlife and other domesticated animals. Domestic dogs potentially can introduce various diseases and transport parasites into wildlife habitats (Sime 1999). Overall, long-term effects are expected to be minimal. Cumulative effects: None expected.

153

Public Review and Comment: Determination (check one below): Use is Not Compatible x Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Only leashed or confined (e.g. caged pet, dog strollers, or other travel enclosure) pets are permitted on the Refuge. Pet owners will be required to maintain control of their animal at all times while on the Refuge and must refrain from entering closed areas. Dogs are exempt from these conditions while engaged in authorized hunting activities. • All pets while on the Refuge must be on a leash (no more than 6 feet long). • Visitors with pets will be required to immediately bag and remove their pet(s) fecal matter

and dispose of it in the proper trash receptacles. • The type of pets allowed varies by WMA, refer to the WMA brochure for details. • No more than two pets per visitor. • The use will be evaluated annually, and may be eliminated if negative effects rise to

unacceptable levels. • Field trials or commercial/professional dog training remains prohibited. • Public awareness will be increased through interpretive or educational materials about

responsible pet ownership in the context of wildlife disturbance and threat of injury or death to pets during all outdoor recreational pursuits.

• Certain areas may be closed to the public and pets due to management activities. Justification: One of the stated goals of the NWRS is to “foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats”. This use, although not a priority public use, has been determined to be compatible, because it will increase the public’s exposure to, understanding, and appreciation of America’s flora, wildlife, wildlife conservation, and the Service’s role in managing and protecting natural resources. Dog walking is a historic use of the lands currently part of the Refuge, and allowing pets on leash can facilitate wildlife observation. Allowing pets on the Refuge, provides visitors with an much sought after opportunity for wildlife-dependent recreation, can foster positive public relations, and introduces the Refuge to new, non-traditional audiences. Through increased available opportunities with their pets, they may become aware of the value of national wildlife refuges and promote fish and wildlife conservation. This use is low impact, low cost, and highly controllable. The actions or effects of this use are not expected to interfere with or detract from the mission of the NWRS nor diminish the purposes for which the Refuge was established. The Improvement Act of 1997 requires that priority consideration be given to wildlife-dependent users, and the presence of pets is not necessary for non-hunting, wildlife-dependent recreational activities. If the use becomes too popular, burdensome, or unmanageable for staff, or if adverse impacts on public use activities or wildlife and their behaviors are identified, the Refuge may impose additional restrictions, up to and including termination, to mitigate disturbance.

154

Pet owners may take the time to learn more about the Refuge and become, or already be, supporters of the Refuge System. This proposed use is restricted to public roads and trails, and it is anticipated that this use will have only negligible, minor, and temporary impacts on Refuge resources. Because of this, it is consistent with the wildlife and habitat aspects of the refuge's purposes, the Service policy on compatible uses, the Refuge Improvement Act, and the broad management objectives of the Refuge System. NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision References Banks, P. B., Bryant, J.V. 2007. Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds from natural areas. Biology Letters 3, 611-613. Baydack, R. K. 1986. Sharp-tailed grouse response to lek disturbance in the Carberry Sand Hills of Manitoba. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Blumstein, D. T., Bitton, A. & DaVeiga, J. 2006 How does the presence of predators influence the persistence of antipredator behavior? Retrieved December 13, 2017 from http://www.academia.edu/22408400/How_does_the_presence_of_predators_influence_the_persistence_of_antipredator_behavior Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United States. Environmental Conservation 13: 123-130. Hennings, Lori. (2016). Impacts of dogs on wildlife and water quality. 10.13140/RG.2.1.1107.5445. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301800852_Impacts_of_dogs_on_wildlife_and_water_quality. Accessed: May 2018. Hoopes, E.M. 1993. Relationships between human recreation and piping plover foraging ecology and chick survival. Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amhurst, Massachusetts. Lafferty, K.D. 2001. Birds at a Southern California beach: seasonality, habitat use and disturbance by human activity. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 1949-1962. MacArthur, R. A., R. H. Johnston, and V. Geist. 1979. Factors influencing heart rate in free-ranging bighorn sheep: a physiological approach to the study of wildlife harassment. Can. J. Zool.57:2010-2021. Miller, S.G., Knight R. L., and Clinton K. Miller 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. 29, (1): 124-132.

http://www.academia.edu/22408400/How_does_the_presence_of_predators_influence_the_persistence_of_antipredator_behavior

http://www.academia.edu/22408400/How_does_the_presence_of_predators_influence_the_persistence_of_antipredator_behavior

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301800852_Impacts_of_dogs_on_wildlife_and_water_quality

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301800852_Impacts_of_dogs_on_wildlife_and_water_quality

155

Overgaauw, P.A.M., L. van Zutphen, D. Hoek, F.O. Yaya,]. Roelfsema, E. Pinelli, F. van Knapen, and L.M. Kortbeek. 2009. Zoonotic parasites in fecal samples and fur from dogs and cats in the Netherlands. Veterinary Parasitology. Available at: DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.03.044. Sime, C.A. 1999. Domestic Dogs in Wildlife Habitats. Pp. 8.1-8.17 in G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. Yalden, P.E. and Yalden, D.W. 1990. Recreational disturbances of breeding golden plovers Pluvialis apricarius. Biological Conservation. Volume 51, Issue 4, 243-262/ Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2030

DRAFT COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION Approval of Compatibility Determinations The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the Visitor Services Plan for Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area. If one of the descriptive uses is considered for compatibility outside of the visitor services plan, the approval signature becomes part of that determination. Refuge Manager: ________________________________________________ (Signature/Date) Regional Compatibility Coordinator: ________________________________________________ (Signature/Date) Refuge Supervisor _______________________________________________ (Signature/Date) Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, Southeast Region: ________________________________________________ (Signature/Date)

156

APPENDIX E: USFWS HUNTING AND FISHING MOU WITH FWC Agreement Number 40181CK005: Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

APPENDIX F: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

166

Environmental Assessment for Draft Visitor Services Plan (Including Draft Hunt and Sport Fish Plan)

Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area 4055 Wildlife Way, Vero Beach FL 32963

2020

167

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 4 1.1 Background 4 1.2 Proposed Action 13 1.3 Purpose and Need 16 1.4 Public Involvement 19 1.5 Consultation 19 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 20 2.1 Proposed Action 20 2.2 No Action Alternative 20 3.0 Affected Environment 21 3.1 Noise 21 3.2 Biological Resources 21 3.3 Socioeconomics 27 3.4 Cultural Resources 27 4.0 Environmental Consequences 27 4.1 Effects on Noise 29 4.2 Effects on Biological Resources 29 4.3 Effects on Socioeconomics 32 4.4 Effects on Cultural Resources 32 4.5 Environmental Justice 33 5.0 References 33 6.0 Appendix: Intra-Service Section 7 Endangered Species Consultation 36

168

List of Figures

Figure 1. EHNWR Hunt/Fish unit locations 6

Figure 2. EHNWR Arbuckle Unit location map 7

Figure 3. EHNWR Arbuckle Unit entrance and trails 8

Figure 4. EHNWR Hatchineha Unit location map 9

Figure 5. EHNWR Hatchineha Unit entrance and trails 10

Figure 6. EHNWR Okeechobee Unit location map 11

Figure 7. EHNWR Okeechobee Unit entrance and trails 12

List of Tables

Table 1. Public use opportunities outlined in the proposed VSP 13

Table 2. Listed wildlife species documented on Arbuckle Unit 22

Table 3. Listed plant species for the Arbuckle Unit 22

Table 4. Listed wildlife species for the Hatchineha Unit 23

Table 5. Listed plant species for the Hatchineha Unit 23

Table 6. Listed wildlife species for the Okeechobee Unit 24

Table 7. Summary of expected environmental effects for resource areas by alternative 28

Table 8. Daily Florida bag limits for migratory game birds 32

Table 9: 2018 Atlantic Flyway nation-wide and Florida harvest data 33

169

1.0 Introduction, Purpose, and Need This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to evaluate the effects associated with the proposed action to develop a Visitor Services Plan (VSP) which includes a Hunt and Fish Plan that outlines the future management of compatible outdoor recreation opportunities for the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area (Refuge) and complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1500-1509) and Department of the Interior (43 CFR 46; 516 DM 8) and Service (550 FW 3) regulations and policies. NEPA requires examination of the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environment. This EA tiers off of the effects analysis conducted as part of the 2012 Land Protection Plan (LPP) (USFWWS 2012) and associated EA (USFWS 2012b). 1.1 Background

The Refuge lies in south-central Florida and is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System). It was authorized on January 3, 2012 to acquire, on a willing-seller basis, up to 50,000 acres and 100,000 acres in fee title and conservation easements, respectively as detailed in the LPP. The LPP lists all parcels in conservation focal areas that could potentially be acquired in fee from willing sellers. The Refuge currently encompasses approximately 8,319 acres in fee title and easement units supporting habitats including scrub, pine flatwoods, dry prairie, sand hill, and various wetlands in Polk, Osceola, and Okeechobee Counties. The Refuge was formally established on January 18, 2012 with the donation of a 10-acre parcel in Polk County. Since 2012, the Service has added three fee-simple units to the Refuge: Arbuckle, Hatchineha, and Okeechobee (Figures 1 - 7). These units total approximately 3,854 acres in rural and sparsely populated areas of Okeechobee and Polk Counties. The Arbuckle Unit is 395 acres of restored upland and wetland habitats in Frostproof, Florida. Located in Haines City, the Hatchineha Unit consists of 1,460 acres of scrub, pine flatwoods, dry prairie, wet prairie, blackwater streams, and pasture. The Okeechobee Unit borders the southern edge of Kissimmee Prairie Preserve State Park and covers approximately 1,999 acres of wet and dry prairie historically managed as unimproved pasture. Currently, outdoor recreational opportunities are available to the public on Refuge fee-title lands as administered through the Refuge’s Conceptual Management Plan (CMP). The Refuge’s CMP was developed as part of the LPP and includes goals and objectives for wildlife-dependent and other public uses and related recreational activities that were analyzed for their interim compatibility with refuge purposes. Due to mandated time-limits, those “interim” priority or wildlife-dependent uses (as defined by the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act) expire in 2026, whereas all other non-priority uses expire in 2021. Additionally, the potential environmental effects of these interim uses were evaluated in the associated environmental assessment. Furthermore, the CMP includes objectives for developing an Outdoor Recreation Plan [or Visitor Services Plan (VSP)] and associated Hunt and Fish Plan once a suitable land-base has been acquired (USFWS 2012). The proposed VSP includes compatibility determinations (CDs) that, if approved, will have 10-and 15-year timeframes for non-priority and priority uses, respectively. This EA evaluates the environmental effects of the following 14 proposed uses: bicycling, camping, commercial recording, commercial tours, environmental education and interpretation, fishing, hiking/backpacking/jogging, horseback riding, hunting, off-road vehicle use in support of hunting/fishing, pets on leash, and wildlife observation and wildlife photography.

170

The Service is actively seeking to acquire lands from willing sellers through a process detailed in the LPP, and offering public recreational opportunities on these lands, once acquired, is one of the goals of the Refuge. All newly acquired fee-title lands will be evaluated for their potential to offer public use opportunities outlined in the VSP through consultation with the Tribes, Service imperiled species and cultural resources experts, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), and other state agencies, where appropriate. NEPA analyses will be conducted for each new unit, and it is expected that the compatible public uses outlined in this plan will likely meet the criteria for Categorical Exclusion. Additionally, the Service intends to carry forward the 14 uses outlined in the VSP, if approved, onto any future, fee-title refuge lands.

171

Figure 1. Everglades Headwaters NWR Hunt/Fish Unit locations

172

Figure 2. Arbuckle Unit location

173

Figure 3. Arbuckle Unit entrance and trails

174

Figure 4. Hatchineha Unit location

175

Figure 5. Hatchineha Unit entrance and trails

176

Figure 6. Okeechobee Unit location

177

Figure 7. Okeechobee Unit entrance and trails

178

1.2 Proposed Action The Service is developing a VSP that details proposed goals and objectives for “priority” or wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities and associated uses. Furthermore, the Refuge intends to apply VSP management on any future, fee-title refuge lands acquired from willing sellers. The extent and magnitude of these public use opportunities are intended to be managed such that they result in no or insignificant negative effects to the natural and human communities occurring within and near the units. The outdoor recreation activities proposed in the VSP are listed in Table 1. In the 2012 LPP, interim CDs were approved for 11 of these uses. CDs for commercial recording, commercial tours, and pets on leash are being added in this VSP. Table 1: Public use opportunities outlined in the proposed VSP

Use Priority or Wildlife Dependent?

Bicycling No Camping No Commercial recording No Commercial tours No Environmental education Yes Interpretation Yes Fishing Yes Hiking/backpacking/jogging No Horseback riding No Hunting Yes Off-road vehicle use (in support of hunting/fishing) No

Pets on leash No Wildlife observation Yes Wildlife photography Yes

If found compatible with the Refuge’s purposes, the priority uses would continue to be allowed until 2035. All other listed non-priority uses would need to be re-evaluated in 2030. Proposed actions are often iterative and evolve during the planning 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. Bicycling Bicycling is a mode of transportation currently used to facilitate wildlife observation and photography. This use occurs all year. Bicycling will only be authorized in support of other approved refuge uses and on approved roads and trails. Off-trail bicycling will not be allowed. Camping Camping is a traditional use in this area. Camping, as considered under this plan, is the primitive overnight cooking and sleeping accommodations erected at designated sites that facilitate access to remote areas of the refuge that will otherwise be unavailable during priority public use activities such as hunting and fishing. Camping will only be authorized in support of other approved refuge uses and to facilitate access to remote areas. Campsites will typically be located at the terminus of a designated trail and accessible by foot, bike, or horse. Campsite use by recreational vehicle or camper trailer, or camping at trailheads is not permitted.

179

Commercial Recording The use is commercial recording (digital or film) including but not limited to videography, photography, and audio recording [collectively called “commercial recording” for the purposes of this compatibility determination (CD)]. Commercial recording is an existing economic, non-priority public use; however, it promotes and facilitates certain priority public uses. Commercial Tours Commercial tours for non-consumptive use directed toward environmental education, interpretation, and/or observation of wildlife and habitats is an economic use. The use is not a priority public use; however, it promotes and facilitates several priority public uses Environmental Education and Interpretation Environmental education comprises a variety of activities and facilities that seek to increase the public’s knowledge and understanding of wildlife and to promote wildlife conservation. These are tools used to inform the public of resource values and issues. Activities may include on-site, refuge-led, or refuge-approved environmental education programs and teacher workshops relating to habitat, other natural features, and/or management activities occurring on the refuge. These activities seek to increase the public’s knowledge and understanding of wildlife and their habitats and to contribute to wildlife conservation and support of the Refuge. Environmental education programs will be conducted by the Service or by a Service-approved member. Any non-Service environmental education activities must be reviewed and approved by the Service through a special use permit issued by the Refuge. These permits will contain conditions to minimize negative effects and ensure compatibility. The Service will work with the local schools and others to develop an understanding of existing environmental education activities for particular sites during the acquisition process. The Service defines interpretation as a communication process that forges emotional and intellectual connections between the audience and the resource. Interpretation is intended to promote a visitor’s understanding of, and increase appreciation for, America’s natural and cultural resources and conservation history. It also develops a sense of stewardship among the public, leading to actions and attitudes that reflect interest and respect for wildlife resources, cultural resources, and the environment. Interpretive programs and facilities could include special events, visitor center displays, interpretive trails, visitor contact stations, auto tour routes, staff and volunteer led tours, and signs. Any non-Service interpretation activities must be reviewed and approved by the Service through a special use permit issued by the Refuge. These permits will contain conditions to minimize negative effects and ensure compatibility. The Service will work with partners to develop an understanding of potential interpretation activities for particular sites during the acquisition process. Sport Fishing Recreational freshwater fishing would occur on refuge lakes, rivers, and/or ponds. Through a 2012 agreement with FWC, fee-title refuge lands can be added to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) wildlife management area (WMA) program. Since the 2012 establishment of the Refuge, several tracts have been acquired and were subsequently added to the state’s WMA program. The Refuge will not have jurisdiction over state navigable waters, thus boating and access to navigable waters would continue according to state regulations. There may be the potential for visitors to fish from the banks of the Refuge. Frogging is included under this use. The taking of non-listed frogs would be permitted per state WMA regulations.

180

Hiking/Backpacking/Jogging Hiking is a traditional use in this area, and includes backpackers and joggers. Hiking will only be authorized in support of other approved refuge uses. Trails can provide the opportunity for participants to become surrounded by the natural environment, instilling an appreciation for plants, animals, and their habitats. Horseback Riding Horseback riding is a traditional use in this landscape and is currently allowed on the Refuge on designated roads and trails. This use can facilitate priority uses such as hunting and wildlife observation. Hunting Hunting is a traditional use in much of rural Florida. As previously stated, fee-title refuge lands can be added to the WMA program. Since the 2012 establishment of the Refuge, several tracts have been acquired and were subsequently added to the WMA program. Species hunted include big game (such as deer, feral (wild) hog, and wild turkey) migratory game birds, and small game, in accordance with state regulations. The Refuge intends to continue to add any future acquired tracts to the WMA program, where possible. Off-road Vehicle Use for Hunting and Fishing The refuge proposes to allow off-road vehicle (ORV) activities on designated roads and trails in support of hunting and fishing. General ORV use by the public of designated roads and trails and not in support of hunting and fishing will not be allowed. For hunting activities, the Service will work with the FWC to evaluate a particular property, the specific resources protected on that property, and hunting activities and access to help design the hunting program for that particular property (e.g., access roads and trails suitable for ORV access where minimal negative effects to wildlife and habitat are anticipated). Pets on Leash Under this use, visitors could enjoy the Refuge with their leashed or confined pet (dog or other companion animal) not in conjunction with hunting. Pets may include, but are not limited to, dogs, cats, pigs, and birds. Animals not permitted on the Refuge for this activity include all animals listed as Prohibited Nonnative Wildlife or Conditional Nonnative species by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/nonnatives/) or listed as Injurious Wildlife by the Service (https://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/). Wildlife Observation and Photography Wildlife observation and photography are traditional uses in this landscape. Wildlife observation and photography have been identified in the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act as priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses provided they are compatible with the purposes of the Refuge. Wildlife observation uses include wildlife watching by hiking, bicycles, and horses as examples. For the purposes of this CD, nature photography would be conducted via hiking, bicycles, or horses as examples. This CD applies only to personal photography and not to other forms of photography (e.g., commercial photography and filming). Commercial photography or videography is covered under the Commercial Recording CD and will require a special use permit issued by the Refuge with specific restrictions.

https://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/

181

1.3 Purpose and Need

The following section identifies the purpose and needs justification for the outdoor recreational activities proposed on Refuge fee units: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation, biking, camping, pets on leash, hiking, horseback riding, and off-road vehicle use for hunting or fishing, commercial tours, and commercial recording. Bicycling Bicycling to observe wildlife facilitates priority public uses of the System. Providing opportunities for these activities contributes toward fulfilling provisions of the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Wildlife observation from bicycles in areas where there are few negative effects to wildlife will provide an appropriate mode of transportation for promoting increased awareness, understanding, and support of refuge resources and programs. At the anticipated and current levels of visitation, bicycling does not seem to conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the Refuge. Bicycling activities will be in support of priority public use activities and programs (e.g., wildlife observation), which will be determined to be compatible with refuge purposes. Camping Primitive camping in designated camp sites would support refuge priority public use programs (e.g., environmental education, hunting) and require minimal infrastructure. Potential camping sites could include certain trailheads, and no open-pit fires would be allowed. The special use permits (SUP) are needed for this activity. Commercial Recording The USFWS provides the general public opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation to appreciate the value of, and need for, fish and wildlife conservation. Commercial recording endeavors can be an excellent platform for exposing young people and urban dwellers to the unique sounds and beauty of nature, and the unique settings of the Refuge. Because of its proximity to major urban areas, the Refuge could be attractive to commercial recording activities. Commercial Tours The Service provides the public with opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation to appreciate the value of, and need for, fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Refuge is the last remnant of the once vast northern Everglades ridge and slough landscape. Visitors participating in commercial tours are educated about the mission, habitats, and the ecosystem in such a manner as to leave them with a better understanding of resources. The experience can instill an appreciation for future stewards of the environment. Commercial tours can be an excellent interpretive activity, exposing young people, urban dwellers, and the community to the unique sounds of the marsh, the beauty of nature, and the distinctive setting of the Refuge. Environmental Education and Interpretation Environmental education and interpretation represent two priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities under the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Environmental education and interpretation are key components of the Service’s initiative to connect children with nature and are used to encourage all citizens to act responsibly in protecting natural resources. Fishing and Frogging Fishing is a priority public use under the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act and a wildlife-dependent activity. Frogging is a historic use on much of Florida. Fishing, including taking of non-listed frogs would be covered under state WMA regulations.

182

Hiking, Backpacking, and Jogging Although hiking, backpacking, and jogging are not priority public uses, they facilitate wildlife-dependent activities, providing visitors with the chance to view or photograph wildlife and engage in interpretation, as wells as, recreational hunting and fishing, thereby promoting public appreciation of the conservation of wildlife and habitats. Horseback Riding Horseback riding is a historic use on the Refuge and throughout the landscape within which the Refuge was established, and can be used in support of priority, wildlife-dependent public uses. For instance, wildlife observation can be an element of horseback riding and may allow the Refuge to reach a target audience that it will not otherwise reach. Hunting Hunting is an historic use on the Refuge and throughout the landscape within which the Refuge was established, and in accordance with the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, hunting is considered a priority wildlife-dependent public use on national wildlife refuges. The harvest of surplus animals is one tool used to maintain wildlife populations at a level compatible with habitat (McShea et. al. 1997, Terborgh et. al. 2001). An overabundance of animals, such as hogs and deer, can be detrimental to native habitats. In addition to providing recreational opportunities, hunting to control populations of feral hogs and deer can be beneficial to native species and habitats, and is therefore considered compatible with refuge purposes (Seward et al. 2004, USFWS 2014). In the United States, there has been an increase in hunting participation in recent years. Between 2001 and 2011, the percentage of citizens hunting in the United States increased by five percent (USFWS 2012b). However, in Florida there has been a decline in the number of licensed hunters since 1980. The steady loss of hunting opportunities has been cited as one of the causes of the decline. Public lands are increasingly crowded, and private hunting lease prices continue to rise (Orlando Sentinel 2005). Hence, there is a need to provide more hunting opportunities for the public. Additionally, recreational hunting can be part of the Refuge’s overall population management efforts. Off-road Vehicle in Support of Hunting and Fishing Under the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, hunting is a priority public use. The harvest of surplus animals is one tool used to maintain wildlife populations at a level compatible with habitat. An overabundance of animals, such as hogs and deer, can be detrimental to native habitats. Hunting provides recreational opportunities, and can control populations of feral hogs and deer, benefitting native species and habitats. Hence, this activity is considered compatible with the purposes of the Refuge. Likewise, fishing is a priority public use. ORV use on specific sites, certain existing roads, and certain existing trails will facilitate hunting and fishing on the Refuge. Pets on Leash The Refuge envisions that allowing pets on leash may foster positive stakeholder/refuge relations. Enhancing current public uses by allowing pets, can potentially reach new groups of visitors and initiate a better understanding of Refuge resources and potential future recreation opportunities available. Dog walking is a traditional use in this landscape that can support wildlife observation and photography. Allowing pets while enjoying other priority public uses can be an excellent platform for exposing young people and urban dwellers to the sounds and beauty of nature and the unique setting of the Refuge. The Refuge is appealing to those looking for settings to enjoy outdoor pursuits in isolated areas. There is a risk of pets being injured or killed by wildlife on the Refuge. However, with improvements to educational and interpretation signage, risks to pets, pet owners, and other visitors can be mitigated. Allowing pets on the Refuge will benefit and promote the goals of the Program.

183

Wildlife Observation and Photography Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses of the Refuge System. Providing quality, appropriate, and compatible opportunities for these activities help to fulfill the provisions of the Improvement Act. Wildlife observation and photography will provide excellent forums for promoting increased awareness, understanding, and support of refuge resources relative to wildlife/human interactions. Under a controlled level of limited visitation, these wildlife-dependent uses will not conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the Refuge. 1.4 Public Involvement

The Conceptual Management Plan (CMP) lists objectives for the Service to work with FWC to designate new refuge lands as part of the state’s WMA program, develop a visitor services plan, and develop hunt/fish plans (USFWS 2012a). To meet these objectives, the Service began initial conversations with FWC in 2015, following acquisition of the Arbuckle and Hatchineha units. Additional meetings were held with state, non-profit entities and partners during the development of the VSP and this EA. A news release was distributed to the local media and email list. Letters were sent to refuge neighbors, FWC, Florida Forest Service, and Native American tribes of Florida. Notices were also posted on the Refuge website and social media. 1.5 Consultation

Tribal Consultation The United States has a unique legal and political relationship with recognized Tribes. The United States recognizes Tribes as sovereign governments that are self‐governing under federal law (Pursuant to DOI Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes as amended on August 10, 2012). The Service initiated consultation through formal letters sent to the chairs of affected Tribes in June 2018. The Service invited the Tribes to participate in any way that would be meaningful to them, including government to government consultation. In July 2018, the Tribes were provided with the Service’s EHNWR & CA Cultural Resources Overview to assist them in the review of the draft VSP. The Tribes were also included in the distribution of this EA. Other Consultation Federal consistency reviews, under the Coastal Zone Management Act are integrated into other review processes conducted by the state depending on the type of federal action being proposed. The Florida State Clearinghouse, administered by the Department of Environmental Protection Office of Intergovernmental Programs, is the primary contact for receipt of consistency evaluations from federal agencies. The Florida State Clearinghouse coordinates the state’s review of proposed federal activities, requests for federal funds, and applications for federal permits other than permits issued under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Consistency reviews of federal permits issued under those Acts are conducted in conjunction with wetland resource and environmental resource permits issued by the Department of Environmental Protection or the water management districts. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and Section 14 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act require the Service to evaluate the effects of any of its actions on cultural resources [e.g., historical, architectural, and archaeological) that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)]. In accordance with these regulations, the Service’s regional archeologist and Florida’s State Historic Preservation Office were consulted to ensure that cultural resources would not be adversely affected.

184

The Service provides two major types of protection for potential archaeological or historical sites located on Service lands – protection from damage by federal activity and protection from vandalism or theft. The Service’s policy is to preserve these cultural, historic, and archaeological resources in the public trust and avoid any adverse effects wherever possible. The Service is required to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the Service does not jeopardize the continued existence of species listed under the Endangered Species Act or modify their critical habitat. This process is referred to as a Section 7 Evaluation and is done through consultation with the Service Ecological Services office. The Refuge consulted the South Florida Ecological Service Office (SFESO) with regards to several federally-listed species that have been documented on the Refuge to ensure that the project would have minimal adverse effects.

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Two alternatives were analyzed in this assessment, the proposed action and no action. 2.1 Proposed Action

The proposed action is to manage public outdoor recreational opportunities on fee-title refuge lands. The VSP includes CDs that, if approved, would have 10-and 15-year timeframes for non-priority and priority uses, respectively as shown in Table 1. This EA evaluates the environmental effects of the following 14 proposed uses under the mandatory expiration dates shown in Table 1: bicycling, camping, commercial recording, commercial tours, environmental education, interpretation, sport fishing, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, off-road vehicle use (in support of hunting and sport fishing), pets on leash, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. 2.2 No Action Alternative

NEPA requires that proposed actions are compared to the baseline or “No Action Alternative”. Under the No Action Alternative, public use opportunities on the Refuge would be limited to uses and levels allowed via the CMP and associated interim CDs set to expire in 2021 for non-priority uses and in 2026 for priority uses (USFWS 2012). 3.0 Affected Environment For the purposes of this EA, only resources that might be affected by the proposed action are described, including noise, biological resources, socioeconomics, and cultural resources. Soils, air quality, climate change, water quality, hydrology, geology, and aesthetics will not be affected under either alternative and are not further considered. A more detailed description of the Refuge environment can be found in the LPP (USFWS 2012a). 3.1 Noise

The primary source of noise on the units is from highway traffic; although the more interior habitats further removed from public roads are relatively quiet. 3.2 Biological Resources

This section describes the biological resources of the Refuge that could be affected by the proposed action including habitats, threatened and endangered species, at-risk species, migratory birds, non-imperiled wildlife, game species, and non-native wildlife species.

185

Habitats Refuge units were altered at some level through land use conversions benefitting agriculture. This includes agricultural road development, removal of native vegetation, ditching and draining, and fire suppression. Prior to acquisition by the Service, extensive habitat restoration and management was conducted on the Arbuckle and Hatchineha Units. Arbuckle Unit Generally, the western half of the unit is wetter, with dominant habitats including bay swamp, mixed hardwood wetlands, hydric pine flatwoods, cypress, freshwater marsh, and wet prairie. The eastern half of the site is drier, with major habitat types that include scrubby pine flatwoods, xeric oak, and live oak (Gulfstream Natural Gas System 2011). Hatchineha Unit The Hatchineha Unit is dominated by pine flatwoods. Other habitats include hardwood hammock, scrub, sand hill, forested wetlands, wet prairie, and freshwater marshes, and pasture. Okeechobee Unit Over 50 percent of the Okeechobee consists of dry prairie, followed by wet prairie and freshwater marshes. The remaining habitats consist of pasture, temperate hammock, and freshwater forested wetlands. Additionally, the Unit was managed as unimproved pasture. Threatened and Endangered Species Arbuckle Unit The Arbuckle Unit supports a number of protected wildlife species, including at least six federally-listed species and a number of state-listed animals (Table 2). Additionally, the unit lies within the Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation area for Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus). Listed plant species documented on the unit are shown in Table 3. Table 2. Listed wildlife species documented on the Arbuckle Unit

Common Name Scientific Name Status

State Federal Audubon's crested caracara Polyborus plancus audubonii T T Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon carais couperi T T Florida bonneted bat Eumops floridanus E E Florida sandhill crane Antigone canadensis pratensis T - Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus T C Sand skink Neoseps reynoldsi T T Wood stork Mycteria americana T T C=Candidate, E=Endangered, T=Threatened

Table 3. Listed plant species documented on Arbuckle Unit

Common Name Scientific Name Status State Federal

Britton’s beargrass Nolina brittoniana E E Cutthroat grass Panicum abscissum E - Florida ziziphus Ziziphus celata E E Garberia Garberia heterophylla T -

186

Papery whitlow-wort Paronychia chartacea T T Pygmy fringe-tree Chionanthus pygmaeus E E Scrub blazingstar Liatris ohlingerae E E E=Endangered, T=Threatened

Hatchineha Unit State- and federally listed wildlife and plant species documented on the unit are shown in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively. The unit lies within the Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation area for Florida bonneted bat. Table 4. Listed wildlife species documented on the Hatchineha Unit


State Federal Audubon's crested caracara Polyborus plancus audubonii T T Bluetail mole skink Eumeces egregius lividus T T Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon carais couperi T T Florida bonneted bat Eumops floridanus E E Florida sandhill crane Antigone canadensis pratensis T - Florida scrub jay Aphelocoma coerulescens T T Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus T C Sand skink Neoseps reynoldsi T T Wood stork Mycteria americana T T C=Candidate, E=Endangered, T=Threatened

Table 5. Listed plant species documented on Hatchineha Unit


State Federal Ashe’s savory Calamintha ashei T - Britton’s beargrass Nolina brittoniana E E Curtiss’ milkweed Asclepias curtissii E - Cutthroat grass Panicum abscissum E - Florida bonamia Bonamia grandiflora E T Lewton’s polygala Polygala lewtonii E E Papery whitlow-wort Paronychia chartacea T T Pigeon wings Clitoria fragrans E T Pygmy fringe-tree Chionanthus pygmaeus E E Sandlace Polygonella myriophylla E E Scrub bluestem Schizachyrium niveum E - Scrub plum Prunus geniculata E E Scrub stylisma Stylisma abdita E - E=Endangered, T=Threatened

Okeechobee Unit Listed wildlife species likely to occur on the Okeechobee Unit are shown in Table 6.There are no known listed plants on the tract.

187

Table 6. Listed wildlife species documented on/nearby Okeechobee Unit


State Federal Audubon's crested caracara Polyborus plancus audubonii T T Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon carais couperi T T

Florida grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum floridanus E E

Florida bonneted bat Eumops floridanus E E Florida sandhill crane Antigone canadensis pratensis T - Wood stork Mycteria americana T T C=Candidate, E=Endangered, T=Threatened

At-Risk Species This section describes species that are not federally listed, but whose populations are declining substantially and could be “candidate” species for federal listing. The gopher tortoise is a federal candidate species and state-listed as threatened. The Arbuckle and Hatchineha units support gopher tortoise, but they are not documented on the Okeechobee Unit. Migratory Birds The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended, protects over 400 species of birds. There is no information to suggest that any of the units has been specifically surveyed for migratory birds. However, all units are likely to support a range of species, including waterfowl, grassland birds, raptors, neotropical songbirds, and wading birds. Migratory game birds are described under the Game Species section below. Non-imperiled Wildlife Non-imperiled wildlife describes species that are relatively abundant and generally widely distributed across Florida or large portions of the United States and are likely to occur on all units. Examples include, bobcat (Lynx rufus), cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), Florida rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), southern black racer (Coluber constrictor priapus), and several water snakes (Nerodia spp.). Game Species Game species are defined in this EA as any fish, reptile, amphibian, bird or mammal species that can legally be taken in accordance with federal and state regulations. Examples of game species are provided below. White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) White-tailed deer are wide-spread and occur across most of Florida, with some exceptions in areas where habitat is unsuitable. Generally, deer populations favor areas where there is a mix of wooded and more open habitats, such as is found in much of rural Florida. Suburban areas that offer sufficient cover and forage opportunities are increasingly utilized by this adaptable species. Deer occur on all units. On existing refuge lands, deer hunting is currently being coordinated with FWC to ensure that the hunts meet the goals and objectives of the “Strategic Plan for Deer Management in Florida 2008-2018”. In the FWC plan, the deer population goal is to, “Ensure the existence of robust deer populations that meet the public’s desires for recreational opportunities and protection of property while ensuring the long-term welfare of the species” (FWC 2007a). Deer hunting opportunities on any future refuge lands that are added to the WMA program would be aimed toward supporting FWC’s deer management.

188

Feral Hogs (Sus scrofa) Feral (wild) hogs are an invasive, non-native species known to alter native habitat, damage crops, and spread diseases (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2013). This highly prolific, adaptable species is wide-spread across Florida and occurs on all units. Complete eradication of feral hog on refuge lands is desirable, but currently is not feasible. Hunting of feral hogs, which is an activity widely enjoyed by local hunters, provides the Refuge with another management tool for reducing this detrimental species. Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Wild turkeys are relatively common in much of rural Florida, utilizing a range of agricultural, grassland, and woodland habitats. They are increasingly found in suburban areas when there is suitable habitat. Wild turkeys occur on all units. Wild turkey in Florida are managed under the guidance of the FWC Wild Turkey Management Program (WTMP). The WTMP is charged with coordinating wild turkey management and research activities across the state and providing a statewide approach to conservation and management of Florida’s wild turkey population. As a part of the 10-year strategic plan (2008-2018) the following goal was developed: “Ensure healthy and sustainable wild turkey” populations throughout the state while providing and promoting compatible uses of the resource (FWC 2008). On existing refuge lands, wild turkey hunting is currently being coordinated with FWC to ensure that the hunts meet the goals and objectives of their 10-year plan. Wild turkey hunting opportunities on any future refuge lands that are added to the WMA program would be aimed toward supporting FWC’s management of this game species. Migratory Game Birds For the purposes of this EA, migratory game birds fall into the following two categories: 1. Waterfowl:

Waterfowl that are hunted in Florida include various ducks (e.g. mallards, canvasback, wood duck), geese (e.g. Canada, snow, blue), teal, and merganser. The units have limited suitable habitat for most of these species.

2. Non-waterfowl: Examples of migratory game birds in this category include rails, moorhen, snipe, coot, doves, crows, and woodcock. A few of these species have been observed on all units.

The Service annually prescribes a framework, or outer limits, for dates and times when hunting may occur and the number of migratory game birds that may be taken and possessed. These frameworks are necessary to allow state selections of season and limits for recreation and sustenance; aid federal, state, and tribal governments in the management of migratory game birds; and permit harvests at levels compatible with population status and habitat conditions. Because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory game birds are closed unless specifically opened by the Secretary of the Interior, the Service annually promulgates regulations (50 CFR Part 20) establishing the frameworks from which states may select season dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other options for each migratory bird hunting season. Small Game For the purposes of this plan, small game includes several small to medium sized mammals, (e.g. squirrel, raccoon, rabbit, bobcat, coyote, opossum, otter, skunk) and bobwhite quail, a non-migratory bird species. Most small game mammal species are expected to occur on all units. Quail have been observed on all units.

189

During the 2018-2019 season, bobwhite quail were only legally hunted within FWC’s purview on several WMAs designated as Quail Enhancement Areas or via a release permit on select WMAs and Wildlife and Environmental Areas (WEAs). Refuge lands currently within the WMA program do not offer quail hunts. However, there is the potential that current lands or new refuge lands added to the WMA may provide this opportunity in the future. Alligator Since 1988, FWC has offered hunters the opportunity to take part in its annual statewide recreational alligator harvest. The purpose of reinstating alligator hunting was to provide the public with a much-desired opportunity to hunt alligators in Florida. Recreational alligator hunting is just one part of the FWC’s overall approach to managing the population. FWC has identified state-wide alligator hunt units. Although refuge lands do not fall within present FWC alligator harvest units, it is possible they may in the future. Fishable Species Fish habitat on all units is limited. Arbuckle has some deeper ditches, with wooded banks, that retain water during the dry season, and these waterways appear to be dominated by gar, sunfish, and non-native species. Neither the Hatchineha Unit nor Okeechobee Unit have permanent water. In Florida, fishing regulations include the taking of most frog species, while listed species are specifically excluded. Several larger frog species have been documented on the Arbuckle Unit. The types of frog species present on the Hatchineha and Okeechobee units are unknown. Non-native (Exotic) Species A range of non-native (exotic) species of plants and wildlife occur throughout Florida, many of which are believed to have negative consequences for native habitats and wildlife, agriculture, and infrastructure. Feral hog is discussed above as a game species, and occur on all units. Large exotic lizards (e.g., Nile monitor, Argentine black and white tegu) and constrictors (e.g. Burmese python) have invaded south Florida. Though not observed on these units, these species are spreading northward, causing measurable effects to populations and diversity in wildlife communities (Engeman et. al. 2011). 3.3 Socioeconomics

For the purposes of this EA, refer to the socioeconomics section of the environmental assessment conducted as part of the LPP (USFWS 2012b). The 2012 LPP and associated effects analysis provides information on the demographics, economic activity, and outdoor recreational opportunities for a study area that included Highlands, Okeechobee, Osceola, and Polk Counties (USFWS 2012a). 3.4 Cultural Resources

Although there are no known sites, given the history of this area that encompasses the Refuge, cultural resource sites are expected to be encountered. The Refuge acquisition boundary consists of the Kissimmee River watershed and encompasses numerous sites of interest to the Seminole Tribe of Florida and potentially includes sites of interest to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. Sites that might be encountered within the Refuge include green corn dance sites, villages, camps, cemeteries, and historic landscapes, such as the Okeechobee Battlefield. Further, the Brighton Reservation of the Seminole Tribe of Florida is located in Glades County, adjacent to the Study Area and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida has cattle grazing lands in Highlands County. Additional information on the cultural history of the area encompassed by the Refuge acquisition boundary can be found in the LPP (USFWS 2012) and associated EA (USFWS 2012b).

190

4.0 Environmental Consequences This chapter of the EA describes the potential environmental effects that could result under the Action and No Action Alternatives. Effects can be classified as direct, indirect, and cumulative. The CEQ regulations state that direct effects are “caused by the action and occur at the same time and place”. Direct effects are typically well-understood and predictable. Direct effects are action-focused effects. Examples of common direct effects resulting from outdoor recreation include wildlife disturbance, taking of wildlife, and vegetation trampling. Indirect effects are defined as occurring later in time and farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. An example of an indirect effects resulting from outdoor recreation could include a change over time in the types of plants occurring in areas where trampling takes place, as hardier plants replace more fragile species. An example of an indirect effect that is further removed from where the action is taking place could include an increase in the density of certain wildlife on nearby lands, as species temporarily flee the Refuge during the hunting season. A cumulative effect is defined as one that results from the incremental effects of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future action regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative effects are the overall, net effects on a resource that arise from multiple actions. Environmental effects can “accumulate” spatially, when different actions affect different areas of the same resource. They can also accumulate over the course of time. Sometimes different actions counterbalance one another, partially canceling out each other’s effects on a resource. But more typically, multiple effects add up, with each additional action contributing an incremental effect on the resource. Unless otherwise noted, the following sections discuss the effects to the environment if the Action Alternative were implemented. Under the No Action Alternative, most resources would be affected in a manner similar to what is anticipated under the Action Alternative, but for a shorter duration since current uses are allowed under interim CDs set to expire in 2021 (non-priority uses) and 2026 (priority uses). Effects can be categorized as direct (occur at the same time and place), indirect (occur in foreseeable foreseeable), cumulative (incremental, when taken together with other actions). Effects are classified in terms of their level of impact as follows:

● None – no effects expected ● Minimal – effects are not expected to be measurable, or are too small to cause any discernible

degradation to the environment ● Minor – effects would be measurable, but not substantial, because the affected system is capable

of absorbing the change ● Moderate – effects would be measurable, but could be reduced through appropriate mitigation ● Major – effects could individually or cumulatively be substantial

191

The expected environmental effects under both alternatives are summarized in Table 6. These anticipated effects are further detailed under each resource category (sections 4.1 through 4.4).

Table 7. Summary of expected environmental effects for resource areas under each alternative Resource Area No Action Action

Noise Minimal adverse effects Minimal adverse effects

Habitats Minor adverse effects Minimal beneficial effects

Minor adverse effects Minimal beneficial effects

Threatened and Endangered Species

Minimal adverse effects Some beneficial effects

Minimal adverse effects Minimal beneficial effects

At-risk Species Minimal adverse effects Minimal beneficial effects


Migratory birds (non-game) Minimal adverse effects Minimal beneficial effects


Non-imperiled Wildlife Minimal adverse effects Minimal beneficial effects


White-tailed Deer Minor adverse effects Minimal beneficial effects


Feral (wild) Hog Minor positive effects Minor positive effects

Wild Turkey Minor adverse effects Minimal beneficial effects


Migratory Game Birds Minor adverse effects Minimal beneficial effects


Small Game Minimal adverse effects Minimal beneficial effects


Alligator Minimal adverse effects Minimal beneficial effects


Fishable Species Minimal adverse effects Minimal beneficial effects


Non-native species Minimal adverse effects Minimal beneficial effects


Socioeconomics Minor positive effects Minor positive effects

Cultural resources Minimal adverse effects Minimal beneficial effects


4.1 Effects on Noise

All the proposed uses would create some level of noise. Some wildlife could be disturbed by increased noise from human voices for all of the described activities, disrupting their normal pattern of behavior. Barking dogs could also scare off near-by wildlife. Gunshots would temporarily cause noise, but this effect would be relatively infrequent and of short duration. Off-road vehicles would create some noise, but at the low speeds allowed this effect would be much reduced. Larger drones, where permitted, may disturb some wildlife as they emit more noise. Overall, noise levels as they relate to public uses are likely to be transient and relatively localized and are not expected to substantially affect the biology of any wildlife species present. Hence, minimal adverse effects from noise are anticipated to be similar under both alternatives, with those under the proposed action potentially lasting several years longer.

192

4.2 Effects on Biological Resources

This section discusses potential effects resulting from the proposed action to biological resources, including habitats, threatened and endangered species, at-risk species, migratory birds, non-imperiled wildlife, game species, and non-native wildlife. Habitats All of the proposed uses can adversely affect habitats. However, most of the activities would be limited to public use infrastructure already disturbed, such as roads, trails, fire-breaks, and parking areas. Hunters would be allowed off-trail on foot, but any associated vegetation disturbance would likely be negligible. Permitted (e.g. hunting and fishing) off-road vehicle use may cause localized and temporary vegetation disturbance. Horses, dogs, and pedestrians can spread the seeds of non-native plant species by passing through the site. Overall, the intensity of uses is expected to be low, relative to the size of each unit, and adverse effects to habitats are expected to be minor. Any negative effects could be further reduced by limiting use to existing trails and by making potentially sensitive areas off-limits. Environmental education and interpretation programs could increase awareness and support for refuge programs among the visiting public which may translate into benefits to these resources. These effects would be similar under each alternative, albeit for a long timeframe under the proposed action. Threatened and Endangered Species The potential effects to listed species are anticipated to be minimal under both alternatives, though the effects would continue for a longer timeframe under the action alternative. Environmental education and interpretation programs could increase awareness and support for Service programs and regional conservation efforts geared to protecting imperiled species among the visiting public which may translate into benefits to these resources. None of the game species potentially taken are prey for any listed species utilizing the site. Increased noise levels could cause some disturbance to listed bird species, such as caracara. However, given short duration of the disturbance, this effect is expected to be minimal. Crushing of listed plants and sand skinks would be minimized by closing sensitive areas, as needed. The findings of the Intra-Service Section 7 Endangered Species Consultation can be found in the Appendix. At-Risk Species Gopher tortoise could potentially be negatively affected by off-road vehicle use. However, slow speeds, operator awareness, the use of designated trails, and closure of sensitive areas would keep the effects to a minimum. For both alternatives, effects would be at minimal levels described for threatened and endangered species above. Migratory Birds (Non-game) Non-game, migratory birds could be adversely affected by each of the proposed uses to some degree, with disturbance being the common factor. The foraging, resting, and breeding activities of birds could be altered, especially along roads and trails where public use is expected to be at higher levels (Hill et al. 1997, Koshak 2005, Masden and Fox 1995). There is a low probability that ground-nesting birds may have their nests inadvertently disturbed or destroyed by any allowed, off-trail uses. However, user awareness would minimize that negative effect. Effects, both adverse and beneficial, would be minimal, similar to those described for threatened and endangered species above.

193

Non-imperiled Wildlife Disturbance from any of the proposed uses would likely be the primary adverse effect on non-imperiled wildlife, as has been documented elsewhere (Blakesly and Reese 1988, Klein 1993, Kucera 1976, Laskowski 1999, Pease et al. 2005, Taylor and Knight 2003a and 2003b). However, these sources of disturbance would be infrequent and of short duration. Furthermore, many wildlife species are known to habituate to frequent, non-threatening human activities. Direct injury or mortality from collisions with bicycles, albeit unlikely is a possibility (Quinn and Chernoff 2010). Permitted ORV use can have similar consequences. Discarded fishing line may injure or kill birds and other wildlife. Taken together, these consequences are expected to be localized, relatively infrequent, and of negligible importance to non-imperiled wildlife populations. Hence, any adverse effects to non-imperiled wildlife species are expected to be minimal under each alternative, differing only in timeframe. Potential positive effects could include a greater awareness and support for Refuge, State and other conservation efforts aimed at keeping relatively common species from declining. White-tailed Deer White-tailed deer have restricted home ranges and local hunting efforts would not affect regional populations. Furthermore, deer hunting can maintain herd size and sex ratios at a healthy population level commensurate with available habitat (McShea et. al. 1997, Terborgh et. al. 2001). FWC has divided the state into deer management units (DMUs). The Arbuckle Unit falls in DMU C1, Hatchineha Unit lies in DMU B1, and the Okeechobee Unit is located in DMU C2 (FWC 2016a). Each DMU has a specific deer quota. It is expected that all three units can support sustainable deer hunting opportunities. The annual State-wide bag limit is five deer, of which no more than two can be antlerless. The Refuge lies in the South and South-west FWC Regions. During the 2018-2019 season, 670 deer were harvested from WMAs in these regions (FWC 2020a). It is estimated that hunters would take about one deer seasonally from the Refuge. The proposed action is expected to cause a slight increase in the number of deer taken annually. This direct effect will have a negligible effect on the population. It is expected that the deer population will recover seasonally, and no indirect effects are expected. Cumulatively, this slight increase in deer take is not expected to be significant. Hence, the overall negative effect on deer is expected to be minimal. Conversely, a positive effect could include further awareness by hunters of the state’s deer management efforts, possibly resulting in increased support for the program, with associated benefits for the deer population and a range of other species. Feral (wild) Hog Feral hog are an invasive species and any incidental take is likely to have a beneficial effect to native wildlife and habitat, since hogs compete for mast; destroy native plants; and prey upon bird nests, small vertebrates, and invertebrates (Seward et al. 2004, USFWS 2014). During the 2018-2019 season, 635 hog were harvested from WMAs in the South and South-west regions (FWC 2020a). It is estimated that hunters would take about one hog seasonally from the Refuge. There is no limit of take for feral hog. Feral hogs reproduce rapidly, and the direct effect of increased take is expected to be negligible. Population recovery is expected, and no direct or cumulative effects are expected. Hence, a positive effect resulting from the proposed uses is expected, albeit minor.

194

Wild Turkey Most of peninsular Florida is occupied by the Osceola subspecies (Meleagris gallopavo osceola). Wild turkey have increased in Florida since the 1970s due to habitat protection and management efforts (FWC 2016b). This game species has limited home ranges, and local hunting efforts are unlikely to affect regional populations, although spring turkey hunting can disrupt nesting (Vangilder and Kurzejeski 1995). Through the use of quota hunts, a sustainable harvest is expected. The State allows two (male only) turkeys to be harvested seasonally. During the 2018-2019 season, 216 turkey were taken from WMAs in the South and South-west regions (FWC 2020a). It is estimated that hunters would take less than one turkey seasonally on the Refuge. The proposed action is expected to have a negligible increase in take for this species. Hence, there the direct effect is a slight decline in turkey numbers. The local population is expected to rebound seasonally with no indirect effects. Range-wide, this slight increase in take is not expected to have a cumulative effect on the species. Overall, the adverse effects of hunting on wild turkey is expected to be minimal. Positive effects would also be minor, as those described under deer. Migratory Game Birds The Service annually prescribes a framework, or outer limits, for dates and times when hunting may occur and the number of migratory game birds that may be taken and possessed. These frameworks are necessary to allow state selections of season and limits for recreation and sustenance; aid federal, state, and tribal governments in the management of migratory game birds; and permit harvests at levels compatible with population status and habitat conditions. Because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory game birds are closed unless specifically opened by the Secretary of the Interior, the Service annually promulgates regulations (50 CFR Part 20) establishing the frameworks from which states may select season dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other options for each migratory bird hunting season (USFWS 2018). All migratory bird hunting regulations will be per WMA rules, and the overall effect is expected to have a minimal adverse effect. The effects of hunting under the proposed action is detailed for individual species below. The sale of hunter Duck Stamps would support conservation efforts at the national level. Additionally, increased awareness of the range-wide reductions of populations of several migratory game birds may bring about increased support by hunters, possibly resulting in support for other conservation efforts for this resource. Based on 2018 hunter and harvest data for WMAs in the Southern and Southwest regions (FWC 2020a), and extrapolating to Refuge acreage, a rough estimate of hunters and harvest numbers was derived. Under the proposed action, approximately 100 hunters would seasonally utilize the Refuge. They are estimated to annually take 50 ducks, 5 coot, 5 moorhen, 5 dove, 0 geese, o rail, 0 crow, 0 snipe, and 0 woodcock. Daily migratory game bird bag limits are provided in Table 7. Table 8: Daily Florida bag limits for migratory game birds

Species Daily Bag Limit Crow No limit Rail (king and clapper) 15 Rail (sore and Virginia) 25 Common moorhen 15 Canada goose 5 Duck 6 or less (depending

on species) Dove (mourning and white-winged) 15

Snipe 8

195

Coot 15 Light geese (snow, blue, Ross’) 15 Merganser 5 Woodcock 3

The Atlantic Flyway is one of several major migratory bird corridors in North America. Annually, millions of birds use this route to move between northern nesting and southern wintering grounds. Table 9 shows Atlantic Flyway harvest numbers for various game birds (Roberts 2019). Table 9: 2018 Atlantic Flyway nation-wide and Florida harvest data

Species Atlantic Flyway Florida Mallard 277,100 200 American black duck 71,800 0 Mottled duck 11,200 9,900 Gadwall 62,200 500 Green-winged teal 101,300 3,300 Blue-winged teal 52,100 39,400 Widgeon 51,100 3,300 Northern shoveler 20,600 3,200 Northern pintail 17,500 700 Wood duck 370,500 19,100 Redhead 25,900 2,500 Canvasback 20,700 400 Greater scaup 29,000 400 Lesser scaup 45,100 3,000 Ring-necked duck 123,100 35,100 Common goldeneye 9,100 200 Bufflehead 121,000 2,000 Common merganser 5,200 0 Red-breasted merganser 6,600 100 Hooded merganser 31,500 600 Long-tailed duck 24,200 0 Common eider 17,600 0 Black scoter 30,800 100 White-winged scoter 2,400 0 Surf scoter 33,500 100 Ruddy duck 12,800 500

During the 2018-2019 season, 27,747 duck, 2,063 snipe, 2,510 dove, and 2 woodcock were taken from WMAs in the South and South-west regions (FWC 2020a). Under the proposed action, hunting would cause a slight increase in the take of ducks, coot, moorhen, dove and crow. These levels of take are expected to be at negligible levels, particularly when compared to estimated harvest numbers along the Atlantic Flyway (see table 9). There is no anticipated take of geese, rail, snipe, and woodcock. The direct effect of take is a slight decrease in migratory bird game numbers. No indirect or cumulative effects related to the proposed action are expected.

196

Small (Upland) Game Small game mammals include species such as rabbits, raccoon, opossum, and squirrel, and are believed to be widespread and common on the Refuge. The structure and length of hunt seasons for the Refuge will be planned and managed through existing state WMA regulations (FWC 2016c). The daily bag limit for gray squirrel and rabbit is 12. The possession limit for bobcat and otter is one. There are no bag limits for raccoon, opossum, armadillo, beaver, coyote, skunk, and nutria. During the 2018-2019 season, four otter, 479 gray squirrel, 19 raccoon, one bobcat, six coyote, and 29 rabbit were taken from WMAs in the South and South-west regions (FWC 2020a). It is estimated that hunters would take less than one of each of otter, raccoon, bobcat, coyote or rabbit seasonally on the Refuge. About one gray squirrel would be taken every season. There is no data on opossum, armadillo, beaver, skunk, or nutria from which to predict take on the Refuge. The proposed action is anticipated to cause a slight increase in the take of all small game species, except beaver and nutria, neither of which are found on the Refuge. This impact is expected to be negligible, as these species have high reproductive rates that can support the expected levels of take. Bobcat and otter have relatively low reproductive rates compared to the other small game species, hence their take is limited to one each annually. The direct effect is a negligible decline in local small game numbers seasonally. These small game species’ population recovery seasonally and no indirect or cumulative effects are anticipated. Overall, the adverse effect of hunting on small game species is expected to be minimal. In some instances, the populations of medium-sized predators such as raccoons can rise to levels where nest predation and other negative effects become noticeable. Small game hunting can have beneficial effects by helping keep raccoon populations at acceptable levels either by direct removal or causing temporary displacement, providing some level of respite from nest predation. Other small game species are considered sufficiently numerous by FWC to allow their take per State regulations. Range-wide, the bobwhite quail population has declined since the 1950s (Dimmick et al. 2002), and FWC is actively working with state and federal agencies, landowners, and other partners to reverse that trend (FWC 2007b). During the 2018-2019 season, bobwhite quail were only legally hunted on several WMAs designated as Quail Enhancement Areas or via a release permit on select WMAs and Wildlife and Environmental Areas (WEAs). The State allows a daily bag limit of 12. During the 2018-2019 season, 811 quail were harvested from WMAs in the South and South-west regions (FWC 2020a). Refuge lands currently within the WMA program do not offer quail hunts, and currently, no take of quail is expected. Hence, at the present time, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects associated with quail hunting on the Refuge. However, there is the potential that current lands or new refuge lands added to the WMA may provide this opportunity in the future. If quail were permitted to be hunted on the Refuge, it is estimated that the take would be about two seasonally. Alligator Alligator conservation has been considered a success, and it is estimated there are approximately 1.3 million alligators living in Florida (FWC 2019). The State offers a limited number of permits, and each hunter is only allowed to harvest two alligators per season. In 2018, 8,402 alligators were harvested by recreational hunters across Florida (FWC 2020b). The level of alligator take under the proposed action is expected to slightly increase locally but would not rise above the State-wide quota numbers. There would be slight direct effect on alligator numbers seasonally. However, this would not translate to any measurable indirect or cumulative effects. Hence, take of alligator per state regulations will have a minimal adverse effect on this species while potentially providing an additional hunting opportunity.

197

Fish The legal take of fish species will be in accordance with state-wide freshwater fishing regulations. Any adverse effects on fish populations are expected to be minimal for both alternatives, differing only in timeframe. All freshwater Florida game fish species are considered sufficiently numerous to allow their take according to regulation. Possible beneficial effects include the sale of State fishing licenses which are used to further management efforts aimed at keeping fishable populations at sustainable levels. The legal take of frog species will be in accordance with state-wide freshwater fishing regulations. Any effects, adverse and positive are similar to those described above for fish resources. Non-native Species All proposed uses have the potential to inadvertently spread nonnative plants and animals. Seeds of invasive plants can be carried on vehicles, clothing, and the fur of dogs and horses. Small non-native animals can hitch-hike on vehicles or in camping gear. However, most of the non-native species that may spread by these means are likely already present in some numbers on refuge lands. This negative effect is expected to be minimal under both alternatives and having a longer duration for the proposed action. The awareness raised on non-native species through various environmental educational and interpretive materials is considered a minimal positive consequence that would be similar under both alternatives. Visitors that are informed about the harmful nature of invasive species may be less likely to release unwanted exotic pets into the environment (USFWS 2012b). 4.3 Effects on Socioeconomics

The proposed action is expected to benefit socioeconomic resources through the contracting/purchasing of various locally-provided outdoor recreational services/goods. There would be a minor beneficial economic effect. The EA associated with the LPP provides a more detailed analysis of the economic effects associated with outdoor recreation (USFWS 2012a). Under the no-action alternative, the listed activities would sunset sooner than what is expected under the proposed action. Although associated expenditures (e.g. sales of hunting equipment, etc.), as well as indirect economic activities (e.g. restaurant/hotel use by visitors in the surrounding areas) are unknown, this overall adverse effect is expected to be minimal under the no action alternative. 4.4 Effects on Cultural Resources

The listed activities are expected to adversely affect any cultural resources at minimal levels under both alternatives, differing only in timeframe. There are no known historical resources on the units that could be damaged. Since these activities would not require any digging, no disturbance to archeological resources is expected. Any cultural resources on possible future refuge units would be protected. Conversely, a heightened awareness by the visiting public of the importance of these resources could garner increased support for local efforts and beyond to protect America’s heritage. 4.5 Environmental Justice

February 11, 1994 Executive Order No. 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income Populations” to focus federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low income populations, with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities.

198

The order directs federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and addressing disproportionately high, adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The order is also intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment, and to provide minority and low-income community’s access to public information and participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. None of our proposed alternatives would place a disproportionately high, adverse environmental, economic, social, or health effects on minority or low-income persons. None of the identified socioeconomic and environmental effects would be localized nor be placed primarily or unequally on minority and low-income population persons who reside near the Refuge.

199

5.0 References Dimmick, R.W., M.J. Gudlin and D.F. McKenzie. 2002. The northern bobwhite conservation initiative.

Miscellaneous publication of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, South Carolina. 96 pp.

Engeman, Richard, Elliott Jacobson, Michael L. Avery, Walter E. Meshaka. 2011. The aggressive

invasion of exotic reptiles in Florida with a focus on prominent species: A review, Current Zoology, Volume 57, Issue 5, 1 October 2011, Pages 599–612

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2007a. 2008-18 Strategic Plan for Deer

Management in Florida. http://myfwc.com/media/464652/DeerManagementPlan2008_2018.pdf. Accessed: May 2015.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2007b. Strategic plan for northern bobwhite

restoration in Florida. http://myfwc.com/hunting/by-species/quail/. Accessed: May 2018. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2008. 2008-18 Strategic Plan for Wild Turkey

Management. http://myfwc.com/hunting/by-species/turkey/. Accessed: May 2015. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2016a. White-tailed Deer Management Program.

http://myfwc.com/hunting/by-species/deer/ Accessed: February 2016. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2016b. Wild Turkey Management Program.

http://myfwc.com/hunting/by-species/turkey/ Accessed: February 2016. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Division of Hunting and Game Management, Public

Awareness Section. 2016c. Florida Hunting Regulations. http://www.eregulations.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/17FLHD_LR.pdf . Accessed February 12, 2018.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2019. Guide to Alligator Hunting in Florida. https://myfwc.com/media/16675/alligator-hunting-guide.pdf Accessed: October 2019. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2020a. WMA Harvest Reports. https://myfwc.com/hunting/harvest-reports/ Accessed: February 6, 2020. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2020b. Statewide Alligator Harvest Program. https://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/wildlife/alligator/harvest/ Accessed: February 6, 2020. Gulfstream Natural Gas System. 2011. Gulfstream (renamed to Arbuckle) unit: Long Term Management

Plan. Prepared by Kevin Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc. Unpublished report. Hill, D., Hockin, D., Price, D., Tucker, G., Morris, R., & Treweek, J. (1997). Bird Disturbance:

Improving the Quality and Utility of Disturbance Research. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34(2), 275-288.

Koshak, Dianne C. 2005. The impacts of wildlife viewing and related non-consumptive outdoor

recreation activities on avian populations: An annotated bibliography. Colorado Division of Wildlife: Watchable Wildlife. http://hermes.cde.state.co.us/. Accessed: May 2018.

Kucera, E., 1976. Deer flushing distance as related to observer's mode of travel. Wildlife Society Bulletin

(1973-2006), 4(3), pp.128-129.

http://myfwc.com/hunting/by-species/deer/

http://myfwc.com/hunting/by-species/turkey/

http://www.eregulations.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/17FLHD_LR.pdf

http://www.eregulations.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/17FLHD_LR.pdf

https://myfwc.com/media/16675/alligator-hunting-guide.pdf

https://myfwc.com/hunting/harvest-reports/

https://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/wildlife/alligator/harvest/

200

Lines, Elizabeth. 2013. The Nurture of Nature: Natural Settings and Their Mental Health Benefits. Retrieved April 9, 2019 from https://www.moodwalks.ca/about-mood-walks/the-nurture-of-nature-natural-settings-and-their-mental-health-benefits/.

McShea, W. J., Underwood, H. B., and J. H. Rappole, eds. 1997. The Science of Overabundance: Deer

Ecology and Population Management. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press. 402 p. Orlando Sentinel. 2005. Summit Aims to Boost Florida Hunting. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2005-

07-31/sports/WILSON31_1_hunting-in-florida-future-of-hunting-florida-hunters. Accessed: August 2015.

Quinn, Michael and Greg Chernoff. 2010. Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects A

Literature Review for Parks Canada – National Office (Visitor Experience Branch) FINAL REPORT. Miistakis Institute. Faculty of Environmental Design – University of Calgary. https://www.lib.washington.edu/msd/norestriction/b67566091.pdf. Accessed: May 2018.

Roberts, A.J. 2019. Atlantic Flyway harvest and population survey data book. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Laurel, MD. https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/surveys-and-data/DataBooks/AtlanticFlywayDatabook.pdf Accessed: February 10, 2020.

Seward, N.W., VerCauteren, K.C., Witmer, G.W. and Engeman, R.M., 2004. Feral swine impacts on

agriculture and the environment. Sheep & Goat Research Journal, p.12. Taylor, A.R. and Knight, R.L., 2003a. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor perceptions. Ecological Applications, 13(4), pp.951-963. Taylor, A. R. and R. L. Knight. 2003b. Behavioral responses of wildlife to human activity: terminology

and methods. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(4): 1263-1271. Terborgh, J., Lopez, L., Nuñez, P., Rao, M., Shahabuddin, G., Orihuela, G., Riveros, M., Ascanio, R.,

Adler, G.H., Lambert, T.D. and Balbas, L., 2001. Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest fragments. Science, 294(5548), pp.1923-1926.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2013. Feral Swine: Damage and Disease Threats.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/wildlife_damage/content/printable_version/feral_swine.pdf. Accessed: February 2016.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012a. Land Protection Plan and Environmental Assessment.

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/evergladesheadwaters/documents.html Accessed: January 2016. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012b. 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-

Associated Recreation – National Overview. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 20 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Feral Hog Management on National Wildlife Refuges in Arkansas:

Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.fws.gov/cacheriver/pdf/feral-hog-faq_aug2014_arkansas.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2018.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Migratory Bird Program – Hunting.

https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/hunting.php Accessed: May 2018.

https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/surveys-and-data/DataBooks/AtlanticFlywayDatabook.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/surveys-and-data/DataBooks/AtlanticFlywayDatabook.pdf

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/wildlife_damage/content/printable_version/feral_swine.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/evergladesheadwaters/documents.html

https://www.fws.gov/cacheriver/pdf/feral-hog-faq_aug2014_arkansas.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/cacheriver/pdf/feral-hog-faq_aug2014_arkansas.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/hunting.php

201

Vangilder, L., and Kurzejeski, E. 1995. Population Ecology of the Eastern Wild Turkey in Northern Missouri. Wildlife Monographs,(130), 3-50. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/38307616.0 Appendix: Intra-Service Section 7 Endangered Species Consultation

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3830761

202

REGION 4 INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM

Originating Person: William Miller Telephone Number: 772-216-6512 Email: [email protected] Date: 12.17.2019 PROJECT NAME: Visitor Services Plan for Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area (Refuge) - Arbuckle, Hatchineha, and Okeechobee Units I. Service Program: ___ Ecological Services ___ Federal Aid ___Clean Vessel Act ___Coastal Wetlands ___Endangered Species Section 6 ___Partners for Fish and Wildlife ___Sport Fish Restoration ___Wildlife Restoration ___Fisheries _X_ Refuges/Wildlife II. State/Agency: Florida/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service III. Station Name: Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area

203

IV. Description of Proposed Action: The Refuge is developing a Visitor Services Plan (VSP) that, if approved, would allow for the following 14 public uses: bicycling, camping, commercial recording, commercial tours, environmental education and interpretation, fishing, hiking/backpacking/jogging, horseback riding, hunting, wildlife observation and photography, off-road vehicle use in support of hunting and fishing, and pets on leash. All these activities, with the exception of commercial recording, commercial tours, and pets on leash, are currently allowed under interim compatibility determinations as described in the 2012 Everglades Headwaters Conservation Partnership: Land Protection Plan for the Establishment of the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area (LPP) that authorized the Refuge. Through a 2012 Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), hunting and fishing programs are conducted as part of the State’s Wildlife Management Area (WMA) program, and each Refuge Unit has specific regulations (see FWC WMA website for current brochures). It is anticipated that the Okeechobee Unit will also be included in the WMA program in the future. The proposed action covers the Arbuckle (formerly Gulfstream), Hatchineha, and Okeechobee Units (see Figures A1, B1, and C1). Per the Refuge’s 2012 LPP, off-road vehicle use is allowed in support of hunting, fishing and research on designated roads and trails on lands that will be acquired by the Service. General ORV use by the public of designated roads and trails and not in support of hunting, fishing, or research is not allowed. As articulated by the Refuge 2012 LPP and the 2012 Service/FWC MOU, the Refuge works with FWC to evaluate a particular property, the specific resources protected on that property, and hunting activities and access to help design the hunting program for that particular property in order to minimize impacts. Through this process and to date hunting programs have been designed for the Arbuckle and Hatchineha Units. For the Arbuckle Unit, no public motor-vehicle access is currently allowed. On the Hatchineha Unit, street-legal motor vehicles are allowed during hunts on Dairy Road, an improved dirt road (see Figure B1), but only by permitted hunters. On the Okeechobee Unit, the potential exists that off-road vehicles would be allowed on designated roads and trails (see Figure C1). The Refuge maintains the ability to provide for ORV use on dedicated roads and trails in support of hunting, fishing and research on all refuge units, and where not presently provided for would maintain the authority to provide for this use based on ongoing evaluations by the Service and FWC. V. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

204

A. Arbuckle Unit The 395-acre Arbuckle Unit is a restored improved pasture. The western portion of the unit consists of pine flatwoods, restored/enhanced wetlands (bay swamp), mixed hardwood, freshwater marsh, and cypress (Figure A1). Wood stork are known to forage in the wetlands. The eastern portion is substantially drier, consisting of xeric oak, live oak, and scrubby pine flatwoods. The more xeric areas have had several listed plants documented, some of which were translocated (Kevin Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc for Gulfstream Natural Gas System 2011). Sand skink are found in the eastern-most section of the unit. Gopher tortoises have been documented on the entire site where soils remain sufficiently dry for burrowing. Indigo snakes would utilize the entire site. The unit lies in the Florida bonneted bat consultation area.

205

Figure A1: Arbuckle Unit Habitat Map

206

A2. Species/Critical Habitat – Arbuckle Unit SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1

Audubon's crested caracara (Polyborus plancus audubonii) T

Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon carais couperi) T

Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) E

Florida Ziziphus (Ziziphus celata) E

Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) C

Pygmy Fringe-tree (Chionanthus pygmaeus) E

Papery Whitlow‐wort (Paronychia chartacea) T

Sand skink (Neoseps reynoldsi) T

Britton’s beargrass (Nolina brittoniana) E

Scrub Blazing Star (Liatris ohlingerae) E

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) T 1STATUS:E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species. B. Hatchineha Unit The 1,460-acre Hatchineha Unit consists of pine flatwoods, mixed hardwood, sand pine scrub, and freshwater marsh (Figure B1). Gopher tortoises are found throughout the drier portions of the site, predominantly a restored system of Lake Wales Ridge scrub habitat. Indigo snakes would utilize the entire site. Sand skink and bluetail mole skink generally occupy xeric uplands with sand substrates, which can include sand pine scrub and longleaf pine – xeric scrub habitats. No scrub jay families are known to occupy the sand-hill portion of the site. Roughly 60-acres of semi-improved pasture occurs on the north end of the site and is grazed by cattle. Caracara may occasionally forage there. Wood stork may occasionally forage in ephemeral wetlands and creeks. Scrub jays have not been documented on the site since 2009. Listed plants were documented on-site when the south-western sandhill tracts were still under mitigation (Hatchineha Ranch Conservation Bank, Modica & Associates 2011). The unit lies in the Florida bonneted bat consultation area.

207

Figure B1: Hatchineha Unit Habitat Map

208

B2. Species/Critical Habitat – Hatchineha Unit SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1


Bluetail mole skink (Eumeces egregius lividus) T

Britton’s Beargrass (Nolina brittoniana) E


Florida Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) T

Florida bonamia (Bonamia grandiflora) T


Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) C

Lewton’s polygala (Polygala lewtonii) E Papery whitlow-wort (Paronychia chartacea ssp. Chartacea) T

Pigeon wings (Clitoria fragrans) T

Pygmy fringe-tree (Chionanthus pygmaeus) T

Sandlace (Polygonella myriophylla) E

Sand skink (Neoseps reynoldsi) T

Scrub plum (Prunus geniculate) E

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) T 1STATUS:E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species. C. Okeechobee Unit Over 50 percent of the roughly 1,999-acre Okeechobee Unit consists of dry prairie, followed by wet prairie and freshwater marshes (Figure C1). The remaining habitats consist of pasture, temperate hammock, and freshwater forested wetlands. Indigo snakes would utilize the entire site. The unit was managed as unimproved pasture, and caracara forage there. Wood stork opportunistically forage in ephemeral wetlands. Florida grasshopper sparrows have been detected within several miles of the unit and suitable habitat is present. The unit lies in the Florida bonneted bat consultation area. There are no known listed plants on the unit.

209

Figure C1: Okeechobee Unit

210

C2. Species/Critical Habitat – Okeechobee Unit SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1




Florida grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus) E

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) T 1STATUS:E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species. VI. Location A. Landscape Conservation Cooperative: Peninsular Florida B. County and State: Polk and Okeechobee Counties, Florida C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): Arbuckle Unit: 27.710845 -81.495225 Decimal Degrees Hatchineha Unit: 28° 1'36.93"N and 81°29'31.85"W Decimal Degrees Okeechobee Unit: 27°28'49.81 N and 81° 4'17.37"W Decimal Degrees D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: Arbuckle Unit: About three miles east of Frostproof, along Old Avon Road. Hatchineha Unit: About 10 miles east of Dundee, along Hatchineha Road (Route 542). The Okeechobee Unit is located 256th Street in Okeechobee County, about 20 miles west of Highway 441. E. Species/habitat occurrence: For Arbuckle, refer to Gulfstream Tract Long-term Management Plan (2011), developed under contract to Gulfstream Natural Gas Company by Kevin Erwin Consulting Ecologist. For Hatchineha, reliable data is only known for the sandhill portion (refer to Hatchineha Ranch Conservation Bank 2011). Listed species occurrence for the Okeechobee Unit is based on habitat characteristics and anecdotal evidence. VII. Determination of Effects:

211

Listed species are not likely to be adversely affected by the proposed public uses. None of the game species potentially taken are prey for any listed species utilizing the site. Increased noise levels could cause some disturbance to listed bird species, such as caracara and wood stork. However, given short duration of the disturbance, this effect is expected to be minimal. Because the 14 public uses will not result in the clearing of any vegetation and should otherwise have discountable affects to Florida bonneted bat (FBB), we request consultation for FBB be considered outside of the Consultation Key for the Florida bonneted bat (Service 2019). Crushing of listed plants and skinks would be minimized by closing sensitive areas, as needed.

212

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V.

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

EXPECTED PRESENCE IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

ARBUCKLE HATCHINEHA OKEECHOBEE

Bluetail Mole Skink NO YES NO The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

Britton’s Beargrass NO YES NO The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

Caracara NO YES YES The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

Eastern Indigo Snake YES YES YES The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

Florida bonamia NO YES NO The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

Florida bonneted bat YES YES YES The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

Florida grasshopper sparrow

NO NO YES The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

Florida scrub jay NO YES NO The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

Florida Ziziphus YES NO NO The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

Gopher Tortoise YES YES NO The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

Lewton’s polygala NO YES NO The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

Papery whitlow-wort NO YES NO The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

Pigeon wings NO YES NO The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

213

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

EXPECTED PRESENCE IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

ARBUCKLE HATCHINEHA OKEECHOBEE

Pygmy Fringe-tree YES YES NO The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

Sandlace NO YES NO The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

Sand Skink YES YES NO The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

Scrub Blazing Star YES NO NO The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

Scrub Plum NO YES NO The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

Wood Stork YES YES YES The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect this species.

214

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects: As stated in Section IV, Arbuckle and Hatchineha Units are part of FWC’s WMA hunting and fishing program, with specific regulations for each unit. Presently, motor vehicles are not allowed on Arbuckle, unless by special use permit in support of research. On Hatchineha, signage has been installed to reduce the likelihood of un-authorized use by motor vehicles of trails during hunts. Only Dairy Road, an improved dirt road, is open during hunts to street-legal vehicles, and by permitted hunters only. Pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian uses are permitted on both units, but only on designated trails. It is anticipated that the Okeechobee Unit will be added to the WMA program, and off-road vehicle use may be allowed in the future on designated roads and trails in support of hunting and fishing. As mentioned, the Refuge maintains the ability to provide for ORV use on dedicated roads and trails in support of hunting and fishing on all refuge units, and where not presently provided based on ongoing evaluations by the Service and FWC of units where previous Refuge/FWC evaluations have limited the use. Environmental education and interpretation programs could increase awareness and support for Service programs and regional conservation efforts geared to protecting imperiled species among the visiting public which may translate into benefits to these resources. VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested:

DETERMINATION

SPECIES/ CRITICAL HABITAT NE NA AA

RESPONSE1 REQUESTED

Bluetail Mole Skink X concurrence

Britton’s Beargrass X concurrence

Caracara X concurrence

Eastern Indigo Snake X concurrence

Florida bonamia X concurrence

Florida bonneted bat X concurrence

Florida grasshopper sparrow X concurrence

Florida scrub jay X concurrence

Florida Ziziphus X concurrence

Gopher Tortoise X concurrence

Lewton’s polygala X concurrence

Papery whitlow-wort X concurrence

Pigeon wings X concurrence

Pygmy Fringe-tree X concurrence

215

DETERMINATION

SPECIES/ CRITICAL HABITAT NE NA AA

RESPONSE1 REQUESTED

Sandlace X concurrence

Sand Skink X concurrence

Scrub Blazing Star X concurrence

Scrub Plum X concurrence

Wood Stork X concurrence 1DETERMINATION/RESPONSE REQUESTED: NE=no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively impact, either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested is optional but a “Concurrence: is recommended for a complete Administrative Record. NA= not likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is not likely to adversely impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat or there may be beneficial effects to these resources. Response Requested is a ‘Concurrence”. AA= likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed caution is likely to adversely impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested for listed species is “Formal Consultation”. Response Requested for proposed or candidate species is “Conference”.

216

Literature Cited: USFWS 2012. Everglades Headwaters Conservation Partnership: Land Protection Plan for the Establishment of the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area. January 2012, 152 pp. USFWS 2012b. Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. January 2012, 8 pp. USFWS 2012c. Everglades Headwaters Conservation Partnership: Final Environmental Assessment for the Establishment of the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area. January, 2012. 397 pp. USFWS 2019. Consultation Key for the Florida bonneted bat; 04EF2000-2014-I-0320-R001. South Florida Ecological Services Office; Vero Beach, Florida. 34 pp. Bill Miller _______________________________________ Signature (originating station) Date _Project Leader_____________________________________ Title IX. Reviewing Ecological Services Office Evaluation: A. Concurrence _____X____ B. Formal consultation required_________ C. Conference required_________ D. Informal conference required _________ E. Remarks (attach additional pages as needed): ________________________________________ ______________ Signature Date ________________________________________ Title

Documents

Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and ... · The purpose of Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area (NWR or Refuge) visitor services program