Environmental Assessment

Opening Turkey, Coot, Beaver, Feral Hog, White-winged, Rock, and Eurasian Collared-Dove Hunting on Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge

May 2019

Prepared by

Shane Kasson Salt Plains NWR

Jet, Oklahoma

2

Table of Contents

1.0 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................... 4

Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 4

Background ................................................................................................................................. 4

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ................................................................................ 6

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

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

Alternative A – Current Management..................................................................................... 6

Alternative B – Proposed Action – Addition of wild turkey, and white-wing, rock and Eurasian collared-dove, American coot, beaver, and feral hog ............................................ 10

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ..................................................... 13

Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 13

Environmental Consequences of the Action ............................................................................. 13

Cumulative Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 13

Affected Natural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 14

Hunted Species – Migratory Game Birds ............................................................................. 14

Hunted Species – Wild Turkey ............................................................................................. 16

Incidental Take (American Beaver and Feral Hog) .............................................................. 17

Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species ..................................................................................... 19

Threatened and Endangered Species and other Special Status Species ................................ 21

Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 24

Soils....................................................................................................................................... 26

Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 27

Water Resources ................................................................................................................... 27

Affected Visitor Use and Experience Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternative ..................................................................................................... 28

Visitor Use and Experience .................................................................................................. 28

Affected Cultural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 31

Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 31

Affected Refuge Management and Operations Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives................................................................................. 31

Refuge Management and Operations .................................................................................... 31

3

Affected Socioeconomic Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 33

Socioeconomics .................................................................................................................... 33

Climate Change ..................................................................................................................... 34

Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns ........................................................................ 34

Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................... 34

Indian Trust Resources ......................................................................................................... 35

Anticipated Cumulative Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ........... 35

Natural Resources ................................................................................................................. 35

Visitor Use and Experience .................................................................................................. 37

Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 39

Refuge Management and Operations .................................................................................... 39

Socioeconomics .................................................................................................................... 40

Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 40

Summary of Analysis ................................................................................................................ 40

List of Sources, Agencies, and Persons Consulted ................................................................... 42

References ................................................................................................................................. 42

Determination ........................................................................................................................... 43

Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................................... 44

List of Tables

Table 1. Hunter Participation and Harvest Numbers on Designated Public Hunting Area of Salt Plains NWR .................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2. Wildlife Species Proposed to be Taken at Salt Plains NWR ......................................... 11 Table 3. Units Open to Hunting on Salt Plains NWR .................................................................. 12

List of Figures

Figure 1. Open Hunt Units within Salt Plains NWR and Areas Closed to Hunting ...................... 9 Figure 2. ODWC Wild Turkey Population Estimates. 2014 Alfalfa County Population Estimated at 1,170 birds. (Accessed from wildlifedepartment.com on 6/23/2015) ....................................... 16 Figure 3. Map of Visitor Services at Salt Plains NWR ................................................................ 30

4

Environmental Assessment for Opening Turkey, Coot, Beaver, Feral Hog, White-winged, Rock, and Eurasian Collared Dove on

Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge

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

1.0 Purpose and Need Proposed Action The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to open hunting opportunities for wild turkey, coot, beaver, feral hog, white-wing, rock, and Eurasian collared-dove on the Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge (NWR/refuge) in accordance with the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) (2006) and Hunt Plan (2018). The refuge seeks the addition of these species to provide additional opportunities for sportsmen and to more closely align the hunting program with Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) regulations. This proposed action is often iterative and evolves over time during the process as the agency refines its proposal and learns more from the public, tribes, and other agencies. Therefore, the final proposed action may be different from the original. The final decision on the proposed action will be made at the conclusion of the public comment period for the EA and the Draft 2019–2020 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations. The Service cannot open a refuge to hunting and/or fishing until a final rule has been published in the Federal Register formally opening the refuge to hunting. Background National wildlife refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge was established by President Herbert Hoover in Executive Order 5314, dated March 26, 1930, “…as a refuge and breeding ground for birds...” Salt Plains NWR is administered under 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.”, 16 U.S.C. § 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act) “...shall be administered by him (Secretary of the Interior) directly or in accordance with cooperative agreements... and in accordance with

5

such rules and regulations for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon,...”, 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) “…for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources…”, and 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) “…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…” The original boundary of Salt Plains NWR was expanded when Executive Orders No. 7925 (July 5, 1938) and 8089 (April 13, 1939) were authorized by the War Department to acquire the lake property. Public Land Order No. 144 (June 24, 1943) authorized by Executive Order No. 9337 (April 24, 1943) combined original refuge land with War Department land. Additional land was purchased by Duck Stamp money and the Posey tract was donated in 1990 (See CCP, Appendix G for further legal mandate information). Salt Plains NWR was also designated as critical habitat for the whooping crane (Grus Americana) (43 FR 20938, May 15, 1978). 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.

6

Therefore, it is a priority of the Service to provide wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, including hunting and fishing, when those opportunities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the mission of the NWRS. Hunting has always been popular on Salt Plains NWR, in part because public lands represent less than 3 percent of the acreage in Oklahoma. The refuge also has a strong history of attracting upland, big game, and migratory birds. Permit (controlled) deer hunting was first approved on Salt Plains NWR in 1965. Upland game hunting followed with the establishment of the Public Hunting Area (PHA) in 1970. It was not until 1988 that migratory bird hunting was added to the PHA. Permit (controlled) hunts for turkey began in 1983, but were suspended in 1988 after a disease outbreak caused the local population to crash. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of this proposed action is to increase hunting opportunities on Salt Plains NWR. The need of the proposed action is to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the NWRSAA to “recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the NWRS” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses.” 16 U.S.C. 668dd (a)(4)). This action also addresses a strategy identified in the refuge’s CCP under Objective 8.4: Expand/improve compatible hunting opportunities on the refuge. Strategy #3 under this objective specifically addresses adding spring turkey hunting through a controlled hunting process. This action is concurrent with the update to the hunting plan for the refuge that includes these changes to the program. This action is also needed to effectively implement Secretarial Order 3356, which directs bureaus and offices within DOI, in collaboration with states, tribes, and territorial partners, to implement programs to enhance hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting opportunities on DOI-managed lands and waters, while also promoting conservation activities.

2.0 Alternatives Alternatives Considered There are no unresolved conflicts about the proposed action with respect to the alternative uses of available resources, because, based upon input from the ODWC and comments from interested parties, there is agreement that the proposed action is sufficient. Therefore, the Service does not need to consider additional alternatives (43 CFR 46.310). Alternative A – Current Management Under the No Action Alternative, current management direction would continue. The 1,820-acre public hunting area (PHA) includes Units A, B, and H. The refuge allows hunting of migratory game birds (duck, goose, sandhill crane, and mourning dove), bobwhite quail, and ring-necked pheasant in the PHA (Table 1). Season dates and license requirements follow ODWC regulations. The PHA is open from 2 hours prior to legal shooting time to noon daily. The PHA is only closed during controlled deer hunts that coincide with other hunting seasons, and these hunts occur during the week for 3–4 days. Users of the PHA are required to park in designated

7

parking areas around the perimeter of the PHA. There are no other public uses that occur in the PHA, eliminating user conflicts. See current public hunting area map (Figure 1). Table 1. Hunter Participation and Harvest Numbers on Designated Public Hunting Area of Salt Plains NWR

SEASON HUNTERS DUCKS GEESE SANDHILL

CRANES DOVE QUAIL PHEASANT 2002-2003 315 418 67 1 2 2003-2004 370 429 90 3 2004-2005 295 354 64 1 1 10 2005-2006 318 311 121 1 8 2006-2007* 151 28 84 7 2007-2008 283 590 38 2008-2009 344 507 30 10 1 2 2009-2010 327 487 20 25 2010-2011 432 643 35 2 1 2011-2012* 170 247 46 61 2012-2013* 29 1 12 55 4 2013-2014* 57 141 2 2014-2015 18 64 2015-2016 719 583 90 367 13 2016-2017 546 752 24 6 18 2017-2018 248 146 6 1 83

* denotes drought years White-tailed deer are hunted on Salt Plains NWR in cooperation with ODWC as part of ODWC’s controlled hunt program. Controlled deer hunts take place in Units A, B, C, E, F, G, H, J, C7, C10 and Wilderness. Deer hunts rotate through these units to increase hunter success. Salt Plains NWR currently offers one youth gun hunt, one archery hunt, one muzzleloader hunts, four gun hunts, one non-ambulatory muzzleloader hunt, and two non-ambulatory gun hunts. The hunt units are rotated through to reduce hunter pressure, by not hunting the same unit several hunts in a row. The refuge issues 200–350 permits for white-tailed deer annually. Each white-tailed deer hunt takes place during 3 to 4 days in October, November, or December. Hunters have assigned parking lots in each unit, and personal vehicles may not go past parking lots into units. Hunters are allowed to access each unit by foot. Northern bobwhite quail are allowed to be taken on Salt Plains NWR within the public hunting area (Units A, B, and H). Northern bobwhite quail may be taken during State season dates using State approved legal means of take. Hunters are allowed to access hunt areas by foot. All other means of access are prohibited. Hunters are required to park in designated PHA parking. There is no restriction on the number of hunters. Generally, the refuge receives approximately 2–20 hunters per season.

8

Ring-necked pheasants are allowed to be taken on Salt Plains NWR within the public hunting area. Ring-necked pheasant may be taken during State season dates using State approved legal means of take. Hunters are allowed to access hunt units by foot. All other means of access are prohibited. Hunters are required to park in designated PHA parking. There is no restriction on the number of hunters. Generally, the refuge receives approximately 2–20 hunters per season. Waterfowl are allowed to be taken on Salt Plains NWR within the public hunting area. Waterfowl may be taken during State season dates using State approved legal means of take. Hunters are allowed to access hunt units by foot. All other means of access are prohibited. Hunters are required to park in designated PHA parking. There is no restriction on the number of hunters. Generally, the refuge receives approximately 300–500 hunters per season. Sandhill cranes are allowed to be taken on Salt Plains NWR within the public hunting area. Sandhill crane may be taken during State season dates using State approved legal means of take. Hunters are allowed to access hunt units by foot. All other means of access are prohibited. Hunters are required to park in designated PHA parking. There is no restriction on the number of hunters. Generally, the refuge receives approximately 10–50 hunters per season. Mourning doves are allowed to be taken on Salt Plains NWR within the public hunting area. Dove may be taken during State season dates using State approved legal means of take. Hunters are allowed to access hunt units by foot. All other means of access are prohibited. Hunters are required to park in designated PHA parking. There is no restriction on the number of hunters. Generally, the refuge receives approximately 10–50 hunters per season.

9

Figure 1. Open Hunt Units within Salt Plains NWR and Areas Closed to Hunting

10

Alternative B – Proposed Action – Addition of wild turkey, and white-wing, rock and Eurasian collared-dove, American coot, beaver, and feral hog The refuge will increase the number of acres contained within the Public Hunting Area from approximately 1,358 to 2,100. Currently, the PHA includes all of Unit H and portions of Unit B. This expansion would include the remaining acreage of Unit B (266.34 acres) and all of Unit A (475.66 acres). This is an increase of 742 acres that will extend the boundary of the area to the refuge boundary. This alternative offers increased opportunities for public hunting and fulfills the Service’s mandate under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. This plan also contributes to Objective 8.1 in the CCP by “Increasing wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities.” and meets a strategy under Objective 8.3 that states “expand/improve compatible hunting opportunities on the refuge,” specifically, “conduct controlled turkey hunts on the refuge.” The refuge would add limited turkey hunting which would be implemented in the spring, under refuge and state regulations: restricting spring turkey hunting to one to three weeks during the state-approved spring turkey season; limiting hunter participation and numbers through ODWC’s controlled hunting program; and limiting the areas opened to spring turkey hunting. One to three controlled hunts with 1 to 4 permits each hunt will be conducted each season. Hunt length will be less than one week and take place during the statewide spring turkey season (last weekend in March for youth, and April 6 – May 6 for general) in Units A, B, C, E, F, G, H, J, Wilderness, C7, and C10. This alternative provides a recreational experience to the public while maintaining a sustainable Rio Grande turkey population. Spring wild turkey hunting will take place in management units of the refuge containing huntable numbers of turkeys, as determined by observances of birds by refuge employees throughout the year. No formal survey will be conducted. Legal methods of take will be restricted to shotgun and non-toxic shot only. Initially, these hunts will be offered to youth only, but will expand to adults/non-ambulatory/wounded warriors if turkey populations allow. American coot hunting will be added to the species available to hunt in the (PHA only (Units A, B, and H)), as specified by ODWC seasons. Coot is commonly open to harvest in public waterfowl hunting areas along with duck, geese, cranes, and mergansers. Waterfowl hunting is allowed in the PHA only (Units A, B, and H). Shooting hours within the public hunting area start a half hour before sunrise and end at noon. Salt Plains NWR provides parking areas for the public hunting area with information kiosks and regulations. The public hunting area is monitored by Service law enforcement personnel and ODWC game wardens. Beaver and feral hog will be added as incidental take to all legal hunting activities on the refuge. Under this change, waterfowl or upland bird hunters in the PHA would be allowed to harvest feral hogs or beaver encountered during their hunts. Selected hunters present for controlled white-tailed deer hunts in the fall, or spring turkey hunts would also be able to take beaver and feral hogs in the management units they are hunting.

11

The addition of incidental take of beaver and feral hogs also serves to reduce/eliminate damage to refuge infrastructure and habitat. Beaver populations can become concentrated on the refuge when surrounding lands become too dry to support them. The natural actions of beaver can conflict with water movement and damage water control structures vital to the operation and productivity of the refuge. Feral hogs do not currently inhabit the refuge, but it is imperative that their populations be minimized or eliminated, if possible. Feral hogs not only destroy habitat by rooting and wallowing, but can contribute to the spread of invasive species and directly prey upon many native wildlife species. Feral hog and American beaver are hunted as incidental take species within the PHA or during a controlled hunt. Feral hog and American beaver must be taken using means allowed for open species per State regulations. Trapping by the public of either species is not allowed. White-wing, rock, and Eurasian collared-dove will be hunted in the PHA (Units A, B, and H) along with mourning dove, which is currently the only dove species specified under current management plans and authority. Adding these species will align the refuge with ODWC regulations regarding dove species. All dove will be open to hunting only in the PHA during the statewide season of September 1 – October 31 and December 1 – 29. Adding coots more closely aligns the refuge with statewide regulations for waterfowl, and adding white-wing, rock, and Eurasian collared-dove aligns ‘dove’ species with statewide definitions. The refuge intends to prevent introduction and spread of pest species (feral hogs) on refuge lands, and to reduce/prevent further habitat and infrastructure degradation by beaver and feral hogs. See Tables 2 and 3 below for a summary of wildlife species proposed to be taken and the units open to hunting under the Proposed Action Alternative. Table 2. Wildlife Species Proposed to be Taken at Salt Plains NWR

Species Season Access Permit Required White-tailed Deer October–December Controlled - walk in Yes - State permit Feral Hog Incidental Controlled - walk in No American Beaver Incidental Controlled - walk in No Wild Turkey April–May Controlled - walk in Yes - State permit Northern Bobwhite Quail Same as State Public - walk in No Ring-necked Pheasant Same as State Public - walk in No Waterfowl Same as State Public - walk in No American Coot Same as State Public - walk in No Sandhill Cranes Same as State Public - walk in No Dove Same as State Public - walk in No

12

Table 3. Units Open to Hunting on Salt Plains NWR

Hunt Units Big Game Hunting

# of Deer permits

# of Turkey permits

Upland Game

Migratory Game Bird

Incidental take of feral hog

Incidental take of beaver

Unit A (475.66 ac)

Yes 8–40 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Unit B (459.89 ac)

Yes 8–40 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Unit C (150.92 ac)

Yes 0–8 0 No No Yes Yes

Unit E (588.39 ac)

Yes 6–32 0 No No Yes Yes

Unit F 303.65 ac)

Yes 6–32 0 No No Yes Yes

Unit G 295.57 ac)

Yes 6–32 0 No No Yes Yes

Unit H (1,164.27 ac)

Yes 10–48 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Unit J (2,137.58 ac)

Yes 10–48 0 No No Yes Yes

C-7 Unit (25.41 ac)

Yes 2–10 0 No No Yes Yes

Headquarters (C-10)(17.49 ac)

Yes 2–10 0 No No Yes Yes

Wilderness Unit (3,935.75)

Yes 40–100 0 No No Yes Yes

Mitigation Measures to Avoid Conflicts: ● The majority of hunting activity occurs in the fall and winter and does not conflict with

nesting activity by resident wildlife. Spring turkey hunting is a short-duration, limited disturbance that will have little to no effect on resident wildlife.

● The Public Hunting Area is closed to all other activities, minimizing user conflict, and closes at noon daily to decrease disturbance from hunter activities.

● When controlled hunts for deer or turkey occur in management units with other public use facilities (nature trails, observation decks, auto tour, etc.), these facilities may be temporarily closed for visitor safety and to avoid user conflict.

● Hunters on controlled hunts are informed of potential closures of a unit due to the presence of whooping cranes, and are instructed to report all sightings to refuge staff. Similarly, whooping crane information is posted in brochures and at access points.

13

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Affected Environment The refuge consists of approximately 50.3 square miles in Alfalfa County, Oklahoma (Figure 1). Salt Plains NWR is a mixture of wetlands, uplands, and salt flats. The proposed action is located primarily in the Public Hunting Area, with the exception of controlled hunts for white-tailed deer and wild turkey, which can take place on any suitable management unit. These areas consist of both wetlands and uplands, but do not include the salt flats (Figure 1). For more information regarding the affected environment, please see section 3.0 of the Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which can be found here: https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/salt-plains-national-wildlife-refuge-comprehensive-conservation-plan-2006-2021. Environmental Consequences of the Action This section analyzes the environmental consequences of the action on each affected resource, including direct and indirect effects. This EA only includes the written analyses of the environmental consequences on a resource when the impacts on that resource could be more than negligible and therefore considered an “affected resource.” An analysis of the effects of management actions has been conducted on the physical environment (air quality, water quality, and soils); biological environment (vegetation, wildlife, and threatened and endangered species); and socioeconomic environment (cultural resources, socioeconomic features including public use/recreation, and visual and aesthetic resource). Any resources that will not be more than negligibly impacted by the action have been dismissed from further analyses. Impact Types:

● Direct effects are those which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

● Indirect effects are those which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.

● Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions.

Cumulative Impact Analysis Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts are the overall, net effects on a resource that arise from multiple actions. Impacts can “accumulate” spatially when different actions affect different areas of the same resource. They can also accumulate over the course of time from actions in the past, the present, and the future. Occasionally, different actions counterbalance one another, partially cancelling out each other’s effects on a resource. But more typically, multiple effects add up, with each additional action contributing an incremental impact on the resource.

14

The refuge is surrounded by privately owned rural agricultural lands. There are no other state or federal lands in the area. Activities on private lands include hunting, other recreational activities, farming, ranching, and oil and gas develop with an increase in hydraulic fracturing (fracking). These activities were considering in the following assessment. The sections below contain brief descriptions of each resource affected by the alternatives considered and anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on each resource. Affected Natural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Hunted Species – Migratory Game Birds Mourning, White-winged, Rock, and Eurasian Collared-Dove Regional and Local Analysis Mourning doves, white-winged doves, rock doves, and Eurasian collared-doves may all be taken during refuge hunts in the public hunting area. The State of Oklahoma combines mourning, white-winged, and Eurasian collared-doves within its regulations and as such, they are treated the same within this plan. Rock doves (pigeons) and Eurasian collared-doves are introduced species, and are not protected by federal law. Rock doves are estimated to have a national population of around 8.4 million increasing by approximately 15 percent each year. Eurasian collared-doves were first introduced to North America, New Providence, and the Bahamas, in the mid-1970s (Brown and Tomer 2002). By December 1995, they had dispersed and expanded their range to Oklahoma (Brown and Tomer 2002). Historically, white-winged doves were associated with riparian forests of the southwestern United States, but recently have been expanding their range northward into Oklahoma. White-winged doves are also becoming urbanized, with many urban areas in Texas hosting year round residents. Mourning doves are migratory birds found across much of the United States and into Canada and Mexico. Mourning doves are highly productive, typically producing several young per year (Baskett et al. 1993). Prior to the 2014 hunting season, the population estimate for mourning dove was 274 million (Seamans 2015). This is an increase from previous years in the Central Management Unit, which includes Oklahoma. Because doves are migratory birds and local numbers can fluctuate widely from one day to the next due to their movements, surveys conducted on the refuge would provide little data that would be useful in determining how many doves are present during the hunt season. We rely on the information collected and synthesized by ODWC to determine whether the dove population can sustain hunting mortality. The Salt Plains NWR biological staff assists in a cooperative effort with the ODWC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to trap and band doves in a regional, statewide, and national effort to determine populations. ODWC also conducts a variety of other surveys to estimate the state’s dove population. Call counts, urban dove surveys, and harvest surveys are also used to collect data. Data from these different sources serve as an index for population trends and are used to set the State bag limits. We adopt the State season and bag limits on the refuge. American Coot Regional and Local Analysis

15

American coot harvest numbers have been declining since the 1950s (Case and Associates 2010). Over the same time frame, American coot population estimates have been increasing (Case and Associates 2010). American coot population numbers within the Central Flyway have been captured using the mid-winter waterfowl survey. American coots have averaged approximately 302,000 from 2010–2017 (Dubovsky 2017a). During the 2017 mid-winter waterfowl survey, Oklahoma counted 2,665 birds (Dubovsky 2017a). The number of hunters has also been declining in the United States and Canada (Case and Associates 2010). American coots are included in Salt Plains NWR’s ground-based waterfowl surveys. Peak migration numbers of American coots on Salt Plains NWR is approximately 2,000 birds during 2000–2017. Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Dove – Under this alternative, all dove species will continue to have impacts through disturbance during dove season, with occasional direct mortality, as these species are allowed to be harvested at other PHAs throughout the State of Oklahoma. In addition, ODWC regulations consider all of these species legal to take during dove season. American Coot – American coot will continue to see impacts from disturbance by hunters in the PHA via regulated and approved hunting for ducks, geese, cranes and mergansers. In addition, there will be the occasional coot harvested mistakenly by hunters, either from misidentifying them, or from confusion by different regulations from ODWC regulations. American coot are most commonly allowable for harvest in waterfowl hunting areas throughout the State of Oklahoma Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) This alternative will result in negative impacts to harvested species through direct take and disturbance, but the harvest numbers for all species are anticipated to be low. Dove – From 2002 to 2018, an average of 50.9 mourning doves were harvested annually. Mourning doves constitute the majority of dove species on the refuge, and other than white-winged dove, the others (rock and Eurasian collared-) are invasive species. White-winged dove is listed as “occasional” in the bird list for the refuge, and reports to the refuge are rare. The addition of these species is not anticipated to increase hunter numbers. Mourning dove harvest for the State of Oklahoma for 2017 was approximately 315,600. The estimated take of mourning dove on the refuge will be 100–200 birds (Raftovich et al. 2018). This is 0.006 percent of the harvest taken in Oklahoma. The white-winged dove harvest for Oklahoma was 13,300 for 2017. It is estimated that between 10 and 25 birds will be taken on the refuge per season. This is 0.002 percent of the harvest in Oklahoma. The migratory bird hunting activity does not track the other species of doves (rock and Eurasian). These will be incidental take and have a very low harvest rate on the refuge. American Coot – Allowing American coot to be harvested in the PHA will result in direct take of birds, but is not anticipated to increase waterfowl hunter numbers. In addition, American coot numbers are typically not high on the refuge during waterfowl seasons. In Oklahoma, the harvest of coots was not recorded for either 2016 or 2017. The bag limit in the State is 15 per

16

hunter. Coots will be an incidental take to other hunted waterfowl on the refuge so the anticipated harvest rate will likely be very low. Hunted Species – Wild Turkey Regional Analysis Wild turkeys have historically been a favorable game species. Like white-tailed deer, unregulated commercial and subsistence hunting led to population declines in the early twentieth century. State harvest regulations and reintroduction efforts across the nation have led to increases of populations across its range and even expansion of range into areas previously unoccupied (Figure 2).

Figure 2. ODWC Wild Turkey Population Estimates. 2014 Alfalfa County Population Estimated at 1,170 birds. (Accessed from wildlifedepartment.com on 6/23/2015)

Local Analysis By 1960, wild turkey populations on Salt Plains NWR had rebounded and were estimated around 60–65 individuals. In 1962, the State of Oklahoma entered into an agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to trap and relocate birds from Salt Plains NWR for reintroduction purposes across the state. Trap and relocate operations were conducted through 1967 and again in 1979–1980. During this time, populations increased on Salt Plains NWR and expanded upstream into Kansas. In 1981, winter wild turkey populations on Salt Plains NWR swelled to over 500 birds. A controlled hunt program was initiated in 1984 in cooperation with ODWC. During controlled

17

hunts, twelve hunters were allowed per two-day hunt, and resulted in usually 3 birds harvested per year. Controlled hunts were suspended after 1988 when 78 birds were trapped and 40 tested positive for Mycoplasma meleagridis, Mycoplasma synoviae, and Mycoplasma gallisepticum. According to winter flock counts, the population had maxed in 1983 and began a steep decline by the time a controlled hunt was performed. By 1991, winter flock counts totaled 125 birds. Winter flock counts have not been conducted on Salt Plains NWR since 1991; however, observations by local staff suggest flocks are prospering with groups of 30–50 birds seen within several areas of the refuge and even a group of 100 birds seen together in 2013. Statewide wild turkeys are increasing to stable. Hunting for wild turkey on Salt Plains NWR is conducted as a controlled hunt opportunity through cooperation with the ODWC. Generally, hunters are limited to one tom turkey per hunt, which is less than the ODWC limit of two toms per county. The goal of wild turkey controlled hunt program is to prevent population crash (as seen in 1983) and provide valuable wildlife-dependent recreational opportunity to hunters in an area with limited public hunting access. Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Currently, there are no spring turkey hunts on the refuge. Turkeys on the refuge will be impacted only through disturbance from other permitted refuge activities such as hiking on trails, driving on the auto tour, and encounters with visitors’ birdwatching, photographing, or viewing wildlife in the public use areas. Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) This alternative will result in negative impacts to harvested species through direct take and disturbance, but the harvest numbers for all species are anticipated to be low. Adding controlled hunts for wild turkey gives management the control of the number of hunts, hunters, and permits based on observed turkey population size. There will be direct mortality of turkeys through harvest, and minor disturbances to other species inhabiting units open to turkey hunting. This disturbance will be short-lived, and the hunts will only be a few days in duration. Incidental Take (American Beaver and Feral Hog) American Beaver Regional Analysis In the early 1900’s the American beaver was considered to be restricted in its range within Oklahoma with the majority believed to be in western Oklahoma (Reynolds 1977; Whitaker 1995). Reintroduction efforts and flood control projects within the state have led to increased population numbers ranging across the entire state and increased available habitat through the alteration of flow regimes (Whitaker 1995). The State of Oklahoma opened its first limited season on American beaver in 1961–1962 and by 1983, the season was opened year-round (Whitaker 1995). Due to reduced pelt prices, American beaver harvest has declined since the mid-1980s and in the early 1990s, Oklahoma started issuing nuisance control permits (Whitaker 1995).

18

Local Analysis American beaver population numbers are not monitored on Salt Plains NWR, but general abundance is informally noticed through nuisance activities on water control structures. Depending on environmental conditions, general observations have produced fluctuating populations. In drought conditions, populations were restricted to wet areas and seemed lower in numbers, while in wet conditions, populations expanded ranges and seemed more numerous. Feral Hog Regional Analysis Feral hog (Sus scrofa) are represented within the United States as escaped domesticated hogs, Eurasian wild boar (Russian), and hybrids of the two (Stevens 2010). The secretive nature of feral hogs makes accurate estimates of populations nearly impossible. Feral hogs can have significant impacts on the environment and economy when present in large numbers. Feral hogs are most prevalent in the southern and eastern portions of Oklahoma but have been expanding north and west at an alarming rate. Feral hogs use river corridors to expand their ranges and find new suitable habitat. Expansion and population increase can be attributed to free ranging husbandry methods, introduction and re-introduction by hunters, water development in arid areas, improved range condition through better livestock grazing practices, the animal’s ability to adapt to a variety of situations and omnivorous food habits, and sexual maturity at 6 months (Stevens 2010). Local Analysis Currently, there are no known populations occurring on Salt Plains NWR. Three individuals were reported on the refuge in the mid-1990s and those individuals were trapped and removed shortly after. Recently, reports have occurred within five miles of the refuge with the largest report being of a sounder of five individuals to the north. Due to ecological and biological impacts posed by feral hogs, Salt Plains NWR would prefer to prevent the establishment of a population on the refuge. Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) American Beaver – Beaver are not hunted or trapped on the refuge, but will be impacted by current public use programs including hunting, fishing, visitors to the hiking trails and auto tour for the purposes of wildlife observation, photography and birdwatching. Feral Hog – The refuge has no documented feral hog populations, but neighboring populations continue to expand, with occasional reports to management. As an invasive and highly destructive species, feral hogs will have significant and direct impacts on refuge resources, including threatened and endangered species through direct competition and predation (Tate 1984). Under this alternative, the potential impacts to feral hogs will be from current public use activities mentioned above for turkeys, and current hunting and fishing activities. Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative)

19

This alternative will result in negative impacts to harvested species through direct take and disturbance, but the harvest numbers for all species are anticipated to be low. Incidental take of beaver and feral hog will result in direct impacts to both species, but is not anticipated to increase disturbance or impacts to other species. These hunters will already be participating in regulated hunting activities on the refuge and not specifically pursuing either of these species. Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species Mammals There are 30 types of mammals known to inhabit the refuge. Mammals commonly seen on the refuge include white-tailed deer, eastern fox squirrels, and eastern cottontail rabbit. Other common mammals include coyote, raccoon, American badger, beaver, muskrat, and porcupine. Birds Birds are the most varied wildlife group on the refuge with 312 recorded species and 97 nesting species. Salt Plains NWR teems with migratory, wintering, and nesting waterfowl and shorebirds each year. More than 20,000 acres, or about 65 percent of Salt Plains NWR, comprises wetlands and salt flats, not only making it a significant wintering and migratory stopover, but a major shore and water bird breeding area amidst the agrarian Oklahoma landscape. Notable breeding shorebirds on Salt Plains NWR include the American avocet, least tern, and snowy plover. Because of the unique wetland and salt flat habitats of the refuge, the American Bird Conservancy has designated Salt Plains NWR a “globally important bird area.” Reptiles and Amphibians At least 35 species of reptiles and amphibians inhabit Salt Plains NWR. Many of the turtles and snakes can be seen sunning themselves along the trails and ponds on the refuge during the warmer months. Snakes such as the coachwhip and bullsnake, and lizards like the prairie-lined racerunner, are common here. Bullfrogs, leopard frogs, and toads such as the Rocky Mountain toad and the Great Plains toad are well known for their calls that fill the air on spring and summer evenings. The red-eared slider and ornate box turtle are typical examples of the turtles and tortoises that are found on the refuge. Fish and Invertebrates Channel catfish, the predominant gamefish, are common in the lakes and streams of the refuge as well as varieties of bass and other native fishes. Other species present include white crappie, bluegill, largemouth bass, carp, gizzard shad, and mosquito fish. Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) This alternative currently results in some short-term negative impacts on small mammals, birds, and other wildlife due to disturbance in areas where human access for hunting activities occur.

20

There has not been any research at Salt Plains NWR on the predation effects by target species on other wildlife. However, other research has suggested some incidental predation by target species on other wildlife. These incidences seem to be opportunistic in nature and do not reflect predatory strategies of target species. Feral hogs are omnivorous opportunistic feeders, which present strong potential for competition with native wildlife for food, cover, water, and space. Competition for food has been documented between feral hogs and deer, turkeys, waterfowl, squirrels, raccoons, opossums, foxes, bobcats, collared peccaries, bears, sandhill cranes, and chipmunks. Competition may exist between the American beaver and white-tailed deer or other browse herbivores due to uses of similar food plants (i.e., willow). Also, due to the American beaver’s ability to alter the habitat it lives in (e.g., building dams, removal of trees/shrubs, and digging canals), other animals may be displaced. Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) This alternative will result in similar impacts to Alternative A, as the species added to the PHA will be a minor increase in hunter numbers. Potential mortality of invasive dove species (Eurasian collared-, and rock) can result in positive impacts to native dove species by removal or harassment of competing species. Eurasian collared-doves are suspected to reduce mourning dove populations due to competition (Poling and Hayslette 2006). Waterfowl hunters do not tend to target coots, but view them as an additional harvest opportunity. For this reason, we expect the increase in hunter numbers to be very low. Adding the harvest of American coot to the PHA will not result in additional impacts to other wildlife/aquatic species as the addition of species will take place during current hunts. This will not increase the disturbance to other resident wildlife. This alternative currently results in some short-term negative impacts on small mammals, birds, and other wildlife due to disturbance in areas where human access for hunting activities occurs. The only anticipated increase in negative impacts to other wildlife and would occur during the short-term spring wild turkey hunts, where more access would be anticipated during a different season (spring) than where current hunting occurs. The turkey is a non-migratory species and therefore, turkey hunting would only impact the local population. Turkey hunting would occur in accordance with applicable regulations under state seasons and bag limits, which would help ensure the provision of the hunting opportunity and the viability of the species. Turkey hunting on the refuge would sustain the population at a level sufficient to meet other refuge management and visitor services goals and objectives. These impacts are considered to be negligible due to the small number of hunters and the limited number of days per year on which these impacts occur. Amphibians and reptiles will be actively breeding when hunting occurs in the spring. The restricted duration and areas open for hunting would minimize interactions with small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.

21

The potential incidental harvest of feral hogs will not increase negative impacts to other wildlife and aquatic resources, as these sportsmen will be in the field under current regulated hunt programs. Because of the negative impacts that feral hogs have on a suite of other species, including ground nesting birds, harvest of this species would have a positive impact to the habitat and non-game species on the refuge (Beach 1993). Incidental harvest of beaver could potentially have negative impacts to species that benefit directly from the activity of beavers. The refuge provides and manages wetland habitats to benefit migratory birds and the resources they need, so these impacts would be negligible. As with feral hogs, no new impacts from hunter disturbance are anticipated, as this species would be incidental to an approved hunting activity that already exists. Threatened and Endangered Species and other Special Status Species Two federally-listed species (whooping crane and interior least tern) depend on the refuge on a seasonal basis. Endangered whooping cranes use Salt Plains NWR as a key migratory stopover and feeding area. In fact, the entire refuge is a designated critical habitat area for the crane. Federally- and state-endangered least terns nest in fairly abundant numbers every year on the salt flats. Federally threatened piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufus) use the refuge for occasional stopovers during migration on the salt flats for short durations and in low numbers. There are no known federally-listed plants on Salt Plains NWR. Refuge management actions involving federally- listed species will adhere to compatibility standards, the National Environmental Policy Act, ESA, and Service regulations to ensure that endangered species and other important fish and wildlife resources are not adversely impacted. The refuge will provide technical assistance on endangered species management to private landowners or the public whenever it is requested. Whooping Cranes Many of the whooping cranes (Aransas-Wood Buffalo population) migrate through the refuge each year. Since Salt Plains NWR occurs within their narrow migration corridor and is a traditional migratory stopover or staging area, the entire refuge has been designated as critical habitat for the Aransas-Wood Buffalo population of whooping cranes. Although the cranes stop at the refuge during the fall, they seldom stop during their northward spring migration. According to Allen (1952), the whooping crane’s principal wintering locations included the tallgrass prairies of southwestern Louisiana, although similar habitats occurred along the Gulf Coast of Texas from Louisiana to northeast Mexico. Now, this population winters exclusively in/near Aransas NWR in coastal south Texas. Fall migration from Wood Buffalo National Park and adjacent breeding areas in Canada begins around mid-September and birds begin arriving on their wintering grounds by late October to mid-November. Spring migration back to Canada begins in mid-March through late April. Whooping cranes normally migrate singly, in pairs, or in small groups of 4–5, and occasionally migrate along with sandhill cranes (Lewis 1995). According to Austin and Richert (2001), anticipated migration dates for peak numbers of whooping cranes migrating through Oklahoma are October 23–November 4 (southbound), and April 2–9 (northbound). Whooping cranes begin arriving on Salt Plains NWR in early October through early November. Usually, several to tens of whooping cranes are observed on Salt Plains NWR. Although migrating whooping cranes may feed and roost in croplands, Salt Plains NWR provides essential fresh and brackish wetland habitats that support whooping cranes during their migrations.

22

Least Tern (interior population) Least terns were fairly abundant throughout the late 1880s, but were nearly extirpated by market hunters around 1900 for their delicate plumage used for fashionable hats at that time. After the passage of the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, commercial harvesting became illegal and the species began to increase through the 1940s. However, human development of tern nesting beaches for housing, resorts, and recreation subsequently led to another rapid population decline. In the interior United States, river channelization, the construction of dams, and irrigation diversions contributed to the destruction of much of the tern’s sandbar nesting habitat. By the mid-1970s, least tern populations had decreased by more than 80 percent from the 1940s. This prompted the Service to list the least tern as endangered on May 28, 1985. The State of Oklahoma also lists this species as endangered. The least tern is a colonially-nesting waterbird that seldom swims, spending much of its time on the wing (Hubbard 1985). Their flight is light, swift, and graceful, and it is developed to the point that allows the birds to easily snatch fish, crustaceans, and insect food from the surface, almost without missing a beat. They nest on the ground, on sandbars in rivers, or lakes or pond edges, typically on sites that are sandy and relatively free of vegetation. Least terns are migratory and breed along the Red, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and Rio Grande river systems. Salt Plains NWR is a major least tern nesting area and an important post-nesting staging area (Thompson et al. 1997). They arrive on the refuge around May and more than a hundred pairs nest on the salt flats. Terns leave the refuge in late summer/early fall moving southward to Central and South America. Piping Plover The Piping Plover is a federally and state threatened species. The piping plover has undergone serious declines related to direct and inadvertent harassment of birds and nests by people, dogs, and vehicles; destruction of beach habitat for development projects; increased predation due to human presence in formerly pristine beach areas; and water level regulation activities that endanger nesting sites along the Missouri, Platte, and Niobrara rivers (Haig 1992). In the Great Plains Region, this shorebird breeds along rivers and wetlands from the Nebraska/Kansas border to the southern Canadian prairie states. The piping plover winters along beaches and sand/mudflats from Florida to northern Mexico (Haig and Oring 1988). On Salt Plains NWR, this species is rare, but has been seen on the flats in the spring. The piping plover is not known to nest on Salt Plains NWR. Snowy Plover The snowy plover is a small cosmopolitan shorebird of the sand flats. In North America, the species breeds in Saskatchewan, Canada and ranges from the U.S. Pacific Coast and Gulf coasts to the Mexican coasts. Large breeding concentrations also occur in the Great Plains, including Oklahoma. Along the U .S. Pacific and Gulf coasts, the population is shrinking due to habitat degradation and expanding recreational use of beaches (Page et al. 1995). In response to these declines and threats to the species, the western population (found in California, Oregon, and Washington within 50 miles of the coast) of the western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) was listed as threatened on March 5, 1993.

23

Although the interior population that nests at Salt Plains is not part of the listed population, they are a high priority species according to the Central Plains/Playa Lakes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan and breed in significant numbers (i.e., ;:20,000) (Manomet Center 2001). Therefore, continued monitoring and habitat conservation efforts are appropriate. Nest sites typically occur in flat, open areas with sandy or saline substrates; vegetation is usually sparse or absent (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Snowy plovers nest in association with the least terns along the Great Salt Plains Lake. These birds are “site faithful”, often returning to nest in exactly the same locations as the previous year (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Wintering habitat resembles sites used for breeding. Snowy plovers forage on invertebrates in the wet salt pans, spoil sites, and along the edges of salt marshes and salt ponds. The State of Oklahoma’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy has identified “species of greatest conservation need.” Many of these species identified in the State’s plan occur on the refuge within the Mixed-grass Prairie Region (See Appendix 1). The refuge also occurs on the western periphery of the Osage Plains physiographic region which is characterized by mixed-grass prairie, shrub-grasslands, riparian forests, and rolling terrain. Several bird species have been identified as Priority Bird Populations by the Partners in Flight (PIF) Program for the Osage Plains physiographic region. These priority species include the dickcissel, scissor-tailed flycatcher, loggerhead shrike, field sparrow, painted bunting, and Bell’s vireo. These birds are also important indicators of the condition of the grasslands and shrub/brush habitats within this region (U.S. Geological Survey 2002). Therefore, their populations have been emphasized as a monitoring priority. All of these species occur and regularly nest at Salt Plains NWR. According to the PIF document, conversion of land to agriculture and woodland encroachment resulting from fire suppression has greatly diminished grasslands in the Osage Plains. Other important species of management concern occurring on Salt Plains NWR include: grasshopper sparrow (shrub-grasslands), prothonotary warbler (riparian woodlands), white-faced ibis, and tricolored heron (wetlands, Ralstin Island). Salt Plains NWR (Ralstin Island) is the first known breeding site for the white-faced ibis in the State of Oklahoma. The PIF document recommends that a variety of wetland habitats be maintained for high priority in- transit migratory shorebirds. Consistent with the PIF recommendation, Salt Plains maintains high value habitats for migratory shorebirds and birds of management concern. Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under the current hunting program, there have been no documented impacts to threatened and endangered species. This is due to the separation of the PHA and salt flats and the timing of hunting activities versus the occurrence of threatened and endangered species. Occurrence data from USGS tracking whooping cranes during migration and stopover locations show that whooping cranes prefer habitat along the shoreline of the reservoir, especially the west shoreline along the salt flats. This area is approximately 3 miles from the PHA. Whooping cranes are occasionally documented using Sand Creek bay, which is approximately 2 miles from the PHA. During controlled hunts for deer, hunters are briefed on whooping crane identification and instructed to report any sightings to refuge staff. Flyovers,

24

as whooping cranes leave the roost for feeding grounds in the morning, are the majority of reports submitted by deer hunters. There have been no documented or reported impacts to other threatened and endangered species from current hunting programs. Least terns and snowy plovers nest on the refuge, but are limited (by preference) to the barren salt encrusted flats. The location and timing of their occurrence falls outside of current hunting program activities. Impacts to migratory stopovers of piping plovers and red knots have not been documented. Again, these birds have only been documented using areas around the reservoir and salt flats, habitat that is not included or near areas open to hunting activity. In addition, the frequency and duration of these stopovers are few and short. Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Salt Plains NWR provides habitat to support piping plover (Charadrius melodus - threatened), whooping crane (Grus Americana - endangered), and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa - threatened) during migration. Occurrences of these species are often of short duration and limited to areas typically outside of hunted areas. Salt Plains NWR does not operate hunt programs during interior least tern nesting season or on the salt flats, eliminating conflicts with breeding threatened and endangered species on refuge. Timing of migration and habitat use of other threatened and endangered species greatly reduces probabilities of conflicts with the Salt Plains NWR hunt program, except for whooping cranes. Whooping cranes have been sighted on Salt Plains NWR during controlled white-tailed deer hunts and while hunting seasons were open on public hunting access area. In the case of white-tailed deer hunts, to minimize possible conflicts with whooping cranes, known areas of roosting and foraging habitats are removed from allowable hunt areas. Within the public hunting access area, all hunting is suspended in the event of a whooping crane landing in the area. Public information signs and publications have also been used to inform hunters of the differences between whooping cranes and other white birds (e.g., snow geese, American white pelicans, and swans). Vegetation Several different plant associations occur on the refuge. Marshes, Ponds, and Moist Soils The refuge has 1,070 acres of marshes, ponds, and moist soils. The majority of these habitats are located on the northeastern side of the refuge. Species here include sedges, bulrushes, rushes, cattails, smartweed, American lotus, sago pondweed, willows, and buttonbush. Grasslands The refuge has about 4,500 acres of grasslands located primarily on the northeastern side of the refuge. Plants found here include switchgrass, little bluestem, Indiangrass, Scribner’s

25

panicum, and sand bluestem. In northern portions of the refuge, there are large areas of prairie cordgrass. In lower portions of the refuge, there are scattered stands of inland saltgrass. Brushlands The refuge has about 3,700 acres of brushland located primarily on the northeastern side of the refuge. Brushland plants include Chickasaw plum, aromatic sumac, smooth sumac, greenbriar, and coral berry. Woodlands The refuge has 1,110 acres of woodlands with the major concentration also on the northeastern and eastern side of the refuge. Species found here include roughleaf dogwood, hackberry, elm, wooly buckthorn, red mulberry, black locust, eastern red cedar, eastern cottonwood, green ash, white mulberry, and catalpa. Black willow and sandbar willow occur along ponds and waterways throughout the refuge. Invasive Plant Species There are several invasive, non-native plants occurring on the refuge. Non-native or exotic invasive trees and shrubs include Siberian elm, Russian olive, salt cedar, Russian thistle, musk thistle, and multiflora rose. Although a native species, eastern red cedar has invasive characteristics and is aggressively encroaching into grassland habitats both on and near the refuge. Weedy invasive species on the refuge include Johnson grass, field bindweed, and jointed goat grass. Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Under this alternative, the existing vegetation and habitat conditions would likely remain the same. There have been no documented direct or indirect impacts on the vegetative communities within the refuge boundary from the existing public uses. In the units that are open to hunting, habitat quality is stable under current management. Damage to riparian areas and woodland habitats would remain the same or worsen. Any influx of feral hogs on the refuge may cause problems in aquatic systems from increased soil erosion and bacterial contamination. Rooting, trampling, and compaction influence plant regeneration, community structure, soil properties, nutrient cycling, and water infiltration. Feral hogs may induce the spread of invasive plant species because invasive species typically favor disturbed areas and colonize more quickly than many native plants. As disturbed areas increase, the occurrence of invasive plants would also increase. Physical damage, as well as the establishment of invasive plant species, would significantly degrade habitat quality. Also, due to the American beaver’s ability to alter the habitat it lives in (e.g., building dams, removal of trees and shrubs, and digging canals), this may increase the riparian areas while decreasing woodland habitats. This would be a detriment to riparian areas, and could increase potential for invasive species to colonize disturbed areas.

26

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Adding hunting of dove species and coot will not increase impacts to vegetation, as hunter numbers in the PHA are expected to be similar to Alternative A or slightly higher. Hunters do not typically target these species, making them incidental to current dove and waterfowl hunting activities. Impacts to habitat and vegetation from the addition of turkey hunts will be negligible. The hunts will be few and of short duration with low hunter numbers. The removal of feral hogs and beaver can have positive impacts on vegetation. The rooting activity of feral hogs damages native vegetation and increases opportunities for invasive vegetation like johnsongrass to germinate and become established. Woody riparian species will benefit from lower beaver populations, as they are directly impacted. Soils Soils within the approximately 12,000-acre salt flats area is classified as “river wash” and consists of the salt-encrusted floodplain of the Salt Fork River. The western edge of the flat is dotted with islands of “Enterprise Fine Sand.” These soils are highly subject to wind and water erosion. The eastern edge of the flat is also bordered by a larger expanse of Enterprise Fine Sands. Drummond Very Fine Sandy Loam of a slightly salty nature forms the river bottom and creek bottoms of most of the refuge streams. This soil type reaches out on the north and south portions of the refuge to support lush grasslands on the northern portion and croplands on the southern and eastern portions. Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Current hunting activities on the refuge are not known to have any direct or indirect effects on soil quality based on the current level of foot traffic on the hunt units. Vehicles are confined to public access roads and parking areas. Feral hog populations, while currently nonexistent on the refuge, could find their way onto the refuge, thus increasing the potential for impacts on soil resources. Feral hogs damage farm fields and other infrastructure, which leads to increased soil destabilization and erosion. Also, continued disruption of soil resources will hinder the establishment and maintenance of native habitats and wetlands by allowing invasive plant species to become established on disturbed sites. Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) The proposed action would result in a negligible increase in disturbance to surface soils by compaction from foot traffic compared to Alternative A. These impacts are expected to be negligible because vehicles would continue to be confined to public access roads and parking facilities. Refuge regulations would not permit the use of off-highway vehicles (i.e., ATVs and utility vehicles). In addition, the minor increase in hunter visits compared to overall public use on the refuge is considered insignificant. Increased take of feral hogs would likely reduce potential impacts on soil resources. Feral hog damage to farm fields, infrastructure, and native habitat may be slightly reduced by the increased take of hogs. This alternative may slightly improve soil quality as the feral hog population is further reduced and there are fewer hogs to cause detrimental effects on soils.

27

Air Quality According to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)’s 2017 report, the state was within attainment for all parameters tested (carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur dioxide). As established by the Environmental Protection Agency, The National Ambient Air Quality Standards were monitored by 30 stations throughout the state and not exceeded. The report can be found here: http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/airreport2017/PM25.html Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) The current level of public use on the refuge (which is approximately 103,048 visits per year, based on 2018 data) does not appear to be impacting air quality, as current air quality in the area meets air quality standards established by EPA. Hunting accounts for approximately 0.4 percent (417 visits per year) of total visitation on the refuge. Hunter traffic on roads and trails may cause a slight decrease in air quality due to vehicle emissions and the stirring of road dust. These impacts are negligible, short-term, and local. Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) With additional hunt acreage being open, there will be a slight increase in the number of hunter visits. Increased hunting traffic on roads and trails would result in a slight increase in vehicle emissions and stirring of dust; however, this impact is expected to be negligible and short-term at the local scale. The slight increase in the amount of traffic that results from increased hunter activity would be spread out over a larger area than Alternative A. This small increase in the number of hunter visits when compared to overall public use on the refuge is considered negligible; no changes to air quality are anticipated. The refuge has no basis for suspecting impacts to air quality that may occur from hunting activity. Combustion of fossil fuels is the primary contributor to airborne sulfur dioxide, but the impact from a few additional hunters would be insignificant when compared to the normal daily traffic on state highway 11 that currently bisects the refuge. Water Resources While water quality on the refuge is considered good, localized weather conditions can vary the salinity of the Great Salt Plains Lake considerably. Extended dry periods can increase lake salinity through evaporation, but salinity can also be increased by the salt washing into the lake from the salt flats during heavy rain events. Periods of gentle rain allow better flushing of lake salinity. Even at its saltiest, the lake has no more than half the 30 g/kg dissolved solids of normal seawater. The lake has unusually high levels of copper in the water. Although the copper is from natural sources, levels are not harmful as per EPA water quality standards. Turbidity in the lake is also high due to the shallowness of the lake and the silty nature of lake sediments. Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Current hunting activities are not known to have any direct effects on water quality.

28

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Beaver activity can have an effect on water quality, but the amount and nature of induced changes in water chemistry that will be modified is a result of the type of geology, soil type, land use, and climate that exists in the watershed. There may be indirect beneficial effects to water quality as a result of reducing the number of beaver on the refuge, and preventing the establishment of feral hog populations.

Affected Visitor Use and Experience Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternative Visitor Use and Experience Hunting Outdoor recreation is a significant aspect of the culture and tradition of the people in western Oklahoma. A significant percentage of the local public around the refuge participate in outdoor activities such as hunting and fishing. The refuge also attracts a significant amount of non-consumptive users. Activities such as hiking, wildlife observation, and photography are gaining popularity. The refuge receives about 103,048 visitors annually. The breakdown of average annual refuge visits for each use is as follows: hunting (417), fishing (140), wildlife observation (22,871), and wildlife photography (180). Hunting for ducks, geese, cranes, pheasant, quail, mourning doves, and white-tailed deer has been determined to be an appropriate wildlife-dependent use compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. Deer hunting on Salt Plains is one of the most popular public hunts in the state and is allowed on a majority of the upland areas by permit drawing only. Permit drawing is necessary to maintain the hunts by keeping hunters spaced out and to ensure public safety. Accessible deer hunts and youth deer hunts are also held each year. The refuge maintains approximately 1,200 acres suitable for upland game birds and waterfowl hunting on the north side of the refuge near Sand Creek. Fishing Fishing in the local area is limited to the Great Salt Plains Lake, Salt Fork River, and Sand Creek. The lake was well known for channel catfishing. The State stocks the lake (in the state park portion) with channel catfish, and saugeye (walleye/sauger hybrid). The refuge allows fishing in certain areas from April 1 to October 15. Areas open to fishing during this time include Sand Creek north of Highway 11, east and west branches of the Salt Fork River north of Highway 11, east branch of the Salt Fork River south of Highway 11, the Bonham Youth Fishing Pond at the refuge headquarters, and the portion of the lake east of the buoy line from State Highway 38. A fishing derby for children is held during National Fishing Week at Bonham Fishing Pond. The Bonham fishing pond is only for youth and persons with disabilities and is a “catch-and-release” pond. Currently, fishing does not conflict with any permitted hunting activities. The addition of spring turkey hunts would potentially conflict with anglers if the hunt took place in the areas open to fishing. With only 140 fishing visits (2018 data), the probability of user conflict would be low. Wildlife Observation and Photography Eagle Roost Nature Trail, including the Hoot Owl Loop, near the headquarters in Unit D, is a 1.5-mile foot trail through the riparian area and uplands surrounding Sand Creek Bay. This

29

popular trial contains an observation deck overlooking the bay and attracts the most trail visitors on the refuge. The 0.35-mile Sandpiper Trail (Wilderness Unit) on the north side of the refuge, just south of State Highway 11, is an accessible trail with two footbridges and an observation deck with spotting scope for viewing shorebirds that abound during the spring and fall migrations. The trail takes visitors to the edge of the salt flats, and panels at the end of the trail provide information on bird identification, migration, and management. The trail also has an access road and a parking area. Jet Rec. Trail (Unit J) follows the south shoreline of the reservoir through cottonwood galleries and riparian woodlands. This 1-mile foot trail is the refuge’s newest and least visited hiking trail. The Harold F. Miller auto tour route (Unit D) provides a 2.5-mile meandering tour of refuge ponds and farm fields where deer and other wildlife abound. Along the route, the short 0.25-mile walk to Casey Marsh Tower provides visitors outstanding views of ducks, geese, and eagles in late fall and winter. Big Marsh, along Highway 11 in Unit D, includes a kiosk with an observation platform and interpretive panels providing visitors an excellent opportunity to view shorebirds, waterfowl, colonial waterbirds, raptors, and other wildlife year-round. Environmental Education and Interpretation Refuge programs and events such as educator workshops, school group tours, the annual Crystal Festival, birding festivals, falconry exhibits, wildlife photography exhibits, and scouting programs are an essential part of environmental education efforts at Salt Plains. Other interpretation and education efforts include wildlife viewing, interpretive trails, auto tours, signs, and informational kiosks located throughout the refuge. All of these activities occur in units not open to public hunting. The majority of environmental and interpretive events at Salt Plains NWR occur at the headquarters area or Bonham Pond shelter. The crystal festival is held on the salt flats, which are not open to hunting or fishing. Salt Plains NWR is the only known site where the unique hourglass-inclusion selenite crystals are found. See Figure 3 for a map of visitor services at Salt Plains NWR.

30

Figure 3. Map of Visitor Services at Salt Plains NWR

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) The majority of Salt Plains NWR is closed to public access. Areas open to public use include Eagle Roost Nature Trail, Hoot Owl Nature Trail, Jet Recreation Nature Trail, Harold F. Miller Auto Tour Route, Sandpiper Trail, Bonham Pond, crystal dig area, and public fishing access points. Minimal conflicts from white-tailed deer hunts on public use areas may occur, which includes closure of public use area during the duration of specified hunt (3-4 weekdays). Closure of any public use areas is not expected to be more than 15 days per year. In order to minimize conflicts with other public uses, white-tailed deer hunts are conducted during the week when public use numbers are lower. Northern bobwhite quail, ring-necked pheasant, waterfowl, sandhill crane, and dove hunting all occur on the public hunting area, which is separated from the general public use areas resulting in no anticipated conflicts. Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Under the proposed action alternative, coot and additional dove species will be added to the PHA, which will produce no anticipated conflicts with other public uses because of the closure of the PHA to other refuge users.

31

Wild turkey hunting is conducted in areas of Salt Plains NWR that are generally closed to the public and occur outside of open seasons on the public hunting area. Should a controlled turkey hunt occur in a unit containing facilities open for other public uses, that facility may be closed during the hunt. All turkey hunts will be scheduled to reduce impacts by avoiding high use days by other user groups.

Affected Cultural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Cultural Resources During World War II, the salt flats were used as a bombing and strafing range by the War Department. Remnants of World War II activity (such as concrete protective structures or “pill boxes”) still exist on the refuge. The area was used by Native Americans, but no significant prehistoric or Native American sites have been documented as of yet on the refuge. Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Salt Plains NWR contains no known cultural resource sites. Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) The southwest regional archaeologist was contacted regarding Section 106 compliance in preparation of this document. The refuge was informed that no further action was needed, as there are no known cultural sites documented on Salt Plains NWR.

Affected Refuge Management and Operations Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Refuge Management and Operations Land Use Historically, the refuge has not been the site of heavy farming or grazing use because of the erodible saline soils. However, there is some limited farming up higher, mostly along the southern boundary of the refuge. The majority of the land use surrounding the refuge is farmed or grazed. Croplands The refuge farming operation includes about 600 acres farmed through force account (force account refers to the use of refuge staff to accomplish a project or activity) and some cooperative farming. Each year, a portion of the farmland is left fallow due to soil saturation. The purpose of farming on the refuge is primarily to feed geese, ducks, and cranes; however, deer, upland game birds, and songbirds also benefit. Farming is important because it provides food resources widely used by wildlife during the w inter when food is generally scarce.

32

Farming on the refuge also helps to reduce wildlife depredation of private land crops. Typical crops planted include winter wheat, millet, sunflower, and cowpeas. Administration The current refuge staff includes 7 FTEs (refuge manager, supervisory wildlife refuge specialist, administrative officer, wildlife biologist, federal wildlife officer, engineering equipment operator, and maintenance worker). Base funding for the refuge is approximately $750,000 annually. Under current management, all staff voluntarily participate in the controlled white-tailed deer hunts, assisting hunters with orientation, hunt unit assignment, and operation of the check station. The federal wildlife officer (FWO) performs compliance checks on hunters and anglers on the refuge and responds to incidents as needed. A significant amount of management resources ($10,000) are spent annually in efforts to control nuisance beaver that clog up water control structures and cause damage to infrastructure related to moistsoil management. No other proposed species require management actions to control their populations at this time. Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Land Use Under the current hunting program, land use is affected by the management of wetlands and agricultural fields in the PHA. Wetlands in the PHA are manipulated by water level management, mowing, disking, prescribed fire, and the occasional herbicide application for invasive species control. The purpose of these actions is to promote the growth and vigor of native moist-soil vegetation that will benefit waterfowl and waterbirds. Small agricultural fields (15–30 acres) are maintained by force account in the PHA to provide green browse for geese and sandhill cranes during the winter months. Primary crops are winter wheat and triticale. Administration The estimated costs for operation of the current PHA are $15,000.00 annually. This includes mostly labor and equipment costs to maintain wetland infrastructure (levees and water control structures) and agricultural fields (seed and fuel). The refuge federal wildlife officer, with assistance from State counterparts, monitors the PHA and performs compliance checks and user contacts. Costs for operating the controlled white-tailed deer hunts are estimated to be $10,000.00 annually. No specific habitat management is conducted for white-tailed deer populations. This estimate is primarily for labor in the conduct of the hunts by refuge staff and administrative requirements for ODWC. Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Land Use No anticipated impacts to the current management of habitat in the PHA are anticipated. Expanding the boundaries of Units A and B will eliminate the need for additional fencing and signage on the interior of the unit, and improves access from the north and east boundaries for hunting.

33

Administration The estimated cost to operate a limited spring turkey hunt program is estimated to be $5,000.00 annually. Under this alternative, the refuge law enforcement officer and/or ODWC game wardens monitor the hunt, conduct license, bag limit, and access compliance checks. Refuge staff and trained volunteers will administer the hunt and check all harvested game.

Affected Socioeconomic Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternative Socioeconomics Local and Regional Economies The socioeconomic impact of Salt Plains NWR can be divided into two categories. First is the direct expenditure of refuge resources, such as salaries to local employees and expenditures for equipment and supplies; and the second is the impact generated by attracting between 200,000 and 250,000 visitors to the refuge and the associated surrounding communities. Annual refuge budget expenditures typically exceed $400,000. These expenditures range from employee salaries to equipment and material purchases from local suppliers, as well as suppliers in Enid and Oklahoma City. The overall economic impact of refuge visitation is difficult to assess precisely. However, it is estimated that 75 percent of visitors make purchases from local stores, pay fees, and buy licenses, etc. during their visit to the refuge area. The refuge and annual events such as the Crystal Festival bring in many visitors that provide positive economic and recurring benefits to the surrounding communities. Visitor information suggests that a majority of refuge controlled hunt participants are non-local, meaning they stay in local lodging, dine at area restaurants, and purchase some supplies at local businesses. Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) The economic impact of the current hunt program would be a relatively minor increase in sales of hunting licenses and ammunition to the limited number of people participating in these hunts. Regional hotels may experience a slight increase in business as drawn hunters might utilize them. The hunts would result in a net gain of public hunting opportunities in a region dominated by private land, which would have a beneficial impact on the public and hunter retention/recruitment. The community would also benefit from a slight increase tourism and revenue. Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Similar to Alternative A, the proposed action would allow a greater number of hunters. This could have a positive impact on the local economy through a minimal increase in the purchase of fuel, food, lodging, and supplies by hunters coming to the community.

34

Climate Change Climate change is already affecting fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats around the globe. The Service's southwest region has been working with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the academic community, and other natural resource management agencies and interest groups to translate available and emerging science into concrete actions that reduce the impacts of a changing climate on the broadly diverse ecosystems in Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. The Service has recently addressed the subject of climate change with the issuance of the publication “Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change.” This five year plan calls for developing long-term processes and protocols for biological planning and conservation at broad, landscape scales. This five-year action plan calls for baseline data to be established. Refuges to date have no information or data regarding their carbon footprint. This subject will be further addressed as future direction is developed and provided on how to step this Strategic Plan down to the field level. Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A The refuge believes that its hunt program will have negligible impacts on climate change; however, much is unknown about this subject. Alternative B Impacts under the proposed action alternative are expected to be the same as those under Alternative A. Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A Under current management, there will be mortality of white-tailed deer, waterfowl, Northern bobwhite quail, ring-necked pheasant, sandhill crane, and mourning dove. All hunters must comply with ODWC’s regulations regarding the possession of Hunters Education certification. During this course, established hunter ethics and responsibilities to help ensure hunters are using good judgment related to humaneness and animal welfare are addressed. Accurate, clean shots are expected. The target should be within the effective range of the firearm, ammunition, bow and arrow, and the skills of the hunter; and a humane kill is likely. Alternative B This alternative will be the same as Alternative A with the addition of mortality to turkey, feral hog, beaver, rock, white-winged, and Eurasian collared-dove. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations and communities.

35

Direct and Indirect Impacts The Service has not identified any potential high and adverse environmental or human health impacts from this proposed action or any of the alternatives. The Service has identified no minority or low income communities within the impact area. Minority or low income communities will not be disproportionately affected by any impacts from this proposed action or any of the alternatives. Indian Trust Resources DOI Environmental Compliance Memorandum 97-2 requires that all agency environmental assessments must address explicitly whether there are or not any Indian Trust Resources that may be impacted by the action. There are no Indian Trust Resources on Salt Plains NWR. Direct and Indirect Impacts Because no Indian trust resources occur on the refuge, no impacts are expected under either alternative.

Anticipated Cumulative Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Natural Resources Alternative A Migratory bird populations throughout the United States are managed through an administrative process known as flyways. The refuge is located in the Central Flyway. In North America, the process for establishing hunting regulations is conducted annually. In the United States, the process involves a number of scheduled meetings (Flyway Study Committees, Flyway Councils, Service Regulations Committee, etc.) in which information regarding the status of migratory bird populations and their habitats is presented to individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, public hearings are held and the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public comment. Annual waterfowl assessments are based upon the distribution, abundance, and flight corridors of migratory birds. An Annual Waterfowl Population Status Report is produced each year and includes the most current breeding population and production information available for waterfowl in North America (USFWS 2017b). The Report is a cooperative effort by the Service, the Canadian Wildlife Service, various state and provincial conservation agencies, and private conservation organizations. An Annual Adaptive Harvest Management Report (AHM) provides the most current data, analyses, and decision-making protocols (USFWS 2017a). These reports are intended to aid the development of waterfowl harvest regulations in the United States for each hunting season. The state selects season dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other options using guidance in these reports. The refuge follows the regulations set by the State of Oklahoma and published in the annual Oklahoma Hunting Guide. The Service believes that hunting on the refuge does not add significantly to the cumulative impacts of migratory bird management on local, regional, or

36

Central Flyway populations because the percentage taken on the refuge, though possibly additive to existing hunting takes, would be a tiny fraction of the estimated populations. In addition, overall populations will continue to be monitored and future harvests would be adjusted as needed under the existing flyway and State regulatory processes. Several points support this conclusion: 1) the proportion of the national waterfowl harvest that occurs on national wildlife refuges is only 6 percent (USFWS 2013); 2) there are no populations that exist wholly and exclusively on national wildlife refuges; 3) annual hunting regulations within the United States are established at levels consistent with the current population status; 4) refuges cannot permit more liberal seasons than provided for in Federal frameworks; and 5) refuges purchased with funds derived from the Federal Duck Stamp must limit hunting to 40 percent of the available area. No cumulative impacts are expected from migratory bird hunting on the refuge. There have been no documented or reported cumulative impacts to beavers, turkeys, threatened and endangered species, vegetation, soils, air quality, and water resources from current hunting programs. In the units that are open to hunting, habitat quality is stable under current management. The refuge has no documented feral hog populations, but neighboring expanding populations continue to expand and could find their way onto the refuge. As an invasive and highly destructive species, feral hogs negatively impact refuge resources, including threatened and endangered species through direct competition and predation. Any influx of feral hogs may cause problems in aquatic systems, including increased soil erosion and bacterial contamination, induced spread of invasive plant species, and degraded habitat quality. The resulting effects of not allowing the hunting of feral hogs may result in negative cumulative impacts to wildlife and habitats during the life of the Hunt Plan. There are no other public lands located in the nearby vicinity of the refuge and therefore, hunting pressure is relatively high for big game and upland birds on the refuge. There are at least two commercial hunting properties that border the refuge, and most of the remaining neighbors lease their land to hunters, primarily for big game. The refuge and surrounding area is well known locally for producing quality white-tailed deer. The nearest State Wildlife Management Areas are 45 miles west, and 60 miles southeast. Predator hunting, particularly for coyotes, is also popular among many farmers and ranchers. Waterfowl hunting in the surrounding area is similar to big and upland game, with the better habitat leased by commercial guides for sandhill crane and goose species. Much of the guided hunting occurs several miles from the refuge and does not impact bird population numbers at the refuge. Duck hunting is not quite as popular, and done more on a local scale by landowners and their friends/family. Overall, these nearby hunting opportunities when combined with the refuge’s hunting program, are expected to have negligible cumulative impacts on hunted species. Additionally, other activities such as oil and gas development, are expected to have minor impacts to both air and water resources of the area. The refuge’s current management,

37

including the hunting program, are expected to contribute incrementally negligible cumulative impacts to natural resources in the area. Alternative B Coots would be an incidental take to other waterfowl hunted on the refuge, so the anticipated harvest rate would be very low. The white-winged dove harvest for Oklahoma was 13,300 for 2017. It is estimated that between 10 and 25 (0.002 percent of the harvest) birds will be taken on the refuge per season. Rock and Eurasian collared-doves are invasive species whose level of harvest is also anticipated to be low resulting in no cumulative impacts to these four species. There would be direct mortality of turkeys through harvest and minor disturbances to other species inhabiting units open to turkey hunting. This disturbance would be short-lived, and the hunts would only be a few days in duration. No cumulative impacts are anticipated because controlled hunts for wild turkey would be managed to minimize impacts to other wildlife and to maintain a viable turkey population. Dove and turkey hunting would have negligible adverse direct and indirect effects on vegetation and the incidental harvest of feral hog and beaver may have negligible beneficial direct and indirect effects on certain plant communities. Cumulative impacts to vegetation are no expected. Incidental take of beaver and feral hog would result in direct impacts to both species but is not anticipated to increase disturbance or impacts to other species. These hunters would already be participating in regulated hunting activities on the refuge resulting in no additional cumulative impacts on habitats or other wildlife from allowing the hunting of these species. Because of the negative impacts that feral hogs have on other species, harvest of this species may have a positive impact, but this would be limited because hunting would remove no to very few feral hogs if they become established on the refuge, resulting in no cumulative impacts. Incidental harvest of beaver could potentially have negative impacts to species that benefit directly from the activity of beavers, but the refuge already manages wetland habitats to benefit migratory birds, resulting in no cumulative impacts from their harvest. Although the Proposed Action Alternative would increase hunting opportunities compared to the No Action Alternative, the slight increase in hunter activity would not result in significant cumulative effects locally, regionally, or nationally to hunted species, threatened and endangered species, other wildlife, vegetation, soils, air quality, and water resources. Hunts would be managed to minimize impacts to other wildlife and aquatic species and threatened and endangered species. When considered in context with other state and private activities occurring on the landscape, the proposed action would not result in significant cumulative impacts to hunted species, other wildlife or other natural resources on the refuge during the 15-year life of the Hunt Plan. Visitor Use and Experience Hunting/Fishing

38

Oklahoma has limited public lands open for hunting as roughly 97 percent of the state is privately owned. The additional turkey hunts would provide increased opportunities to the hunting community in Oklahoma. Since there is very limited opportunity to publicly hunt turkey throughout the state, creating this new opportunity even with a minimal number of turkey permits (10), may have incrementally minor beneficial impacts on visitor, specifically hunter, use and experience. For instance, successful applicants for spring turkey hunts, after experiencing the refuge through hunting and learning about what the refuge has to offer, may decide to return with their family, or entice others to visit. These positive experiences and advertising through word of mouth increase stakeholder (visitor) satisfaction and engagement. Historically, private landowners in rural Oklahoma were either sportsmen or supported hunting and fishing by granting access to locals. As hunting and fishing became more commercialized and outfitters began paying landowners for access, the once recreational pastime became a business, and access for the majority was restricted. Fishing has been offered at Salt Plains NWR since 1961, and deer hunting began in 1965. The PHA offers an area to pursue waterfowl and upland game birds to any license holder on a first come-first served basis. Controlled deer hunts at Salt Plains NWR are some of the most sought after permits offered by ODWC, and controlled turkey hunts would be managed similarly, with an emphasis on a quality experience and access to youth hunters. Fishing is an opportunity in an otherwise arid portion of Oklahoma. Historically angler success in the reservoir was regionally famous. As the reservoir silted in and water temperature and associated dissolved oxygen levels were impacted, the fishery declined in quality. During drought years, fish kills from low dissolved oxygen are common. The ODWC Byron State fish hatchery continues to stock fish in the reservoir in efforts to sustain a viable fishery. Recognizing the lack of public land in Oklahoma, the ODWC launched a land access program for private land, based on the success of these types of programs in other states. Other Wildlife-Dependent Recreation (i.e., road and trail development and use) Alternative A Under current management, crystal digging is allowed from April 1 to October 15 and has been determined to be a compatible refuge use. Crystal digging is allowed on 20 percent of the total crystal digging area and is rotated annually. Although crystal digging itself is not a wildlife-dependent public use, the outdoor experience provides an opportunity to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreational activities (i.e., wildlife observation) as well as providing an educational experience of the natural resources of the refuge and its special geological history. Visitors to Salt Plains NWR, including hunters and anglers, are a significant socioeconomic driver to the communities surrounding the refuge. Visitor surveys state that over 75 percent of the visitation to the refuge is non-local, meaning that they are often staying, dining, and frequenting other local businesses. Alternative B

39

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, no impacts are anticipated from digging for selenite crystals. Although the digging season coincides with turkey hunting, crystal digging occurs on the salt flats, and turkey hunting will occur in upland vegetated units of the refuge. With the slight increase in hunters from adding turkey hunts, the socioeconomic impacts to surrounding communities would be expected to increase slightly. Use of Lead Ammunition/Tackle There are no anticipated cumulative impacts from Alternative A or Alternative B as the refuge allows only federally approved non-toxic shot for the take of migratory birds, upland game (with except of rimfire weapons use), and turkey. Lead ammunition is allowed for white-tailed deer, beaver, and feral hog rimfire use for upland game hunting, but that is a small percentage of the harvest in the state. Therefore, the continued allowance of lead ammunition has a negligible impact on the cumulative impacts of lead in the environment. Cultural Resources Since establishment, the refuge had completed very little excavating or significant ground disturbing activities and all known or suspected sites are protected from disturbance. The slight increase in foot traffic from the additional hunting opportunities will have no impact on known or suspected sites; therefore, no cumulative impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. None of the activities proposed will occur in areas known to contain cultural resources. Signage is posted at the entrance to the salt flats and at parking for the crystal digging area to inform visitors about prior military use and possible hazards. Refuge Management and Operations Cumulative impacts to land use would be minimal, but beneficial. Land use practices in the PHA would continue as currently managed. Land use would not be impacted by the addition of controlled turkey hunts, as refuge habitat management focuses of benefits to migratory birds (including threatened and endangered species), not big game species. Habitat actions for migratory birds benefit other native species, such as deer and turkey, but they are not the focal species for such actions. Expanding the PHA boundary as proposed would remove interior signage that would reduce maintenance costs into the future. The refuge is an island among many thousands of acres of rural agricultural lands. Most tillable acreage is in winter wheat, with some canola, grain sorghum, sesame, corn, cotton and soybeans. Pasturelands include some native mixed grass prairie, but much has been converted to Bermuda grass. There are also a few confined animal feeding organizations (feed lots) that surround the refuge. The refuge has always been surrounded by agricultural lands, and impacts to our programs would be minimal. Administratively, the refuge would incur additional costs for the operation of controlled turkey hunts of approximately $5,000.00. This amount is not a hardship at current funding levels, and the increased hunting opportunities, along with increased exposure of the refuge to a segment of hunters not currently using the refuge, could be worth more than $5,000.00 in the long term.

40

No additional workload for law enforcement is expected in the PHA, as hunter numbers there are not expected to increase with the proposed additions. The spring turkey hunts will require the presence of law enforcement to ensure compliance, but this increase is minimal and occurs during the spring when other public uses are relatively low. Socioeconomics Development and Population Increase Under current management, there are no anticipated cumulative impacts. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the increase in hunting opportunities is minimal and will have an incrementally negligible contribution to new development or population growth in the local area or region as these rural communities are slowly declining (US Census). Climate Change No additional cumulative impacts are expected under either alternative. Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns The refuge anticipates that cumulative impacts will be negligible under either alternative. Environmental Justice No additional cumulative impacts are expected under either alternative. Indian Trust Resources No cumulative impacts are expected.

Monitoring As part of the Inventory and Monitoring plan for Salt Plains NWR, regular vegetation surveys are conducted to monitor habitat conditions throughout the refuge. In addition, wetland and migratory bird numbers are monitored through the Integrated Waterbird Management and Monitoring protocol. Deer surveys are conducted to monitor trends in population density and age and sex ratios. The refuge cooperates in a monitoring effort with ODWC for data on mourning doves. Upland bird and turkey monitoring is conducted by ODWC. Summary of Analysis The purpose of this EA is to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Alternative A – No Action Alternative As described above, under the no action alternative, no direct impacts are expected to occur to migratory game birds (duck, goose, sandhill crane, and mourning dove), bobwhite quail, and ring-necked pheasant under current management. There would be no additional impacts on natural resources including air quality, soils, vegetation, and water quality.

41

No additional impacts would occur to the visitor experience through potential conflicts between hunters and other user groups. However, conflicts would continue to be minor due to limited number of hunt days and non-hunting recreational facilities. The refuge would remain open to other public uses during these hunts. Minor beneficial impacts to the socioeconomic environment would occur through capital expenditures in the local economy by hunters. No additional impacts to cultural resources are expected to occur due to the absence of documented cultural sites on the refuge. Minor adverse impacts would continue to occur to refuge administration and facilities. Costs are expected to remain the same because the refuge would use resources already available for current hunts. The no action alternative meets the purpose and needs of the Service as described in the EA because it provides wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. However, it limits the opportunity to harvest a sustainable population of turkey, coot, white-winged, Eurasian collared- and rock dove and better align with the ODWC seasons and dates. The refuge would not be able to allow incidental take of beaver and feral hogs to help keep those populations from causing damage to the habitat. Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative As described above, the addition turkey, coot, beaver, feral hog, white-wing, rock and Eurasian collared-dove hunting would have negligible impacts on natural resources including air quality, geology and soils, vegetation, and water resources. Any impacts are reduced by the limited amount of hunters and hunt days. There would be minor beneficial impacts to water, soils, and vegetation due to the possible take of feral hogs and beaver. There would be minor adverse impacts to other wildlife through disturbance, which would be mitigated through only allowing a low number of hunters and hunt days and would be adding additional species to existing hunts. The incidental take of feral hog and beaver will have positive impacts by reducing habitat damage (beaver and hogs), decreasing opportunities for establishment of invasive plant species (beaver and hog), reducing impacts to resident wildlife from predation (feral hog), and reducing impacts to infrastructure (beaver). There would be minor beneficial impacts to threatened and endangered species least terns from the take of feral hogs. There would be little disturbance to threatened and endangered species due to the separation of the PHA and salt flats and the timing of hunting activities versus the occurrence of threatened and endangered species. Negligible impacts to cultural resources are not expected to occur due to the absence of documented cultural sites on the refuge. Minor adverse impacts would occur to refuge administration and facilities. The new hunts would require staff time to conduct hunt briefings, assist hunters, and check in harvested turkeys. No startup costs are expected because the refuge would use resources already used for deer hunts.

42

This alternative also meets the purpose and the needs of the Service because it would provide a compatible hunting program with increased opportunities for sportsmen, supports the local communities and stakeholders by providing a slight boost to local economies through increased visitation to the refuge. Adding American coot, rock dove, white-winged dove, Eurasian collared-dove to the public hunting area, controlled hunts for wild turkey, and incidental take of beaver and feral hog at Salt Plains NWR provides public hunting opportunities in a state that is over 97 percent private land and better align with ODWC seasons and dates. List of Sources, Agencies, and Persons Consulted References Beach, R. 1993. Depredation problems involving feral hogs. Pages 67-93 in C.W. Hanselka

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

Poling, T., and S. Hayslette. 2006. Dietary overlap and foraging competition between mourning

doves and Eurasian collared doves. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(4):998-1004. Raftovich, R.V., S. C. Chandler, and K.K. Fleming. 2018. Migratory bird hunting activity and

harvest during the 2016-17 and 2017-18 hunting seasons. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA.

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. 2013. Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Hunting of

Migratory Birds, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. USFWS, Division of Migratory Birds and Management, Laurel, MD. 418pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Waterfowl population status, 2017. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Washington, D.C. USA. List of Preparers Shane Kasson. Refuge Manager, Salt Plains NWR Juli Niemann, Regional Hunt Coordinator State Coordination A meeting was conducted with ODWC in January of 2018 to discuss the potential expansion of hunting and fishing opportunities on NWR’s in Oklahoma. During that meeting, controlled hunts for turkey at Salt Plains NWR were discussed and received favorably by ODWC. Salt Plains NWR staff meets semi-annually with ODWC biologist to discuss hunt program direction, specifically; the controlled deer hunt program and direction.

43

Tribal Consultation A letter to all the tribes in Oklahoma was sent out on January 16, 2019 requesting their review of the attached document that identifies hunting and fishing opportunities for each national wildlife refuge in Oklahoma beginning in the fall of 2019. Public Outreach The refuge published a notice in three local newspapers about these proposed changes and received no feedback. Determination This section will be filled out upon completion of any public comment period and at the time of finalization of the Environmental Assessment. ☐ The Service’s action will not result in a significant impact on the quality of the human

environment. See the attached “Finding of No Significant Impact”. ☐ The Service’s action may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and

the Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. Preparer Signature: __________________________________________Date:________ Name/Title/Organization: __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Reviewer Signature: ___________________________________Date:________ Name/Title: ______________________________________________________________

44

Appendix 1 OTHER APPLICABLE STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS & REGULATIONS

STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS

Cultural Resources

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

The proposed action includes no ground-disturbing activities, or activities that might disturb undocumented paleontological, archaeological, or historic sites.

other

Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431-433; 43 CFR Part 3 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470aa – 470mm; 18 CFR Part 1312; 32 CFR Part 229; 36 CFR Part 296; 43 CFR Part 7 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470-470x-6; 36 CFR Parts 60, 63, 78, 79, 800, 801, and 810 Paleontological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa – 470aaa-11 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; 43 CFR Part 10 Executive Order 11593 – Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 36 Fed. Reg. 8921 (1971) Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites, 61 Fed. Reg. 26771 (1996) Fish & Wildlife Bald and Golden Eagle Protection No changes are proposed to current refuge-specific hunting regulations Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668- for migratory birds and upland game birds. 668c, 50 CFR 22 There are two known federal threatened or endangered species that use the refuge on a seasonal basis, the whooping crane and the least tern, and two Endangered Species Act of 1973, as species that use the refuge for occasional stopovers, the piping plover and amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 36 the red knot; an Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation was conducted with CFR Part 13; 50 CFR Parts 10, 17, the Service’s Tulsa Ecological Services Field Office. 23, 81, 217, 222, 225, 402, and 450 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742 a-m

The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 13186 because the Environmental Assessment for Turkey, Coot, Beaver, Feral Hog, White-winged, Rock, and Eurasian Collared-Dove Hunting on Salt Plains NWR evaluates the effects of agency actions on migratory birds.

45

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

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

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

Natural Resources Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 The Service has evaluated the suitability of Salt Plains NWR for U.S.C. 7401-7671q; 40 CFR Parts wilderness designation and concluded that the Refuge does not meet the 23, 50, 51, 52, 58, 60, 61, 82, and 93; basic criteria for inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation 48 CFR Part 23 System. The Service has evaluated the eligibility of streams on Salt Plains NWR Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et for wild and scenic river designation and concluded no streams meet the seq. basic criteria for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq. The proposed action would have negligible effects to air quality.

The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 13112 because Executive Order 13112 – Invasive stipulations in permits would be designed to prevent the introduction of Species, 64 Fed. Reg. 6183 (1999) invasive species.

Water Resources Coastal Zone Management Act of The refuge does not lie in a coastal zone, and contains no rivers, harbors, 1972, 16 U.S.C. or navigable waters. 1451 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 923, 930, There would be negligible impacts of the proposed action on water quality 933 or water resources. Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as

The refuge contains no drinking water sources and does not supply drinking water to any community.

Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 11990 because seq.; 33 CFR Parts 320-330; 40 CFR implementation of the Hunt Plan would protect existing wetlands. Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 230-232, 323, and 328

The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 11988, because implementation of the Hunt Plan would not result in the modification or

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as

destruction of floodplains.

amended, 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 114, 115, 116, 321, 322, and 333 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 141-148 Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management, 42 Fed. Reg. 26951 (1977)

46

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