Environmental Assessment - Opening Turkey, Coot, Beaver, Feral Hog, White-winged, Rock, and Eurasian Collared-Dove Hunting on Salt Plains National ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
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
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
2
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
3Environmental 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
4such 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.
5Therefore, 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
6parking 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
SANDHILL
SEASON HUNTERS DUCKS GEESE 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.
7Ring-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.
8Figure 1. Open Hunt Units within Salt Plains NWR and Areas Closed to Hunting
9Alternative 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.
10The 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
11Table 3. Units Open to Hunting on Salt Plains NWR
Hunt Units Big # of # of Upland Migratory Incidental Incidental
Game Deer Turkey Game Game take of take of
Hunting permits permits Bird feral hog beaver
Unit A Yes 8–40 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes
(475.66 ac)
Unit B Yes 8–40 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes
(459.89 ac)
Unit C Yes 0–8 0 No No Yes Yes
(150.92 ac)
Unit E Yes 6–32 0 No No Yes Yes
(588.39 ac)
Unit F Yes 6–32 0 No No Yes Yes
303.65 ac)
Unit G Yes 6–32 0 No No Yes Yes
295.57 ac)
Unit H Yes 10–48 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes
(1,164.27 ac)
Unit J Yes 10–48 0 No No Yes Yes
(2,137.58 ac)
C-7 Unit Yes 2–10 0 No No Yes Yes
(25.41 ac)
Headquarters Yes 2–10 0 No No Yes Yes
(C-10)(17.49
ac)
Wilderness Yes 40–100 0 No No Yes Yes
Unit
(3,935.75)
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.
123.0 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.
13The 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
14American 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
15hunter. 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
16hunts, 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).
17Local 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)
18This 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.
19There 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.
20The 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.
21Least 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.
22You can also read
