DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SANDY SANDERS …...Sandy Sanders Wildlife Management Area Shooting...

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SANDY SANDERS WMA GUN RANGE

GREER COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

Prepared for:

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife & Sport Fish Restoration Program – USFWS Region 2 PO Box 1306 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Prepared by: Enercon Services

1601 Northwest Expressway Oklahoma City, OK 73118 (405) 722-7693

January 2020

Table of Contents

1.0 introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Authority ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Background .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.5 Project Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 2

1.6 Project Need ............................................................................................................................ 2

1.7 Decisions to be Made ............................................................................................................... 2

2.0 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) ........................................................................................ 3

2.3 Alternatives Eliminated From Consideration............................................................................. 4

3.0 Affected Environment and environmental consequences ............................................................. 4

3.1 Physical Environment ............................................................................................................... 5

3.1.1 Topography and Soils ....................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Water Resources ...................................................................................................................... 7

3.2.1 Wetlands and Surface Water Features .............................................................................. 7

3.2.2 Surface Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 8

3.2.3 Floodplains ..................................................................................................................... 10

3.2.4 Groundwater .................................................................................................................. 11

3.3 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................... 12

3.3.1 Vegetative Communities and Structure .......................................................................... 12

3.3.2 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species ..................................................... 13

3.2.3 Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife ...................................................................................... 15

3.2.4 Migratory Birds and Eagles ............................................................................................. 17

3.4 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 18

3.5 Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................................... 20

3.5.1 Population and Socioeconomic Characteristics ............................................................... 20

3.5.2 Employment and Income ................................................................................................ 20

3.6 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................. 22

3.7 Noise ..................................................................................................................................... 23

3.8 Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 25

3.9 Visual Resources .................................................................................................................... 25

3.10 Health and Human Safety ....................................................................................................... 26

3.11 Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................................. 27

3.12 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................ 29

3.12.1 Relevant Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ......................................... 29

4.0 mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 29

5.0 List of Preparers ......................................................................................................................... 32

6.0 List of Agencies Consulted .......................................................................................................... 32

7.0 Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................... 33

List of Tables

Table 1. Soils Mapped within the Project Study Area .............................................................................. 5 Table 2: Federally list threatened and endangered species listed within Greer County, Oklahoma. ....... 13 Table 3: Birds of Conservation Concern that May Occur Within the Project Area .................................. 18 Table 4: Population Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 20 Table 5: Employment and Income ......................................................................................................... 21 Table 6. Sound pressure levels of firearms measured at 10 meters from the muzzle downrange.1 ........ 24

Figures

Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Proposed Project Service Area Figure 3: Project Site Map Figure 4: Soil Survey Map Figure 5: Topographic Map Figure 6: NWI Map Figure 7: FEMA Floodplain Map Figure 8: Maximum Sound Pressure Relative to Site Boundary

Appendices

Appendix A – Local, State, and Federal Agency Correspondence Appendix B - USFWS IPaC Report Appendix C – Representative Site Photos

Sandy Sanders Wildlife Management Area Shooting Range Page 1 of 35

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Summary

The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) proposes to construct a shooting range at Sandy Sanders Wildlife Management Area (WMA) in Greer County, Oklahoma. The proposed project will be located on a parcel located within Section 31, Township 7 North, Range 24 West; GPS location: N 35.033137°, W -99.767246° (Figure 1). Development of the proposed range is part of a collaborative effort between ODWC and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to provide new recreational opportunities on public lands within the state of Oklahoma. Grant funding for the range will be provided through the USFWS Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration (WSFR) Program. This federal grant program provides funds to state fish and wildlife agencies for projects to restore, conserve, manage, and enhance wild birds and mammals and their habitats. Projects also include providing public use and access to wildlife resources, hunter education, and development and management of ranges. The program is authorized by the Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson) of 1937.

The WMA, owned by ODWC, is in Greer County, 26 miles northwest of Mangum and 26 miles southwest of Sayre. The WMA covers 29,766 acres (ODWC 2019). The proposed shooting range will be located east of County Road (CR) NS1800, approximately 1 mile north of the intersection of CR NS1800 and CR EW1380.

1.2 Authority

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) requires all federal agencies to address the environmental impacts of any major federal action on the natural and human environment. Procedures for complying with NEPA that apply to all federal agencies are contained in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 1500 through 1508. Implementing regulations that apply specifically to USFWS are described in the Department of the Interior National Environmental Policy Act Procedures (43 CFR 46) and the Draft NEPA - Policy and Responsibilities (550 FW 1) and Compliance Guidance (550 FW 2). The primary intent of NEPA is to ensure that environmental information is considered in decisions on federal actions and that the information be made available to the public.

To comply with NEPA and related environmental laws and regulations, the USFWS must thoroughly consider the potential environmental effects of its decisions regarding approval of project funding and avoid and minimize adverse environmental effects to the extent practicable.

1.3 Background

Hunting is a very important part of Oklahoma’s economy and is a tradition for many Oklahomans. Prior to 2016, target practice was permitted in wildlife management areas. In 2016, Oklahoma passed a regulation that prohibited shooting on wildlife management area property other than at designated


shooting ranges. Currently, of the 67 ODWC wildlife management areas, only 12 have shooting ranges. ODWC currently receives multiple calls a week from the public looking for a safe and legal place to shoot their firearms.

The proposed project is located within a geographically isolated area of Oklahoma. The proposed project will serve the population living within a 50-mile radius, including portions of Roger Mills, Custer, Beckham, Washita, Kiowa, Greer, Harmon, Jackson, and Tillman Counties, Oklahoma (Figure 2). Based on available census data, the population within 50 miles of the project is approximately 76,514 people.

Based on the National Shooting Sports Foundation data, three shooting ranges are located within 80 miles of the proposed project location (NSSF 2019). Two of the ranges are private facilities accessible to members only. One range is a private range open to the public, but facilities are limited to shotgun shooting (trap, 5-stand, and sporting clays). No shooting ranges accommodating rifle, handgun, and shotguns accessible to the general public appear to be available within a 50-mile radius of the proposed project. The proposed project will provide Oklahoma residents with valid hunting licenses free access to a publically accessible shooting range.

1.5 Project Purpose

The purpose of the proposed project is to provide a safe setting for shooting rifles, handguns, and shotguns for the public. The shooting range will provide opportunities for marksmanship practice, live-fire exercises in Hunter Education (HE) classes, and a safe place for hunters to sight in rifles and pattern shotguns before hunting seasons.

1.6 Project Need

The proposed project is located within a geographically isolated area. Target shooting is not legal on public hunting land outside of designated areas and opportunities for firearm training in a controlled environmental are not currently available within western Oklahoma. The project is needed to provide an underserved community with access to a quality facility for firearms training, wildlife education, and recreational shooting in a safe and controlled environment.

1.7 Decisions to be Made

ODWC and the USFWS will select one of the alternatives analyzed in this document and the USFWS Region 2 Director will determine, based on the facts and recommendations herein, whether this EA is adequate to support a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) decision, or whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will need to be prepared.


2.0 ALTERNATIVES

2.1 No Action Alternative

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the provisions of NEPA require Federal agencies to consider a "no action" alternative. These regulations define the "no action" alternative as the continuation of existing conditions and their effects on the environment, without implementation of, or in lieu of, a proposed action. This alternative represents the existing condition and serves as the baseline against which to compare the effects of the other alternatives. The no action alternative would retain the existing conditions and would not result in any additional project-related environmental impacts for consideration.

2.2 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)

The proposed project will consist of the construction of a gun range facility within Section 31, Township 7 North, Range 24 West; GPS location: N 35.033137°, W -99.767246° (Figure 1). The project will include an approximately 0.25 acre gravel parking lot with one ADA compliant 16-foot by 18-foot concrete parking site. The shooting range will be constructed with a covered, 12-foot by 120-foot shooting station with four individual shooting stations: two for the 100-yard range and two for the 200-yard range.

An earthen backstop will be constructed behind both ranges for bullet containment. The berm will be approximately 224 feet wide and 20 feet high. Additionally, a 647-foot wide and 10-foot high berm will be constructed on the south side of the 100-yard range and north of an unpaved two-track road. The backstop and berm will be constructed out of both on-site and off-site earthen material. The outer 24 inches of backstop face will be rock-free with a 1:1 slope (not less than a 2:1 slope) facing the range and no required slope facing outside the range, with a flat top that is 4 feet wide. The backstop and berm will be compacted.

The ground between the shooting platforms and backstop will be smooth, firm, and graded so stormwater drainage will be directed away from the benches and targets and follow the general existing drainage pattern towards the creek to the north.

The proposed project will comply with the ADA guidelines and will include a gravel parking lot with one ADA-compliant van accessible parking spot. Concrete sidewalks will facilitate ADA access from the parking lot to the shooting stations as well as target areas on the ranges.

Fence shall be steel pipe rail fence constructed of pipe posts. The proposed fence will be approximately 120 linear feet with maximum spacing between fence posts of 10 feet.

Additional fill material, if required, will be obtained from a commercial supplier.


2.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Consideration

The following alternative locations were considered and would have been similar in all respects to Alternative 1:

Alternative 2: This site would be located in a parcel located in the southwest quarter of Section 31, Township 7 North, Range 24 West; GPS location: N 35.0343217°, W -99.782553°. Alternative 3: This site would be located in a parcel located in the northeast quarter of Section 31, Township 7 North, Range 24 West; GPS location: N 35.037484°, W -99.768277°. Alternative 2 was eliminated from detailed consideration because the slope of the site would require orienting the range east to west, which would result in the late day sun affecting shooter visibility. Additionally, the site would require extensive removal of brush and woody vegetation. Alternative 3 was eliminated from detailed consideration because the slope of the site would require orienting the range east to west, which would result in the late day sun affecting shooter visibility. Additionally, the site is subject to flooding and remains saturated for extended periods of time following heavy rainfall, rendering the site seasonally unusable.

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section contains a description of resources that could be impacted by the proposed action. The resources described in this section are those recognized by laws, executive orders, regulations, and other standards of national, state, or regional agencies and organizations; technical or scientific agencies, groups, or individuals; and the general public.

General Environmental Setting

The proposed project is located in Greer County, Oklahoma (Figure 1). The project study area has a semi-arid climate with average annual precipitation of about 25 to 38 inches. Most of the precipitation comes in the springtime, with nearly one-third of the annual total falling in May and June (Oklahoma Climatological Survey 2019). The project study area is relatively flat, with an elevation of 1,750 feet above mean sea level (msl).

The proposed project is located in Holocene Alluvium which is composed primarily of gravel, sand, silt, and clay (USGS 2019a and b). Soil types in the study area consist of Spur Clay Loam (SuuA) and Vernon-Knoco Complex (VeKE) (Figure 4). The proposed project area lies within the Southwestern Tablelands ecoregion. This ecoregion is made up of dissected plains, hills, canyons, escarpments, plains, breaks, buttes, mesas, and terraces. Natural vegetation in this semiarid to dry-subhumid area is mostly short grass prairie; there is also mesquite–buffalograss in the southwest, sand sagebrush–bluestem prairie on


dunes, and juniper–pinyon woodland in the western Panhandle (Woods et. al. 2005). The study area is comprised of native grasses and mesquite.

3.1 Physical Environment

3.1.1 Topography and Soils The topography of the project area is relatively flat with slopes ranging between 0 and 1 %. The surface elevation of the subject property ranges is approximately 1,750 feet above msl (Figure 5). Based on the topographic map, the site has an overall north and east topographic gradient draining towards Deer Creek.

Soil map units within the project area are listed in Table 2 and depicted on Figure 4. Spatial data and other information regarding soils were obtained via the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS) (NRCS 2019a) for Greer County and the official soil series description website (NRCS 2019b). Soils throughout the project and study area are stable and no severely eroded areas were observed during field evaluations.

Table 1. Soils Mapped within the Project Study Area Series Name (Symbol)

Drainage Class

Hydric Rating

Prime Farmland Description

Spur clay loam (SuwA)

Well-drained No No

Very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in calcareous, loamy alluvium on slopes and floodplains, moderately high to high water capacity

Vernon-Knoco complex (VeKE)

Well-drained No No

Well drained, permeable soils formed in residuum weathered from claystone over dense non-cemented claystone bedrock on dissected floodplains, very low to moderately low water capacity

Alternative 1

Prime Farmland The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) was passed by Congress as part of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (Public law 97-98). The FPPA is intended to minimize the impact federal programs have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. For the purposes of the FPPA, “farmland” includes prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or local importance.

Based on NRCS WSS data, none of the soil units within the study area are classified as prime farmland. Project information was submitted to the NRCS on October 22, 2019. Based on the NRCS evaluation, the

Effects on Topography and Soils


proposed project will not affect the relative value of farmland or soils classified as prime or unique farmland soils. Thus, the proposed project will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect prime farmland.

Effects During Construction The primary concern during construction is soil stability and erosion. Based on field reconnaissance, soils within the project area appear stable. No severely eroded areas were observed. The potential for negative impacts to soil stability and erosion will occur during the construction phase. Ground disturbances for construction efforts would be minimal and best management practices (BMPs) designed to prevent erosion will be implemented. Any necessary local and state construction permits will be attained prior to development, and all applicable state and federal regulations will be adhered to within the project’s design. Following construction, areas of temporary disturbance will be restored to pre-existing contours and elevation. All areas of temporary disturbance, as well as the berms and backstops, will be revegetated using a native seed mix. Gravel will be utilized on designated parking area and access road to prevent rutting and soil disturbance during operation of the facility.

Construction of the site may require the addition of fill soil to the project site. If required, additional fill will be required from a commercial provider. Introduction of soil from the outside of the Sandy Sanders WMA carries the risk for the introduction of invasive plant species and hazardous materials. If an offsite borrow location is required, soil will be tested to ensure it is free of hazardous materials and that the pH is within the optimum range to prevent lead dissolution. Following construction, the project site will be revegetated with the appropriate native species and monitored for the presence of invasive species (Section 3.3.1).

Erosion from the site is currently minimal and anticipated to remain both minimal and insignificant throughout construction and operation of the site. Site substrate functions will not be significantly altered as a result of the proposed project. The proposed action will not directly or indirectly affect soil stability within the project area or the immediate vicinity.

Effects During Operation Operation of the proposed project has the potential to result in lead accumulation in soils within the proposed project area in the form of bullets, bullet particles, shot, and dissolved lead. All forms of lead in soils have the potential to be mobilized offsite due to stormwater runoff into surface waters (Section 3.2.2) and infiltration into groundwater (Section 3.2.4), resulting in potential human health impacts (Section 3.10). Mobilization of lead particles and dissolved lead is dependent upon rainfall intensity, topographic slope, soil type, runoff velocity, vegetative cover, and man-made structures.

ODWC is aware of concerns about lead bullets and lead shot, and the potential for issues to arise during operation, or post-operation if the area were eventually closed. In order to be proactive, and to lessen the potential impacts of lead accumulation, ODWC has developed an Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the site based on information contained within Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor


Shooting Ranges (EPA 2003). The ESP is a “living document” intended for use as a long-term management tool and will be revised as appropriate based on implementation experience. The ESP includes BMPs to avoid infiltration of dissolved lead into the soils (Section 4.0). Post-construction BMPs to avoid erosion and infiltration of dissolved lead into soils may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

• To prevent soil erosion and runoff, following construction the project area will be revegetated according to the WMA manager’s guidelines.

• Berms and backstops will be vegetated to prevent erosion. • Vegetation density will be monitored during the growing season to ensure adequate vegetation

coverage to prevent erosion. • Problem areas (areas of erosion, sparsely vegetated areas) will be documented with photographs

and monitored to evaluate the effectiveness of corrective actions taken. • Berm and side slopes will not be steeper than 4:1. • Annual precipitation, soil pH monitoring results, and erosion issues will also be considered when

determining the lead reclamation schedule. • ODWC will ensure lead removed from the project site during reclamation activities is properly

disposed of or recycled at a facility in compliance with all provisions of the RCRA and other applicable laws and regulations.

With proper implementation of BMPs and the ESP, the proposed project will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect soil stability or result in significant accumulation of lead in the project area soils.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed gun range would not be constructed; thus, there would be no impacts associated with clearing, grading, or other ground disturbance activities.

3.2 Water Resources

3.2.1 Wetlands and Surface Water Features Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities in waters of the United States regulated under this program include fill for development, water resource projects (such as dams and levees), infrastructure development (such as highways and airports) and mining projects. Section 404 requires a permit before dredged or fill material may be discharged into waters of the United States. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) administers the day to day program, including individual and general permit decisions, and enforcement of Section 404 permit provisions. The USACE is also responsible for verifying jurisdictional determinations. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) conducts Section 401 certification reviews of projects requiring a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.


Numerous definitions of wetlands have been proposed over the years, but presently the USACE technical guidelines for defining wetlands are contained in the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and regional supplements. The USACE’s technical guidelines outlined in the manual consist of three criteria for delineating a feature as a wetland: wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. Under the procedures and criteria in the manual, a feature must normally satisfy all three criteria to be classified as a wetland.

No surface water or wetland features are depicted within the project are on the US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map (Figure 5) or National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map (Figure 6). The project area was evaluated for the presence of wetlands and surface waters on June 17, 2019. No mapped or unmapped wetland are surface water features were observed within the project area. Based on review of the USGS topographic and NWI maps, the nearest surface water feature, Deer Creek, is approximately 80 feet north of the project study area.

Alternative 1

Construction of the proposed project will not require discharge of fill material within a potentially jurisdictional water feature; therefore, a Section 404 permit and written authorization from the USACE is not required. Thus, the proposed action will not directly or indirectly affect jurisdictional surface waters or wetlands.


Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed gun range would not be constructed; thus, there would be no impacts to potentially jurisdictional water features.

3.2.2 Surface Water Quality The 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act include Section 303(d). The regulations implementing Section 303(d) require states to develop lists of water bodies that do not meet water quality standards and to submit updated lists to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) every two years. Water quality standards, as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, include beneficial uses, water quality objectives (narrative and numerical) and anti-degradation requirements. The EPA is required to review impaired water body lists submitted by each state and approve or disapprove all or part of the list.

For water bodies on the 303(d) list, the Clean Water Act requires that a pollutant load reduction plan or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) be developed to correct each impairment. TMDLs must document the nature of the water quality impairment, determine the maximum amount of a pollutant that can be discharged and still meet standards, and identify allowable loads from the contributing sources. The elements of a TMDL include a problem statement, description of the desired future condition (numeric

Effects on Wetlands and Surface Waters


target), pollutant source analysis, load allocations, description of how allocations relate to meeting targets, and margin of safety. Based on review of ODEQ data, Deer Creek, located approximately 80 feet north of the study area, is a 303(d) listed water body for impairments due to bacteria levels (Enterococcus spp. and Escherichia spp.), turbidity, and sulfates. Potential sources of the impairments are on-site treatment systems (septic tanks and similar decentralized systems), agriculture, and unknown sources (ODWC 2016). No additional 303(d) listed waterbodies are located within 1 mile of the project study area. TMDLs were established for bacteria in 2008 and turbidity in 2010.

Alternative 1

Potential Effects During Construction The proposed project study area is located within 80 feet to the south of a 303(d) listed water body for impairments due to bacteria, turbidity, and sulfates. Construction activities are not expected to result in pollutant discharges that would affect bacteria or sulfate levels in Deer Creek. However, if not properly managed, ground disturbing activities have the potential to result in sediment discharges that would exceed the TMDL established for turbidity. Clearing of vegetation and ground disturbance required for construction of the proposed project will increase the risk of soil erosion and sediment mobilization. Soil particles move during and immediately after heavy rainfall, with heavier rainfall resulting in the movement of larger soil particles. Therefore, there is risk for the discharge of sediment laden stormwater into receiving waters within the project vicinity. Impacts will be minimized by the utilization of erosion and sedimentation control best management practices (BMPs), such as silt fencing, routine maintenance of equipment, and stabilization following disturbances. Thus, any adverse impacts to water quality due to construction activities are expected to be minimal and temporary.

The construction contractor will be required to develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), submit a notice of intent (NOI), and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit from the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) prior to commencing construction.

Potential Effects During Operation Operation of the site is not expected to contribute pollutants that would affect bacteria, sulfate, or turbidity. Lead bullets, bullet particles, or dissolved lead can be moved by stormwater runoff and discharged into Deer Creek or other receiving waters within the project vicinity (USEPA 2005). The following measures will be incorporated into the project design and site selection to minimize potential for the discharge of lead bullets, bullet particles, shot, or dissolved lead to surface waters:

• No surface waters are located within the project area

• All slopes on the site will not be steeper than 4:1

• The site will be graded to ensure natural drainage and sheet flow

Water Quality Impacts


Implementation of post-construction BMPs to manage stormwater will minimize risk of the discharge of lead bullets, bullet particles, shot, or dissolved lead to surface waters. Post-construction BMPs that may be implemented to minimize the risk of the discharge of lead bullets, bullet particles, shot, or dissolved lead to surface water features may include, but are not necessarily limited to:

• Re-establishment of vegetation using native grass mix approved by ODWC

• Monitoring of vegetative cover throughout the growing season

• Monthly monitoring of the overall site conditions

• Implementation of EPA recommended bullet and shot collection and disposal measures included in the ESP (USEPA 2005)

An ESP has been developed for the site. The ESP is a “living document” intended for use as a long-term management tool and will be revised as appropriate based on implementation experience. Detailed information on potential effects associated with dissolved lead and lead particles are addressed in Section 3.11.

The proposed project will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect surface water quality.


Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed gun range would not be constructed; thus, there would be no impacts to surface water quality.

3.2.3 Floodplains Executive Order 11988 entitled “Floodplain Management” dated May 24, 1977, requires Federal agencies to evaluate the potential effects of actions they may take in a floodplain to avoid adversely impacting floodplains wherever possible, to ensure that planning programs and budget requests reflect consideration of flood hazards and floodplain management, including the restoration and preservation of such land areas as natural undeveloped floodplains, and to prescribe procedures to implement the policies and procedures of this Executive Order. Guidance for implementation of the Executive Order has been provided by the U.S. Water Resources Council in its Floodplain Management Guidelines dated February 10, 1978 (see 40 FR 6030). The proposed project study area is unmapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (Figure 7).

Alternative 1

The proposed project is not located within a FEMA mapped floodplain. The proposed project will not affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source or result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodway, the effective Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), or a Special Flood Hazard Area

Effects on Floodplains


(SFHA). A floodplain development permit is not required. Thus, the proposed project will not affect floodplains. No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed gun range would not be constructed; thus, there would be no impacts to floodplains.

3.2.4 Groundwater The proposed project area is supplied by the Ogallala aquifer. This aquifer, although consisting of porous, semi-consolidated sand and gravel, has a low vulnerability rating because of its deep-water table (OWRB 1999). No monitoring wells are located within 1 mile of the project area (OWRB 2018a). One domestic groundwater well is located within 1 mile of the project area, approximately 1.2 miles northwest of the project area (OWRB 2018). The depth to first water at this location is approximately 73 feet.

Alternative 1

Potential Effects During Construction The potential for groundwater contamination can be reduced through proper planning, preparation and inspections. Equipment should be maintained and equipped with the proper mufflers, shields, first aid kits and sufficiently sized spill cleanup kits to minimize potential public health and safety impacts.

A project specific Spill Prevention Containment and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan will be developed for the proposed action area and implemented by all project personnel. Specifically, the SPCC would address procedures and requirements for potential construction related spills, identify equipment and materials to be used on site (both hazardous and non-hazardous), as well as provide a basic plan for prevention, containment, disposal, and emergency response if needed. Routine environmental inspection and monitoring efforts will document oversight, as well as tracking and reporting measures. Applicable federal, state, and local requirements related to project activities, including the transportation, storage, use and disposal of polluting and hazardous materials will be adhered to by all site personnel.

Potential Effects During Operation Dissolved lead can migrate through soils to groundwater (USEPA 2005). The potential for lead migration is dependent upon soil types, annual precipitation, soil chemistry, and depth to groundwater, and pH of the groundwater. Implementation of EPA recommended bullet and shot collection and disposal measures (USEPA 2005) will minimize the risk of the discharge of lead bullets, bullet particles or dissolved lead to surface water features. Thus the operation of the proposed project is not expected to adversely affect water quality.

Effects on Groundwater


Detailed information on potential effects associated with dissolved lead and lead particles are addressed in Section 4.0. Specific Actions taken to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential effects associated with lead and lead particles are addressed in Section 3.11.

The proposed project will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect groundwater.


Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed gun range would not be constructed; thus, there would be no impacts to groundwater or groundwater quality.

3.3 Biological Resources

3.3.1 Vegetative Communities and Structure Based on site reconnaissance, the proposed project area is comprised primarily of native grasses and forbs; however, some improved grasses, and shrubs are also present. Dominant species observed included: purple top (Tridens flavus), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), plains lovegrass (Eragrostis intermedia), American star thistle (Centaurea americana), curly cap gum weed (Grindelia nuda), ragweed (Ambrosia spp.), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), and Indian grass (Sorghastrum spp.). Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), an invasive perennial grass, was the dominant species in the eastern 1/3 of the study area (OIPC 2019). Other species observed included eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa).

Alternative 1

Impacts to native rangeland habitat was minimized during the site selection process. The proposed project site is located adjacent to County Road E0770, thereby minimizing impacts associated with access during construction and operation of the site. Construction of the proposed project will result in temporary impacts to approximately of 3.3 acres of native rangeland habitat and permanent loss of 3.2 acres of native rangeland habitat. Following construction, the berms, backstops, and areas of temporary disturbance will be revegetated with a native seed mix.

Due to the small size of the project relative to the extent of contiguous rangeland habitat within the Sandy Sanders WMA, the proposed project will not result in significant habitat fragmentation or alteration of the vegetative characteristics of the immediate vicinity. Unique or rare vegetative communities are not present within the proposed project area. Additionally, the Sandy Sanders WMA management plan includes protocols for monitoring and control of invasive plant species and noxious weeds. Thus, the proposed project will not result in adverse impacts to vegetative communities.

Effects on Vegetative Communities and Structure



Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed gun range would not be constructed; thus, there would be no impacts to plant communities or vegetative structure.

3.3.2 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 prohibits any person from taking (harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, relocating, or collecting or attempting to engage in any such conduct) any federally listed threatened or endangered species. Significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to federally protected species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding or sheltering is also prohibited. Administration and enforcement of the ESA are the responsibilities of the Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The ESA directs all federal agencies to work to conserve endangered and threatened species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the Act. Section 7 of the ESA, called "Interagency Cooperation," is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure the actions they take, including those they fund or authorize, do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species.

An official species list was obtained through the USFWS online Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) decision support system (USFWS 2019). The proposed project area was evaluated for federally threatened and endangered species habitat on June 17, 2019. Table 3 presents the threatened and endangered species listed for Greer County.

Table 2: Federally list threatened and endangered species listed within Greer County, Oklahoma. Species Federal

Listing Habitat Present within the Project Area

Effects Determination

Interior least tern (Sterna antillarum) Endangered No No effect

Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) Threatened No No effect

Red knot (Calidris canutus) Threatened No No effect

Whooping crane (Grus Americana) Endangered No No effect

Oklahoma Biological Survey data indicates that there are no known occurrences of federally listed threatened and endangered species within the project area or the immediate vicinity (Appendix A).

The interior least tern is a migratory resident of Oklahoma and typically nests on islands or sandbars along


large rivers. For reproductive success, interior least terns require sandy areas that are mostly clear of vegetation and water levels low enough to prevent inundation of nests. Interior least terns are piscivorous and prefer shallow water for foraging. In Oklahoma the interior least tern has been known to nest within the Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge and along the Arkansas, Cimarron, Canadian, and Red Rivers (USFWS 2011a and 2011b). Suitable habitat for the interior least tern is not present in the project area or the immediate vicinity.

In Oklahoma, the piping plover is a transient species observed during migration along drier portions of broad and sparsely vegetated sand or gravel bars along rivers and reservoirs. This species may also use shallow water mudflats for foraging. While sparse clumps of grass or herbaceous vegetation are an important component for nesting habitat, encroachment of woody vegetation is detrimental to this species. The piping plover migrates through Oklahoma in the spring and fall (USFWS 2011c). Suitable migratory stopover habitat for the piping plovers is not present within the project area or the immediate vicinity.

The red knot is found along the Atlantic coasts during migration. The red knot will migrate over 9,300 miles per year from wintering grounds in South America (Argentina, Chile, and Brazil) to breeding grounds in Canada. The migration habitat of the red knot consists of sandy tidal flats and coastlines near undeveloped bays and estuaries. Cases of red knots utilizing the Gulf Coast of Texas and traveling through the Great Plains to Canada have occurred. A small number of documented sightings during the migration period are recorded along broad shorelines of rivers and lakes in Oklahoma (USFWS 2013). Suitable migratory stopover habitat for the red knots is not present within in the project area or the immediate vicinity.

Whooping cranes migrate through Oklahoma in the spring and fall. During migration, whooping cranes are sometimes sighted along rivers, grain fields, or shallow wetlands. While whooping cranes will use both palustrine and riverine wetland systems during migration stopover, palustrine wetlands are the most commonly used wetlands. Foraging sites are typically upland crop areas, often located within a couple of miles of roosting sites. Distance to foraging fields often depends on type of roost wetland. From palustrine wetland roosts, cropland forage is typically within 0.5 miles. Riverine roost sites are usually located farther from foraging sites. Crop type forage varies by season. During the spring, feeding may occur in row-crop stubble, whereas in fall, feeding occurs mainly of green crops and small grain stubble (USFWS 1992). The project area is located within the whooping crane migration corridor, approximately 60 miles from the migration corridor centerline. Approximately 19.7% of whooping crane sightings occur within 40-85 miles of centerline. Suitable stopover habitat is not present within the project area or the immediate vicinity.

Alternative 1

Suitable habitat for the interior least tern, piping plover, whooping crane, or red knot is not present within

Effects on Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species


the project area or the immediate vicinity. The closest potential habitat for all listed species within the county, Doc Hollis Lake, is approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the proposed project area. Construction of the proposed project will not directly or indirectly affect potential habitat; thus, the proposed project will not affect the interior least tern, piping plover, whooping crane, red knot, or Arkansas River shiner. No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed gun range would not be constructed; thus, there would be no impacts to federally listed threatened and endangered species.

3.2.3 Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the fish and wildlife agencies of States where the "waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted, or otherwise controlled or modified" by any agency under a Federal permit or license. Consultation is to be undertaken for the purpose of "preventing loss of and damage to wildlife resources."

Habitat within the project area is comprised of native rangeland. Aquatic habitat (wetlands or surface waters) are not present within the project area. Terrestrial wildlife most likely to occur within the project are raccoons (Procyon lotor), foxes (Vulpes spp.), coyotes (Canis latrans) opossums (Didelphis marsupialis), bobcats (Lynx rufus), bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), and a variety of snakes, lizards, and rodents. No species of conservation concern have been observed in the Sandy Sanders WMA (personal communication with Shawn Gee, ODWC, on June 17, 2019).

Alternative 1

Effects During Construction Impacts to wildlife would result from alternation of habitat within the project area, including removal of vegetation and other habitat components and ground disturbance. Altering wildlife habitat in ways that would be considered adverse may be direct (through habitat loss from surface disturbance and reseeding activities) or indirect (through the reduction in habitat quality caused by increased noise levels and increased human activity). Construction of the proposed project would result in some removal of vegetation and reseeding for effective ground cover as described in Section 4.3.1. A fence will be constructed around the range, primarily for safety reasons, but also to deter deer and other wildlife from entering the parcel. Other potential short-term direct impacts to wildlife is the loss or degradation of native habitat and displacement of wildlife species from habitat due to the proposed development. The Sandy Sanders WMA encompasses approximately 29,766 acres. The proposed project area is

Effects on Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife


approximately 6.5 acres, accounting for less than .01% of the Sandy Sanders WMA (ODWC 2019). Additionally, approximately 1,800 acres of contiguous rangeland habitat is available immediately to the north and northwest of the project study area. Habitat within the project area is common within the project vicinity and throughout the Sandy Sanders WMA. Thus, displaced wildlife will not be adversely affected due to habitat loss. The proposed project will not require placement of fill in aquatic habitat; however, clearing of vegetation and ground disturbance required for construction of the proposed project will increase the risk of soil erosion and sediment mobilization. Soil particles move during and immediately after heavy rainfall, with heavier rainfall resulting in the movement of larger soil particles. Therefore, there is risk for the discharge of sediment laden stormwater into receiving waters within the project vicinity. Impacts will be minimized by the utilization of erosion and sedimentation control BMPs, such as silt fencing, routine maintenance of equipment, and stabilization following disturbances. Thus, any adverse impacts to aquatic wildlife due to construction activities are expected to be minimal and temporary. Effects During Operation Noise disturbance during operation of the proposed project may impact terrestrial wildlife by interfering with animals’ abilities to detect important sounds or by posing an artificial threat to animals (Clinton and Barber 2013). Firearms discharge is expected to contribute the highest noise levels to the proposed project vicinity. The noise profile of the surrounding area is also influenced by the adjacent roadways and activities associated with oil and gas development, which would not change as a result of the proposed project. The maintained vegetation, noise, and traffic will likely deter many wildlife species, however, the effects of the loss of habitat should be minimal, since large amounts of similar habitat are located in the immediate area. BMPs have been implemented during the project design process to minimize and attenuate noise to avoid potential effects beyond the project area (Section 3.7). Wildlife may be affected during operation of the proposed project due to ingestion of lead shot and bullets (EPA 2005). ODWC has developed an ESP for the proposed site, which includes lead reclamation and recycling/disposal. Additionally, the ESP includes monitoring of the project area for wildlife use. The ESP is a “living document” intended for use as a long-term management tool and will be revised as appropriate based on implementation experience. The proposed project is located within the Sandy Sanders WMA, which is managed for wildlife use; therefore, the availability of higher quality habitat in the adjacent landscape will help limit wildlife use of the proposed project area. Additionally, planting the range with grasses and regular mowing will limit the suitability of habitat within the project area for many species. Aquatic wildlife could be affected by lead bullets, bullet particles, or dissolved lead that can be moved by stormwater runoff and discharged into Deer Creek (USEPA 2005). Potential effects to surface water quality are addressed in Section 3.2.2. The following measures will be incorporated into the project design and site selection to minimize potential for the discharge of lead bullets, bullet particles, shot, or dissolved lead to surface waters:

• No surface waters are located within the project area


• No slopes on the site will be steeper than 4:1

• The site will be graded to ensure natural drainage and sheet flow

Implementation of post-construction BMPs to manage stormwater will minimize risk of the discharge of lead bullets, bullet particles, shot, or dissolved lead to surface waters. Post-construction BMPs that may be implemented to minimize the risk of the discharge of lead bullets, bullet particles, shot, or dissolved lead to surface water features may include, but are not necessarily limited to:

• Re-establishment of vegetation using native grass mix approved by ODWC

• Monitoring of vegetative cover throughout the growing season

• Monthly monitoring of the overall site conditions

• Implementation of EPA recommended bullet and shot collection and disposal measures included in the ESP (USEPA 2005)

An ESP has been developed for the site. The ESP is a “living document” intended for use as a long-term management tool and will be revised as appropriate based on implementation experience. Detailed information on potential effects associated with dissolved lead and lead particles are addressed in Section 3.11. Specific Actions taken to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential effects associated with lead and lead particles are addressed in Section 4.0.

The proposed project will not result in direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse effects to terrestrial or aquatic wildlife. No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed gun range would not be constructed; thus, there would be no impacts to terrestrial or aquatic wildlife.

3.2.4 Migratory Birds and Eagles Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). These acts do not provide the same level of protection as the ESA, but protect eagles from take of their offspring, eggs, parts, or nests. These acts also protect the bald eagle from direct harm. The MBTA and BGEPA are enforced by the USFWS. Bald and golden eagles are considered native wildlife of the Sandy Sanders WMA; however, they are not currently known to occur within the WMA.

The MBTA makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to Federal regulations. There are no provisions for allowing the take of migratory birds that are unintentionally killed or injured. Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in the take of migratory birds is responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations and implementing appropriate conservation measures.


Based on the USFWS IPaC system data, one migratory bird of conservation concern, the red-headed woodpecker, has the potential to occur within the project area. Although this species may utilize habitat within the project area and the immediate vicinity, these species do not nest in the project area (Table 4).

Table 3: Birds of Conservation Concern that May Occur Within the Project Area

Alternative 1

No USFWS migratory birds of conservation concern are known to nest in the project area. Bald and golden eagles have not been recently observed within the Sandy Sanders WMA and are not expected to occur within the project area or the immediate vicinity. Additionally, suitable eagle nesting habitat is not present within the project area or the immediate vicinity. As discussed in Section 3.2.3, the proposed project is not expected to result in adverse impacts to wildlife. Thus, the proposed action will not adversely affect birds protected under the MBTA or BGEPA.


Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed gun range would not be constructed; thus, there would be no impacts to birds protected under the MBTA or BGEPA.

3.4 Cultural Resources

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 establishes the Federal government’s policy to provide leadership in the preservation of historic properties and to administer federally owned or controlled historic properties. Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to identify and assess the effects of project actions on cultural resources. Section 106 applies to projects that receive Federal funding, licensing, or permitting. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment. The historic preservation review process mandated by Section 106 is outlined in regulations issued by ACHP.

A cultural resources investigation of the project site was completed on June 18, 2019. The cultural resources investigation was led by an archaeologist meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology as set forth in 36 CFR 61. Prior to fieldwork, background research was conducted including a site file search at the Oklahoma Archeological Survey (OAS) and review of historic maps and references which found one archaeological site has previously been recorded within 1 mile of the proposed project. None of the previously recorded sites are within the APE on the USACE property. No resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or

Species Suitable Habitat Present

Suitable Nesting Habitat Present Breeding Season

Red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) No No May 10 to September 10

Potential Effects to Migratory Birds and Bald Eagles


Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Determination of Eligibility (DOE) list are within 1 mile of the proposed project area.

The cultural resources investigation of the proposed Sandy Sanders WMA shooting range did not result in the identification of any cultural resources over 50 years of age, including prehistoric or historic artifacts, archaeological sites, features, or cultural lenses within the survey area. Therefore, the proposed project will not directly or indirectly effect cultural resources or historic properties that may qualify for inclusion in the NRHP (Bell et. al. 2019). The cultural resources report was submitted to Oklahoma Archeological Survey, State Historic Preservation Office, and Tribes with interests in McIntosh County, Oklahoma (Appendix A).

Alternative 1

No cultural or historic resources were identified within the proposed project area. Additionally, the proposed action will not affect recorded cultural resources within the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project will have no direct or indirect effects on cultural resources or historic properties that may qualify for inclusion in the NRHP (Bell et al 2019).

The cultural resources report was submitted to the OAS, SHPO, and Tribes with interests in Ellis County, Oklahoma. In a letter dated September 24, 2019 OAS concurred that the proposed project will have no effect on prehistoric archeological resources (Appendix A). In a letter dated September 12, 2019 SHPO concurred that the proposed project will have no effect on historic properties (Appendix A). The tribal consultation was initiated on October 9, 2019 and completed December 9, 2019. The responding Tribes concurred that construction of this proposed project will not adversely affect any sacred sites, traditional cultural properties or any other historic property of interest to the Tribes. However, the Tribes requests that in the event that any cultural and/or paleontological resource or human remains are encountered during construction, ODWC halt all project activities immediately and re-contact USFWS.

The proposed project will not affect cultural resources. In the unlikely event that any cultural and/or paleontological resource (historic or prehistoric site or object) is encountered during construction, work within the project area will cease and the USFWS and SHPO will be immediately notified. All project activities in the area of potential effect will stop until written authorization to proceed is issued by the Service after determination of appropriate actions to prevent the loss of significant cultural, religious, or scientific values.


Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed gun range would not be constructed; thus, there would be no impacts to cultural resources.

Effects on Cultural Resources


3.5 Socioeconomics

3.5.1 Population and Socioeconomic Characteristics For the purposes of this study, the region of influence (ROI) for socioeconomic and environmental justice impacts is defined as Greer County, Oklahoma, where the project is located. Socioeconomic and demographic data utilized in this discussion to establish baseline conditions consist of publicly available information about the ROI and, to provide perspective, the state of Oklahoma.

Greer County, Oklahoma, is described as a small rural county outside of any metropolitan or micropolitan areas. The population density in Greer County is 9.8 persons per square mile, and the population has been in an overall decline since 1930 (NACo 2019a). As shown in Table 5, Greer County has declined by 7.2% since the last decennial census, with population falling from 6,239 persons in 2010 to an estimated 5,821 persons in 2017. During the same time period, the population of state of Oklahoma has increased by 4.9%, going from 3,751,351 persons in 2010 to an estimated 3,943,079 persons in 2017 (USCB 2019a).

As of 2018, Greer County was estimated to have 20.2% of its population under 18 years of age, which is lower than the state of Oklahoma (24.3%). As seen in Table 5, Greer County has a slightly lower percentage of persons who have high school diplomas (or higher attainment) than the state of Oklahoma (85.1% and 87.5%, respectively) (USCB 2019a).

Table 4: Population Characteristics

Characteristic Greer County Oklahoma 2010 Population Total (Decennial)(a) 6,239 3,751,351 2018 Population Total (Estimate)(a) 5,821 3,943,079 White(a) 83.6% 74.2% Black or African American(a) 8.5% 7.8% American Indian and Alaska Native(a) 3.8% 9.3% Asian(a) 0.3% 2.3% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander(a) 0.1% 0.2% Two or More Races(a) 3.7% 6.2% Hispanic or Latino(a) 12.0% 10.9% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino(a) 74.0% 65.3% Poverty (Families)(b) 18.5% 15.5% Poverty (Individual)(b) 19.2% 16.2% Persons under 18 years(a) 20.2% 24.3% Education - high school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25 years+, 2013-2017 estimate(b)

85.1% 87.5%

a) USCB 2019a QuickFacts (2018 estimates) b) USCB 2019b AFF Poverty (2013-2017 estimates)

3.5.2 Employment and Income As shown in Table 6, Employment and Income, Greer County had a lower estimated population in the labor force (45.8%) than the state of Oklahoma (60.8%) for the period of 2013 through 2017. The median


household income for Greer County ($35,898) was lower than the state of Oklahoma ($49,767). Greer County’s per capita income was also lower ($20,073) than the state of Oklahoma ($26,461) (USCB 2019a). In 2018, the state of Oklahoma reported a lower annual average unemployment rate (3.4%) than Greer County (3.9%) (USBLS 2019). In 2016, the top specialized industry (by employment) in Greer County was state and local government (23.6%). This was followed by agriculture (20.3%); healthcare and social assistance (9.4%); other services (5.7%), and transportation (5.0%) (NACo 2019b).

Table 5: Employment and Income

Measure Greer County Oklahoma 2018 Unemployment Rate (annual average) 3.9% 3.4% Employment Status (civilian population 16 years and over in labor force)

45.8% 60.8%

Median household income (in 2017 dollars) $35,898 $49,767 Per capita income in past 12 months (in 2017 dollars) $20,073 $26,461 USBLS 2019 Unemployment Statistics USCB 2019a QuickFacts (2013-2017 estimates)

Alternative 1

Due to the project’s remote location in Greer County, and the relatively small size of the project, the proposed action is expected to have no adverse social or economic impacts to any demographic group working or living in the ROI, the economic development of the area, or any socioeconomic resource. Any construction or ongoing maintenance in the project area is not expected to negatively impact commercial, social, or recreational activities in the ROI. Overall the proposed action will be supportive of sustained economic growth through potential construction employee wages and tax benefits from the purchase of local goods and services. Additionally, the proposed project would improve rural community access to recreational shooting facilities.

Environmental Justice

With respect to environmental justice, Executive Order (EO) 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” was passed in February 1994, mandating that all federal actions address environmental effects, including human health, economic, and social effects of the proposed actions on minority and low-income communities (59 FR 7629). Based on census criteria, minority populations are characterized as persons of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity of any race, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and Two or More Races (USCB 2019a). The U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family’s total income is less than the threshold, that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty (USCB 2019b).

Effects on Socioeconomics


In reviewing the USCB 2018 minority category percentages (see Table 5), the predominant minority population in Greer County was the Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (12.0%). This is also the highest minority population reported in the state of Oklahoma (10.9%). Overall, the minority race categories reported for the state of Oklahoma were lower than the reported minorities in Greer County except for the Black or African American race category and the Hispanic or Latino ethnicity category (USCB 2019a). The 2013 through 2017 USCB poverty estimates illustrate that there was a lower percentage of poverty reported for families in the state of Oklahoma (15.5%) than that reported for Greer County (18.5%), and Greer County had higher levels of poverty reported for individuals (19. %) than the state of Oklahoma (16.2%) (USCB 2019b).

The proposed action is in a rural area of Greer County with no nearby residents. The project is not anticipated to pose adverse environmental, health, or safety impacts and risks for any individuals or population groups, nor cause a disproportionate, high and adverse human health or environmental impact on minority and low-income populations.


Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed gun range would not be constructed; thus, the benefits associated with the expansion of recreational opportunities for underserved rural communities would not be realized.

3.6 Air Quality

The Clean Air Act (CAA) was established in 1970 (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) to reduce air pollution nationwide. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the provisions of the CAA. The EPA classifies the air quality within an air quality control region (AQCR) according to whether the region meets or exceeds Federal primary and secondary NAAQS. An AQCR or a portion of an AQCR may be classified as being in attainment, non-attainment, or it may be unclassified for each of the seven criteria pollutants (carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, coarse particulates, fine particulates, ozone, and sulfur dioxide).

The proposed action is not located within an EPA designated non-attainment area for air quality standards (USEPA 2019). The closest potential sensitive resource is a residence approximately 0.3-mile northwest of the project area.


Alternative 1

The operation of the proposed project will not affect air quality; however, minor effects may occur during construction. During construction, adverse impacts to air quality would include temporary diesel emissions from the operation of construction equipment and temporary creation of fugitive dust. Due to the limited amount of ground disturbance associated with the project (6.5 acres), dust generation during construction will be minimal. Based on review of aerial photography, the nearest residential structure is located approximately 0.3 mile northwest of the project area, thus it is unlikely to be affected by emissions or dust generated during construction of the project. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to occur over 90 days; therefore, emissions associated with operation of construction equipment are of limited duration. Due to the minimal and temporary nature of the impacts and the absence of residents or other sensitive resources within the study area and the immediate vicinity, the proposed action will not cause adverse air quality impacts. No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed gun range would not be constructed; thus, there would be no impacts to air quality.

3.7 Noise

The Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 USC 4901-4918) initially was implemented through regulations issued by the USEPA in the early 1980s; however, the primary responsibility for regulating noise has been delegated to state and local governments. Noise, in its simplest definition, is unwanted sound. Although high noise levels may cause hearing loss, the levels typically found in environmental or community noise assessments are well below a hazardous level. Community noise ordinances and environmental noise complaints typically center on annoyance instead of potential hearing loss.

The proposed project is located in a rural setting. No sensitive receptors (hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing and convalescent facilities) are located within 1 mile of the project study area. The closest potential noise receptor is private residence located approximately 0.3-mile northwest of the project area.

Alterative 1

Effects During Construction Noise levels will increase with the construction of the project in the short-term. Construction is expected

Effects on Air Quality

Noise Impacts


to range between 80 to 120 dBA on site as a result of earth moving equipment such as backhoes and bulldozers (Spencer 2018); however, the use of earth moving equipment will not be continuous. This project is in a rural area, construction will take place during daylight hours only, and no noise sensitive receptors are located within 1 mile of the action area. The closest noise receptor is a private residence located 0.3-mile northwest of the project area. Thus, the temporary addition of heavy equipment noise should not affect humans. Wildlife in the immediate vicinity may find the noise from construction activities disruptive to their patterns of life and travel. However, construction noise impacts (if any) are anticipated to be minimal and of short duration.

Effects During Operation Ranges that do not properly mitigate the sound produced from daily operations can quickly generate opposition by disturbing nearby residents and recreationists, generating complaints and lowering the quality of the life in the surrounding area. Under Oklahoma Statute Title 63 Chapter 30 Section 709.2 (2010), civil and criminal penalties cannot be levied against shooting ranges if noise does not exceed 150 decibels (dBA) at the property line. The property boundary for the proposed shooting range complex is 54 feet (16.4 meters) from the nearest firing area. Table 7 summarizes sound pressure levels of common firearms measured at 10 meters from the muzzle.

Table 6. Sound pressure levels of firearms measured at 10 meters from the muzzle downrange.1

Weapon Name, Caliber, and Ammunition Sound Pressure Level in dBA(I) Rifle M/96, 6.5 mm, SK PTR M/94 PRJ M/41 126 Rifle M/96, 6.5 mm, KPTR M/14 120 Hunting rifle, 7.62 mm, 30-60 Norma Jaktmatch 127 Hunting rifle, 5.7 mm, Remington N. Jaktmatch 124 AK 4, 7.62 mm, KPTR 10 120 AK 4, 7.62 mm, SK PTR 10 PRJ 128 AK 5 125 CC 63 Junior, Cal. 22, NORMA 22 LR (pistol) 103 Pistol m/40, 9mm, SK PTR M/39 B 126 Shotgun, Cal. 12, NIKE Skeet, 70 mm, 32 g, 2mm 127

1 – RCMP 1999

Noise at the proposed project property line is not expected to exceed 150 dBA (Figure 8). Additionally, noise abatement measures have been incorporated into the project design, including the use of berms and covered shooting stations. Furthermore, the closest noise receptor is located 0.3-mile northwest of the proposed project area. Although the operation of the shooting range will increase the noise levels in the long-term during operating hours, noise levels beyond the property boundary would not pose a threat to human health (hearing impairment).


Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed gun range would not be constructed; thus, there would be no impacts associated with increased noise levels.


3.8 Recreation

The proposed project is located within the Sandy Sanders WMA. The Sandy Sanders WMA provides opportunities for camping, hunting, and wildlife viewing.

Alternative 1

The proposed project will create additional recreational opportunities on the Sandy Sanders WMA without limiting hunting opportunities or access to existing roads, trails, campgrounds. Beneficial recreational effects associated with the proposed project would include greater access to recreational shooting opportunities, sport shooting, and greater accessibility to hunter education, and provide a community space for other gatherings and education.


Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed gun range would not be constructed; thus, beneficial effects associated with recreational shooting opportunities, sport shooting, and greater accessibility to hunter education, and provide a community space for other gatherings and education would not be achieved.

3.9 Visual Resources

The proposed project is located within the Sandy Sanders WMA. Overall, the Sandy Sanders WMA is a mixture of rolling sand hills and wooded bottoms. The proposed project area is located within 6.5 acres of native rangeland habitat adjacent to EW 0770 Road and an unpaved access road.

Alternative 1

During construction, vegetation will be removed from the project area and heavy equipment will remain onsite for approximately 90 days to complete the necessary work. Upon completion of the construction, temporary areas of disturbance will be reseeded with native vegetation (Section 3.3.1). The tallest structure will be the 20-foot backstops. Due to the prevalence of oil and gas surface facilities and proximity of roadways, construction of the proposed project will not result in adverse changes to the viewshed at this location.


Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed gun range would not be constructed; thus, there would be no impacts to visual resources.

Effects on Recreation

Effects on Visual Resources


3.10 Health and Human Safety

The parcel of land where the proposed project will be constructed is owned by ODWC, and there are currently no planned or designated activities within the parcel. The project site is adjacent to one roadway, CR NS1800 Road, to the west, and a two-track access road to the south.

The proposed project is located in a rural area of low population density with one residence within 1 mile of the project area. The residence is located approximately 0.3 mile northwest of the project area.

Alternative 1

Human health and safety during target shooting are incumbent upon the shooter’s strict adherence to gun safety. Based on the safety measures incorporated into the project design, the proposed project will not pose a risk to human health and safety. Furthermore, the proposed project will provide a safe location for marksmanship practice for shotguns, handguns, and rifles. The range will provide a safe, confined, and controlled environment for this activity and will also be used for hunter education classes and live fire exercises.

The proposed project will comply with Oklahoma Administrative Code 800:30-1-16. These regulations include the following safety measures:

• Any person using the shooting range under the age of 16 must be immediately supervised by an adult (18 years old or older).

• All firearms shooting single projectiles or any pellets larger than conventional BB (.180" diameter) must be shot at approved berms and target areas only. Air-borne clay targets may be shot using pellets no larger than a conventional BB (.180" diameter).

• All rifle, pistol, shotgun, and muzzleloader targets will consist of paper or clay targets only. • Centerfire rifles and pistols .50 caliber and larger are prohibited; however, .50 caliber

muzzleloaders are permitted. • Fully automatic firearms are prohibited. • Fireworks, explosive devices, exploding targets, tracer and incendiary rounds are prohibited. • Eye and ear protection shall be worn while shooting.

The proposed project design includes measures to minimize potential effects on human health and safety. The proposed project has been designed so that fire will be directed towards the eastern portion of the project area - away from the adjacent roadways. An earthen berm will be located along the southern boundary of the range, adjacent to the unpaved access road. Earthen backstops will be located and behind the 100- and 200-yard ranges to ensure bullet containment. The berm adjacent to the access roadway will be approximately 10 feet in height. The earthen backstops will be approximately 20 feet in height. The height requirements for the berm and backstops are based upon NRA Range Source Book recommendations.

Effects on Human Health and Safety



Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed gun range would not be constructed; thus, there would be no impacts to health or human safety.

3.11 Hazardous Materials

The project area was evaluated for evidence of hazardous material during the biological field reconnaissance conducted on June 9, 2019. No hazardous materials (i.e., hazardous waste, solvents, lubricants, fuels, etc.) were identified within the project area during site reconnaissance.


Alternative 1

Potential Effects During Construction

The construction phase of the proposed project would have no more than minimal impacts related to the generation, transport, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous or toxic materials due to the chemical constituents contained in vehicle and equipment fuels (gasoline and diesel fuel), coolants (ethylene glycol), and lubricants (oils and greases). ODWC and its contractors would comply with all applicable hazard communication and hazardous materials laws and regulations regarding these chemicals. In addition, ODWC would comply with all applicable federal and state regulations regarding notices to federal and local emergency response authorities and development of applicable emergency response plans, if required.

Fill material, if required, will be obtained from a commercial source. The fill material will be tested to ensure the pH is within acceptable range to prevent dissolution of lead particles. Additionally, ODWC will verify that the fill material has been obtained and stored in a manner that would reasonably ensure that the fill material will not contain hazardous materials. If ODWC cannot verify that fill material has been obtained and stored in a manner that would prevent hazardous material contamination, the fill material will be tested to ensure it is free of hazardous substances. ODWC will provide documentation of the verification process to USFWS prior to bringing fill material to the site.

Potential Effects During Operation

Lead can introduce environmental concern if topographical and surrounding area conditions (e.g., proximity to wetlands) and hydrologic setting enable leaching or streaming of lead shot, pellets, or bullets. As described in the Water Resources section, the analysis area contains no wetlands or surface water features.

There are four potential movement pathways where lead that may have been deposited on the proposed shooting range may introduce a risk to human health:

• as airborne particulate matter; • as waterborne particles in suspension in storm runoff; • in solution in stormwater runoff; and • in solution in groundwater.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) provides the framework for the EPA’s solid and hazardous waste management program, including lead. The EPA’s Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges (2005) would be applied to the proposed shooting range. The current level of lead contamination at the project area is not known; however, it is unlikely to contain high levels of hazardous materials (including lead) since the previous uses of the land only include agricultural

Effects on Hazardous Material Concentrations


production, grazing, and outdoor recreation.

The possibility for lead to migrate from the range and into the environment is low because an ESP has been developed for the proposed site. The ESP is a “living document” intended for use as a long-term management tool and will be revised as appropriate based on implementation experience. The ESP includes BMPs which would prevent soil erosion and maintain soil pH levels within the optimum range, thus ensuring that most of the lead would remain on the ranges, in solid form. BMPs include occasional lead recovery and recycling would occur at the range to remove the lead bullets from the upper 1 to 2 inches of soil on the bullet impact berms and on the range floor. Long-term impacts associated with hazardous materials and solid waste would be low because lead would accumulate on the range but would have a low probability to migrate off the range because the BMPs defined in the ESP will prevent lead migration.


Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed gun range would not be constructed; thus, there would be no impacts associated with the generation of hazardous materials.

3.12 Cumulative Impacts

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) requires the cumulative impact analysis to consider the impacts of “past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions” regardless of who undertakes the action (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts are the incremental and potentially synergistic impact on either the natural environment or human environment by an action when added to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The proposed action is relatively small in scale and size, and the project would result in no more than minor direct and indirect adverse impacts to onsite resources by the proposed action are anticipated.

3.12.1 Relevant Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions County Road Improvements

Several county roads are located within the WMA. Currently, none of the county roads within the WMA are included on the ODOT County 5 Year Construction Plan (ODOT 2019). Due to the relatively low traffic volumes carried by county roads, future improvements will likely be limited to resurfacing projects. Resurfacing projects would not require the purchase of additional ROW. Thus, the proposed project, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable county road improvements, would not result in adverse cumulative environmental effects.

4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES

The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1508.20) implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) define “mitigation” as including a) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts


of an action; b) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; d) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and e) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

The proposed project is not expected to adversely affect the natural or human environment. The potential for adverse effects is limited to the potential introduction of lead into the environment through stormwater runoff and groundwater infiltration. Measures have been developed to avoid and minimize these risks, as well as mitigate noise generated during operation, through the project design and through a site specific ESP. The ESP is a “living document” intended for use as a long-term management tool and will be revised as appropriate based on implementation experience.

The project has been designed to keep bullets and projectiles within the defined area. Earthen berms will be used to ensure bullets from the range.

The following avoidance and minimization measures were implemented during the site selection and design phase:

• The project is sited and oriented to avoid shooting over wetlands and waterbodies. • The existing site is level with stable soils, minimizing risk of transport of lead shot and particles via

stormwater runoff. • Berms and backstops will be utilized to retain rifle and handgun bullets and particles on site.

The following BMPs will be implemented following construction and during operation of the project to avoid the introduction of lead particles and dissolved lead into the environment:

• To prevent soil erosion and runoff, following construction the project area will be revegetated according to the WMA manager’s guidelines (Section 3.1.1).

• Berms and backstops will be vegetated to prevent erosion. • The pH of soils, including berms and backstops, will be evaluated in the winter and spring. • Soil pH will be maintained between 6.5 and 8.5 to prevent the dissolving of lead shot and particles. • If necessary, amendments such as lime will be added to the soil to maintain a pH level that will

prevent lead from dissolving. • Vegetation density will be monitored during the growing season to ensure adequate vegetation

coverage and prevent erosion. • Problem areas (areas of erosion, sparsely vegetated areas) will be documented with photographs

and monitored to evaluate the effectiveness of corrective actions taken. • Wildlife use of the area will be monitored. • Annual precipitation, soil pH monitoring results, and erosion issues will also be considered when

determining the lead reclamation schedule. • ODWC will ensure lead removed from the project site during reclamation activities is properly


disposed of or recycled at a facility in compliance with all provisions of the RCRA and other applicable laws and regulations.

• Specific personnel will be assigned responsibility for initiating, conducting, and completing the above described BMPs.

• Records of maintenance actions, soil testing, and lead reclamation will be maintained by the Sandy Sanders WMA manager.


5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

McLamb, Erica S. – Enercon Services Position: NEPA Specialist, Biologist Education: BS, Marine Biology Experience: 16 years of experience in wetland evaluations, threatened and endangered species issues/Section 7 Consultations, Section 404 permitting, natural system investigations, and NEPA document preparation. Powers, Jarrod – Enercon Services, Inc. Position: Biologist and Wetland Scientist Education: M.S., Aquatic Ecology and Management, B.S. degree in Wildlife Ecology and Management Experience: 8 years of experience in environmental and ecological field studies, aquatic and wildlife management, stream ecology, and geographic information systems (GIS). Riggs, Jerry L. – Enercon Services, Inc. Position: Senior GIS Analyst/Geographer; (ENERCON Oklahoma City GIS group) Education: M.A. Geography; B.S. Biochemistry; University of Oklahoma. Experience: 14 years of experience in the application of GIS techniques and geospatial analysis; with emphasis on NEPA compliance in the human environment (socioeconomic, population, environmental justice, noise, land use, transportation, and visual resource assessments). Derek Richard – Enercon Services, Inc. Position: Senior Project Manager/National NEPA Lead Education: M. S. Environmental Science and Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, 2001 B. S. Biology, Trinity University, 1997 Experience: 18 years of experience including NEPA environmental assessments, new nuclear power plant license applications, site screening and permitting for oil and gas facilities on BLM land, Phase I pedestrian archaeological surveys and reports, stormwater plans, wetlands delineation and mitigation, environmental permitting, and environmental site assessments.

6.0 LIST OF AGENCIES CONSULTED

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma Comanche Nation Osage Nation Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office Oklahoma Archeological Survey


7.0 LITERATURE CITED

Bell, Colleen, J. Matthew Oliver, and Kenneth Gilmore. 2019. Cultural Resources Survey Report for Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Proposed Sandy Sanders Wildlife Management Area Gun Range Project, Greer County, Oklahoma.

Federal Register (FR). 1994. Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994. (Vol. 59, No. 32).

National Association of Counties (NACo). 2019. County Profiles – Greer County, Oklahoma. Retrieved from <https://www.naco.org/> (accessed February 5, 2019).

National Association of Counties (NACo). 2019b. County Economies - Greer County, Oklahoma. Retrieved from <https://www.naco.org/> (accessed February 5, 2019).

National Rifle Association of America (NRA). 2012. Range Source Book – A Guide to Planning and Construction.

National Shooting Sports Foundation. Where to Shoot. https://www.nssf.org/shooting/where-to-shoot/ (Accessed June 7, 2019).

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019a. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. [Accessed: June 12, 2019].

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2019b. United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Available online. Accessed [Accessed: June 12, 2019].

Oklahoma Climatological Survey. 2019. The Climate of Greer County. https://climate.ok.gov/index.php/climate/county_climate_by_county/greer (Accessed June 7, 2019).

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2016. 2016 Approved 303(d) List.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2018. DEQ Data Viewer. https://deq.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html (Accessed November 29, 2018).

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 2019. Sandy Sanders. https://www.wildlifedepartment.com/wildlife-management-areas/sandy-sanders (Accessed June 7, 2019).

Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council (OIPC). 2019. Oklahoma Non-Native Invasive Plant Species. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/cb7fd3_8e15c9aaf1a246fdaebd55fba1e54572.pdf (Accessed June 20, 2019).

Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB). 1999. Statewide Groundwater Vulnerability Map of Oklahoma. Oklahoma Water Resources Board Technical Report 99-1.

https://www.nssf.org/shooting/where-to-shoot/

https://www.nssf.org/shooting/where-to-shoot/

https://deq.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html

https://www.wildlifedepartment.com/wildlife-management-areas/sandy-sanders

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/cb7fd3_8e15c9aaf1a246fdaebd55fba1e54572.pdf


Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB). 2018. OWRB General Viewer. http://owrb.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d735090843144751b7373a9b5b8db3bc (Accessed December 8, 2018).

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). 1999. Shooting Ranges and Sound.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). 2019. Unemployment – Oklahoma and Greer County, OK. Retrieved from <https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218> (accessed October 17, 2019).

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2019a. QuickFacts – Oklahoma and Greer County, OK. Retrieved from <https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?la> (accessed October 17, 2019).

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2019b. American Community Survey (1-year total pop county estimates and 5-year poverty estimates) – Oklahoma and Greer County, OK. Retrieved from <https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml> (accessed October 17, 2019).

U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2005. Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges.

U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019. NEPAssist. https://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx?wherestr=36.884825%2C+-96.942258 (Accessed June 20, 2019).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Whooping Crane (Grus Americana) Fact Sheet.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Whooping Cranes and wind development: an issue paper.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011a. Federally-Listed Aquatic Dependent Species Watersheds of Oklahoma. https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Oklahoma/documents/te_species/maps/aquatic%20dependent%20species%20watersheds%208aug2011.pdf (Accessed June 20, 2019).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011b. Least Tern. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Oklahoma/Documents/TE_Species/Species%20Profiles/Least%20Tern.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011c. Piping Plover. https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/Documents/TE_Species/Species%20Profiles/Piping%20Plover.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (Accessed June 20,2019).

https://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx?wherestr=36.884825%2C+-96.942258

https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Oklahoma/documents/te_species/maps/aquatic%20dependent%20species%20watersheds%208aug2011.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Oklahoma/documents/te_species/maps/aquatic%20dependent%20species%20watersheds%208aug2011.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Oklahoma/Documents/TE_Species/Species%20Profiles/Least%20Tern.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Oklahoma/Documents/TE_Species/Species%20Profiles/Least%20Tern.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/Documents/TE_Species/Species%20Profiles/Piping%20Plover.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/Documents/TE_Species/Species%20Profiles/Piping%20Plover.pdf

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Species Profile - Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa). http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0DM

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2019a. Oklahoma geologic map data. https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/state.php?state=OK (Accessed June 7, 2019a).

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2019b. Geologic Units in Oklahoma. https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/fips-unit.php?code=fUS40 (Accessed June 7, 2019a).

Woods, A.J., Omernik, J.M., Butler, D.R., Ford, J.G., Henley, J.E., Hoagland, B.W., Arndt, D.S., and Moran, B.C. 2005. Ecoregions of Oklahoma (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,250,000).

https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/state.php?state=OK

https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/fips-unit.php?code=fUS40

FIGURES

Figure 1: Vicinity Map

Figure 2: Proposed Project Service Area

Figure 3: Project Site Map Figure 4: Soil Survey Map

Figure 5: Topographic Map

Figure 6: NWI Map

Figure 7: FEMA Floodplain Map Figure 8: Maximum Sound Pressure Relative to Site Boundary

Appendix A Local, State, and Federal Agency Correspondence

OBS Ref. 2019-325-BUS-ENE Dear Ms. McLamb, Jun. 20, 2019 We have reviewed occurrence information on federal and state threatened, endangered or candidate species, as well as non-regulatory rare species and ecological systems of importance currently in the Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory database for the following location you provided: Sec. 31-T7N-R24W, Greer County We found no occurrences of relevant species within the vicinity of the project location as described. However, absence from our database does not preclude such species from occurring in the area. If you have any questions about this response, please send me an email, or call us at the number given below. Although not specific to your project, you may find the following links helpful. ONHI guide to ranking codes for endangered and threatened species: http://vmpincel.ou.edu/heritage/ranking_guide.html Information regarding the Oklahoma Natural Areas Registry: http://www.oknaturalheritage.ou.edu/registry_faq.htm Todd Fagin Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory (405) 325-4700 [email protected]

http://vmpincel.ou.edu/heritage/ranking_guide.html

http://www.oknaturalheritage.ou.edu/registry_faq.htm

1

Erica McLamb

From: Erica McLambSent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 9:03 AMTo: West, Rylan - NRCS, Newkirk, OKSubject: Sandy Sanders Shooting RangeAttachments: AD-1006 Form a.pdf; NRCS Figures.pdf

Rylan, I am preparing an EA for a proposed shooting range near Kaw Lake. Please find the attached USDA From AD-1006. If you have any questions or require further information, please let me know. Thank You, Erica McLamb Biologist/Project Manager 1601 NW Expressway, Suite 1000 Oklahoma City, OK 73118 (405) 722-7693 Office (405) 722-7694 Fax (405) 923-7353 Cell

U.S. Department of Agriculture

FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request

Name of Project Federal Agency Involved

Proposed Land Use County and State

PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By NRCS

Person Completing Form:

Does the site contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland?

(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form)

YES NO

Acres Irrigated

Average Farm Size

Major Crop(s)

Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction

Acres: %

Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA

Acres: %

Name of Land Evaluation System Used

Name of State or Local Site Assessment System

Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS

Alternative Site Rating PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A Site B Site C Site D

A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly

B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly

C. Total Acres In Site

PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information

A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland

B. Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland

C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted

D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value

PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion

Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)

PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria

(Criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 b. For Corridor project use form NRCS-CPA-106) Maximum

Points Site A Site B Site C Site D

1. Area In Non-urban Use (15)

2. Perimeter In Non-urban Use (10)

3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed (20)

4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government (20)

5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area (15)

6. Distance To Urban Support Services (15)

7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average (10)

8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland (10)

9. Availability Of Farm Support Services (5)

10. On-Farm Investments (20)

11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services (10)

12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use (10)

TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160

PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)

Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100

Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or local site assessment) 160

TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260

Site Selected:

Date Of Selection

Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

YES NO

Reason For Selection:

Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: Date:

(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (03-02)

STEPS IN THE PROCESSING THE FARMLAND AND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM

Step 1 - Federal agencies (or Federally funded projects) involved in proposed projects that may convert farmland, as defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) to nonagricultural uses, will initially complete Parts I and III of the form. For Corridor type projects, the Federal agency shall use form NRCS-CPA-106 in place of form AD-1006. The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) process may also be accessed by visiting the FPPA website, http://fppa.nrcs.usda.gov/lesa/.

Step 2 - Originator (Federal Agency) will send one original copy of the form together with appropriate scaled maps indicating location(s)of project site(s), to the Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) local Field Office or USDA Service Center and retain a copy for their files. (NRCS has offices in most counties in the U.S. The USDA Office Information Locator may be found at http://offices.usda.gov/scripts/ndISAPI.dll/oip_public/USA_map, or the offices can usually be found in the Phone Book under U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture. A list of field offices is available from the NRCS State Conservationist and State Office in each State.)

Step 3 - NRCS will, within 10 working days after receipt of the completed form, make a determination as to whether the site(s) of the proposed project contains prime,

unique, statewide or local important farmland. (When a site visit or land evaluation system design is needed, NRCS will respond within 30 working days. Step 4 - For sites where farmland covered by the FPPA will be converted by the proposed project, NRCS will complete Parts II, IV and V of the form. Step 5 - NRCS will return the original copy of the form to the Federal agency involved in the project, and retain a file copy for NRCS records. Step 6 - The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will complete Parts VI and VII of the form and return the form with the final selected site to the servicing

NRCS office. Step 7 - The Federal agency providing financial or technical assistance to the proposed project will make a determination as to whether the proposed conversion is consistent

with the FPPA.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM (For Federal Agency)

Part I: When completing the "County and State" questions, list all the local governments that are responsible for local land

use controls where site(s) are to be evaluated. Part III: When completing item B (Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly), include the following: 1. Acres not being directly converted but that would no longer be capable of being farmed after the conversion, because the

conversion would restrict access to them or other major change in the ability to use the land for agriculture. 2. Acres planned to receive services from an infrastructure project as indicated in the project justification (e.g. highways,

utilities planned build out capacity) that will cause a direct conversion. Part VI: Do not complete Part VI using the standard format if a State or Local site assessment is used. With local and NRCS

assistance, use the local Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA). 1. Assign the maximum points for each site assessment criterion as shown in § 658.5(b) of CFR. In cases of corridor-type

project such as transportation, power line and flood control, criteria #5 and #6 will not apply and will, be weighted zero, however, criterion #8 will be weighed a maximum of 25 points and criterion #11 a maximum of 25 points.

2. Federal agencies may assign relative weights among the 12 site assessment criteria other than those shown on the

FPPA rule after submitting individual agency FPPA policy for review and comment to NRCS. In all cases where other weights are assigned, relative adjustments must be made to maintain the maximum total points at 160. For project sites where the total points equal or exceed 160, consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could reduce adverse impacts (e.g. Alternative Sites, Modifications or Mitigation).

Part VII: In computing the "Total Site Assessment Points" where a State or local site assessment is used and the total maximum number of points is other than 160, convert the site assessment points to a base of 160. Example: if the Site Assessment maximum is 200 points, and the alternative Site "A" is rated 180 points: For assistance in completing this form or FPPA process, contact the local NRCS Field Office or USDA Service Center. NRCS employees, consult the FPPA Manual and/or policy for additional instructions to complete the AD-1006 form.

Total points assigned Site A 180 Maximum points possible 200 = X 160 = 144 points for Site A

shawn.mcvey

Highlight

shawn.mcvey

Highlight

shawn.mcvey

Highlight

ray.sinclair

Highlight

ray.sinclair

Highlight

ray.sinclair

Highlight

ray.sinclair

Highlight

ray.sinclair

Highlight

ray.sinclair

Highlight

ray.sinclair

Highlight

Appendix B USFWS IPaC Report

October 28, 2019

United States Department of the InteriorFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office9014 East 21st Street

Tulsa, OK 74129-1428Phone: (918) 581-7458 Fax: (918) 581-7467http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Oklahoma/

In Reply Refer To: Consultation Code: 02EKOK00-2019-SLI-2456 Event Code: 02EKOK00-2020-E-00574 Project Name: Sandy Sanders Shooting Range Subject: Updated list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed

project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Oklahoma/

10/28/2019 Event Code: 02EKOK00-2020-E-00574 2

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF

Non-federal entities conducting activities that may result in take of listed species should consider seeking coverage under section 10 of the ESA, either through development of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or, by becoming a signatory to the General Conservation Plan (GCP) currently under development for the American burying beetle. Each of these mechanisms provides the means for obtaining a permit and coverage for incidental take of listed species during otherwise lawful activities.

Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/ eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats.

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http:// www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http:// www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/ comtow.html.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit through our Project Review step-wise process http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ oklahoma/OKESFO%20Permit%20Home.htm.

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/OKESFO%20Permit%20Home.htm

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/OKESFO%20Permit%20Home.htm

10/28/2019 Event Code: 02EKOK00-2020-E-00574 3

▪▪▪▪

Attachment(s):

Official Species ListUSFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish HatcheriesMigratory BirdsWetlands

10/28/2019 Event Code: 02EKOK00-2020-E-00574 1

Official Species ListThis list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office9014 East 21st StreetTulsa, OK 74129-1428(918) 581-7458

10/28/2019 Event Code: 02EKOK00-2020-E-00574 2

Project SummaryConsultation Code: 02EKOK00-2019-SLI-2456

Event Code: 02EKOK00-2020-E-00574

Project Name: Sandy Sanders Shooting Range

Project Type: RECREATION CONSTRUCTION / MAINTENANCE

Project Description: The proposed project will consist of the construction of a gun range facility within Section 31, Township 7 North, Range 24 West; GPS location: N 35.033137°, W -99.767246° (Figure 1). The project will include an approximately 0.25 acre gravel parking lot with one ADA compliant 16-foot by 18-foot concrete parking site. The shooting range will be constructed with a covered, 12-foot by 120 shooting station with four individual shooting stations: two for the 100-yard range and two for the 200-yard range. An earthen backstop will be constructed behind both ranges for bullet containment. The berm will be approximately 224 feet wide and 20-feet high. Additionally, a 647-foot wide and 10-foot high berm will be constructed on the south side of the 100-yard range and north of an unpaved two-track road. The backstop and berm will be constructed out of both on-site and off-site earthen material. The outer 24” of backstop face to be rock-free with 1:1 slope (not less than a 2:1 slope) facing the range and no required slope facing outside the range, with a 4 foot-wide flat top. The backstop and berm will be compacted. The ground between the shooting platforms and backstop will be smooth, firm, and graded so stormwater drainage will be directed away from the benches and targets and follows the general existing drainage pattern towards the creek to the north. The proposed project will comply with the ADA guidelines and will include a gravel parking lot with one ADA compliant van accessible parking spot. Concrete sidewalks will facilitate ADA access from the parking lot to the shooting stations as well as target areas on the ranges. Fence shall be steel pipe rail fence constructed of pipe posts set in concrete at least 4 feet in ground or set in concrete 3 feet in the ground. The proposed fence will be approximately 120- linear feet with maximum spacing between fence posts shall not exceed 10 feet.

Project Location:Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/place/35.034037510784444N99.76749896061546W

https://www.google.com/maps/place/35.034037510784444N99.76749896061546W

https://www.google.com/maps/place/35.034037510784444N99.76749896061546W

10/28/2019 Event Code: 02EKOK00-2020-E-00574 3

Counties: Greer, OK

10/28/2019 Event Code: 02EKOK00-2020-E-00574 4

1.

▪▪

Endangered Species Act SpeciesThere is a total of 4 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Note that 1 of these species should be considered only under certain conditions.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

BirdsNAME STATUS

Least Tern Sterna antillarumPopulation: interior pop.No critical habitat has been designated for this species.This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions:

Towers (i.e. radio, television, cellular, microwave, meterological)Wind Turbines and Wind Farms

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8505

Endangered

Piping Plover Charadrius melodusPopulation: [Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains populations] - Wherever found, except those areas where listed as endangered.There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6039

Threatened

Red Knot Calidris canutus rufaNo critical habitat has been designated for this species.Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1864

Threatened

Whooping Crane Grus americanaPopulation: Wherever found, except where listed as an experimental populationThere is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758

Endangered

1

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8505




10/28/2019 Event Code: 02EKOK00-2020-E-00574 5

Critical habitatsTHERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

10/28/2019 Event Code: 02EKOK00-2020-E-00574 1

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Lands And Fish HatcheriesAny activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA.

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/

10/28/2019 Event Code: 02EKOK00-2020-E-00574 1

1.2.3.

Migratory BirdsCertain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.

The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)

The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

NAME BREEDING SEASON

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalusThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds May 10 to Sep 10

Probability Of Presence SummaryThe graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the

12

https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/migratory-bird-treaty-act.php

https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/bald-and-golden-eagle-protection-act.php

https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php


http://ebird.org/ebird/map/

http://ebird.org/ebird/map/

10/28/2019 Event Code: 02EKOK00-2020-E-00574 2

1.

2.

3.

FAQ “Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report” before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )

Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

Breeding Season ( )Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ( )Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

No Data ( )A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey TimeframeSurveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

10/28/2019 Event Code: 02EKOK00-2020-E-00574 3

▪

▪

▪

no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECRed-headed WoodpeckerBCC Rangewide (CON)

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.phpMeasures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/ management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.phpNationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/ management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf

Migratory Birds FAQTell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php



http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/conservation-measures.php




http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf



https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/conservation-measures.php

https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/permits.php



http://www.avianknowledge.net/


https://data.pointblue.org/api/v3/annual-summaries-about-data-types.html


https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/eagle-management.php

10/28/2019 Event Code: 02EKOK00-2020-E-00574 4

1.

2.

3.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

"BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);"BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and"Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects

http://avianknowledge.net/index.php/phenology-tool/



https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/search/

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/search/

https://neotropical.birds.cornell.edu/Species-Account/nb/home


https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/bald-and-golden-eagle-information.php

10/28/2019 Event Code: 02EKOK00-2020-E-00574 5

For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ “What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location”. Please be aware this report provides the “probability of presence” of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the “no data” indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ “Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds” at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

http://www.northeastoceandata.org/data-explorer/?birds

https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/project/statistical-modeling-marine-bird-distributions/



http://www.boem.gov/AT-12-02/

http://www.boem.gov/AT-13-01/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/permits/need-a-permit.php

10/28/2019 Event Code: 02EKOK00-2020-E-00574 1

▪

WetlandsImpacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site.

RIVERINER4SBC

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/

http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx

http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx

https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/decoders/wetlands.aspx?CodeURL=R4SBC

Appendix C Representative Site Photographs

Photo Log

Photograph 1: Typical view of habitat within the project study area, from the western boundary facing east.

Photograph 2: Typical view of habitat within the project study area, from the southern boundary facing north.

Photo Log

Photograph 3: Typical view of habitat within the project study area, from the western boundary facing east.

Photograph 4: Typical view of habitat within the project study area, from the northern boundary facing south.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SANDY SANDERS …...Sandy Sanders Wildlife Management Area Shooting...

Documents

Transcript of DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SANDY SANDERS …...Sandy Sanders Wildlife Management Area Shooting...