u.s. fish and wildlife service grand bay national wildlife

Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Hunting and Sport Fishing Plan and Environmental Assessment April 2021

Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge Office- Danny Moss, USFWS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Hunting and Sport Fishing Plan and Environmental

Assessment

April 2021

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge 6005 Bayou Heron Road Moss Point, MS 39562

Submitted By: Project Leader

______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Concurrence: Refuge Supervisor

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

______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date

Table of Contents Section A. GRAND BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE .................................................... 1

HUNTING AND SPORT FISHING PLAN ................................................................................... 1

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

II. Statement of Objectives ............................................................................................................. 3

III. Description of Hunting and Fishing Program ........................................................................... 7

A. Areas to be Opened to Hunting and Fishing .................................................................... 7

B. Species to be Taken, Hunting Periods, Hunting Access ................................................ 10

C. Hunter and Angler Permit Requirements ....................................................................... 11

D. Consultation and Coordination with the State................................................................ 11

E. Law Enforcement ........................................................................................................... 12

F. Funding and Staffing Requirements .................................................................................. 12

IV. Conduct of the Hunting and Fishing Program ........................................................................ 14

A. Hunter and Angler Permit Application, Selection, and/or Registration Procedures ...... 14

B. Refuge-Specific Hunting Regulations ............................................................................ 14

D. Relevant State Regulations............................................................................................. 15

E. Other Refuge Rules and Regulations for Hunting and Fishing Program ....................... 16

V. Public Engagement .................................................................................................................. 17

A. Outreach for Announcing and Publicizing the Hunting and Fishing Program .............. 17

B. Anticipated Public Reaction to the Hunting and Fishing Program ................................ 17

C. How Hunters and Anglers Will Be Informed of Relevant Rules and Regulations ........ 17

VI. Compatibility Determination .................................................................................................. 17

VI. References............................................................................................................................... 18

Section B. Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Assessment for 2021 Draft Hunting and Sport Fishing Plan .................................................................................................... 19

Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................ 20

Background ................................................................................................................................... 20

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action .................................................................................. 22

Alternatives ................................................................................................................................... 22

Alternative A – Continue current management: No Action Alternative ................................. 22

Alternative B – Implement the 2020 Grand Bay NWR Hunting and Fishing Plan: Proposed Action Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 23

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 24

Big Game (White-tailed deer) ................................................................................................... 26 Affected Environment Description ..................................................................................................................... 26 Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description .................................................................................. 27 Anticipated Impacts ............................................................................................................................................ 28

Small Game (Squirrel and Rabbit) ............................................................................................ 28 Affected Environment Description ..................................................................................................................... 28 Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description .................................................................................. 29 Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................................................................................... 29

Migratory Birds (Ducks, Geese, Coot and Dove) ..................................................................... 30 Affected Environment Description ..................................................................................................................... 30 Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description .................................................................................. 30 Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................................................................................... 32

Incidental Take Species (Feral Hog, Coyote, Nutria) ............................................................... 33 Affected Environment Description ..................................................................................................................... 33 Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description .................................................................................. 34 Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................................................................................... 35

Fishing....................................................................................................................................... 36 Affected Environment Description ..................................................................................................................... 36 Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description .................................................................................. 36 Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................................................................................... 37

Non-Target Wildlife and Aquatic Species ................................................................................ 37 Affected Environment Description ..................................................................................................................... 37 Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description .................................................................................. 38 Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................................................................................... 38

Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Special Status Species ................................... 39 Affected Environment Description ..................................................................................................................... 39 Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description .................................................................................. 39 Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................................................................................... 40

Habitat and Vegetation (including vegetation of special management concern) ..................... 42 Affected Environment Description ..................................................................................................................... 42 Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description .................................................................................. 43 Anticipated Impacts ............................................................................................................................................ 43

Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................................... 43

Affected Environment Description ..................................................................................................................... 43 Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Descriptions................................................................................. 45 Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................................................................................... 45

Visitor Use and Experiences ..................................................................................................... 46 Affected Environment Description ..................................................................................................................... 46 Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description .................................................................................. 46 Anticipated Impacts ............................................................................................................................................ 46

Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 48 Affected Environment Description ..................................................................................................................... 48 Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description .................................................................................. 48 Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................................................................................... 48

Land Use on the Refuge ............................................................................................................ 48 Affected Environment Description ..................................................................................................................... 48 Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description .................................................................................. 48 Anticipated Impacts ............................................................................................................................................ 48

Administration .......................................................................................................................... 49 Affected Environment Description ..................................................................................................................... 49 Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description .................................................................................. 49 Anticipated Impacts ............................................................................................................................................ 49

Local and Regional Economies ................................................................................................ 50 Affected Environment Description ..................................................................................................................... 50 Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description .................................................................................. 50 Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................................................................................... 50

Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................... 50 Affected Environment Description ..................................................................................................................... 51 Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description .................................................................................. 51 Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................................................................................... 51

Monitoring .................................................................................................................................... 51

Summary of Analysis .................................................................................................................... 52

Alternative A – Current Management No Action Alternative: ................................................. 52

Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative: .......................................................................... 52

List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted ........................................................................ 52

List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................ 52

State Coordination ........................................................................................................................ 53

Tribal Consultation ....................................................................................................................... 53

Public Outreach ............................................................................................................................. 53

Determination ............................................................................................................................... 54

Signatures ...................................................................................................................................... 54

References ..................................................................................................................................... 55

Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 59

Appendix A. Other Applicable Statutes, Executive Orders, and Regulations ............................. 60

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations ................................................................................. 61

Appendix C. Threatened and Endangered Species List ............................................................... 89

List of Tables Table 1. Funding and Staffing Requirements- Refuge Hunts ....................................................... 13 Table 2. Funding and Staffing Requirement – Refuge Fishing ................................................... 13 List of Figures Figure 1. Proposed Hunting Units .................................................................................................. 9

Grand Bay NWR Draft Hunting and Fishing Plan and Environmental Assessment 1

Section A. GRAND BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE HUNTING AND SPORT FISHING PLAN I. Introduction National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or refuge) was established in 1992 pursuant to the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986; Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1534), and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4), 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1). The primary purpose of the refuge is for:

“…the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions…” (16 USC 3901 (b), 100 Stat. 3583) “… to conserve (A) fish and wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species… or (B) plants…” 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) “… for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources…” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) “…for the benefit of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude…” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

The 10,384-acre Grand Bay NWR is located in the coastal zone of Jackson County, Mississippi, and Mobile County, Alabama, approximately 10 miles east of Pascagoula, Mississippi, and about 20 miles west of Mobile, Alabama (Figures 1 and 2). It forms part of the Gulf Coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which also includes Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR to the west and Bon Secour NWR to the east. Habitats encompassed by the refuge include a riverine area on the west side containing a section of the Escatawpa River and a tributary, Black Creek; an area of coastal savanna in the central part of the refuge; and a large gopher tortoise colony at the northeast corner of the refuge. The refuge lies within the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative


(LCC) and plays a significant role in achieving the objectives of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), Partners-In-Flight Plan, United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, North American Bird Conservation Initiative, and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. The refuge collaborates with the Gulf Coast Joint Venture office, in Lafayette, Louisiana, for objective assessments. The mission of the NWRS, as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), is to: “... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” The NWRSAA mandates the Secretary of the Interior in administering the System to (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4):

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

● Ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the NWRS

are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans;

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

● Ensure effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with owners of land

adjoining refuges and the fish and wildlife agency of the States in which the units of the NWRS are located;

● Assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and water quality to fulfill the

mission of the NWRS and the purposes of each refuge;

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

● Ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife-

dependent recreational uses; and

● Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge. Therefore, it is a priority of the Service to provide for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, including hunting and fishing, when those opportunities are compatible with the


purposes for which the refuge was established and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Public hunts began on Grand Bay NWR in 2002, with the introduction of archery hunting for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), waterfowl, mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis and Sciurus niger), and feral hog (Sus scrofa). This provides the visitor with an additional recreational opportunity where opportunities on public lands are limited. II. Statement of Objectives The objectives of a white-tailed deer, rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus and Sylvilagus aquaticus), squirrel, waterfowl, dove (Zenaida macroura and Zenaida asiatica), coyote (Canis latrans), feral hog, and nutria (Myocaster coypus) hunting and fishing program on Grand Bay NWR are to:

● Provide opportunities for safe, compatible wildlife-dependent public recreation as mandated by and according to Service law and policy.

● Maintain wildlife populations at levels compatible with seasonal habitat carrying capacities by providing the public an opportunity to utilize a valuable renewable resource using legitimate and traditional methods.

● Provide opportunities for enjoyment of aquatic resources through fishing. ● Preserve the natural diversity and variety of biotic communities occurring on/in

Refuge lands and waters. ● Foster support from the general public, the Mississippi Department of Wildlife,

Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP), the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), and other government and private agencies for professional management of wildlife and habitat by the Service and the refuge.

Hunting and fishing are consistent with the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) vision for a compatible wildlife-dependent recreational program (USFWS 2008). Hunting objectives and strategies in the CCP were designed to provide a quality hunting experience that meets Service guidelines and policies and refuge goals and objectives. The designs of the existing and proposed draft hunting and fishing plan directly support multiple goals and objectives of the 2008 CCP (USFWS 2008), including: FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT Goal 1: In support of national and regional plans, promote management actions that will provide for viable populations of native fish and wildlife species and habitats, with special emphasis on wet pine savanna. Discussion: Grand Bay NWR lies in the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic area, part of the Southeast Conifer Forest ecoregion extending from eastern Louisiana to coastal Georgia. In coastal Mississippi, distinct terrestrial communities include pitcher plant bogs, longleaf pine


savannas, and bayhead swamps, all of which are found in the refuge. The ecoregions present within this system are critical because of the variety of habitats they provide to many migratory bird species. The refuge includes the following regions: Southern Pine Hills predominantly north of Interstate 10, Gulf Coast Flatwoods just south of the Interstate, and Marsh regions in the southern portions of the county. Chapter I of this CCP discusses the national and regional plans toward which implementing these goals, objectives, and strategies would contribute, including the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. Objective 1-1: Migratory Waterfowl – Within 15 years of CCP implementation, support the annual population objective of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) by contributing 20 percent (3,600 ducks) of a midwinter population of approximately 18,000 ducks in the Coastal Mississippi Wetlands Initiative Area. Discussion: The NAWMP is an international (Canada, Mexico, and United States) agreement undertaking an intensive and extensive effort to protect and restore North America’s waterfowl populations and their habitats. The implementing mechanisms for the NAWMP are partnerships known as joint ventures, which are composed of federal, state, and local agencies and organizations concerned with conserving migratory birds and their habitats in a particular physiographic region. The Gulf Coast Joint Venture (GCJV) is one of the original focus areas and extends along the western Gulf of Mexico from the Alabama-Florida boundary across Texas. The GCJV is the terminus of the Central and Mississippi flyways and, therefore, one of the most important waterfowl wintering areas in North America. The GCJV also provides year-round habitat for over 90 percent of the continental population of mottled ducks. The GCJV is divided geographically into six initiative areas, each with a different mix of habitats, management opportunities, and species priorities. Grand Bay NWR lies within the Coastal Mississippi Wetlands Initiative Area. The midwinter population objectives for this initiative area are:

Species Population Goal Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) 619 Gadwall (Anas strepera) 268 American wigeon (Anas Americana) 191 Green-winged teal (Anas crecca) 413 Blue-winged teal (Anas discors) 1,738 Northern shoveler (Anas clypeata) 84 Mottled duck (Anas fulvigula) 397 Canvasback (Aythya valisineria) 174 Greater and lesser scaup (Aythya marila and Aythya affinis)

13,836


Habitat conservation is imperative to the success of the NAWMP and the GCJV. Critical to meeting the goals and objectives of the Coastal Mississippi Wetlands Initiative is the maintenance and restoration of wetland habitat. Although waterfowl are not common in many habitats of the savanna complex of Grand Bay NWR, wetland habitats used by waterfowl include cypress-tupelo swamps and coastal marsh and bays. About 20 percent of the wintering waterfowl in coastal Mississippi are found in this area. The most prevalent wintering species are lesser scaup, redhead (Aythya americana), ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris), bufflehead ( Bucephala albeola), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), and American wigeon (Anas Americana). The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) does not survey the coastal areas when conducting fall and winter surveys, leaving a significant data need for the refuge. As a minimum, the refuge should survey waterfowl during the mid-winter period, usually the first full week of January and, if possible, every two weeks on Monday or Tuesday of the first and third full weeks of each month during the October through February period. Wood ducks (Aix sponsa) and mottled ducks are year-round refuge residents and nest around shallow ponds and swamps. The GCJV is sponsoring a multi-agency effort to monitor mottled duck populations through a significant pre-season banding program, particularly in Texas and Louisiana. All indications are that mottled duck populations in Texas have declined significantly, presumably as a result of changes in rice culture and land use. In Louisiana, the mottled duck population appears to be holding steady or slightly increasing. Little information is available for Mississippi and Alabama populations. In both Louisiana and Texas, the states have taken the lead in the banding effort and are provided significant support by Service personnel and equipment. Strategies:

• Work with the GCJV and the Grand Bay NERR to monitor and archive habitat conditions, including grassbeds and marsh ponds. Relate waterfowl use to habitat type/conditions.

• Initiate a waterfowl monitoring program to survey waterfowl during the mid-winter

period, usually the first full week of January, or preferably on Monday or Tuesday of the first and third full weeks of each month from October through February. Aerial surveys are the most effective in coastal situations, but data gathered from ground surveys would be an improvement over existing data sources.

• The preferred survey technique would be conducted along line transects that are surveyed

from an airplane or helicopter, are replicable, and can be expanded to estimate total numbers of waterfowl. Refuge personnel should work with the Service’s Migratory Bird Office in Jackson, Mississippi; the MDWFP; the U.S. Geological Survey; and the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) to establish the refuge survey and, hopefully, coordinate it with a coastal survey south of Interstate 10.


• Waterfowl survey data should be entered and archived on the database administered by

the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (SAMBI). That database can be queried to provide charts and tables useful in refuge reports.

• Support mottled duck population monitoring efforts if the geographic scope increases to

include Mississippi, and the MDWFP becomes significantly involved in the effort.

• Provide wood duck nesting structures on suitable habitat exceeding 2–5 acres in size and other suitable habitats on the refuge. The number of wood duck nest boxes should not exceed the refuge staff’s ability to routinely clean and repair the boxes at least once per year prior to nesting (January, if possible). Initially, perhaps only 10 or 20 boxes could be erected and the number could expand as box usage increases.

• The publication, “Increasing Wood Duck Productivity: Guidelines for Management and

Banding, USFWS Lands (Southeast Region) 2003 (Update),” by the Division of Migratory Birds, Atlanta, Georgia, should be used to guide the wood duck nest box program. However, if staff or volunteer time does not allow for annual maintenance, the boxes should be boarded up or removed from the refuge.

VISITOR SERVICES Goal 3: Provide opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent public uses, leading to greater understanding and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, and the Gulf Coast ecosystems contained within the refuge. Discussion: Grand Bay NWR receives about 700 visitors annually, which is low compared to other refuges. This relatively low visitation is due to several factors: its small staff (one full-time employee), its limited visitor use facilities and programs, and its focus to date on acquisition of valuable habitats within the acquisition boundary and habitat restoration, rather than on building up its visitor services program. The refuge has a strong partnership with the Grand Bay NERR which offers high quality environmental education and interpretation programs to the public. The refuge provides recreational opportunities including fishing, hunting, wildlife observation and photography, and boating in tidal marshes. Objective 3-3: Fishing and Hunting – Continue to provide fishing access and provide hunting for deer, squirrel, and waterfowl consistent with state regulations and seasons. Discussion: Fishing is perhaps the most popular recreational activity undertaken at Grand Bay NWR. The refuge’s diverse array of salt marshes, bayous, and grass beds serves as nursery areas and breeding and feeding grounds for shrimp, red drum, speckled trout, blue crab, and oysters, among other species. A public boat launch facility is located on Bayou Heron Road. All fishing on Grand Bay NWR is in State waters.


The refuge currently has a small hunting program, which began in 2001, after approval of a hunt plan in 1999. Hunting is permitted for white-tailed deer, feral hogs, squirrel, geese, ducks, coots, and mourning doves on designated areas of the refuge, subject to state regulations and conditions outlined in the Grand Bay NWR Hunting Regulations brochure. These hunts are non-quota and require a signed refuge hunt regulations brochure, which is available at the Grand Bay NWR office. Commercial guides are prohibited. There are no hunter check stations on the refuge. Strategies:

Fishing

• Law enforcement should work to eliminate any illegal commercial fishing occurring on

the refuge.

• Revise the fishing brochure and refuge web site to adequately address sportfishing opportunities and the role the two agencies play in offering fishing opportunities.

• Place a regulatory kiosk (do/don’t) at all boat launch areas that access the refuge.

Hunting

• Revise the hunt brochures and provide a better map and better organization of the

information (better layout that is more easily read and understood; work with Regional Office Visitor Services to improve).

• Investigate where hunters obtain the brochure and determine if there are outlets where

they can get state permits at the same time.

• Limit hunting (time, zone) around office/visitor center and Oak Grove Birding Trail.

• Include hunting as a public use opportunity on websites and future general brochure.

• Consider the need for a hunter check station at a central point on the refuge to collect

hunter use information needed for better game management. III. Description of Hunting and Fishing Program A. Areas to be Opened to Hunting and Fishing Grand Bay NWR encompasses 10,384 acres and 10,246 acres are opened to hunting. The area adjacent to the office/visitor center and the Oak Grove Birding trail are closed to hunting for visitor, staff, and volunteer safety. The closed areas are clearly marked with refuge area closure


signs. There are several public access points, by land and water, to the Mississippi side of the refuge; conversely, there is very limited public access on the Alabama side of the refuge and the south and southeast corners provide marginal access, primarily by use of boat. To achieve the objectives set forth by this plan, on occasion, it may be necessary to deviate from state season structures, adjust bag limits or implement other restrictions. Determinations would be based on safety, public use levels, management actions, disease transmission, minimum viable populations, or wildlife disturbance. Adjustments would be made to ensure achievement of the primary goal of the National Wildlife Refuge System “Wildlife First.” However, hunting seasons and bag limits for the species listed would not be altered to be more liberal than those set by the MDWFP. Additionally, each future parcel of land acquired as part of Grand Bay NWR would be evaluated to determine if it is compatible to open for hunting. Before the refuge was established, local residents regularly participated in recreational fishing of the bayous, estuaries, bays, and rivers of the area. Residents, from both Mississippi and Alabama, participated in recreational fishing for many fish species including, red drum (redfish) (Sciaenops ocellata), flounder (Paralichthys spp.), speckled trout (Cynoscion nebulosus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonia undulatus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and mullet (Mugilidae spp.) in waters adjacent to the refuge. Fishing would take place within salt/brackish water areas of the refuge. Refuge bank-fishing would take place primarily at the Bayou Heron Road fishing pier. Anglers, fishing from the bank, would use the pier while boaters would launch at this location, Pollack’s Ferry boat launch, or other public or privately-owned boat launches. The interior refuge freshwater ponds would not be opened to fishing.


Figure 1. Proposed Hunting Units


B. Species to be Taken, Hunting Periods, Hunting Access

In general, state regulations apply except for only minor differences in some specific season lengths, and closed seasons believed necessary to achieve refuges purposes, goals, and objectives.

• BIG GAME HUNTING: White-tailed deer hunting (archery only) is opened on the Refuge except where specified as closed (see Figure 1). The big game hunting is consistent with MS Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks and Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) season framework, bag limits, and regulations. Season dates: (MS) October – February; (AL) October - February Access to the refuge is two hours before sunrise to two hours after sunset.

• MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING: Migratory bird hunting includes ducks, teal, geese, coots, and doves. The hunting period for migratory birds would be consistent with MDWFP and ADCNR season framework and regulations. The use of non-toxic shot is required while hunting migratory birds on refuge lands. The use of dogs, for retrieving purposes, is permitted while hunting ducks, teal, geese, and coots. All waterfowl (ducks, teal, geese, and coots) seasons, bag limits, and regulations are in accordance with MDWFP and ADCNR. Season dates for waterfowl: (MS) November-January; (AL) November-January Access to the refuge is two hours before sunrise to two hours after sunset. Dove season would be consistent with MDWFP and ADCNR season framework, bag limits, and regulations. Season dates for dove: (MS) Sept 1-15, Oct. 5 – Nov. 6, Dec. 21 – Jan. 31; (AL) Sept. 12, Sept. 13 – Nov. 1, Nov. 21-29, Dec. 12 – Jan. 10. Access to the refuge is two hours before sunrise to two hours after sunset.

• SMALL GAME: Squirrels and rabbits may be taken on the refuge with weapons legal for

that hunt. The hunting period for small game would be consistent with the MDWFP and the ADCNR season frameworks, bag limits, and regulations with the following exceptions: Season dates for rabbit: (MS) Oct. - Feb; (AL) Sept. - Mar. Season dates for squirrel: (MS) Oct. - Feb.; (AL) Sept. - Mar. Access to the refuge is two hours before sunrise to two hours after sunset.


• INCIDENTAL TAKE: feral hog, coyote, and nutria are considered nuisance species. Feral hog may only be taken incidental to the refuge archery deer hunt. Coyote and nutria maybe taken incidental to any refuge hunt with the legal weapon and ammunition for that hunt. The hunting period for nuisance species, as it relates to coyote and nutria, would be consistent with the MDWFP and ADCNR season framework, bag limits, and regulations. Season dates for incidental take of feral hog: (MS) Oct. - Feb.; (AL) Oct. - Feb. Season dates for incidental take of coyote and nutria: (MS) Oct. - Mar.; (AL) Sept. - Mar. Access to the refuge is two hours before sunrise to two hours after sunset.

• SPORT FISHING – Fishing would be allowed during State open fishing seasons in accordance with Federal regulations and State fishing framework, creel limits, and regulations. Season dates for fishing: (MS) All year; (AL) All year Access to the refuge is thirty minutes before sunrise to thirty minutes after sunset.

C. Hunter and Angler Permit Requirements

Hunters would be required to have applicable State hunting license and Federal permits (e.g. Federal Duck Stamp, etc.), as well as be in possession of, and carry, a current, signed copy of the refuge-hunting brochure while participating in refuge hunts. Anglers, who are eligible to fish under States law, are eligible to fish refuge waters. They must possess a valid State fishing license and follow States laws, limits, and regulations.

D. Consultation and Coordination with the State

The Refuge reviewed the operations and regulations for neighboring State wildlife management areas and refuges to find consistency where possible. The Refuge first reached out to the States (Mississippi and Alabama) in May of 2019 to discuss this proposed Hunt and Fish Plan. Additionally, a scoping letter seeking input was sent October 1, 2020. We worked with local State biologists and conservation officers early in the development of the draft plan. We have continued to consult and coordinate on specific aspects of the proposed Hunt Plan. The States are in agreement with the refuge’s draft Hunt Plan, as it would help meet State objectives. Disease management activities, including chronic wasting disease, would continue to be coordinated through the states. Established hunter training, hunter ethics, and hunter responsibilities help ensure hunters continue to use good judgment related to humaneness and animal welfare.

The Service reviewed applicable States fishing regulations to ensure consistency and has


been in contact with the States about support for the Service proposal. E. Law Enforcement

Enforcement of refuge violations normally associated with management of a National Wildlife Refuge is the responsibility of commissioned Federal Wildlife Officers. Other officers, Special Agents, State Game Wardens, and the local Sheriff’s Department often assist the Grand Bay NWR’s full time Federal Wildlife Officer. The following methods are used to control and enforce hunting regulations:

• Refuge and hunt area boundaries would be clearly posted; • The Refuge would provide a brochure that shows hunt areas; and • Grand Bay NWR law enforcement staff would randomly check hunters for

compliance with Federal and State Laws. Enforcement of refuge violations normally associated with management of a National Wildlife Refuge is the responsibility of commissioned Federal Wildlife Officers; however, the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) and ADCNR Law Enforcement Officers provide angler compliance assistance within the refuge boundary in the Gulf of Mexico and its tributaries. The following methods are used to control and enforce fishing regulations:

• The Refuge would provide a brochure that shows Refuge fishing areas. • Grand Bay NWR law enforcement staff would randomly check anglers for

compliance with Federal and State Laws.

F. Funding and Staffing Requirements

There are no specific funds allocated to administer refuge hunts. Refuge operations and maintenance, and some visitor services funding, annually allocated to the refuge would be utilized for administration of the Grand Bay NWR hunt program. User fees would not be collected at this time. Refuge hunt program expenses include: law enforcement-related expenditures; parking area maintenance; information signage; brochure printing; boundary signs; administrative costs associated with annual hunt brochure review; and website maintenance. Total estimated cost for refuge hunt program is $60,000. The majority of these costs are salary-related and considered administrative in nature. These costs are equivalent to approximately 1 full time staff. Hunting is a priority refuge use and an important component of meeting refuge objectives and goals. Current staffing and funding are available to meet the requirements of a hunting program as identified. It is anticipated that adequate funding would continue to be sufficient to maintain these standards set in future years.


Table 1. Funding and Staffing Requirements- Refuge Hunts

Identifier Cost

Staff (Maintenance Workers, Refuge Ranger, and Refuge Managers) $10,000 Maintain roads, parking lots, trails* $5,000 Information bulletins, fact sheets, and reports $2,000 Maintain signage $3,000 Law Enforcement $40,000 Total Annual Cost $60,000

*Refuge trails and roads are maintained for a variety of activities. Costs shown are a percentage of total costs for trail/road maintenance on the refuge and are reflective of the percentage of trail/road use for hunting and fishing. Volunteers account for some maintenance hours and help to reduce overall cost of the program.

There are no specific funds allocated to administer refuge fishing. Refuge operations and maintenance, and some visitor services funding, annually allocated to the refuge would be utilized for administration of the Grand Bay NWR fishing program. User fees would not be collected at this time. Refuge fishing program expenses include: law enforcement-related expenditures; parking area maintenance; information signage; brochure printing; boundary signs; administrative costs associated with annual hunt brochure review; and website maintenance. Total estimated cost for refuge fish program is $23,000. The majority of these costs are salary-related and considered administrative in nature. These costs are equivalent to approximately .5 full time staff. Fishing is a priority refuge use and an important component of meeting refuge objectives and goals. Current staffing and funding are available to meet the requirements of a quality-fishing program as identified. It is anticipated that adequate funding would continue to be sufficient to maintain these standards set in future years. Table 2. Funding and Staffing Requirement – Refuge Fishing

Identifier

Cost

Staff (Maintenance Workers, Refuge Ranger, and Refuge Managers) 3,000

Maintain parking lots and fishing pier *

3,000

Information bulletins, fact sheets, and reports 1,000

Maintain signage 1,000

Law Enforcement

15,000

TOTAL ANNUAL COST $23,000 *Refuge trails and roads are maintained for a variety of activities. Costs shown are a percentage of total costs for


trail/road maintenance on the refuge and are reflective of the percentage of trail/road use for hunting and fishing. IV. Conduct of the Hunting and Fishing Program A. Hunter and Angler Permit Application, Selection, and/or Registration Procedures

General refuge hunting brochures are required by all parties participating in the refuge hunt program. Currently, the signed brochure is free of charge, and has been incorporated as part of the refuge hunt brochure. The brochure must be signed and carried by the hunter while participating in refuge hunts. Information and form on refuge hunts can be downloaded from the Grand Bay NWR website: https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Grand_Bay/visit/visitor_activities.html Anglers must have in their possession a valid State fishing license.

B. Refuge-Specific Hunting Regulations

Listed below are refuge-specific regulations that pertain to hunting on Grand Bay NWR as of the date of this plan. These regulations may be modified as conditions change or as refuge expansion continues.

The Grand Bay NWR hunting program would align with the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks and Alabama Department of Conservation and National Resources season frameworks to the extent possible. The refuge hunting program would be reviewed annually and amended as necessary. Grand Bay NWR leadership meet with MDWFP and ADCNR leadership annually to discuss upcoming hunt seasons, any changes, and potential future changes. Refuge hunt amendments considered significant would be coordinated with the appropriate MDWFP and ADCNR personnel prior to implementation. State regulations apply except for minor differences in some season lengths, believed necessary to achieve refuge objectives.

(1) Migratory Game Bird Hunting. We allow hunting of goose, duck, coot, and (mourning and white-winged dove, and the incidental take of coyote and nutria on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions: (i) Hunters must remove all decoys, blind material, and harvested waterfowl from the refuge at the end of each day's hunt. (ii) You must only use portable or temporary blinds. (iii) We only allow the use of dogs when waterfowl hunting. We require all dogs to wear a collar displaying the owner's contact information. (iv) Each hunter must possess and carry a signed copy of the refuge hunting brochure while participating in refuge hunts. (2) Upland Game Hunting. We allow hunting of gray and fox squirrels and cottontail and swamp rabbits and the incidental take of coyote and nutria on designated areas of the

https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Grand_Bay/visit/visitor_activities.html


refuge subject to the following conditions: (i) Each hunter must possess and carry a signed copy of the refuge hunting brochure while participating in refuge hunts. (ii) We only allow .22 caliber rimfire rifle. (3) Big Game Hunting. We allow hunting of white-tailed deer and incidental take of feral hog, coyote, and nutria on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions: (i) Each hunter must possess and carry a signed copy of the refuge hunting brochure while participating in refuge hunts. (ii) We only allow hunting with bow and arrow. We prohibit firearms. (iii) We allow portable and climbing tree stands. Hunters must remove tree stands from the refuge at the end of each day's hunt. (iv) We prohibit organized deer drives. We define a “deer drive” as an organized or planned effort to pursue, drive, chase, or otherwise frighten or cause deer to move in the direction of any person(s) who is part of the organized or planned hunt and known to be waiting for the deer. To ensure compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System, hunting must be conducted in accordance with State and Federal regulations, as supplemented by refuge-specific regulations, and information sheets/brochures. Stipulations are detailed in the Hunting Compatibility Determination (Appendix B).

C. Refuge-Specific Fishing Regulations

(4) Sport Fishing. We allow fishing during State open fishing seasons in accordance with Federal regulations and State fishing framework, regulations, and guidelines with the following exceptions: (i) Anglers may enter the refuge no earlier than 30 minutes prior to sunrise and must leave the refuge no later than 30 minutes after sunset daily. (ii) Fishing refuge interior freshwater ponds is prohibited. (iii) We prohibit the use of airboats, mudboats, jet-skis, motorized pirogues, and air-cooled propulsion engines are prohibited. To ensure compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System, fishing must be conducted in accordance with State and Federal regulations, as supplemented by refuge-specific regulations, and information sheets/brochures. Stipulations are detailed in the Fishing Compatibility Determination (Appendix B).

D. Relevant State Regulations

Hunting and Fishing regulations for the State of Mississippi and Alabama are located at the following websites:


• Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks: http://www.mdwfp.com/ • Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:

https://www.outdooralabama.com/

All relevant refuge-specific regulations are listed above in Section IV, subsection B and C. E. Other Refuge Rules and Regulations for Hunting and Fishing Program 50 CFR Part 32 outlines refuge-specific regulations; 50 CFR Part 20 outlines migratory game bird hunting; 50 CFR Part 26 outlines Public Entry and Use, including specific regulations for Grand Bay NWR; and 50 CFR Part 27 outlines prohibited acts. The refuge hunt brochure would provide important information and requirements for hunting on the refuge. Seasons would be set annually and would be published in the refuge’s hunt brochure for the specified year. Key requirements and prohibitions are listed. This list is not all inclusive.

● All commercial activities including guiding or participating in a paid guided hunt. ● Searching for or removing any object of archeological or historical significance as

well as any natural materials such as plants, mushrooms, berries, and antler sheds. ● The use of artificial light, including vehicle headlights, to locate or take any

animal ● Use or possession of any drug or device for employing such drug for hunting. ● The use of flagging tape, bright eyes, or other trail marking devices. ● Use or possession of alcoholic beverages while hunting ● Fires, camping, or littering ● Organized drives for deer/big game. ● Baiting, possession of bait in the field, or hunting over bait ● The removal or destruction of vegetation for any reason. ● Overnight parking. ● Target practicing on the refuge ● Field dressing game (hogs included) within 300 feet of any road, trail, or parking

area. ● Leaving personal property overnight on refuge. ● The use or possession of game cameras. ● Use of all-terrain vehicles ● Mule or horse use ● Use of dogs, except for waterfowl hunting ● Use of poisonous arrows for bow hunting ● Hunting without a signed valid refuge hunt brochure on person ● All hunters under the age of 16 must be in the presence and under direct

supervision of a licensed or exempted hunter at least 21 years of age. ● Hunting within 100 feet of a pipeline or powerline row-of-way. ● Hunting within 300 feet of a designated road, trail, or parking lot. ● Hunting in a designated closed area.

http://www.mdwfp.com/


● Blocking roads, gates, turn rows, field access ramps, and fire lines.

Prohibited activities relative to the refuge fish program. This list is not all inclusive.

• Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited • Cleaning of fish on fishing pier is prohibited • ATV use is prohibited

V. Public Engagement A. Outreach for Announcing and Publicizing the Hunting and Fishing Program The refuge circulates hunting and fishing information through social media, information bulletins, refuge visitor center/office, refuge staff, and hunt brochures distributed along the MS Gulf Coast, including the MS Welcome Centers. This information is also available on the refuge website: https://www.fws.gov/refuge/grand_bay/.

B. Anticipated Public Reaction to the Hunting and Fishing Program Based on one comment being received during the public review period for the refuge CCP (2008) and very few comments received for the refuge hunt plan in 2001, one can deduce there is limited opposition to the hunting and fishing program on Grand bay NWR. Public reaction from the surrounding communities to all refuge hunts is, for the most part, favorable and should continue to be the same in the future. The refuge and the refuge hunting and fishing programs are well supported and appreciated by hunters, anglers, and non-consumptive refuge visitors, alike. Nationally, there are some anti-hunting sentiments, and many organizations are opposed to hunting on national wildlife refuges. It is possible that some objections would be voiced to some or all of the hunts within this plan.

C. How Hunters and Anglers Will Be Informed of Relevant Rules and Regulations General information regarding hunting, fishing, other wildlife-dependent public uses, can be obtained at Grand Bay NWR headquarters at 6005 Bayou Heron Road, Moss Point, MS 39562 or by calling (228) 497-6322 (Gulf Coast NWR Complex Headquarters). Dates, forms, hunting unit directions, maps, and permit requirements about the hunt would be available on the station website at: https://www.fws.gov/refuge/grand_bay/ and at the Refuge Visitor Center. VI. Compatibility Determination Hunting and fishing are appropriate and compatible with the purposes of the refuge. See Appendix B.

https://www.fws.gov/refuge/grand_bay/


VI. References USFWS 2011. Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Land Protection Plan and Draft Environmental Assessment. Atlanta, Georgia. USFWS 2008. Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. USFWS 2001. Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge Hunt Plan. Moss Point, MS.


Section B. Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Assessment for 2021 Draft Hunting and Sport Fishing Plan

January 2021

Estimated Lead Agency Total Costs Associated with Developing and Producing this Environmental Assessment: $12,912


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

Proposed Action The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to continue, expand, and open hunting opportunities , in accordance with the refuge’s Grand Bay NWR Hunting and Fishing Plan, which is a step-down plan from 2008 Grand Bay NWR Comprehensive Plan (CCP) (USFWS 2008b) and replaces the 2001 Hunt Plan and Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2001). This goal of this proposal is to become more closely aligned with the States of Mississippi and Alabama’s regulations and seasons; therefore, Grand Bay NWR is proposing to continue, expand or open hunting and fishing opportunities for the following species:

· White-tailed deer (continue), · Waterfowl- duck, goose, coot (continue), · Dove (expand to include white-winged dove), · Squirrel (continue), · Rabbit (open), · Incidental take of Coyote (open), · Incidental take of Nutria (open), · Incidental take of Feral hogs (continue), and · Fishing (open).

This proposed action may evolve during the NEPA process as the agency refines its proposal and gathers feedback from the public, tribes, and other agencies. Therefore, the final proposed action may be different from the original. The proposed action will be finalized at the conclusion of the public comment period for the EA.

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


Grand Bay NWR is located in the coastal zone of Jackson County, Mississippi, and Mobile County, Alabama and lies between the cities of Pascagoula, MS and Mobile, AL. Grand Bay NWR was established in 1992 and encompasses 10,384 acres. Grand Bay NWR was established to protect one of the largest expanses of Gulf Coast savanna remaining in a relatively undisturbed state. Grand Bay NWR consists of riverine wetlands, cypress-tupelo swamps, coastal savanna, tidal creeks, salt flats, brackish marshes, and saltwater bays. These habitats support large concentrations of wildlife and fishes. Grand Bay NWR is part of the Gulf Coast Refuges Complex (Complex), which also consist of MS Sandhill Crane NWR (MS) and Bon Secour NWR (AL). Grand Bay NWR is the only refuge within the Complex to have a hunting program. Grand Bay NWR was established pursuant to the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986; Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1534), and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4), 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1). The primary purpose of the refuge is for “…the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions…” (16 USC 3901 (b), 100 Stat. 3583) and “… to conserve (A) fish and wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species… or (B) plants…” 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) and “… for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources…” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) “…for the benefit of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude…” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 The mission of the NWRS, as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), is

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

Additionally, the NWRSAA mandates the Secretary of the Interior in administering the NWRS (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)) to

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

• Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.

Therefore, it is a priority of the Service to provide for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, including hunting and fishing, when those opportunities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of this EA is to propose to amend and update the previous Grand Bay NWR Hunt Plan (USFWS 2001) and expanding hunting and fishing (USFWS 2008b) opportunities on the refuge. This EA will provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on Grand Bay NWR. The need of this EA is to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the NWRSIA to “recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the NWRS” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife-dependent uses” (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)). Another need of this EA is to implement the Service’s Secretarial Order (S.O.) 3347 Conservation, Stewardship, and Outdoor Recreation and S.O. 3356 Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories by expanding hunting and fishing opportunities and better aligning service regulations with State regulations. This EA proposes to amend and update the Grand Bay NWR Hunt Plan (USFWS 2001), expanding hunting opportunities on the Refuge. These proposed hunting expansions include dove, rabbit, coyote, and nutria, in addition to species already hunted. This EA also proposes to amend the Grand Bay NWR’s CCP to open fishing on the refuge. (USFWS 2008b) The Grand Bay NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2008b) identified the importance of sport hunting and sport fishing. Specifically, Goal 3, Objective 3-3: fishing and hunting.

Alternatives Alternative A – Continue current management: No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, the current hunting program would continue as outlined in the Grand Bay NWR Hunt Plan (USFWS 2001) and the Grand Bay NWR CCP (USFWS 2008b). Currently, the


species open to hunting are white-tailed deer (archery only), dove (mourning dove only), waterfowl (ducks, geese, teal, and coot), squirrel, and the incidental take of feral hog during the refuge deer hunting season. These are the only species that would be hunted on the refuge and no other species would be hunted. There would be no change in public use. The Service endeavors to expand public use opportunities in an effort to increase public participation in the outdoors, so this alternative could be counter-intuitive. Implementing this alternative would mean less huntable species and hunters would have to go elsewhere to hunt targeted species not permitted to hunt on the refuge. This could equate to lost opportunities to engage the public on the mission, function, and importance of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), wildlife and habitat conservation and natural resources stewardship.

Alternative B – Implement the 2020 Grand Bay NWR Hunting and Fishing Plan: Proposed Action Alternative

The refuge has prepared a draft hunting and fishing plan, which is presented in this document as the Proposed Action Alternative. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, hunting of white-tailed deer, squirrel, rabbit, dove, duck, geese, teal, and coot, would be open to hunting on Grand Bay NWR. Fishing would also be opened on Grand Bay NWR. Hunting and fishing are two of the Big 6 public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 {16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee}, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The refuge would allow the incidental take of nuisance species (coyote, nutria, and feral hog), classified as game animals per the State of Alabama, during other approved refuge hunts. The Service has no intentions of managing feral hog as a game species. Feral hogs are a highly invasive species with catastrophic impacts on native flora and fauna across their range. Feral hogs cause millions of dollars in habitat destruction annually, and the priority of feral hog control is reduction in numbers to acceptable levels or complete eradication. Since the Service endeavors eradication of feral hogs, there is no management value in promoting feral hog as a recreational hunting opportunity. The refuge-specific regulations that will be imposed under the proposed action and published in the Federal Register as part of the 2021-2022 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations are listed in the 2021 Draft Hunt Plan. Measures to Avoid Conflicts:

● Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the Escatawpa Trail, the Oak Grove Birding Trail, the area around the Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters Building and the Bayou Heron Boat Ramp would be closed to hunting. Also, there would be a 300-foot No Hunting Area buffer around the perimeter of the Oak Grove Birding Trail to mitigate interactions with consumptive-use and non-consumptive-use visitors. Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge will forego the State of Mississippi spring squirrel season to create a safer environment for refuge staff engaged in spring refuge prescribed fire


season, refuge personnel engaged in environmental education/interpretation public use programs, and the general public visiting the refuge.

● This alternative offers increased opportunities for public hunting/fishing and fulfills the Service’s mandate under the NWRSAA. The Service has determined that the hunt plan is compatible with the purposes of the Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge and the mission of the NWRS.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences This section is organized by affected resource categories and for each affected resource discusses both (1) the existing environmental and socioeconomic baseline in the action area for each resource and (2) the effects and impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives on each resource. The effects and impacts of the proposed action considered here are changes to the human environment, whether adverse or beneficial, that are reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action or alternatives. This EA includes the written analyses of the environmental consequences on a resource only when the impacts on that resource could be more than negligible and therefore considered an “affected resource.” Any resources that will not be more than negligibly impacted by the action have been dismissed from further analyses. The Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge is comprised of two main land tracts, one in the State of Mississippi and the other in the State of Alabama. This section describes the existing environmental and socioeconomic setting in the action area. The refuge consists of approximately 12 squares miles, or 7,662 acres, in Jackson, County, Mississippi and 4 square miles, or 2,722 acres, in Mobile County, Alabama. Grand Bay NWR consists of small, fragmented bottomland hardwood areas, mixed pine/hardwood stands, bay-gum flats, large expanses of pine savanna and salt marsh. The proposed action is located in Open Areas in Mississippi and Alabama and represent all identified habitats. (See Figure 1).


Figure 2.Grand Bay NWR Proposed Hunting Units


For more information regarding the affected environment, please see Chapter 2 of the Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which can be found here: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/1427.

Table 1 identifies those resources that either don’t exist within the project area or would either not be affected or only negligibly affected by the proposed action. As such, these resources are not further analyzed in this EA. TABLE 1. POTENTIAL FOR ADVERSE IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Resources

Not Applicable:

Resource does not exist in project area

No/Negligible Impacts: Exists

but no or negligible impacts

Greater than Negligible

Impacts: Impacts analyzed in this

EA Species to Be Hunted/Fished ☐ ☐ ☒ Non-Target Wildlife and Aquatic Species ☐ ☐ ☒

Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Special Status Species ☐ ☒ ☐

Habitat and Vegetation (including vegetation of special management concern)

☐ ☐ ☒

Geology and Soils ☐ ☒ ☐ Air Quality ☐ ☒ ☐ Water Quality ☐ ☒ ☐ Floodplains ☒ ☐ ☐ Wilderness ☒ ☐ ☐ Visitor Use and Experience ☐ ☐ ☒ Cultural Resources ☐ ☒ ☐ Refuge Management and Operations ☐ ☒ ☐ Socioeconomics ☐ ☒ ☐

Tables 2-6 provide:

1. A brief description of the affected resources in the proposed action area; 2. Impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives on those resources.

TABLE 2. AFFECTED NATURAL RESOURCES AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

Big Game (White-tailed deer)

Affected Environment Description


The white-tailed deer is the most post popular game species in Mississippi. In the early 1900s, white-tailed deer were almost eliminated from Mississippi due to unregulated hunting. White-tailed deer were re-stocked from 1950-1970, with pockets of deer found in the State (McKinley 2017). Through effective management, Mississippi’s white-tailed deer population is now estimated at 1.75 million deer, and a national-average high of 40 deer per square mile. Hunters harvest approximately 280,000 deer per year in Mississippi (MDWFP 2020). The Southeast Hunt Zone in MS, which includes Jackson County and Grand Bay NWR, reports deer harvest are some of the lowest in the State. The deer herd is stable in this area though (MDWFP 2018).

Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description Hunting has been allowed on Grand Bay NWR for almost 2 decades with public hunts beginning in 2001 by opening white-tailed deer and upland game seasons. If public use levels expand in the future, unanticipated conflicts between user groups may occur. Service experience has proven that time and space zoning can be an effective tool in eliminating conflicts between user groups. If needed, this tool will be implemented at Grand Bay NWR by closing high visitor use areas, such as the Environmental Education and Recreation Area to hunting. Deer hunting does not have regional population impacts due to restricted home ranges. MDWFP estimates the average home range of a male deer in Mississippi is 1 square mile or 640 acres. Therefore, only local impacts occur. According to MDWFP, the number of hunting license sold in Mississippi soared from 2011-2016; however, there is a consistent, slow downward trend in hunting license sales (Broom 2017). This decline could be a result of the Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease outbreak in southeastern US, brought on by environmental factors (Christensen et al. 2020). It could possibly be due to the first confirmed case of chronic wasting disease in Mississippi in February of 2018 (MDWFP 2019). Harvest and survey data confirm that decades of deer hunting on surrounding lands have not had a local adverse effect on the deer population. The statewide deer population estimate shows a stable to slightly decreasing trend. The 2017 statewide estimate was 1.75 million deer at the start of the 2017-18 hunting season and approximately 195,000 deer were harvested during the 2017-2018 season, which was one of the lowest harvest rates (MDWFP 2020). Approximately 15-18 deer are harvested each hunting season on Grand Bay NWR and no additional deer are anticipated to be harvested under the proposed action, due to no proposed changes from current management. The Service does not believe that increasing hunting opportunities on our land would decrease hunting opportunities on other lands near the refuge. Because trends of the number of hunters participating in the sport is declining we believe providing additional opportunities will potentially increase the numbers of hunters that utilize public land for hunting recreation. Private land hunting will not be impacted by the use of public land for hunting. The federal government owns 5.1% of Mississippi's total land, 1,546,443 acres out of 30,222,720 total acres (National Wildlife Institute 1995). In addition, Mississippi owns 54 wildlife management areas totaling over 665,000 acres (MDWFP 2020). The refuge in comparison is approximately 10,384 acres, accounting for less than 1% of the public land in Mississippi that is huntable. Cumulative


impacts are likely negligible but could presumably result in more hunters participating in the sport over the long term having positive benefits for conservation.

Anticipated Impacts

Alternative A: Current Management, No Action Alternative Estimated Hunter Numbers: <160

Estimated Take: <20

The MDWFP generates a deer program annual report, which provides deer hunters, managers, and others with information concerning Mississippi's white-tailed deer resource (MDWFP 2018). The report contains biological and sociological data used by the MDWFP to monitor and manage the state's white-tailed deer population, in part to avoid any long-term population declines (MDWFP 2018). The Mississippi white-tailed deer distribution equates to 40 deer per square mile; however, in southeast Mississippi data reports approximately 15 deer per square mile (Walters 2016). Soils in southeast MS are acidic and nutrient-poor, which reduces the quality and type of browse for wildlife. Though the deer density average is well below the State average, the deer herd appears to be stable. Hunting is not anticipated to adversely impact white-tailed deer or other game species populations. Though Grand Bay NWR does not utilize hunter harvest data cards or a State harvest reporting system, it is believed the harvest of white-tailed deer on the Refuge is minimal, with an estimated annual harvest of less than 20 deer. This is based on hunter contacts by Federal Wildlife Officers and hunter conversations with other refuge personnel. Grand Bay NWR currently allows only archery hunting for white-tailed deer. There may be some disturbance to wildlife during the hunting season. Disturbance by vehicle would be minimal, as the use of ATVs is not permitted.

Alternative B: Proposed Action Alternative Estimated Hunter Numbers: <160

Estimated Take: <20

We currently allow deer hunting on the refuge, so impacts to Alternative B will be the same as Alternative A.

Small Game (Squirrel and Rabbit)

Affected Environment Description Resident small game, which includes squirrel and rabbit, are found within a number of managed habitat types on the refuge. Habitat management includes active timber thinning, ground level and mid-story mastication, and prescribed fire in wet pine savannas, which promotes the propagation of ground cover, additional browse and discourages non-targeted woody vegetation. Also, fire breaks have been installed in several habitat types (i.e. hardwood stands, pine stands, mixed pine/hardwood stands, savannas, and riparian borders), which creates wildlife benefits such as edges, buffers, and travel corridors. The MDWFP annually reviews


hunting seasons and bag limits and modifies them to avoid any long-term population declines. Hunting is not expected to adversely impact the small game, squirrel and rabbit, populations. MDWFP has conducted random, statewide small game surveys of hunting license holders almost yearly since the early 1980s (with some periodic surveys prior to that). This information is used to set statewide season structures and bag limits. In reviewing this data from 1980 to 2015, the number of small game hunters and harvest has declined overall (Hunt 2012). Small game hunting on the refuge will coincide with MDWFP seasons and bag limits unless specified otherwise.

Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description According to the MDWFP, both gray and red squirrels are relative abundant across Mississippi, with some populations of red squirrels declining in areas with changing land use and management. The number of squirrel hunters has declined precipitously from 1981-2007; consequently, the annual squirrel harvest has also declined in that same time frame (Hunt 2012b). Squirrels have high death rates, but squirrel numbers remain steady when sufficient quality habitat is available. Food availability probably affects survival more than any other factor. The amount of food changes from year to year depending on weather and other factors, and squirrel populations often change in response Hamrick et al 2020b). Hunting of squirrels on the refuge equates to take of less than 40 squirrels; therefore, it will not add significantly to the impacts on the populations of these species. According to the MDWFP, rabbit populations have declined in Mississippi during the last 50 years, due to land use and management. The number of rabbit hunters has declined precipitously from 1981-2005; consequently, the annual rabbit harvest has also declined in that same time frame (Hunt 2012a). Rabbits live for about two years in the wild and their main cause of death is predators, including hunters (Hamrick et all 2020a). Hunting of rabbits on the refuge equates to take of less than 40 rabbits; therefore, it will not add significantly to the cumulative impacts on the populations of these species. The refuge requires all migratory bird and small game hunters using shotguns to use non-toxic ammunition.

Anticipated Impacts Alternative A: Current Management, No Action Alternative Squirrel: Estimated Hunter Numbers: <20

Estimated Take: < 40

Rabbit:

Estimated Hunter Numbers: 0

Estimated Take: 0

We currently allow squirrel hunting on the refuge. There may be some disturbance to wildlife


during the hunting season. Disturbance by vehicle would be minimal as the use of ATVs is not permitted. Under this No Action Alternative, no rabbit hunting would be implemented.

Alternative B: Proposed Action Alternative Squirrel:

Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 20


Rabbit:



Same as Alternative A, including the opening of rabbit hunting.

Rabbit hunting is not anticipated to adversely impact the overall rabbit population. From 1995 to 2016, the number of MS rabbit hunters has declined from 60,000 to approximately 40,000 and an annual rabbit harvest has dropped from 500,000 to approximately 250,000, respectively (Hunt 2012b).

Migratory Birds (Ducks, Geese, Coot and Dove)

Affected Environment Description Frameworks for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory bird hunting are established by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For each species, frameworks, seasons and regulations are developed using factors such as population size and trends, geographic distribution, annual breeding effort, condition of breeding and wintering habitat, number of hunters, and anticipated harvest. Once the outside limits are set, each state selects hunting seasons within these frameworks. The most abundant wintering waterfowl species on the refuge is the lesser scaup, redhead, ring-necked duck, bufflehead, mallard and American widgeon. Small groups of wintering geese (Snow geese) visit the refuge. The Mourning Dove is one of the most abundant and widespread birds in the United States. They occupy a variety of habitats, preferring open lands and have adapted well to human altered landscapes, such as agriculture and urban. Mourning Doves are abundant in Mississippi as a year-round resident. Northern migrants add to the resident population making Mourning Doves a very abundant species during fall migration. This has led to dove hunting being one of the most popular pursuits among hunters in Mississippi.

Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in conventions between the United


States and several foreign nations for the protection and management of these birds. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to determine when "hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or export of any ... bird, or any part, nest, or egg" of migratory game birds can take place, and to adopt regulations for this purpose. These regulations are written after giving due regard to "the zones of temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such birds, and are updated annually (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This responsibility has been delegated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the lead federal agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States. Because the Service is required to take abundance of migratory birds and other factors into consideration, the Service undertakes a number of surveys throughout the year in conjunction with the Canadian Wildlife Service, State and Provincial wildlife-management agencies, and others. To determine the appropriate frameworks for each species, the Service considers factors such as population size and trend, geographical distribution, annual breeding effort, the condition of breeding and wintering habitat, the number of hunters, and the anticipated harvest. After frameworks are established for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting, migratory game bird management becomes a cooperative effort of State and Federal Governments. After Service establishment of final frameworks for hunting seasons, the States may select season dates, bag limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons. States may always be more conservative in their selections than the Federal frameworks but never more liberal. Season dates and bag limits for National Wildlife Refuges open to hunting are never longer or larger than the State regulations. In fact, based upon the findings of an environmental assessment developed when a National Wildlife Refuge opens a new hunting activity, season dates and bag limits may be more restrictive than the State allows. Hunting is not expected to adversely affect migratory game bird populations that occur on the refuge. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service works closely with state and provincial governments, as well as with the public, in a joint effort to establish annual hunting regulations for migratory birds. The programmatic document, “Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013, addresses NEPA compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We published a notice of availability in the Federal Register on May 31, 2013 (78 FR 32686), and our Record of Decision on July 26, 2013 (78 FR 45376). We also address NEPA compliance for waterfowl hunting frameworks through the annual preparation of separate environmental assessments, the most recent being “Duck Hunting Regulations for 2018–19,” with its corresponding May 2018, finding of no significant impact. The programmatic document, as well as the separate environmental assessment, is available on our website at https://www.fws.gov/birds/index.php. Lead Ammunition: Historically, the principal cause of lead poisoning in waterfowl was the collection of high densities of lead shot in wetland sediments associated with migratory bird hunting activities (Kendall et al. 1996). In 1991, as a result of high bird mortality, the Service

https://www.fws.gov/birds/index.php


instituted a nationwide ban on the use of lead shot for hunting waterfowl and coots (50 CFR 32.2(k)). The Service requires any new shot types for waterfowl and coot hunting to undergo rigorous testing in a three-tier approval process that involves an ecological risk assessment and an evaluation of the candidate shot’s physical and chemical characteristics, short- and long-term impacts on reproduction in waterbirds, and potential toxic impacts on invertebrates (50 CFR 20.134). Because of this rigorous testing, the shot toxicity issue of the past is substantially less of an ecological concern. However, there remains a concern about the effects of the bioavailability of spent lead ammunition (bullets) and sinkers on the environment, endangered and threatened species, birds, humans and other mammals, and other fish and wildlife susceptible to biomagnification. The refuge requires all migratory bird and small game hunters using shotguns to use non-toxic ammunition.

Anticipated Impacts

Alternative A: Current Management, No Action Alternative Waterfowl (Duck, Geese, Coot):



Dove:

Estimated Hunter Numbers: <10


Ducks, geese, coot, and mourning doves are presently hunted on the refuge. Mississippi currently has three hunting seasons for doves (MDFWP 2020) one during the month of September, the second from mid-October to early November, and the last in December and January. Harvest numbers on the refuge will be low and should not be significant, relative to what occurs in the region and State. Dove hunting on the refuge is not expected to result in any noticeable changes in the regional or local dove populations due to the abundance of doves. Hunting is not expected to adversely affect migratory game bird populations that occur on the refuge. The Service works closely with state and provincial governments, as well as with the public, in a joint effort to establish annual hunting regulations for migratory birds. The Service's Division of Migratory Birds establishes regulation frameworks to manage all migratory bird hunting in the United States. These regulations establish limitations by which States can then create season lengths, bag limits and areas of migratory bird hunting. Regulations on migratory bird hunting are determined through the assessment of annual surveys, waterfowl banding data, and hunter harvest data. Survey data is obtained through aerial surveys of the North American Flyways, which count birds, ponds and nests, and provide information for analyzing population and habitat conditions. Hunter surveys and questionnaires determine the number of hunters participating yearly and the impacts they have on waterfowl.


Recommendations from the Flyway Council are considered when original rules are created. Rules are presented to the public through the Federal Register and followed by a series of public meetings for any recommendations. The final regulations are assessed based on a collective analysis of all factual information as well as council and public recommendations. The 2019 Trends in Duck Breeding Populations estimated overall duck populations at 39 million breeding ducks (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2019). This estimate was 6% lower than the 2018 estimate, but 19% higher than the long-term average. During the 2017-2018 hunting season, over 12 million ducks were harvested in the United States by over one million hunters. There were about 12,000 active duck hunters harvesting about 149,000 ducks in Mississippi in 2018 (Raftovich et al. 2019), which equates to 12.41 ducks/hunter/season (Fronczak 2019). The limited number of active duck hunters in MS reduces the chances of an impact on the duck populations migrating through the Mississippi Flyway. To additionally limit impacts, morning only hunting for waterfowl will be instituted which will provide sanctuary conditions for waterfowl throughout the refuge for approximately 18 hours each day.

Alternative B: Proposed Action Alternative Waterfowl (Duck, Geese, Coot):



Dove:



Same as Alternative A and including white-winged dove, which will align with the species of take for the State.

Hunting white-winged doves on the refuge is not anticipated to negatively impact the population. An estimated 60,000 Mississippi hunters harvest approximately 1 million doves (Flesher 2018) and during the 2017-2018 dove season, the State of Mississippi harvested approximately 2,500 white-winged doves (Raftovich et al. 2019).

Hunting white-winged doves on the refuge is not anticipated to negatively impact the population. The State of Alabama harvests over 1 million doves annually (McFadyen 2019). During the 2017-2018 Alabama dove season, approximately 8,300 white-winged doves were harvested (Raftovich et al. 2019).

Incidental Take Species (Feral Hog, Coyote, Nutria)

Affected Environment Description Feral hogs are not native to the Americas. They were first introduced to the United States in the 1500s by the Spanish explorer Hernando DeSoto, who traveled extensively throughout the


Southeast. The feral hogs we know today are descendants from domestic pigs of that period. The Service and the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks both classify feral swine as a nuisance species. Some of the largest concentrations of feral swine in Mississippi exist on public lands, which are often located around sensitive habitats including streams, rivers, and swamps. Feral hogs in Mississippi are known to carry diseases such as brucellosis, trichinosis (Davidson and Nettles 2009), and pseudorabies (Stallknecht and Little 2009). Rooting, wallowing, and other feeding activities of feral swine cause serious erosion to levees, riverbanks, and other riparian areas throughout the Complex. Ecological damage is difficult to quantify; however, significant evidence exists to suggest the extensive damage to soil stability, plant communities, and native wildlife within the Refuge. Feral swine compete for food and cover resources with native wildlife ranging from ground-nesting birds, to herpetofauna, to hardier species like deer. Feral hogs interfere with the management of habitat for the Refuges’ establishing purposes, they threaten the integrity of Refuge infrastructure, and they impact surrounding private agricultural lands. Nutria are native to South America, nutria are an introduced and invasive semi-aquatic rodent which can cause significant damages to wetlands, as they are known to destroy vegetation and burrow into levees and other infrastructure. Nutria reproduce at rapid rates with a female nutria producing on average five but as many as thirteen young per litter. A female can breed again within two days after giving birth, meaning one nutria can have up to three litters per year. Nutria can be difficult to control because they prefer marshy habitats where they can easily hide in vegetation and burrows. Coyotes have expanded their range into the eastern United States. Several studies indicate that coyotes are the highest source of natural mortality of neonate white-tailed deer. (Robinson et. al. 2014) Research has shown that control of coyote populations can increase the abundance of species such as rodents, rabbits, badges, bobcats, and fox (Henke and Bryant, 1999).

Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description Feral hogs are present on Grand Bay NWR and the refuge uses hunting as one management tool to assist in control of the population. However, research suggests that hunters will not be able to harvest sufficient numbers of animals on a sustained basis to reduce populations of feral swine populations may not be reduced because they are so prolific. Populations may need to be reduced by 70% annually just to maintain a stable population size. Increasing feral swine populations negatively impact native plant communities, wildlife, and agriculture. It is expected that hunting could have an impact on feral hogs at the beginning of establishment by helping to eradicate the invasive species. Conversely, once established, it is expected that the impacts to the local population would be negligible due to their prolific reproduction. Therefore, feral hogs will not be regarded as a game species on Grand Bay NWR and control measures will be implemented to eradicate this invasive species. Additionally, they can serve as vectors for a number of infectious viral and bacterial diseases which can be transferred to wildlife, livestock, and humans (Centner and Shuman, 2015). Coyotes Coyotes are present on Grand Bay NWR and before 1965, coyotes did not live in the southern states east of the Mississippi River. However, over the last 40 years, the coyote population has expanded rapidly for several reasons, including loss of larger carnivores such as red wolves and


cougar, the introduction of coyotes to the area by humans, reduced trapping in the West and widespread timber harvesting. The coyote is a highly opportunistic carnivore and will adjust its diet and behaviors to take advantage of the most available prey. In urban settings, that “prey” may include small dogs or cats, birds and rodents, unpicked fruits and vegetables from the garden or even the contents of trash cans. When coyotes are a confirmed problem where you live, trapping, exclusion and shooting are common control options. In Mississippi, coyotes may be shot any time of the year by landowners on their own property (Denny 2014). Coyote take on the refuge is anticipated to be minimal. Nutria Nutria are present on the refuge. Nutria were introduced to the US from the South America fur industry from 1899-1930s. Some alarming facts about nutria: they breed year-round; they can breed again 2 days after giving birth; they have a small home range (6-14 acres), so habitat damage is very localized; nutria have a voracious appetite and consume half of their body weight daily through wetland plants and roots consumption, thereby disrupting native plant communities and ecosystems; the burrowing habits of nutria damages flood-control levees that protect low lying areas and water retaining levees used in agriculture (Ross 2020). To put this in perspective, nutria are now considered one of the most ecologically harmful invasive species on the planet (Ross 2020). Here is some compelling evidence to explain why; 20 nutria brought to Louisiana in the1930s bred an estimated 20 million animals within two decades, according to a wildlife group in Maryland that tracks nutria data. Nutria became especially damaging to the marshland ecology in the Mississippi Delta following Hurricanes Rita and Katrina (Stevens Institute of Technology 2008). Nutria take on the refuge is anticipated to be low.

Anticipated Impacts

Alternative A: Current Management: No Action Alternative Feral Hog: Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 50


The incidental take of feral hogs is only allowed when hunters are engaged in the Refuge archery deer hunt. Feral hogs will not be harvested during any other refuge hunt. This will allow hunters to assist the refuge in reducing feral hog populations. Coyote: Coyote are not presently hunted on the refuge. Nutria: Nutria are not presently hunted on the refuge.

Alternative B: Proposed Action Alternative Feral Hogs:

Same as Alternate A.

Coyote:


Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 100 Estimated Take: < 15

Coyotes have expanded their range into the eastern United States and over the last 40 years, the coyote population has expanded in Mississippi (Denny 2014). Therefore, the coyote population is not anticipated to be eliminated due to the incidental take of individuals but this action might reduce the number of coyote on the refuge slightly. Several studies indicate that coyotes are the highest source of natural mortality of neonate white-tailed deer. (Robinson et. al. 2014) Research has shown that control of coyote populations can increase the abundance of species such as rodents, rabbits, badges, bobcats, and fox (Henke and Bryant, 1999). Nutria:

Estimated Hunter Numbers: <5 Estimated Take: < 10

Nutria are considered a non-native nuisance species in Mississippi. Control of nutria populations on the refuge is necessary to preserve the integrity of marshes and associated plant communities. Populations of nutria are not likely to be eliminated through the incidental take of individuals, but this action may help reduce nutria slightly.

Fishing

Affected Environment Description Fishing is one of the Big-6 public use activities within the National Wildlife Refuge System. Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge has a boat launch at Bayou Heron Road boat ramp.

Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description Of the five Gulf states, Mississippi has the shortest coastline while offering sport fishing opportunities and species diversity. Coastal Mississippi, including the refuge, consists of bays, river deltas, coastal marshes, tidal creeks, and barrier islands, miles off the coastline. This area provides tremendous habitat for speckled trout (or spotted seatrout), red and black drum, sheepshead, and flounder. This area also has many public boat launches to access favorite fishing spots. Fishing is also permitted on the coastal Alabama portion of the refuge and anglers can expect similar habitat types and fish species as on the Mississippi side of refuge. The proposed action would have minimal effect on the impacts on the environment from other opportunities locally, primarily due to the small footprint of the proposed location. Neither Mississippi nor Alabama have a prohibition on the use of lead tackle for fishing; however, the refuge uses an adaptive management approach for its hunt/fish programs, and the refuge can adjust activities to ensure it does not contribute to any cumulative impacts to fish,


wildlife and ecosystems on the refuge. When anglers launch a watercraft from the boat launch at Grand Bay NWR, they are launching directly into the state waters (marine) of the State of Mississippi or Alabama, which falls within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Marine Patrol of the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR), which provides law enforcement of federal laws in both state and federal waters. MDMR is also charged with the protection of marine life (https://dmr.ms.gov/marine-patrol/ 2020). Decisions, regarding the safety or long-term welfare of marine resources, would be made by the MDMR or at the state level.

Anticipated Impacts

Alternative A: Current Management: No Action Alternative Under this Alternative, anglers could still launch boats at the refuge from Bayou Heron Road boat ramp into the State waters; however, fishing from the refuge-fishing pier would be prohibited. Alternative B: Proposed Action Alternative The legal take of fish species would be in accordance with state saltwater fishing regulations. Any adverse effects on fish populations are expected to be negligible, since refuge water bodies are a fish corridor into the Mississippi Sound and on into Gulf of Mexico. All MS inshore saltwater game fish species are considered sufficiently numerous to allow their take according to regulation. Possible beneficial effects include the sale of State fishing licenses, which are used to further management efforts aimed at keeping fishable populations at sustainable levels, and allow more people to get outdoors and enjoy nature.

Anglers fishing at the Bayou Heron Road fishing pier are most likely to encounter wildlife such as birds, crabs, fish and turtles, but these encounters are not expected to negatively impact these fauna unless they are intentionally harassed by humans. Refuge brochures and other outreach information would be used to mitigate negative impacts to wildlife and the environment. Fishing may result in trash being left in the environment, if users do not follow posted rules and respect the natural environment. Such trash could negatively impact wildlife (e.g., wildlife entanglement in fishing line). Occasionally, anglers may hook turtles, alligators or other species as accidental by-catch. The greatest potential risk to wildlife and aquatic species posed by fishing is discarded fishing line and other fishing litter. With the exception of fishing line entanglement, hook injuries, and increases in litter, overall disturbance to wildlife on the Refuge by anglers and other users is expected to be similar to that caused by public users at the existing public hiking trails.

Non-Target Wildlife and Aquatic Species

Affected Environment Description The diversity of aquatic and terrestrial habitats supports a variety of resident and migratory wildlife species. More than 200 species of birds have been observed on the Refuge (Woodrey and Walker 2011). There are approximately 50 species of mammals and 32 species of reptiles and 24 species of amphibians that likely occur within the refuge, based on documented

https://dmr.ms.gov/marine-patrol/



sightings and the expected presence from natural distribution ranges overlapping the Refuge (USFWS 2008b) The refuge was established to protect savanna habitat and this habitat, and adjacent habitats, support many species of wildlife, fish and plants. The refuge serves as an important wintering ground for significant concentrations of migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, herons, egrets, rails, gulls, terns, and other waterbirds (USFWS 2008b).

Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description There is a concern about the effects of the bioavailability of spent lead ammunition (bullets) and sinkers on the environment, endangered and threatened species, birds (especially raptors), humans and other mammals, and other fish and wildlife susceptible to biomagnification. Lead shot and bullet fragments found in animal carcasses and gut piles are the most likely source of lead exposure (Kelly et al. 2011). Many hunters do not realize that the carcass or gut pile they leave in the field usually contains lead bullet fragments. Research continues on the effects of lead ammunition and the fragments it can deposit in killed game. Avian predators and scavengers can be susceptible to lead poisoning when they ingest lead fragments or pellets in the tissues of animals killed or wounded by lead ammunition. Lead poison may weaken raptors and increase mortality rate by leaving them unable to hunt or more susceptible to vehicles or power line accidents (Kramer and Redig 1997). In a study of bald eagles and golden eagles admitted to the Raptor Rehabilitation Program at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Washington State University from 1991 to 2008, it was found that 48% of bald eagles and 62% of golden eagles tested had blood lead levels considered toxic by current standards. Of the bald and golden eagles with toxic lead levels, 91% (bald) and 58% (golden) were admitted to the rehabilitation facility after the end of the general deer and elk hunting seasons in December (Stauber 2010). Additionally, recent studies have found that wildlife hunted with lead ammunition can increase risks to human health due to the ingestion of lead (Hunt et. al 2009). While no lead poisoning of humans has been documented from ingestion of wild game, some experts, including the Center for Disease Control, have recommended the use of non-toxic bullets when hunting to avoid lead exposure and caution that pregnant women and children under 6 should not consume wild-game shot with lead ammunition. (Streater 2009). This recommendation comes after a study done in North Dakota found that those who ate wild game had significantly higher levels of lead in their blood than those who did not (Iqbal et. al 2009).

Anticipated Impacts

Alternative A: Current Management: No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative hunting at current levels would still occur and the impacts to non-target terrestrial wildlife and aquatic species will be similar to past conditions. Alternative B: Proposed Action Alternative Increased hunting opportunities may result in additional short-term disturbance to wildlife over


a larger area and for a longer period. This includes temporary displacement of migratory and resident wildlife from vehicle, boat and foot traffic moving through the area, as well as disturbance resulting from the discharge of firearms. Disturbances of these types are minimal and result in little if any effects to the population levels of non-game wildlife. To balance hunting opportunities wildlife management goals, the refuge has interior and isolated wetland areas that provide habitat for wildlife displaced by hunting and other public use activities. These areas are surrounded by impenetrable habitat and wildlife are rarely disturbed in these areas. Regarding waterfowl and other game animals pursued with shotgun, non-toxic shot requirements for hunters using shotguns will prevent waterfowl and other wildlife from being exposed to lead shot. Reduction in habitat damage and direct food competition from invasive species (feral hogs and nutria) will have positive impacts on migratory waterfowl and other native wildlife. The active breeding season for most birds (with the exception of winter breeding raptors) is within April-July. Breeding raptors (e.g. bald eagles) may initiate nesting during periods of hunting activity. To mitigate this possible conflict, during the active breeding season, hunters will be instructed stay at least 600 feet from known active bald eagle nest.

Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Special Status Species

Affected Environment Description The Refuge reached out to the Mississippi and Alabama Ecological Services Field Offices to request a list of Endangered, Threatened, proposed threatened, or candidate species for consultation. Of the 18 species of animals and plants sent to the Refuge, there were 9 that were Listed in both Mississippi/Alabama, 16 species for Mississippi, and 11 for Alabama. None of listed species yielded records for living on the Refuge (Appendix C). Five species listed under the Endangered Species Act: Mississippi sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pulla), dusky gopher frog (Rana sevosa)(MS only), Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis)(MS only), Alabama red-bellied turtle (Pseudemys alabamensis) (MS only), Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus) (AL only), and Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi) (AL only) Twelve species are listed as Threatened: wood stork (Mycteria americana), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), red knot (Calidris cantus rufa), yellow-blotched map turtle (Gapyemys flavimaculata) (MS only), gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), eastern black rail ( Laterallus jamaicensis), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), and green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas). One species of special concern on the Mississippi side of the refuge include saltmarsh topminnow (Fundulus jenkinsi).

Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description Addressing uncertainty in the environment is critical to being able to anticipate and adapt to


changes that may occur in the environment. For the DOI this will be reflected in how we manage access and exploitation of natural resources, protect and conserve our natural heritage, and provide for the conservation of the environment for future generations while avoiding undue restrictions on the current generation. The US Geological Survey (USGS) as the science advisory body for the Department of the Interior (DOI) will characterize the ranges of possible future change trajectories will provide guidance on how to estimate potential ecosystem impacts, support resource management, assist in hazards characterization and mitigation, and assist land use planning. (Reilly, 2019). There is a concern about the effects of the bioavailability of spent lead ammunition (bullets) and sinkers on the environment, endangered and threatened species, birds (especially raptors), humans and other mammals, and other fish and wildlife susceptible to biomagnification. Lead shot and bullet fragments found in animal carcasses and gut piles are the most likely source of lead exposure (Kelly et al. 2011). Many hunters do not realize that the carcass or gut pile they leave in the field usually contains lead bullet fragments. Research continues on the effects of lead ammunition and the fragments it can deposit in killed game. Avian predators and scavengers can be susceptible to lead poisoning when they ingest lead fragments or pellets in the tissues of animals killed or wounded by lead ammunition. Lead poison may weaken raptors and increase mortality rate by leaving them unable to hunt or more susceptible to vehicles or power line accidents (Kramer and Redig 1997). In a study of bald eagles and golden eagles admitted to the Raptor Rehabilitation Program at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Washington State University from 1991 to 2008, it was found that 48% of bald eagles and 62% of golden eagles tested had blood lead levels considered toxic by current standards. Of the bald and golden eagles with toxic lead levels, 91% (bald) and 58% (golden) were admitted to the rehabilitation facility after the end of the general deer and elk hunting seasons in December (Stauber 2010). Additionally, recent studies have found that wildlife hunted with lead ammunition can increase risks to human health due to the ingestion of lead (Hunt et. al 2009). While no lead poisoning of humans has been documented from ingestion of wild game, some experts, including the Center for Disease Control, have recommended the use of non-toxic bullets when hunting to avoid lead exposure and caution that pregnant women and children under 6 should not consume wild-game shot with lead ammunition. (Streater 2009). This recommendation comes after a study done in North Dakota found that those who ate wild game had significantly higher levels of lead in their blood than those who did not (Iqbal et. al 2009).

Anticipated Impacts

Alternative A Previous Section 7 consultations occurred for the existing hunt programs on the refuge, finding that the hunt programs would have no effect or would be not likely to adversely affect threatened and endangered species. Under Alternative A, impacts to threatened, endangered, and other special status species would be expected to be neutral with anticipated impacts of no effect or not likely to adversely affect. While managed hunting and fishing opportunities can


result in both short- and long-term impacts to individual animals, effects at the population level would be expected to be negligible under Alternative A.

Alternative B: A draft Section 7 Intra-Service Consultation was developed during this planning process with draft determinations that the Proposed Action would have no effect or would be not likely to adversely affect threatened and endangered species. As with Alternative A, under Alternative B, impacts to threatened, endangered, and other special status species would be expected to be neutral with anticipated impacts of no effect or not likely to adversely affect. As with Alternative A, while managed hunting and fishing opportunities can result in both short- and long-term impacts to individual animals, effects at the population level would be expected to be negligible under Alternative B. Efforts to minimize impacts are summarized below. Mississippi sandhill crane- Project is no anticipated to impact this species nor critical habitat. This species has not been observed on the refuge since 2007. Wood stork: Individuals would be expected to avoid humans. Provide educational materials to hunters regarding avoidance measures for species. If wood stork are encountered, cease all activities and allow the bird sufficient time to move away from the site without interference. Protect any identified nesting areas from disturbance. Piping plover and red knot: Species are winter migrants and not commonly found in action area. Individuals are seldom seen on mainland in action area. Minimal disturbance anticipated, since species primarily found on barrier islands and not in action area. Provide educational materials (website, print, and/or signage) regarding species and avoidance measures. Provide standard avoidance buffer (50-100 feet) around shore birds in action area. Avoid disturbing bay-side sand and mud flats to the maximum extent practicable. Avoid impacts to dune systems, both vegetated and non-vegetated, including trampling any dune vegetation Yellow-blotched map turtle: Project is not anticipated to impact species nor its habitat. Not present where hunting/fishing activities will occur. Gopher tortoise: Individuals may be encountered by hunters, but foot traffic only, and minimal disturbance expected. Individuals may be stressed upon incidental encounter. Provide educational materials to hunters regarding avoidance measures for species and burrows. No motorized vehicles in gopher tortoise habitat or known gopher tortoise occupied areas. Black rail: Project is not anticipated to impact species nor its habitat. Primarily found in areas where hunting and fishing would not directly impact species. Atlantic sturgeon: Project is not anticipated to impact species nor its habitat. Benthic feeders where common fishing methods not likely to take species. Historic recreational and commercial fishing has occurred near action area with no known take on species. If incidental encounter occurs, harassment prohibited. Allow sturgeon to leave area, and after 30 minutes have passed


without additional sightings of sturgeon in the area, fishing can resume. If an Atlantic sturgeon is sighted outside of, but near to the fishing area, all vessels associated with the project should operate at “no wake/idle” speeds within the action area; and at all times while in waters where the draft of the vessel provides less than a 4-foot clearance from the bottom. Vessels should follow routes of deep water whenever possible. Signs concerning Atlantic sturgeon will be posted at boat launches. Saltmarsh topminnow: Project is not anticipated to impact species nor its habitat. Species not typically found in areas where disturbance may occur. West Indian manatee: Manatees may be stressed by human disturbance, harmed, or killed by boat collisions in action area. Provide awareness and educational materials (website, print, and/or signage) regarding species and avoidance measures, particularly precautionary measures to avoid boat collisions. If a manatee is spotted within a 50-foot radius (buffer zone) of the fishing area, all vessel operation must cease. Manatees must not be herded or harassed into leaving the fishing area. Once the manatee has left the buffer zone on its own accord, and after 30 minutes have passed without additional sightings of manatee(s) in the buffer zone, fishing can resume under careful observation for manatee(s). If a manatee(s) is sighted outside of, but near to the fishing area, all vessels associated with the project should operate at “no wake/idle” speeds within the action area; and at all times while in waters where the draft of the vessel provides less than a 4-foot clearance from the bottom. Vessels should follow routes of deep water whenever possible. Signs concerning manatees will be posted at boat launches. Dusky gopher frog, Louisiana quillwort, Alabama red-bellied turtle: No impacts anticipated. Sea turtles (Loggerhead and Green): Typically not found in action area. Provide educational materials to hunters regarding avoidance measures for species. Kemp’s ridley sea turtle: Could be found in action and there could be incidental catch by anglers which could lead to stress and/or mortality. Provide educational materials to hunters regarding avoidance measures for species. Eastern indigo snake and black pine snake: Project is not anticipated to impact these species. Ensure that all hunters/anglers are aware of the refuge’s no-kill policy for all snakes.

Habitat and Vegetation (including vegetation of special management concern)

Affected Environment Description Mississippi’s wet pine savannas are not associated with riverine floodplains, but are found on broad coastal flats and sloping plains with more than 60 inches of rainfall annually. They remain saturated for long periods during the growing season. The coastal region receives ample growing season rainfall from frequent convective thunderstorms, which results in the surface horizon remaining saturated for extended periods because of the slow permeability of the area’s subsoils. Stands of wet savanna in good condition have a herbaceous ground cover that is exceptionally diverse. While plentiful rainfall and sunlight create ideal growing conditions, a


lack of soil nutrients prevents any one species or suite of species from dominating. Of more than 200 understory plant species, two-thirds are grasses and one-third consists of forbs and ferns. Prominent groups of herbs include grasses, asters, sedges, pipeworts, pitcher plants, and lilies. Common grasses include beak sedge, toothache grass, switchgrass, and three-awn. Forbs include rayless goldenrod, one flowered honeycomb head, sunflowers, pitcher plants, meadow beauties, sundews, and orchids (USFWS 2008b).

Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description Other than, for invasive species where control and elimination are the target, hunting programs are designed to be sustainable. The Service and adjacent conservation land managers would continue conservation management activities to continue to protect and manage habitats and vegetation on the refuge. While habitats and vegetation on the refuge would be expected to continue to be impacted by outside factors, including human population increases and associated development patterns, climate change, and invasive species, the Service is unaware of any other adverse environmental trends or planned actions that would adversely impact habitat and vegetation.

Anticipated Impacts

Alternative A: Current Management: No Action Alternative Impacts to vegetation would be similar to existing effects as hunting seasons and dates are consistent with current visitation on the Refuge. Alternative B: Proposed Action Alternative Some minor effects expected to vegetation from trampling, because of the increased number of users and days of use expected. Impacts are not anticipated to be significant and/or wide-spread; however, refuge staff will monitor refuge for impacts from increased public use and dispersion. Bank fishing would cause minimal impacts to vegetation.

Geology and Soils

Affected Environment Description Located in the Gulf Coastal plain close to the ocean, the refuge is characterized by flat topography and a low elevation just a few feet above mean sea level. The Mississippi-Alabama-Florida panhandle coasts result from a history of low-to-moderate sediment supply, with the primary sediment sources being the Mobile, Pascagoula, Pearl and Mississippi rivers (Kindinger et al., 2004, as cited in USFWS 2008b). Flat, weakly dissected alluvial plains and active coastlines predominate in this region. Quaternary geology and soils are typically Pliocene-Pleistocene sandy clay residuum. The geologic units comprising the surface of Mississippi’s coastal counties range in age from the late Pliocene Epoch (3.4 million years ago) to the present (Schmid and Otvos 2005, as cited in USFWS 2008b). The oldest exposed unit in the area is the Citronelle Formation. This unit, which consists mostly of sand and silt, with some gravel, was deposited in coalescing river floodplains on the broad coastal plain from southern Louisiana to Florida. Following the Pliocene, coastal sediments during the Pleistocene Epoch (1.6 million to 10,000 years ago) were related to warm interglacial and cooler glacial periods. Sea level during the Sangamoninter glaciation rose as high as 20–25 feet above the present. The Pleistocene


surface formations of this period include the fluvial Prairie deposits that formed level floodplains and the ridge-forming Gulfport coastal barrier formations. They are preceded and underlain by the muddy-sandy, fossil-rich Biloxi Formation, deposited in nearshore Gulf, bay, and lagoonal settings. The Gulfport Formation formed a wide belt of beach ridges representing a Sangamon-age Gulf shoreline; it includes fine- to medium grained sand and is often stained with humate, a dark brown to black organic-rich amorphous matter that formed after deposition and impregnated the lower Gulfport sand intervals. In the Holocene Epoch of the last ten thousand years the sea level has continued to rise from its very low late-glacial stand about twenty thousand years ago. This rise gradually drowned coastal river valleys and prevented coarse stream sediments from directly reaching the coast. Holocene sediments fill coastal estuaries and have built up locally wide marshlands, rich in organic matter. These deposits consist mostly of sandy fine-grained silts and clays with significant organic material (Schmid and Otvos 2005, as cited in USFWS 2008b). The geologic units comprising the surface of Mississippi’s coastal counties range in age from the late Pliocene Epoch (3.4 million years ago) to the present (Schmid and Otvos 2005, as cited in USFWS 2008b). The oldest exposed unit in the area is the Citronelle Formation. This unit, which consists mostly of sand and silt, with some gravel, was deposited in coalescing river floodplains on the broad coastal plain from southern Louisiana to Florida. Following the Pliocene, coastal sediments during the Pleistocene Epoch (1.6 million to 10,000years ago) were related to warm interglacial and cooler glacial periods. Sea level during the Sangamon interglaciation rose as high as 20–25 feet above the present. The Pleistocene surface formations of this period include the fluvial Prairie deposits that formed level floodplains and the ridge-forming Gulfport coastal barrier formations. They are preceded and underlain by the muddy-sandy, fossil-rich Biloxi Formation, deposited in nearshore Gulf, bay, and lagoonal settings. The Gulfport Formation formed a wide belt of beach ridges representing a Sangamon-age Gulf shoreline; it includes fine- to medium grained sand and is often stained with humate, a dark brown to black organic-rich amorphous matter that formed after deposition and impregnated the lower Gulfport sand intervals. In the Holocene Epoch of the last ten thousand years the sea level has continued to rise from its very low late-glacial stand about twenty thousand years ago. This rise gradually drowned coastal river valleys and prevented coarse stream sediments from directly reaching the coast. Holocene sediments fill coastal estuaries and have built up locally wide marshlands, rich in organic matter. These deposits consist mostly of sandy fine-grained silts and clays with significant organic material (Schmid and Otvos 2005, as cited in USFWS 2008b). Soils are Ultisols of wet areas that have clayey horizons frequently impervious to groundwater percolation (Clewell and Raymond 1995, as cited in USFWS 2008b). These soils tend to be strongly acidic and infertile. The dominant soil types and series (with recent soil classification) on the refuge are the following:

• Loamy sands: Scranton, Klej, Plummer • Very fine sandy loams: Lynchburg (Harleston) • Loams: Rains (Atmore), Goldsboro (Harleston)


• Silt-loams: Bayboro (Hyde) • Undefined series supporting swamps and tidal marshes: (Croatan)

Slightly elevated ridges on the refuge are characterized by nonhydric (non-saturated, well oxygenated) soils that support mesic pine savanna habitat. On the other hand, hydric soils—more poorly drained than the mesic savannas, with long periods (days or weeks) of soil saturation, and generally wet at surface—support wet pine savanna.

Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Descriptions The Service is unaware of any other environmental trends or planned actions that would adversely impact geology or soils.

Anticipated Impacts Alternative A: Current Management: No Action Alternative Disturbance to vegetation, water, or soils could occur while hunters are accessing hunt sites or scouting on foot. Potential impacts include soil compaction, soil erosion, and changes in hydrology from hiking on and off trail (Kuss 1986, Roovers et al. 2004). Impacts to soils would be similar to existing effects as hunting seasons and dates are consistent with current visitation on the Refuge. Alternative B: Proposed Action Alternative Disturbance to vegetation, water, or soils could occur while hunters are accessing hunt sites or scouting on foot. Potential impacts include soil compaction, soil erosion, and changes in hydrology from hiking on and off trail (Kuss 1986, Roovers et al. 2004). Impacts to soils would be similar to existing effects as hunting seasons and dates are consistent with current visitation on the Refuge.


TABLE 3. AFFECTED VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

Visitor Use and Experiences

Affected Environment Description The Refuge is open to all six priority wildlife dependent public uses – hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Annual visitation at the refuge was estimated at 7,600 in 2019, with the top activities being wildlife observation and photography. Hunting accounted for approximately 11 percent of all refuge visits. In an effort to minimize conflicts with priority non-hunting recreational uses outlined in the Improvement Act, and for public safety, the Refuge designates areas open to hunting and enforces Refuge-specific regulations. Areas administratively closed to hunting are clearly marked with “No Hunting Zone” or “Area Beyond This Sign Closed” signs and/or illustrated in the Refuge hunting brochure map. Overall, hunting impacts to visitor services/recreation opportunities are considered short-term, minor and local. Past conflicts have been minimal and we anticipate future conflicts to be about the same. Specific measures taken to avoid conflict with non-hunting Refuge visitors include the following. No hunting zones are established around the office, visitor center, nature trails, and boat launch/fishing pier area. Signs are posted at key refuge entry points notifying the public of permitted/type of access.

Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description Between 2019 and 2020, the population has decreased in Jackson County by 2.8%, (US Census Bureau 2020). This population decline is minimal. However, future population projections forecast a -2.9%-1.4% change in population for Jackson County by 2025, which could put stress upon the ecosystems of the local area, depending on whether the population increases or decreases. (https://www.census.gov/prod/2/pop/p25/p25-1131.pdf). Both through loss of remaining habitats, and fragmentation and degradation of intact remaining parcels of wildlife habitat and demands on water. Refuge management can do nothing to stem population growth or declines but refuges and other tracts of habitats will become even more important as repositories of biodiversity. Development and population growth are most likely to affect migratory birds and resident wildlife. The continuing loss and fragmentation of wetland habitat to development over time will negatively affect biodiversity.

Anticipated Impacts Alternative A: Current Management: No Action Alternative Under this alternative, current Refuge hunting opportunities would continue across the refuge. The refuge would continue to serve as habitat for fish and wildlife as well as provide outdoor recreational opportunities for all six priority wildlife dependent public uses – hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation. Opportunities to create additional outdoor recreation experiences by adding additional species would be lost.


Conflict between user groups would be negligible. In addition, the Refuge’s ability to connect with certain segments of the public would potentially be diminished since hunting for some popular game species would not be permitted. Hunters would pursue these species off-refuge. Alternative B: Proposed Action Alternative All other public uses on the refuge would not change and would continue to be managed as described in current plans. Visitor facilities including, nature trails, boardwalks and fishing pier are provided in areas closed to hunting to minimize conflict between different user groups. Overall, hunting impacts to visitor services or other recreation opportunities are considered short-term, minor and local since other parts of the refuge are available for use by non-hunters (other wildlife-dependent recreation users). Impacts between hunters and non-hunters are anticipated to be similar to the impacts between other user groups (i.e. like that between hikers and photographers) and will be negligible. With more hunting opportunities available under Alternative B the potential for conflict with other visitor groups increases slightly. The refuge will employ time and space zoning measures to separate the user groups and reduce the likelihood and impacts of the conflict. Signage will be utilized to inform non-hunting visitors of the presence of hunters.


TABLE 4. AFFECTED CULTURAL RESOURCES AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

Cultural Resources

Affected Environment Description Cultural Resources for Grand Bay is described in the 2008 CCP (USFWS 2008b).

Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description The Service is unaware of any other adverse environmental trends or planned actions that would adversely impact cultural resources.

Anticipated Impacts Alternative A&B: Neither of these alternatives will have impacts to cultural resources. No buildings or structures exist on-site listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Hunting and fishing is not expected to cause ground disturbance. Any activity that might cause an effect to a historic property will be subject to a case-by-case Section 106 review.

TABLE 5. AFFECTED REFUGE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

Land Use on the Refuge

Affected Environment Description The refuges provides valuable habitat for migratory birds as well as numerous species of resident mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. The predominant land uses are associated with refuge management actions that support the refuge’s mission for the conservation of wildlife and provide recreational opportunities. The refuge conducts an array of activities with wildlife, recreation, and habitat management. Efforts are made to balance competing demands for natural resources, wildlife, and the public. Refuge management has made significant progress in implementing planned activities over the years since establishment. Refuge planning and management are fluid endeavors and evolved over time, and dependent upon feedback and monitoring as well as changing values, needs, and priorities in wildlife management at the refuge, regional, and national scale.

Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description The Service is unaware of any other adverse environmental trends or planned actions that would adversely impact land use on the refuge.

Anticipated Impacts Alternative A: Current Management: No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the hunting activities will not change from the current


conditions. As hunting and fishing would not be expanded under this Alternative, the maintenance of roads and other facilities would be less due to fewer hunting trips. Alternative B: Proposed Action Alternative Increased hunter opportunities under Alternate B could increase the traffic on some Refuge roads and boat launch facilities, requiring more frequent maintenance. Hiking trail maintenance should be similar between Alternative A and B since the trails are located in areas that will not be influenced by the changes proposed in Alternative B. The impacts to the buildings on the Refuge should be negligible and similar under both alternatives since they are all located in no hunting zones for visitor and staff safety.

Administration

Affected Environment Description The costs of administering and enforcing the refuge’s hunting program comes out of the refuge’s annual budget. Expenses include program management, staff resources, boundary posting, signage, brochures, parking lot construction, facility maintenance, gate installation, and other hunting specific activities. Refuge law enforcement is the primary method necessary to ensure proper and safe administration of hunts at the refuge. Currently, there is one full-time Federal Wildlife Officer (FWO) for the refuge. Furthermore, MDWFP Conservation Officers provide additional law enforcement support. Annual upkeep includes road and parking lot maintenance, mowing, and spraying is necessary for the support of the refuge-hunting program. However, these activities are funded as part of the routine refuge maintenance activities. Approximately $1000 is required annually to print brochures and maintain signs.

Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description The Service is unaware of any environmental trends or planned actions that would adversely impact funding or staffing on the refuge.

Anticipated Impacts

Alternative A: Current Management: No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the hunting activities will not change from the current conditions. As hunting and fishing would not be expanded under this Alternative, the maintenance of roads and other facilities would be less due to fewer hunting trips.

Alternative B: Proposed Action Alternative A minor increase in annual Law Enforcement operation, Refuge management, and administrations is anticipated under Alternative B. Refuge law enforcement is the primary method necessary to ensure proper and safe administration of hunts at the refuge. Currently, there is one full-time Federal Wildlife Officer (FWO) for the refuge. Furthermore, MDWFP Conservation Officers provide additional law enforcement support. Hunters on the refuges are required to document harvest or no harvest of all game on the Daily User Visitor Card before exiting the refuges. Annual upkeep includes road, parking lot maintenance, mowing, and


TABLE 6. AFFECTED SOCIOECONOMICS AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

spraying is necessary for the support of the refuge hunting and fishing programs. However, these activities are funded as part of the routine refuge maintenance activities. Approximately $3,000 is required annually to print brochures and maintain signs.

Local and Regional Economies

Affected Environment Description The refuge contains abundant populations of fish and wildlife, including a number of game species. The opportunity for consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife dependent recreation attracts many members of the public to the refuge. The refuge receives about 7,000 visits annually. Hunting and fishing account for roughly 11 percent of public use on the refuge and are provided in accordance with federal, state, and refuge regulations (USFWS 2020). Jackson County is three times more densely populated than the State average (193 persons per square mile vs. 63 persons per square mile) and growing faster. In 2019, the county’s estimated population was 143,617, close to five percent of Mississippi’s population of 2,976,149. The county population grew by 2.8 percent from 2010 to 2019, compared to Mississippi’s 0.3 percent growth in the same nine years (U.S. Census Bureau 2019). Mississippi remains one of the most economically impoverished states in the nation. Mississippi’s overall poverty rate is 6.5% above the national average. Mississippi is among states with the lowest in weekly wages, per capita income, median household income, and in education (US Census Bureau 2018).

Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description The Service is unaware of any environmental trends or planned actions that would adversely impact local or regional economies.

Anticipated Impacts

Alternative A: Current Management: No Action Alternative Hunting of current allowed species would continue with similar visitation and expenditures. There would be no additional impact to the local economy beyond continued revenue generated from existing opportunities.

Alternative B: Proposed Action Alternative Since hunting already occurs and fishing would be opened, we anticipate a slight increase in visitation and expenditure for the additional species proposed. This will result in a small financial gain to the local economy.

Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires all federal agencies to incorporate


Monitoring The refuge will continue conducting annual monitoring of resident and migratory wildlife, fish, their habitats, and it will be done in conjunction with our State partners. The Service will maintain compliance with hunting regulations by dispatching Service and law enforcement officers to perform field checks. The law enforcement officers will assess habitat conditions and wildlife welfare while in the field. In addition, the station will stay appraised on the status of threatened and endangered species on the refuge through consultation and local monitoring.

environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations and communities

Affected Environment Description Minority or low-income populations are located within the two home counties of the refuge, Mobile County, AL and Jackson County, MS. Both counties have a higher percentage of families below the poverty line (15% and 12%, respectively) compared to the U.S. (10.1%) and Alabama (13%) averages (US Department of Commerce 2020). Compared to the 39% of the U.S. population and 34.3% of the Alabama population represented by minorities, Jackson county (32%) is more similar to the US overall, while Mobile county (43%) has a higher percentage than the U.S. population and State population. (US Department of Commerce 2020). The four counties within 25 miles of the refuge vary widely ranging between 9% and 17% of families below the poverty line and with minority populations ranging between 14% and 43% (US Department of Commerce 2020).

Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Description The Service is unaware of any environmental trends or planned actions that would adversely impact environmental justice on the refuge.

Anticipated Impacts

Alternative A and B: The Service has not identified any potential high and adverse environmental or human health impacts from this proposed action or any of the alternatives. Minority or low income communities will not be disproportionately affected by any impacts from this proposed action or any of the alternatives.


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

Alternative A – Current Management No Action Alternative: As described above, under this alternative, current refuge hunting opportunities for specific upland game, big game, and migratory bird species would continue and remain the same across those portions of the refuge. The refuge would continue to serve as habitat for fish and wildlife as well as provide outdoor recreational opportunities for all wildlife dependent public uses. Opportunities to create additional outdoor recreation experiences by adding additional species to hunt would be lost.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative: As described above, the species that are currently hunted on the refuge would continue to be allowed. The refuge would expand to allow new hunting of rabbit, white-winged dove, and the incidental take of nuisance and/or invasive species (coyote, nutria and feral hog), while engaged in any open refuge hunt, in the public hunting areas in accordance with or more restrictive than the laws of the States of Mississippi and Alabama. Hunt areas remain the same as previous plans. Conflicts with other recreational uses on the refuge are expected to be minor due to separation in time and space. As described above, this alternative also opens fishing on the refuge. This alternative helps meet the purpose and needs of the Service as described above, because it provides additional wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities on the refuge while also managing wildlife populations. The Service has determined that the proposed action is compatible with the purposes of the Grand Bay NWR and the mission of the NWRS. The Compatibility Determination can be found in the Draft Hunt Plan.

List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted Russ Walsh, Wildlife Chief of Staff, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks Keith Gauldin, Chief, Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

List of Preparers Danny Moss, Refuge Manager Laura Housh, Natural Resource Planner


State Coordination National Wildlife Refuges, including Grand Bay NWR, conduct hunting programs within the framework of state and federal regulations. All authorized hunts are at least as restrictive as the states of Mississippi and Alabama. By maintaining hunting regulations that are as, or more, restrictive than the state, individual refuges ensure that they are maintaining seasons which are supportive of management on a local and regional basis. The Refuge Manager has communicated with the Wildlife Chief of Staff –MDWFP and the Chief of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries –ADCNR, regarding hunt plan changes on at least one occasion (more possibly) prior to April 2020. The Refuge first reached out to the State of Mississippi in May of 2019 to discuss this Hunt Plan, the State’s Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Response Plan. Support was indicated for aligning the Refuge Hunt program with State seasons. In addition, it was recognized that Mississippi and Alabama will have the leads on any disease which affect resident wildlife and Grand Bay NWR will support the State in its’ prevention and surveillance efforts. Both Grand Bay NWR and the States will follow the guidance in the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Report on Best Management Practices for the Prevention, Surveillance, and Management of Chronic Wasting Disease and work jointly with MDWFP/ADCNR to implement the response plan for CWD or any other disease which surface in Mississippi or Alabama. . Established hunter training, hunter ethics, and hunter responsibilities help ensure hunters continue to use good judgment related to humaneness and animal welfare. Additionally, the Service sent letters regarding the development of the proposed Hunt Plan, compatibility, regulations, and EA to the states of Mississippi and Alabama on October 1, 2020. Refuge Manager will continue to coordinate with MDWFP/ADCNR to address annual implementation of hunting activities.

Tribal Consultation The Service sent scoping letters making notification and seeking input on October 1, 2020 to:

• Choctaw Nation • Jena Band of Choctaw Indians • Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians • Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana

Public Outreach Public input will be sought on the Grand Bay NWRs Draft Hunt/Fish Plans, EA, and Draft Hunt/Fish Compatibility Determination. The refuge circulates hunting and fishing information through social media, information bulletins, refuge visitor center/office, refuge staff, and hunt brochures distributed along the MS Gulf Coast, including the MS Welcome Centers. This information is also available on the refuge website: https://www.fws.gov/refuge/grand_bay/.


Determination This section will be filled out upon completion of any public comment period and at the time of finalization of the Environmental Assessment. ☐ The Service’s action will not result in a significant impact on the quality of the human

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

the Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

Signatures Submitted By:

Project Leader Signature Date:

Concurrence:

Regional Historic Preservation Officer Signature Date:

Concurrence:

Refuge Supervisor Signature Date:

Approved:

Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System Signature Date:


References Beasley, James C., S. Ditchoff, J. Mayer, M. Smith, K. Vercauteren. 2018. Research Priorities for Managing Invasive Wild Pigs in North America. The Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 84, No. 4 (Feb 2018), pp. 674-681.

Broom, Brian. 2017. Hunting in Decline According to National Survey. Clarion Ledger. 3 pp.

Centner, Terrence J and Rebecca M. Shuman. 2015. Governmental Provisions to Manage and Eradicate Feral Swine in Areas of the United States. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Vol. 44, No. 2 (March 2015), pp. 121-130.

Centner, Terrence J and Rebecca M. Shuman. 2015. Governmental Provisions to Manage and Eradicate Feral Swine in Areas of the United States. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Vol. 44, No. 2 (March 2015), pp. 121-130.

Christensen, Sonja A., Ruder, Mark A., William, David M., Porter, William F., Stallknecht, David E. 2020. The role of drought as a detriment of hemorrhagic disease. Global Change Biology: Volume 26, Issue 7.

Davidson, W. R., and V. F. Nettles, editors. 1997. Wild swine. Pages 104–133 in Field manual of wildlife diseases in the Southeastern United States. Second edition. Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, Athens, Georgia, USA. Denny, Maria D’ Abreau. 2014. Coyotes are Wily Predators and Pest. Extension Outdoors. Extension Service of Mississippi State University. Flesher, John. 2018. Harbinger of Fall: Dove season is a traditional indicator that autumn is approaching. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks News. Jackson, MS. Fronczak, David. 2019. Estimates of U.S. Harvest, Hunting Activity, and Success Derived From the State-Federal Cooperative Harvest Information Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird Management, Bloomington, MN Preliminary. Hamrick, Bill, D. Godwin, B. Strickland. 2020a. Ecology and Management of Rabbits in Mississippi. Publication 2467. Extension Service of Mississippi State University Retrieved September 8, 2020 http://extension.msstate.edu/publications/ecology-and-management-rabbits-mississippi. Hamrick, Bill, B. Strickland, D. Godwin. 2020b. Ecology and Management of Squirrels in Mississippi. Publication 2466. Extension Service of Mississippi State University. Retrieved September 8, 2020

http://extension.msstate.edu/publications/ecology-and-management-rabbits-mississippi



http://www.mdwfp.com/media/3988/ecology_of_squirrels.pdf. Henke, Scott E., Fred C. Bryant. 1999. Effects of Coyote Removal on the Faunal Community in Western Texas. The Journal of Wildlife Management Vol. 63, No. 4 (Oct. 1999), pp. 1066-1081. Hody, JW, R. Kays R. 2018. Mapping the expansion of coyotes (Canis latrans) across North and Central America. Zoo Keys 759: 81–97. Retrieved September 8, 2020 https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.759.15149. Hunt, K. M. 2012a. Trends in Resident and Non-resident Hunter Effort and Harvest for Rabbit in Mississippi: 1980-81 to 2010-11 Seasons. Human Dimensions and Conservation Law Enforcement Laboratory Technical Document # 133, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. Retrieved September 8, 2020 http://www.mdwfp.com/wildlife-hunting/rabbit-program/. Hunt, K. M. 2012b. Trends in Resident and Non-resident Hunter Effort and Harvest for Squirrel in Mississippi: 1980-81 to 2010-11 Seasons. Human Dimensions and Conservation Law Enforcement Laboratory Technical Document # 134, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. Retrieved September 8, 2020 http://www.mdwfp.com/wildlife-hunting/squirrel-program/. Kuss, F. R. 1986. A review of major factors influencing plant responses to recreation impacts. Environmental Management, 10:638-650. McFadyen, Chris. 2019. Bring on the birds – Dove hunting in Alabama. Business Alabama, Environment, Forestry, and Agriculture. Mobile, Alabama. McKinley, William T. 2017. Mississippi Outdoors: Mississippi’s Changing Deer Herd. Retrieved September 8, 2020 http://mdwfp.com/media/news/wildlife-hunting/mississippi-outdoors-mississippis-changing-deer-herd/. Mississippi Department of Marine Patrol. 2020. Marine Patrol Regulations Retrieved September 8, 2020 https://dmr.ms.gov/marine-patrol/. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. 2018. 2017-2018 Deer Program Report. 84 pp. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. 2018. The Evolution of Deer Management in Mississippi. 8 pp. Retrieved September 8, 2020 https://www.mdwfp.com/media/news/wildlife-hunting/the-evolution-of-deer-management-in-mississippi/. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. 2019. MDWFP Chronic Wasting Disease Surveillance and Management Report. 12 pp.

http://www.mdwfp.com/media/3988/ecology_of_squirrels.pdf

https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.759.15149

http://www.mdwfp.com/wildlife-hunting/rabbit-program/


http://www.mdwfp.com/wildlife-hunting/squirrel-program/

http://mdwfp.com/media/news/wildlife-hunting/mississippi-outdoors-mississippis-changing-deer-herd/

http://mdwfp.com/media/news/wildlife-hunting/mississippi-outdoors-mississippis-changing-deer-herd/


https://www.mdwfp.com/media/news/wildlife-hunting/the-evolution-of-deer-management-in-mississippi/

https://www.mdwfp.com/media/news/wildlife-hunting/the-evolution-of-deer-management-in-mississippi/


Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. 2020. Deer program. Retrieved September 8, 2020 http://www.mdwfp.com/wildlife-hunting/deer-program/. National Wilderness Institute. 1995. https://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf Raftovich, R.V., K.K. Fleming, S. C. Chandler, and C.M. Cain, 2019. Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 hunting seasons. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA. Reilly, J. United States Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 2019. Departmental Guidance Regarding Climate Change Models. Robinson, Kelly F., Duane R. Diefenbach, Angela K. Fuller, Jeremy E. Hurst, Christopher S. Rosenberry. 2014. Can managers compensate for coyote predation of white-tailed deer? The Journal of Wildlife Management 78(4) Ross, Rachel. 2020. Nutria: The Invasive Rodents of Unusual Size. Live Science. 12 pp. Retrieved September 8, 2020 https://www.livescience.com/nutria.html. Roovers, P., K. Verheyen, M. Hermy, and H. Gulinck. 2004. Experimental trampling and vegetation recovery in some forest and heathland communities. Applied Vegetation Science. Vol. 7 pp. 111-118. Seamans, M. E. 2019. Mourning dove population status, 2019. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Laurel, Maryland. 21 pp. Spencer, Randy 2020. Mississippi Wildlife Management Areas –Something for Everyone? MS Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks website: Retrieved September 8, 2020 https://www.mdwfp.com/wildlife-hunting/wma/mississippi-wildlife-management-areas-something-for-everyone/. Stallknecht, D. E., S. E. Little. 2009. Diseases and parasites of wild pigs. Pages 235-245 in Mayer, J.J., L. Brisbin Jr., editors. Wild pigs: Biology, damage, control techniques and management. SRNL-RP-2009-00869. Savannah River National Laboratory, Aiken, South Carolina, USA: in press. Stevens Institute of Technology. 2018. "Nutria, A Rat-like Pest Ravaging Gulf Coast Wetlands, Can Be Lured With New Substance." Science Daily. Retrieved September 8, 2020 www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080306094624.htm. U.S. Census Bureau (2018). American Community Survey 1-year estimates. Retrieved from Census Reporter Profile page for Jackson County, MS Retrieved September 8, 2020 http://censusreporter.org/profiles/05000US28059-jackson-county-ms/.

http://www.mdwfp.com/wildlife-hunting/deer-program/

https://www.livescience.com/nutria.html

https://www.mdwfp.com/wildlife-hunting/wma/mississippi-wildlife-management-areas-something-for-everyone/

https://www.mdwfp.com/wildlife-hunting/wma/mississippi-wildlife-management-areas-something-for-everyone/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080306094624.htm

http://censusreporter.org/profiles/05000US28059-jackson-county-ms/


US Census Bureau 2019. QuickFacts Jackson Co. MS. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/jacksoncountymississippi,MS/PST045219 US Census Bureau 2020. QuickFacts Jackson Co. MS. Retrieved September 8, 2020 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/jacksoncountymississippi. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2020. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Office, Washington, DC, as reported in Headwaters Economics’ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Socioeconomic Profile for Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area. Retrieved September 8, 2020 from https://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/usfws-indicators/. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. What Climate Change Means for Mississippi. Retrieved September 8, 2020 https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-ms.pdf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008a. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Waterfowl population status, 2019. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. USA. Published. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Refuge Annual Performance Plan. Atlanta, GA. Walters, Brian F.; Woodall, Christopher W.; Russell, Matthew B. 2016. White-tailed deer density estimates across the eastern United States, 2008. Retrieved from the Data Repository for the University of Minnesota, Retrieved September 8, 2020 http://dx.doi.org/10.13020/D6G014. West, B. C., A. L. Cooper, and J. B. Armstrong. 2009. Managing wild pigs: A technical guide. Human-Wildlife Interactions Monograph 1:1–55. Woodrey M. and J. Walker. 2011. Selected Birds of the Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve and Vicinity. Mississippi Department of Marine Resources. 124 pp. https://dmr.ms.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/bird-guide-reduced-size.pdf.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/jacksoncountymississippi

https://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/usfws-indicators/

https://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/usfws-indicators/

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-ms.pdf

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-ms.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.13020/D6G014

https://dmr.ms.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/bird-guide-reduced-size.pdf


Appendices


Appendix A. Other Applicable Statutes, Executive Orders, and Regulations Multiple other statutes, Executive Orders, and regulations apply; the most notable are included here. Cultural Resources

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act, as amended, 42 USC §§1996 – 1996a; 43 CFR Part 7 • Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 USC §§431-433; 43 CFR Part 3 • Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 USC §§470aa – 470mm; 18 CFR Part 1312; 32 CFR Part 229; 36 CFR Part 296; 43 CFR Part 7 • National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 USC §§470-470x-6; 36 CFR Parts 60, 63, 78, 79, 800, 801, and 810 • Paleontological Resources Protection Act, 16 USC §§470aaa – 470aaa-11 • Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 USC §§3001-3013; 43 CFR Part 10 • Executive Order 11593 – Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 36 Fed. Reg. 8921 (1971) • Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites, 61 Fed. Reg. 26771 (1996)

Fish and Wildlife

• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as amended, 16 USC §§668-668c, 50 CFR 22 • Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 USC §§1531-1544; 36 CFR Part 13; 50 CFR Parts 10, 17, 23, 81, 217, 222, 225, 402, and 450 • Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 USC §§742 a-m • Lacey Act, as amended, 16 USC §3371 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 10, 11, 12, 14, 300, and 904 • Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended, 16 USC §§703-712; 50 CFR Parts 10, 12, 20, and 21 • Executive Order 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, 66 Fed. Reg. 3853 (2001)

Natural Resources

• Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 USC §§7401-7671q; 40 CFR Parts 23, 50, 51, 52, 58, 60, 61, 82, and 93; 48 CFR Part 23 • Wilderness Act, 16 USC §1131 et seq. • Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 USC §1271 et seq. • Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species, 64 Fed. Reg. 6183 (1999)

Water Resources

• Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 USC §1451 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 923, 930, 933 • Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as Clean Water Act), 33 USC §1251 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 320-330; 40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 230-232, 323, and 328 • Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended, 33 USC §401 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 114, 115, 116, 321, 322, and 333 • Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 42 USC §300f et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 141-148 • Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management, 42 Fed. Reg. 26951 (1977) • Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands, 42 Fed. Reg. 26961 (1977)


Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations USE: Hunting (Big Game, Upland Game, Migratory Game Bird) REFUGE NAME: Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge DATE ESTABLISHED: 1992 ESTABLISHING and ACQUISITION AUTHORITY(IES): The refuge establishment and acquisition authorities for Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) are: 1. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901 (b), 100 Stat. 3583) 2. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1534) 3. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4), 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1)

REFUGE PURPOSE(S): The purposes for which Grand Bay NWR was established are:

“…the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions…” (16 USC 3901 (b), 100 Stat. 3583) and “… to conserve (A) fish and wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species… or (B) plants…” 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) and “… for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources…” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) “…for the benefit of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude…” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION:

“The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57).

DESCRIPTION OF USE: (a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use? Hunting is one of six priority public uses


of the Refuge System identified by the Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57), when found to be compatible. The use of public hunting of migratory game birds ( ducks, teal, geese, coots, and doves), upland game (squirrel and rabbit), big game (white-tailed deer) on Grand Bay NWR, as listed and in accordance with refuge-specific regulations, other federal regulations, and applicable state regulations. The use is an existing use on the refuge, which was previously approved with the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2008). This re-evaluation of the use includes continuing existing hunts; opening or expanding hunting opportunities for rabbit, white-winged dove, and the incidental take of feral hog during deer hunts, nutria and coyote while engaged in any open refuge hunt (USFWS 2020a). The Refuge has developed an Environmental Assessment of the proposed Hunt Plan which analyzes impacts of the program (USFWS 2020b) . All refuge hunts align with the season framework of the Mississippi Department of Wildlife and etc. (MDWFP) and Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR). Over 10,000 acres of refuge land are open to all hunting. (b) Where would the use be conducted? Grand Bay NWR encompasses 10,384 acres and 10,246 acres are opened to hunting. The area adjacent to the office/visitor center and the Oak Grove Birding trail are closed to hunting for visitor, staff, and volunteer safety. The closed areas are clearly marked with refuge area closure signs. There are several public access points, by land and water, to the Mississippi side of the refuge; conversely, there is very limited public access on the Alabama side of the refuge and the south and southeast corners provide marginal access, primarily by use of boat. To achieve the objectives set forth by this plan, on occasion, it may be necessary to deviate from state season structures, adjust bag limits or implement other restrictions. Determinations will be based on safety, public use levels, management actions, disease transmission, minimum viable populations, or wildlife disturbance. Adjustments will be made to ensure achievement of the primary goal of the National Wildlife Refuge System “Wildlife First.” However, hunting seasons and bag limits for the species listed will not be altered to be more liberal than those set by the MDWFP. Additionally, each future parcel of land acquired as part of Grand Bay NWR will be evaluated to determine if it is compatible to open for hunting. (c) When would the use be conducted? Refuge hunting would occur from early October through early March (see Table 2.). For all hunts, big game, upland game, waterfowl, migratory bird, and incidental/nuisance species take, the refuge is open from two hours before sunrise to two hours after sunset. Hunting seasons and methods of take are subject to regulations established by the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP), the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), and more restrictive refuge regulations, which are determined by wildlife/habitat objective and goals. Refer to annual state regulations for up-to-date season dates since they may change.


INCIDENTAL TAKE: Feral hog may only be taken incidental to the refuge archery deer hunt. Coyote and nutria maybe taken incidental to any refuge hunt with the legal weapon and ammunition for that hunt. (d) How would the use be conducted Refuge hunting is permitted in accordance with refuge-specific regulations and Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Annual Grand Bay NWR Public Use Brochure must be signed and in possession in order to hunt on the Refuge. See Table 2 for a comprehensive list of refuge species to hunt, seasons, bag limits, and specific state and refuge regulations. To achieve the objectives set forth by the draft Hunting and Fishing Plan (USFWS 2020a), on occasion, it may be necessary to deviate from state season structures, adjust bag limits or implement other restrictions. Determinations would be based on safety, public use levels, management actions, disease transmission, minimum viable populations, or wildlife disturbance. Adjustments would be made in coordination with the MDWFP and the ADCNR and would ensure achievement the National Wildlife Refuge System’s primary goals and objectives. (e) Why is the use being proposed Hunting is an existing use on Grand Bay NWR and was first determined compatible in 2008 and in the Grand Bay NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2008) The determination updates the compatibility assessment based on changes to the Refuge hunt program as described herein. This compatible determination considers hunting, which is one of the priority public uses outlined in the Refuge Improvement Act. The Service supports and encourages priority uses when they are appropriate and compatible on national wildlife refuge lands. Hunting is a healthy, traditional, recreational use of renewable natural resources that is deeply rooted in America’s heritage. The Grand Bay NWR hunting program strives to provide a quality, free-of-charge recreational and educational experience to a diverse audience through various hunt opportunities, to get more people in the outdoors, to utilize the hunting public as strategies for wildlife management, and nuisance/invasive species control. Hunting as described in this determination align the Refuge more closely with the hunt programs of the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This proposed action also further aligns the refuge with the Department of the Interior’s Secretarial Order 3356, which directs the Service to enhance and expand public access to lands and waters on national wildlife refuges for hunting, fishing, and other forms of outdoor recreation. The proposed action would promote one of the priority public uses of the Refuge System. Hunting would also promote the stewardship of our natural resources and increase the public’s appreciation and support for the refuge. Furthermore, hunting can be used as a tool to maintain wildlife populations at an acceptable level. The State establishes hunting seasons and bag limits to meet population objectives and to offer the public an opportunity to experience a traditional outdoor recreational activity. Game


species population objectives are determined by a number of factors such as habitat limitations and landowner tolerances, and each year the seasons and bag limits are designed to remove the harvestable surplus without long-term negative impacts to the population. The ability to effectively manage game species populations depends in large part on the availability of land with quality habitat. Providing hunting opportunities on the refuge would aid the State in meeting its management objectives and preserve a wildlife-dependent priority public use long associated with this land. The Service would continue the tradition of wildlife-dependent recreation on the refuge by allowing hunting in compliance with State regulations. By allowing this use to continue, hunters would experience this traditional recreational activity, utilize a sustainable, renewable resource, aid the refuge and State in maintaining acceptable game species population levels, gain a better appreciation of the refuge's high-quality wildlife habitats, observe wildlife, and become better informed about the refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System. AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES: Administration of the hunt program as described is estimated to cost $60,000 annually including staff time, maintenance of facilities, outreach, signage and Law Enforcement. Current refuge budgets are sufficient to cover costs as described in Table 1. Table 1. Funding and Staffing Requirements

Identifier Cost Staff (Maintenance Workers, Biologist, and Refuge Managers) Hunt Program $10,000 Maintain roads, parking lots, trails* $5,000 News releases, fact sheets, reports for Hunt Program $2,000 Maintain hunting signs $3,000 Law Enforcement $40,000 Total Annual Cost $60,000


Off-setting Revenues: None ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE: The 2020 Environmental Assessment for the Grand Bay NWR Draft Hunting and Fishing Plan provides more detailed information regarding impacts of the proposed hunting on the Refuge (USFWS 2020a). This assessment updates the initial compatibility determination for hunting on the refuge conducted in 2008 and included in the Grand Bay NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (2008).


Summary of short-term impacts: Grand Bay NWR has been open to hunting since 2001, with no documented disturbance to Refuge habitats or unacceptable impacts to target or non-target wildlife populations (USFWS 2008a, 2008b). Hunting impacts include direct mortality to the game species, short-term changes in the distribution and abundance of game species, and disturbance of non-target wildlife associated with travel through the area. The hunt would have minimal short-term impacts to non-target wildlife due to increased disturbance in the hunt areas. These impacts are anticipated to be minor due to low hunter densities observed by refuge law enforcement officers and other staff. Waterfowl disturbance is minimized by available habitat on the Alabama portion of refuge that is seldom visited. The risk of taking non-target species is minimal due to hunter education requirements and law enforcement presence. Refuge laws and regulations prohibit take of any species except by permit. Law enforcement officers would be present to enforce regulations and help minimize impacts to non-target species. Impacts of hunting on the Refuge physical environment would have minimal to negligible effects. Some minor disturbance to surface soils and vegetation would occur in areas frequented by hunters. Hunting would benefit vegetation by keeping many resident wildlife populations in balance with the habitat’s carrying capacity. The Refuge would control public access as needed to minimize habitat degradation. The Refuge does not expect significant impacts to air and water quality due to the current low numbers of hunters (per staff observations). Proposed hunts are incidental to (nutria, coyote) or concurrent with (white-winged dove, squirrel) open seasons and therefore unlikely to substantially increase public use. As a result, the effect of these activities on overall air and water quality in the region are anticipated to be relatively negligible. Existing State water quality criteria and use classifications are adequate to achieve desired on-refuge conditions; thus, implementation of the proposed action would not impact adjacent landowners or users beyond the constraints already implemented under existing State standards and laws. Summary of long-term impacts: Allowing the hunting of nuisance species such as nutria, feral hogs, and coyote should reduce damage to wildlife habitats and populations. To date, there has been no indication of adverse biological impacts associated with the Refuge's existing hunting program (USFWS 2020a). However, if the Refuge determines from state-provided or Refuge data collection efforts that any hunted species experiences a negative effect to a point where the population can no longer be sustained, the Refuge has the latitude to adjust hunting seasons and bag limits, or to close the Refuge to hunting entirely. Should hunting pressure increase on the Refuge to negatively affect populations; restrictions on number of allowable hunt days or restrictions on certain hunt areas can be utilized to limit impacts. This latitude, coupled with monitoring of wildlife populations and habitat conditions by the Service, MDWFP and ADCNR would help ensure that long-term negative impacts to either wildlife populations and/or habitats on the Refuge would be unlikely.


There would be minor to no impact to geology, topography, soils, water quality and quantity, air quality, and hydrology due to the limited minor increase in motor vehicle and boating traffic. No new roads, trails, parking, or access points are to accommodate hunting on the Refuge. The use of existing roads and trails would accommodate the current and new hunting activities. Any negative impacts to the physical environment would be mitigated by traffic regulations, use of existing roads and access points, and the limited number of permits issued. Cumulative Impacts Impacts on wildlife populations that result from any increase in hunter activity that may occur as a result of the additional hunting opportunities in the 2020 plan (USFWS 2020a) would not rise to a significant cumulative effect locally, regionally, or nationally. Since the Refuge uses an adaptive management approach for its hunt program, reviewing the hunt program annually and revising annually if necessary, the Refuge’s hunt program can be adjusted to ensure that it does not contribute further to the cumulative impacts of human population growth, land use changes, or climate change on wildlife (USFWS 2020a). To minimize effects on other refuge/NERR programs, nature trails are closed to hunting and environmental education, interpretation, research, and management activities are closely coordinated between partner agencies. The white-tailed deer is the most post popular game species in Mississippi. In the early 1900s, white-tailed deer were almost eliminated from Mississippi due to unregulated hunting. White-tailed deer were re-stocked from 1950-1970, with pockets of deer found in the State (McKinley 2017). Through effective management, Mississippi’s white-tailed deer population is now estimated at 1.75 million deer, and a national-average high of 40 deer per square mile. Hunters harvest approximately 280,000 deer per year in Mississippi (MDWFP 2020). The Southeast Hunt Zone in MS, which includes Jackson County and Grand Bay NWR, reports deer harvest are some of the lowest in the State. The deer herd is stable in this area though (MDWFP 2018). Grand Bay NWR has a relatively small hunting program and approximately 15-18 deer are harvested each hunting season on Grand Bay NWR. According to the MDWFP, both gray and red squirrels are relatively abundant across Mississippi, with some populations of red squirrels declining in areas with changing land use and management. The number of squirrel hunters has declined precipitously from 1981-2007; consequently, the annual squirrel harvest has also declined in that same time frame (Hunt 2012b). Squirrels have fairly high death rates, but squirrel numbers remain steady when sufficient quality habitat is available. Food availability probably affects survival more than any other factor. The amount of food changes from year to year depending on weather and other factors, and squirrel populations often change in response (Hamrick et al 2020). Hunting of squirrels on the refuge equates to take of less than 40 squirrels; therefore, it would not add to the cumulative impacts on the populations of these species. According to the MDWFP, rabbit populations have declined in Mississippi during the last 50 years, due to land use and management. The number of rabbit hunters has declined precipitously from 1981-2005; consequently, the annual rabbit harvest has also declined in that same time frame (Hunt 2012a). Rabbits live for about two years in the wild and their main cause of death is


predators, including hunters (Hamrick et al. 2020a). Hunting of rabbits on the refuge equates to take of less than 40 rabbits; therefore, it would not add to the cumulative impacts on the populations of these species. PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT:

This compatibility determination will be distributed with the draft Hunting and Fishing Plan and EA for public review and comment. The refuge circulates hunting and fishing information through social media, information bulletins, refuge visitor center/office, refuge staff, and hunt brochures distributed along the MS Gulf Coast, including the MS Welcome Centers. This information is also available on the refuge website: https://www.fws.gov/refuge/grand_bay/.

DETERMINATION (CHECK ONE BELOW): ______ Use is not compatible ___X___ Use is compatible, with the following stipulations STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY: Stipulations for this activity would be located in Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations and Grand Bay NWR Hunting and Fishing Regulations (annual). Grand Bay NWR Hunting and Fishing Regulations (annual) signed brochure would be required for anyone who is also required to have Mississippi/Alabama State hunting licenses and is engaged in hunting activities on the Refuge. The following stipulations would help ensure the refuge hunting program is compatible with refuge purposes. Table 2. TYPE SEASON

DATES/ BAG LIMITS

REFUGE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS

White-tailed Deer

Same as State Season and Bag Limits

-Hunting by aid of bait is prohibited. -Hunters may not hunt by organized deer drive of two or more hunters. -Construction or use of any permanent tree stand is prohibited. Only climbing or portable stands may be used. -Tree stands must be removed from the refuge at the end of each day’s hunt. -Access to the refuge is two hours before sunrise to two hours after sunset. -Use of bow and arrow and crossbow only. -Firearms prohibited.

Duck Goose

Same as State Waterfowl Seasons

-Refuge access is two hours before sunrise to two hours after sunset.


Coot and Bag Limits. -Use of airboats, mudboats, jetskis, motorized pirogues, and air-cooled propulsion engines are prohibited. -Only portable and temporary blinds are permitted. -Decoys and blinds must be removed each day. -Only nontoxic shot permitted. -The use of dogs for retrieving purposes or in the pursuit of migratory birds is permitted.

Dove – Mourning and White-winged

Same as State Seasons and Bag Limits.

-Only nontoxic shot permitted -Access to the refuge is two hours before sunrise to two hours after sunset. -The use of dogs is prohibited.

Squirrel Rabbit

Same as State Season and Bag Limits.

-Use of .22 rimfire rifle only. -Access to the refuge is two hours before sunrise to two hours after sunset. -The use of dogs is prohibited

Coyote Nutria

Same as State Season and Bag Limits.

-Use of dogs is prohibited -May be taken during daylight hours only. -Access to the refuge is two hours before sunrise to two hours after sunset. -.22 rimfire rifle only -Traps are prohibited. -Coyote and nutria may only be taken incidental during other open refuge hunts with weapons and ammunition legal for that season.

Feral Hogs Same as State season and bag limit.

-Same refuge specific regulations as coyote and nutria. -Feral hog is incidental take while engaged in refuge archery deer hunt.

• This use must be conducted in accordance with state and federal regulations, and special

refuge regulations published in the annual refuge Hunting Regulations and Public Use Regulations brochures.

• This use is subject to modification if on-site monitoring by refuge personnel or other authorized personnel results in a determination that hunting is causing unanticipated negative impacts to natural communities, wildlife species, or their habitats.

• Hunting seasons may be more restrictive than state seasons and regulations to ensure compliance with visitor safety, reduce wildlife disturbance, and facilitate high-quality hunting.

• Law Enforcement Officer(s) would promote compliance with refuge regulations, monitor public use patterns and public safety, and document visitor interactions. Law Enforcement personnel would monitor all areas and enforce all applicable state and federal Regulations.

JUSTIFICATION: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57) is an amendment to the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966 and is fundamental to


the management of lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System (System). The NWRSIA provides a mission for the System and clear standards for its management, use, planning, and growth. The NWRSIA recognizes that wildlife-dependent recreational uses, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation, can be allowed when determined to be appropriate and compatible with the mission of the System and purposes of the Refuge. These six compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses, known as the “Big 6”, are the priority general public uses of the System. Hunting, as specified in this plan, is a Big 6 wildlife-dependent recreational use and the law states that as such, it “shall receive priority consideration in National Wildlife Refuge planning and management.” The Big 6 wildlife-dependent recreational uses are automatically considered appropriate uses. The Secretary of the Interior may then permit hunting on a refuge if it is determined that the use is also compatible and does not materially interfere with the primary purpose for which the refuge was established. The continuation and expansion of hunting on Grand Bay NWR and described herein and with the stipulations listed would not interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission. In fact, by helping to balance certain wildlife populations and connecting people to nature, hunting facilitates and is complimentary to the mission of the System and the establishing purpose of Grand Bay NWR. Pubic hunting on National Wildlife Refuges is supported by Executive Order No. 13443 Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation. The purpose of the Executive Order is to “direct Federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. Public hunting on National Wildlife Refuges is further supported by the March 2, 2017 Secretarial Order No. 3347 regarding Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation. The purpose of this Order is to enhance conservation stewardship, increase outdoor recreation, and improve the management of game species and their habitat. The refuge manager may, upon annual review of the hunting program and in coordination with the State, impose further restrictions on hunting, recommend that the refuge be closed to hunting, or further liberalize hunting regulations within the limits of state seasons and regulations, or as otherwise approved by State. Hunting restriction may be implemented if it conflicts with other, higher priority refuge programs or endangers refuge resources or public safety. This activity would not materially interfere with, or detract from, the mission of the Refuge System or the purpose for which the refuge was established.


NEPA COMPLIANCE FOR REFUGE USE (Check one below): ____ Categorical Exclusion Without Environmental Action Statement ____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement __X__ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact ____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision


LITERATURE CITED: Hamrick, Bill, D. Godwin, B. Strickland. 2020. Ecology and Management of Rabbits in Mississippi. Publication 2467. Extension Service of Mississippi State University http://extension.msstate.edu/publications/ecology-and-management-rabbits-mississippi Hunt, K. M. 2012a. Trends in Resident and Non-resident Hunter Effort and Harvest for Rabbit in Mississippi: 1980-81 to 2010-11 Seasons. Human Dimensions and Conservation Law Enforcement Laboratory Technical Document # 133, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. http://www.mdwfp.com/wildlife-hunting/rabbit-program/ Hunt, K. M. 2012b. Trends in Resident and Non-resident Hunter Effort and Harvest for Squirrel in Mississippi: 1980-81 to 2010-11 Seasons. Human Dimensions and Conservation Law Enforcement Laboratory Technical Document # 134, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. http://www.mdwfp.com/wildlife-hunting/squirrel-program/ McKinley, William T. 2017. Mississippi Outdoors: Mississippi’s Changing Deer Herd. http://mdwfp.com/media/news/wildlife-hunting/mississippi-outdoors-mississippis-changing-deer-herd/ Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. 2020. Deer program. http://www.mdwfp.com/wildlife-hunting/deer-program/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008a. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Atlanta, Georgia U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Atlanta, Georgia U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Draft Hunting and Fishing Plan and Environmental Assessment. Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Atlanta, Georgia SIGNATURE: Refuge Manager _________________________ _________________________ Signature Date CONCURRENCE: Area Supervisor___________________________________________________ NWRS, Interior Regions 2 and 4 Signature Date




http://www.mdwfp.com/wildlife-hunting/squirrel-program/

http://www.mdwfp.com/wildlife-hunting/deer-program/


CONCURRENCE: Compatibility Coordinator___________________________________________ NWRS, Interior Regions 2 and 4 Signature Date CONCURRENCE: Regional Chief _________________________ _________________________ (Signature) (Date) MANDATORY 15 YEAR RE-EVALUATION DATE: _________________________

(Date)

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Sport Fishing REFUGE NAME: Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge DATE ESTABLISHED: 1992 ESTABLISHING and ACQUISITION AUTHORITY(IES): The refuge establishment and acquisition authorities for Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge NWR (NWR or Refuge) are: 1. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901 (b), 100 Stat. 3583) 2. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1534) 3. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4), 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1)

REFUGE PURPOSE(S): The purposes for Grand Bay NWR was established are:

“…the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions…” (16 USC 3901 (b), 100 Stat. 3583) and “… to conserve (A) fish and wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species… or (B) plants…” 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) and “… for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources…” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) “…for the benefit of the U.S. Fish and


Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude…” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION:

“The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57).

DESCRIPTION OF USE: (a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use? The priority public use of sport fishing on Grand Bay NWR would be a new use. Fishing is one of six priority public uses of the Refuge System identified by the Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57), when found to be compatible. (b) Where would the use be conducted? Grand Bay NWR consists of bayous, estuaries, bays and rivers open to fishing. Grand Bay NWR is proposing to open sport fishing opportunities on the refuge. This would allow anglers to fish the Escatawpa River and its tributaries, bank fish on the refuge and from the fishing pier on Bayou Heron Road. The refuge provides salt/brackish water sport fishing opportunities on approximately 1,531 acres on the areas of the refuge that fall within the State of Mississippi and approximately 421 acres that fall within the State of Alabama. Interior freshwater ponds on the refuge are not open to fishing due to safety reasons, habitat management objectives, and poor biological quality of ponds. (c) When would the use be conducted? Refuge sport fishing would occur throughout the year. All refuge fishing is allowed from 30 minutes before sunrise until 30 minutes after sunset daily. Fishing is subject to regulations established by the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP), the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), and the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR). Refuge fishing regulations may be more restrictive than State regulations and are determined by refuge objectives and goals. (d) How would the use be conducted Refuge sport fishing is permitted, as provided by refuge special regulations and those published in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Annual Grand Bay NWR Public Use Brochure must be signed and in possession in order to hunt or fish on the Refuge. Anglers, who are eligible to fish under States law, are eligible to fish refuge waters. They must possess a valid State fishing license and follow States laws, limits, and regulations. Fishing would be allowed during State open fishing seasons in accordance with Federal


regulations and State fishing framework, creel limits, and regulations. Access to the refuge is thirty minutes before sunrise to thirty minutes after sunset. To achieve the objectives set forth by the draft Hunting and Fishing Plan, on occasion, it may be necessary to deviate from state season structures, adjust bag limits or implement other restrictions. Determinations would be based on safety, public use levels, management actions, disease transmission, minimum viable populations, or wildlife disturbance. Adjustments would be made in coordination with the MDWFP, ADCNR, MDMR and would ensure achievement the National Wildlife Refuge System’s primary goals and objectives. (e) Why is the use being proposed This compatibility determination considers sport fishing, which is one of the priority public uses outlined in the Refuge Improvement Act. The Service supports and encourages priority uses when they are appropriate and compatible on national wildlife refuge lands. Fishing is a healthy, traditional, recreational use of renewable natural resources that is deeply rooted in America’s heritage. The principle objectives of the Grand Bay NWR sport fishing program are: to provide a quality, free-of-charge recreational and educational experience to a diverse audience through fishing opportunities, and to get more people in the outdoors. The proposed action would further align the refuge with the Department of the Interior’s Secretarial Order 3356, which directs the Service to enhance and expand public access to lands and waters on national wildlife refuges for hunting, fishing, and other forms of outdoor recreation. The proposed action would promote one of the priority public uses of the Refuge System. Sport fishing would also promote the stewardship of our natural resources and increase the public’s appreciation and support for the refuge. The Service intends to continue the tradition of wildlife-dependent recreation on the refuge by allowing sport fishing in compliance with State regulations. By allowing this use to continue, anglers can experience this traditional recreational activity, utilize a sustainable, renewable resource, aid the refuge and State in maintaining acceptable fish species population levels, gain a better appreciation of the refuge's high-quality wildlife habitats, observe wildlife, and become better informed about the refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System. AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES: Annual costs of implementing this sport fishing program on the Refuge is $23,000 including staff time, maintenance of facilities, outreach, signage and Law Enforcement. Costs are part of the refuge annual operating budget which is sufficient at current levels to manage the program as described. Table 2. Funding and Staffing Requirements

Identifier Cost Staff (Maintenance Workers, Biologist, and Refuge Managers) Fish Program $3,000


Maintain roads, parking lots, trails* $3,000 News releases, fact sheets, reports for Fish Program $1,000 Maintain signage $1,000 Law Enforcement $15,000 Total Annual Cost $23,000


Off-setting Revenues: No revenue is collected by the refuge from the public for this use. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE: The 2020 Environmental Assessment for the Grand Bay NWR Hunting and Fishing Plan provides more detailed information regarding impacts of the proposed hunting and fishing on the Refuge (USFWS 2020a). Summary of short-term impacts: The legal take of fish species would be in accordance with state freshwater/saltwater fishing regulations. Any adverse effects on fish populations are expected to be negligible, since refuge water bodies are a fish corridor into the Mississippi Sound and on out into the Gulf of Mexico. All Mississippi inshore saltwater game fish species are considered sufficiently numerous to allow their take according to regulation. Possible beneficial effects include the sale of State fishing licenses, which are used to further manage efforts aimed at keeping fishable populations at sustainable levels, and allow more people to get outdoors and enjoy nature. Anglers fishing at the Bayou Heron Road fishing pier, and at other bank fishing locations, are most likely to encounter wildlife such as birds, crabs, fish and turtles, but these encounters are not expected to negatively impact these fauna unless they are intentionally harassed by humans. Refuge brochures and other outreach information would be used to mitigate negative impacts to fish, wildlife and the environment. Fishing may result in trash being left in the environment, if users do not follow posted rules and respect the natural environment. Such trash could negatively impact wildlife (e.g., wildlife entanglement in fishing line). Occasionally, anglers may hook turtles, alligators or other species as accidental by-catch. The greatest potential risk to wildlife and aquatic species posed by fishing is discarded fishing line and other fishing litter. With the exception of fishing line entanglement, hook injuries, and increases in litter, overall disturbance to wildlife on the Refuge by anglers and other users is expected to be similar to that caused by public users at the existing public hiking trails. The Refuge expects impacts to air and water quality to be minimal and only due to Refuge visitors’ automobile and boat emissions. The effect of these activities on overall air and water quality in the region are anticipated to be relatively negligible. Existing State water quality criteria and use classifications are adequate to achieve desired on-refuge conditions; thus,


implementation of the proposed action would not impact adjacent landowners or users beyond the constraints already implemented under existing State standards and laws. Impacts of fishing on the Refuge’s physical environment would have minimal to negligible effects. Some minor disturbance to surface soils and vegetation would occur in areas frequented by anglers. The Refuge would control public access as needed to minimize habitat degradation. Law enforcement officers, both Federal and State, would be present to enforce regulations and help minimize impacts to non-target species. Summary of long-term impacts: Potential long-term impacts include changes in population dynamics and distribution of species, impacts to vegetation and soils, etc. If long-term impacts are realized to resources, threatened or endangered species, public health and safety, or other public uses on the refuge, adjustments to the recreational fishing program would be addressed. Because off-road vehicle use is not permitted and ATVs are prohibited, we anticipate that vegetation would be minimally trampled by a minority of recreational fishermen accessing refuge freshwater ponds. Most recreational fishing would take place in the bayous, estuaries, bays, rivers, creeks, and fishing pier of the refuge. The main long-term impact would be litter left behind by recreational fishermen. Because these ecological systems are dynamic, adaptive management techniques would be applied if warranted (USFWS 2008b). To date, there has been no indication of adverse biological impacts associated with the Refuge's existing visitor services program (USFWS 2020a). There would be minor to no impact to geology, topography, soils, water quality and quantity, air quality, and hydrology due to the limited minor increase in motor vehicle and boating traffic. No new roads, trails, parking, or access points would be added to accommodate fishing on the Refuge. The use of existing roads and trails would accommodate fishing activities. Any negative impacts to the physical environment would be minimized by traffic regulations, use of existing roads and access points, and limiting angler numbers. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts: Cumulative impacts that may occur include overuse, overlapping or interfering public use programs, impacts to management activities or research, etc. The health of fish populations, resulting in a quality recreational fishing program within the boundaries of the Grand Bay NWR, is the highest priority of the refuge fishing program. Should fishing pressure increase on the Refuge to negatively affect populations; restrictions on number of allowable fish days or restrictions on certain fishing areas can be implemented to limit impacts. This latitude, coupled with monitoring of fish populations and habitat conditions by the Service, MDWFP, ADCNR, and MDMR would help ensure that long-term negative impacts to either fish populations and/or habitats on the Refuge would be unlikely. PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT:

This compatibility determination will be distributed with the draft Hunting and Fishing Plan and EA for public review and comment. The refuge circulates hunting and fishing information through social media, information bulletins, refuge visitor center/office, refuge


staff, and hunt brochures distributed along the MS Gulf Coast, including the MS Welcome Centers. This information is also available on the refuge website: https://www.fws.gov/refuge/grand_bay/.

DETERMINATION (CHECK ONE BELOW): ______ Use is not compatible ___X___ Use is compatible, with the following stipulations STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY: The refuge would manage the sport fishing with Federal and State regulations and review the program annually to ensure wildlife and habitat goals are achieved and that these programs are providing safe, high-quality experiences for participants. Stipulations for this activity would be located in Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations and Grand Bay NWR Hunting and Fishing Regulations (annual). The following stipulations would help ensure the refuge sport fishing program is compatible with refuge purposes.

• This use must be conducted in accordance with state and federal regulations, and special refuge regulations published in the annual refuge Hunting/Fishing Regulations and Public Use Regulations brochures.

• This use is subject to modification if on-site monitoring by refuge personnel or other authorized personnel results in a determination that fishing is causing unanticipated negative impacts to natural communities, fish species, or their habitats.

• Fishing seasons would be the same at State Seasons and creel limits though may be more restrictive than state seasons and regulations to ensure compliance with visitor safety, reduce wildlife disturbance, and facilitate high-quality fishing.

• Law Enforcement Officer(s) would promote compliance with refuge regulations, monitor public use patterns and public safety, and document visitor interactions. Law Enforcement personnel would monitor all areas and enforce all applicable state and federal Regulations.

Other stipulations include: • Fishing allowed from 30 minutes prior to sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset daily. • Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited. • Cleaning of fish on fishing pier is prohibited. • Bank-fishing is allowed on the refuge and at the Bayou Heron Road fishing pier. • Fishing at interior freshwater ponds is prohibited. • Use of airboats, mudboats, jetskis, motorized pirogues, and air-cooled propulsion,

engines are prohibited.


JUSTIFICATION: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57) is an amendment to the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966 and is fundamental to the management of lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System (System). The NWRSIA provides a mission for the System and clear standards for its management, use, planning, and growth. The NWRSIA recognizes that wildlife-dependent recreational uses, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation, can be allowed when determined to be appropriate and compatible with the mission of the System and purposes of the Refuge. These six compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses, known as the “Big 6”, are the priority general public uses of the System and shall receive priority consideration in planning and management over other uses. The Big 6 wildlife-dependent recreational uses are automatically considered appropriate uses. The Secretary of the Interior may then permit fishing on a refuge if it is determined that the use is also compatible and does not materially interfere with the primary purpose for which the refuge was established. In fact, by helping to balance certain wildlife populations and connecting people to nature, hunting facilitates and is complimentary to the mission of the System and the establishing purpose of Grand Bay NWR. Pubic fishing on National Wildlife Refuges is supported by Executive Order No. 13443 Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation. The purpose of the Executive Order is to “direct Federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and enhance conservation stewardship, increase outdoor recreation, and improve the management of game species and their habitat. Public fishing on National Wildlife Refuges is further supported by the March 2, 2017 Secretarial Order No. 3347 regarding Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation. The purpose of this Order is to enhance conservation stewardship, increase outdoor recreation, and improve the management of game species and their habitat. The refuge manager may, upon annual review of the fishing program and in coordination with the State, impose further restrictions on fishing, recommend that the refuge be closed to fishing, or further liberalize fishing regulations within the limits of state seasons and regulations, or as otherwise approved by State. Fishing restriction may be implemented if it conflicts with other, higher priority refuge programs or endangers refuge resources or public safety. Sport fishing as proposed and with the stipulations identified is compatible and would not materially interfere with, or detract from, the mission of the Refuge System or the purpose for which the refuge was established.


NEPA COMPLIANCE FOR REFUGE USE (Check one below): ____ Categorical Exclusion Without Environmental Action Statement ____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement __X__ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact ____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision


LITERATURE CITED: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Atlanta, Georgia . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Hunting and Fishing Plan and Environmental Assessment. Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Atlanta, Georgia SIGNATURE: Refuge Manager _________________________ _________________________ (Signature) (Date) CONCURRENCE: Area Supervisor___________________________________________________ NWRS, Interior Regions 2 and 4 Signature Date CONCURRENCE: Compatibility Coordinator___________________________________________ NWRS, Interior Regions 2 and 4 Signature Date CONCURRENCE: Regional Chief _________________________ _________________________ (Signature) (Date) MANDATORY 15 YEAR RE-EVALUATION DATE: _________________________

(Date)


Appendix C. Threatened and Endangered Species List ALABAMA Listed/proposed species/critical habitat that occur or may occur within the project area:

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

STATUS1

Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) T

Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus) T

Eastern Indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi)

T

Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus)

T

West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus)

T

Wood stork (Mycteria americana)

T

Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)

T

Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)

T

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii)

E

Piping plover (Charadrius melodus)

T

Red knot (Calidris cantus rufa) T

1STATUS: E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species MISSISSIPPI Listed/proposed species/critical habitat that occur or may occur within the project area:


STATUS1

Mississippi sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pulla) E

Wood stork (Mycteria americana) T

Piping plover (Charadrius melodus)

T

Red knot (Calidris cantus rufa)

T

Yellow-blotched map turtle (Graptemys flavimaculata)

T



STATUS1

Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) T Eastern black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis)

T

Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) T Saltmarsh topminnow (Fundulus jenkinsi) C West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) T Dusky gopher frog (Rana sevosa) E Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) E Alabama red-bellied turtle (Pseudemys alabamensis) E Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) T Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) T Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) E

1STATUS: E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species

u.s. fish and wildlife service grand bay national wildlife

Documents