U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service John Heinz€¦ · century in Pennsylvania and throughout much of its...

John HeinzNational Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum

White-tailed Deer Hunt Planwith Compatibility Determination, and Environmental Assessment

March 2018

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum White-tailed Deer Hunt Plan

March 14, 2018

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum 8601 Lindbergh Blvd.

Philadelphia, PA 19153

Submitted By: Project Leader

______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Concurrence: Refuge Supervisor

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

______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date

Table of Contents I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………….. 5 II. Conformance with Statutory Authority………………………………………… 8 III. Statement of Objectives………………………………………………………… 8 IV. Assessment…………………………………………………………………….. 9

A. Are wildlife populations present in numbers sufficient to sustain optimum population levels for priority refuge objectives other than hunting?.................................................................................... 9

B. Is there competition for habitat between target species and other wildlife?..................................................................................... 9

C. Are there unacceptable levels of predation by target species on other

wildlife forms?......................................................................... 10

V. Description of Hunting Program……………………………………………… 10

A. Areas of Refuge that Support Targeted Species……………… 10

B. Areas to be opened to hunting………………………………… 11

C. Species to be taken, hunting periods, hunting access………… 12

D. Justification for the permit, if one is required………………… 12

E. Consultation and Coordination with the State……………….. 12

F. Law Enforcement…………………………………………….. 13

G. Funding and staffing requirements ………………………………. 13

VI. Measures Taken to Avoid Conflicts with Other Management Objectives…… 14

A. Biological Conflicts…………………………………………… 14

B. Public Use Conflicts…………………………………………… 15

C. Administrative Use Conflicts………………………………….. 15

VII. Conduct of the Hunt…………………………………………………………… 15

A. Refuge Specific Hunting Regulations………………………… 16 Page 2

Page 3

B. Anticipated Public Reaction to the Hunting Program………… 16

C. Hunter Application and Registration Procedures (if

applicable)……………………………………………………. 16

D. Description of Hunter Selection Process……………………. 17

E. Media Selection for Announcing and Publicizing the Hunt…….. 17

F. General Requirements…………………………………………… 17

G. Hunter Requirements……………………………………………… 17

VIII. Compatibility Determination………………………………………………… 18

References ………………………………………………………………………….18

List of Tables Table 1. Annual white-tailed deer abundance estimates derived from standardized deer drives conducted by staff and volunteers at John Heinz NWR at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania from 2001-2010 ………………………………………. 7 Table 2. Annual white-tailed deer abundance estimates derived from Forward Looking InfraRed deer surveys conducted by staff at John Heinz NWR at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania from 2011-2017……………………………………… 7 List of Figures Figure 1. John Heinz NWR at Tinicum in Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania….6 Figure 2. Proportion of total number of deer observed per survey zone during eighteen white-tailed deer density surveys completed by USDA APHIS Wildlife Services on John Heinz NWR during November 2008 through January 2011………………………………………… 11 Figure 3. Designated hunting zones at John Heinz NWR with 50-yard buffer from occupied buildings, refuge boundaries, and public roadways …………………………… 12 APPENDICES

A. Compatibility Determination B. Environmental Assessment for White-tailed Deer Management at John Heinz National

Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum C. Letter of Support from Pennsylvania Game Commission

Page 4

Page 5

JOHN HEINZ NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AT TINICUM WHITE-TAILED DEER HUNT PLAN

I. Introduction

John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum (NWR or Refuge) was established by the Federal Property and Administrative Service Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471-535), as amended; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 661-666c) as amended; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j Stat. 1119) as amended; the Act of May 19, 1948, Public Law 80-537 (16 U.S.C. 667b-667d; 62 Stat. 240) as amended; and The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended.

Public Law 92-326 (1972), as amended by Public Laws 94-548 (1976) and 95-152 (1977), (86 Stat. 392) created the Tinicum National Environmental Center as a unit of the National Wildlife RefugeSystem (Refuge System). Public Law 102-154 (1991) changed the name of the Tinicum NationalEnvironmental Center to John Heinz NWR.

In order to meet specific refuge and other broader U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) directives, the following purposes were established for John Heinz NWR:

The refuge’s objectives as stated in the authorizing legislation are: “To acquire lands necessary for the purpose of preserving, restoring, and developing the natural area known as Tinicum Marsh. Also, to construct, administer and maintain a wildlife interpretive center for the purpose of environmental education and to afford visitors an opportunity for the study of wildlife in its natural habitat.”

As identified in the 1983 Refuge Master Plan, the refuge has the following wildlife and habitat objectives:

● Preserve the natural resources of the Tinicum Marsh which represents the largestfreshwater tidal marsh that remains in Pennsylvania.

● Provide environmental education opportunities for the schools and residents of thesurrounding region.

● Provide quality wildlife-orientated recreation opportunities for the enjoyment ofpeople in the surrounding region when it will not interfere with the primary purposefor which the refuge was established.

John Heinz NWR is an urban wildlife refuge located in southeastern Pennsylvania within Delaware County and the City and County of Philadelphia. The areas surrounding the refuge are highly urbanized and include Philadelphia International Airport; and industrial, commercial and residential areas. Over many years, the refuge has been a resting and feeding area for more than 300 species of birds, 80 of which nest on the refuge. A wide variety of wildlife including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish inhabit the refuge. The refuge is a designated Important Bird Area and an

Page 6

Important Mammal Area. The refuge adjoins or includes portions of six municipalities within Delaware County (Figure 1).

Acreage was acquired under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (MBCA) and the Refuge Recreation Act. Land acquired under the MBCA is “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary and for any other management purposes for migratory birds...”. Lands acquired under the Refuge Recreation Act permit consumptive and non-consumptive forms of recreation provided that the activity is compatible with the refuge’s establishing purpose and sufficient funds are available to administer those uses. The Act also maintains that refuges are closed to all public use unless the Refuge Manager expressly “opened” it to that use via publication of a notice in the Federal Register.

Although deer were hunted in the area prior to refuge establishment, they have since had decades of protection within refuge boundaries. Refuge staff reported a general increase in deer abundance as per annual staff deer surveys (Tables 1 & 2) and a dramatic shift towards non-native, invasive vegetation in response to over browsing by deer. Due to overpopulation in recent years, the refuge has implemented managerial biological control techniques.

Figure 1. John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum is located in Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania.

Page 7

Table 1. Annual white-tailed deer abundance estimates derived from standardized deer drives conducted by staff and volunteers at John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania from 2001-2010.

Date of Survey Deer Abundance Estimate

2001a 86

2002 106

Feb. 2003 136

Jan. 2004 193

Dec. 2004 224

Dec. 2005 245

Dec. 2006 208

Dec. 2007 199

Dec. 2008 191

Dec. 2009 243

Dec. 2010 188 a Months of surveys during 2001 and 2002 were not specified.

Table 2. Annual white-tailed deer abundance estimates derived from Forward Looking InfraRed deer surveys conducted by staff at John Heinz NWR at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania from 2011-2017.

Date of Survey Deer Abundance Estimate (mi2)

Winter 2011/2012 73.0

Winter 2012/2013 80.5

Winter 2013/2014 86.3

*Cull conducted 3/2014 88 deer removed

Winter 2014/2015 32.9

Winter 2015/2016 52.6

Winter 2016/2017 26.8

*Cull conducted 3/2016 66 Deer removed

Winter 2017-this report 21.0

*Cull conducted 11/2017 30 Deer removed * Deer culls were conducted by the Refuge and USDA Wildlife Services to reduce herd.

All of the meat was donated to Pennsylvania food banks.

Page 8

II. Conformance with Statutory Authorities The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460K) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use. The Refuge Recreation Act requires 1) that any recreational use permitted will not interfere with the primary purpose for which the area was established; and 2) that funds are available for the development, operation, and maintenance of the permitted forms of recreation. Fundamental to the management of lands within the Refuge System is the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57), an amendment to the Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. The Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 provided a mission for the Refuge System and clear standards for its management, use, planning, and growth. It recognized that wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation, when determined to be compatible with the mission of the Refuge System and purposes of the refuge, are legitimate and appropriate public uses. Compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the System and shall receive priority consideration in planning and management. Hunting as specified in this plan is a wildlife-dependent recreational use and the law states that as such, it “shall receive priority consideration in national wildlife refuge planning and management.” The Secretary of Interior may permit hunting on a refuge if it is determined that the use is compatible. The hunting program would not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the purposes of the refuge or the mission of the Refuge System. Recreational hunting authorized by the regulations should not interfere with the primary purpose for which John Heinz NWR was established. This determination is based upon the completion of a Compatibility Determination. III. Statement of Objectives The objectives of a white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) hunting program on John Heinz NWR would:

1. Provide the public with a high quality recreational experience on more refuge lands and increase opportunities for hunters, with an emphasis on youth;

2. Improve vegetative conditions for the benefit of federal trust species such as migratory birds and threatened and endangered species;

3. Reduce damage to forested areas within 5 years of project implementation;

4. Provide an opportunity for the priority wildlife-dependent recreational use of hunting because it is compatible and necessary for the health of wildlife and habitat and by improving habitat for wildlife viewing and photography:

5. Educate the public and neighboring landowners about effects of overpopulated deer herds.

Page 9

IV. Assessment

A. Are wildlife populations present in numbers sufficient to sustain optimum population levels for priority refuge objectives other than hunting?

Regional Analysis By the turn of the 20th century in Pennsylvania and throughout much of its range, the white-tailed deer was nearly driven to extinction primarily by unregulated market hunting and habitat loss via commercial logging. The reestablishment of white-tailed deer populations has been regarded as one of the greatest successes in the history of wildlife conservation. In Pennsylvania restocking of deer began in 1906 and continued into the 1920s with deer relocated from areas within the State and from stock animals brought from other states including Virginia, Wisconsin, and Texas among others. The population increase of deer was also enabled by the burgeoning growth of young forests after logging with soft mast available during warm months and ample woody browse in the winter. By 1923, the Pennsylvania Game Commission began receiving complaints of widespread crop damage due to deer. To better manage deer populations in balance with the habitat and to reduce damage to agriculture, harvest of antlerless deer (i.e., female deer and males with antlers less than 3 inches) became an annual strategy in the wildlife management regime of Pennsylvania by the late 1950s. Local Analysis In hunting license year 2016-2017, an estimated total of 333,254 deer were harvested in Pennsylvania including 183,794 antlerless deer and 149,460 antlered deer. In WMU 5D, which includes the refuge, a relatively large number of antlerless deer licenses per square mile of land area are allocated versus other areas of the State to curtail population growth of deer and to reduce deer-human conflicts. For the 2016-2017 hunting license year, 25,000 antlerless deer licenses were allocated in WMU 5D and an estimated 6,500 antlerless deer and 2,900 antlered deer were harvested. Archery sport hunting for deer in WMU 5D occurred, excluding Sundays and December 24 and 25, from September 17 through November 26, and December 26 through January 28 during 116 days of hunting. This allotment of licenses and days of hunting are similar annually in WMU 5D. Hunters are permitted one antlered deer per hunting license year. In WMU 5D, an individual hunter may harvest unlimited antlerless deer provided they possess the appropriate number of valid WMU-specific antlerless licenses. Because of dense human housing and development, sport hunters in Philadelphia County are not permitted to discharge firearms and may only use archery equipment to harvest deer. Without specific permission of the occupants, hunters must be a minimum of 50 yards from any occupied residence or building to hunt. Around playgrounds, schools, nursery schools or day-care centers, archery hunters must remain a minimum of 150 yards away. Persons hunting deer in the archery seasons may not possess a firearm, except those individuals who have a License to Carry Firearms permit, and then only those firearms authorized by the permit (most sporting arms are not authorized). Although hunters are afforded liberal seasons and bag limits for deer in Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, harvest of sufficient numbers of deer is confounded by firearms and safety zone restrictions coupled with extensive division of property ownership.

B. Is there competition for habitat between target species and other wildlife?

Page 10

Deer foraging habits and preferences are known to change plant composition and structure over time (Porter 1991, Brown and Parker 1997, Augustine 1998, Russell and Fowler 1999) and such alterations have subsequent impacts on other wildlife, such as songbird species richness and abundance (De Calesta 1994). Several other studies (Casey and Hein 1983) found reduced songbird species richness and/or abundance in areas with high deer densities. A concern of land managers regarding deer populations at high densities is the impact to biodiversity. Because they are large herbivores, white-tailed deer are effective at altering habitat due to their energetic requirements and high reproductive potential (McCullough 1982, 1997). Many authors (Behrend et al. 1970, Tilghman 1989, Warren 1997, Miller et al. 1999) reported that vegetative species richness and the abundance of herbaceous and woody vegetation declined in areas with white-tailed deer densities exceeding 29 deer per square mile. In a northwestern Pennsylvania study, Behrend et al. (1970) and Tilghman (1989) recommended a herd density of 21 deer per square mile to allow for successful hardwood forest regeneration. Refuge staff estimated that the deer herd far exceeded this density for multiple years. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that these adverse vegetative effects have also occurred on the refuge for some time. The loss or reduction of woody understories in forests or lack of forest regeneration can impact the habitat of migratory birds as well as other wildlife. In a Pennsylvania study, DeCalesta (1994) found that changes in vegetation via deer browsing impacted intermediate canopy-nesting songbirds and reduced species richness and abundance. That study recommended maintaining herds at a density of between 21 and 39 deer per square mile to reduce impacts on habitats and songbirds. Alverson et al. (1988) suggested a deer density of 10 deer per square mile to minimize impacts caused by overbrowsing. The damage caused by deer to forest regeneration on John Heinz NWR is evident. The presence of oak and maple saplings within long-term fenced deer exclosures is obvious, while similar vegetation outside of the exclosures is browsed to the ground or is not existent. Invasive species of plants, which are often consumed to a lesser extent by deer, have become dominant vegetation types on the refuge. While such impacts currently affect forest understory and the varied animals dependent on this vegetation zone, the longer term implications are that the refuge’s native forested areas could lose the ability to replace themselves through time.

C. Are there unacceptable levels of predation by target species on other wildlife?

There are no predation impacts by the target species on other wildlife at the refuge. V. Description of Hunting Program

A. Areas of the refuge that support populations of the target species Deer are found on a variety of refuge habitats, in forested upland and wetlands in both deciduous and coniferous forest types (Figure 2).

Page 11

Figure 2. Proportion of total number of deer observed per survey zone during eighteen white-tailed deer density surveys completed by USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services on John Heinz NWR during November 2008 through January 2011.

B. Areas to be opened to hunting

Approximately 170 acres in three designated areas will be open to white-tailed deer hunting. Non-hunted areas include the refuge administrative and visitor center area, areas adjacent to or near walking trails and boardwalks, and parking lots. Figure 3 shows the zones for archery sport-hunters participating in controlled hunts for white-tailed deer on John Heinz NWR. Any portions of the refuge opened for hunting in the future will be designated by signs and/or shown on permits or maps. Special regulations and maps will then be made available to the public.

Page 12

Figure 3. Designated hunting zones at John Heinz NWR with 50-yard buffer from occupied buildings, refuge boundaries, and public roadways.

C. Species to be taken, hunting periods, hunting access White-tailed deer may be taken by refuge-permitted hunters (preferably first-time youth hunters and disabled hunters). The designated archery hunting zones would be open to special hunts for up to 10 days during the archery deer season (usually mid-September through January). Hunters will be selected by lottery, and designated days will fall within season dates established annually by the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PAGC). Each year the refuge will work closely with the PAGC to set refuge archery hunting dates.

D. Justification for the permit, if one is required Based on the size of available upland habitats and intention of providing a safe and quality hunt, the daily number of hunters on the approximately 170 acres of refuge uplands will not exceed 12. Additional limits are placed on the number of hunters permitted in each area by assigning hunters to a designated hunt zone. The number of archery sport-hunters permitted per day of hunting may be adjusted annually based on population surveys, data collected from deer assessed at check-in stations, the response of forest vegetation to browsing, and safety considerations. All hunters will check-in at refuge headquarters and will be assigned their hunt zone. At that time they will sign and retain a copy of the Refuge Hunting Permit.

E. Consultation and Coordination with the State John Heinz NWR and PAGC will collaborate to ensure safe and enjoyable recreational hunting opportunities. Hunter participation and harvest data will be shared annually and law enforcement

Page 13

officers from both John Heinz NWR and PAGC will work together to patrol the refuge, safeguarding hunters, visitors, and both game and nongame species. PAGC has been consulted with the development of this plan, and their comments incorporated. The two agencies will continue to discuss archery hunt issues and the management of wildlife control specialists.

F. Law Enforcement Enforcement of refuge violations normally associated with management of a National Wildlife Refuge is the responsibility of commissioned Refuge Law Enforcement Officers. Other refuge officers, special agents, State game wardens, and the local sheriff’s department may assist the John Heinz NWR full time law enforcement officer. The following methods are used to control and enforce hunting regulations:

• Refuge and hunt area boundaries will be clearly posted; • The refuge will provide a brochure that shows hunt areas; • John Heinz NWR law enforcement staff will randomly check hunters for compliance with

Federal and State Laws, as well as refuge-specific regulations pertinent to hunting, including compatibility stipulations;

• John Heinz NWR law enforcement staff will coordinate with PAGC and other law enforcement agencies; and,

• Information will be made available at the refuge Visitor Center, website, and social media. Procedures for obtaining law enforcement assistance are based on legal jurisdiction, pending where the incident occurred. The John Heinz NWR law enforcement officer has met with local law enforcement agencies in the surrounding counties that contain Refuge units to develop good working relationships and coordinate appropriate strategies.

G. Funding and Staffing Requirements The initial startup cost is expected to be $4,500 for boundary posting, flyers, public notices, posters, and maps. The annual cost of running this program is expected to be $9,000, which includes a substantial portion of overtime for law enforcement personnel. Refuge staff will prepare the annual refuge hunting regulations leaflet, make changes to the hunt plan and regulations as needed, prepare annual output reports, and respond to public inquiries about the hunt program. Refuge staff will collaborate with and receive assistance from PAGC for checking hunters’ in-and-out, and collecting biological information from harvested deer. In addition to general staffing, refuge and/or other authorized law enforcement personnel at the Federal, State, County and local levels may be requested to assist during each day of the hunt. Service law enforcement assistance would be authorized by the Regional Office to ensure the involvement of a minimum of one additional Refuge Officer to assist with the hunt. In addition to staff expenses, the refuge will incur costs for signs, vehicle maintenance, leaflet printing, and miscellaneous supplies.

Page 14

Initial Costs: Boundary posting (materials): $1,000 Production of hunt flyers, public notices, posters, etc.: $1,500 Design hunter orientation course and target qualifications: $2,000 Total $4,500 Additional Staffing Need: Detailed GS-9 Law Enforcement Officer: $5,000 Annual (recurring costs): Hunt staff administration (reservations, check-in/out, deer check): $2,000

Law Enforcement Officer (over time): $5,000 Printing: $1,000 Miscellaneous (signs, equipment, vehicle, etc.) $1,000

Total $9,000 VI. Measures Taken to Avoid Conflicts with Other Management Objectives

A. Biological Conflicts The proposed deer management program will cause few biological conflicts with other wildlife species. Some disturbance of other animals is unavoidable when sport-hunters are on the Refuge. However, disturbance will be minimized because many spring and summer nesting forest songbirds will have migrated south and reptiles, amphibians, and some mammals will have entered a dormant stage prior to either portion of the deer management program. Disturbance to resident wildlife or winter migrants is not anticipated given the low density of hunters permitted (i.e., 1 bow hunter per 14 acres of the refuge’s approximately 170 acres opened to hunting). Archery hunting will occur on fewer than half of the days allotted for the Pennsylvania hunting season. John Heinz NWR is within the range of the threatened American bald eagle and these majestic birds are fairly regular users of the refuge for nesting and roosting areas along the Delaware River. Although the hunting season will coincide with the time of year that eagles are potentially present, it is not expected that the proposed archery hunt will affect bald eagles. Hunters will primarily use the refuge upland habitat, while the wetland areas and open water are those more often occupied by eagles and they could not be possibly be confused any legal game species (deer only) on the refuge. To ensure sound wildlife management, the refuge will monitor the deer population, both through a continuation of the annual deer survey and the collection of age, sex, and weight information from harvested deer. Some of this information is necessitated by the existence of the hunt program and has been included in the cost of administering the hunts.

Page 15

B. Public Use Conflicts

The refuge is sensitive to the proximity of its neighbors and is committed to ensure their safety. For this reason, the refuge will establish safety zones adjacent to residential areas (i.e., a 500-foot, no-shooting zone around the refuge’s perimeter). Other refuge uses consist of individuals hiking the nature trails and canoeists/kayakers paddling the Darby Creek and Tinicum Marsh. Use of the nature trails is heavy during the fall and variable during January. However, to ensure visitor safety and a quality experience for all refuge visitors, nature trails and access points will be closed to the public on hunt days. John Heinz NWR will post signs at the refuge access points (i.e., Route 420 and Lindbergh parking lots, canoe launch and west end at lagoons) to notify the public that a deer hunt is in progress. We will coordinate with the local marinas to ensure that they are aware of the hunt season on the refuge and that they notify their customers. We will further instruct hunters that they are not authorized to shoot across waterways; this will be reinforced by using appropriately defining hunt zone boundaries.

C. Administrative Conflicts

No administrative conflicts are anticipated. Refuge management sets priorities, allowing visitor services staff sufficient time to administer the hunting program. Currently, the refuge employs a full-time Refuge Officer. Additional assistance is sought from other refuges, local special agent, or state game wardens, when deemed necessary.

VII. Conduct of the Hunting Program

The hunting program consists of public hunting of white-tailed deer, specifically an archery hunt for youth (and other archery-only Special Hunts as determined by the Refuge Manager) at John Heinz NWR. The refuge hunt will accommodate the following PAGC-defined and licensed groups: Mentored Youth; Junior Hunter; Resident Military Personnel; Resident National Guard/Reserves; Resident Prisoners of War; Disabled War Veterans; and Hunters with Disabilities.

Hunting will take place within the regulatory framework established by the PAGC and the Service. The refuge would be open only to refuge-specific special hunts that follow State regulations. Refuge-specific special hunts are conducted within the framework of the State seasons and regulations for the species proposed to be hunted. Hunting at the refuge is at least as restrictive as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and in some cases, more restrictive.

When necessary, elevated stand locations and hunting blinds may be designated for refuge-specific special hunts. Stands and/or blinds would be located to ensure safety; provide quality hunting experiences; and to ensure deer harvest locations are reasonably distant from other hunters, public areas, and roadways.

When necessary, accommodations will be made for any disabled hunters involved in the archery hunting program. Limited vehicular access that may include all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) would be made available on an as needed basis at approved areas and times. Construction of a temporary hunting blind(s) with wheelchair accessibility would be available and those hunters recognized by PAGC as disabled will have preference regarding such use.

Page 16

Listed below are refuge-specific regulations that pertain to John Heinz NWR as of the date of this plan. These regulations may be modified as conditions change or if refuge expansion continues/occurs.

A. Refuge-Specific White-Tailed Deer Hunting Regulations

Big Game We allow archery hunting of white-tailed deer on designated areas of the refuge, during specified dates, in accordance with State regulations subject to the following conditions:

. 1. Hunters must possess a valid refuge hunting special use permit and comply with all terms

and conditions.2. Junior hunters under the age of 16 must be accompanied by an adult member of the family

(at least 18), or by an adult serving in the place of a parent.

B. Anticipated Public Reaction to the Hunting Program

Currently, some local residents support a deer management program because of personal property damage to landscaping and forested areas. However, deer management hunts elsewhere have met with opposition in recent years.

There may be negative reactions to the deer hunt by anti-hunting groups. Response to any potential demonstrations or protests will be coordinated through the Northeast Regional Office of the Service, and may require assistance from refuges who have dealt with these situations in the past. If necessary, state and local law enforcement officials may be asked to assist.

C. Hunter Application and Registration Procedures (if applicable)

All persons interested in hunting on the refuge must possess a valid State hunting license and necessary deer tag(s) prior to submitting their application and the non-refundable application fee to the refuge. Hunters will be selected by a random drawing. Selected hunters must attend a State archery hunter education course, a scheduled refuge hunter orientation program, and refuge archery target qualification in order to hunt on the refuge.

Hunter numbers may be modified in the future if necessary to promote safety, relieve hunter congestion or public use conflicts, increase harvest, or ensure compatibility with other refuge objectives. Procedures for hunter selection may need to be modified as improvements to the system are necessary.

D. Description of Hunter Selection Process

A $6 administration fee payable to John Heinz NWR must be included per applicant. Only 1 hunter may apply per form. The choice of four hunt weekends may be submitted per application; however, only one choice will be awarded. A maximum of twelve (12) hunters per hunt day will be selected at random. Successful applicants will be notified two months prior to the first hunting day.

Selected hunters will be notified through the mail with an official refuge letter indicating their status

Page 17

as being drawn for the hunt. This letter will serve as their permit to hunt. Those selected will be required to attend a mandatory refuge white-tailed deer hunt orientation and safety meeting at the refuge headquarters prior to the actual hunt. Drawn youth hunters must possess a State-certified hunter safety completion certificate, their refuge letter, and be accompanied by parent or guardian at least 21 years of age or older upon check-in. Hunters must report to refuge headquarters by 5:00 am on each hunt day for hunter check-in, refuge orientation, and safety briefing, and transportation to hunt areas within the refuge.

E. Media Selection for Announcing and Publicizing the Hunting Program

The refuge will prepare an annual news release announcing the availability of permit applications and provide a summary of the hunting program for that year. The public will be informed of refuge hunting regulations and seasons through news releases to local media outlets, as well as, the refuge website, and kiosks. Hunt days will also be posted at the refuge headquarters and information kiosk, as well as on the refuge’s website (https://www.fws.gov/refuge/John_Heinz/). The Refuge Manager may also decide to announce the hunt to refuge neighbors and other interested parties by letter. The refuge’s contact information (i.e., address and phone number) will be included in the Pennsylvania Game Commission hunting brochures. An annual program update will be filed each year as required, outlining any changes in the current hunt program. Rules and regulations will be published in the Federal Register as required.

F. General Requirements

Upon arriving at the refuge for the hunt, hunters must display the following items to refuge personnel in order the participate in the hunt: State hunting license and tags, valid refuge archery hunting special use permit, proof of hunter education course, refuge archery hunt orientation and target qualification and the appropriate hunter orange. Hunters are required to check out at the designated refuge location prior to leaving John Heinz NWR at the end of the day.

G. Hunter Requirements

1. Hunter Safety Training – Hunters (as required by PAGC) must have passed a state certifiedhunter education program and are required to attend a mandatory refuge white-tailed deerhunt orientation and safety meeting at the refuge headquarters prior to the actual hunt.

2. Age - Hunting is open to individuals of all ages, with an emphasis on youth.

3. Equipment - The refuge will permit the use of PAGC-defined archery hunting equipmentonly.

4. License and Permits – The refuge hunt will accommodate hunters as designated in sectionV. subsection D. Lottery winning hunters will receive an official refuge letter stating thatthey have been drawn to participate in this hunt. This letter will serve as their refuge permitand must be on their person during the hunt.

5. Reporting Harvest – Hunters will be required to check in and out of the hunt area and havetheir harvest inspected by refuge staff.

Page 18

VIII. Compatibility Determination

Hunting and all associated program activities proposed in this plan are expected to be found compatible with purposes of the refuge. The Compatibility Determination can be found in Appendix A.

REFERENCES

Alverson, W.S., D.M. Waller, and S.L. Solheim. 1988. Forests too edge: edge effects in northern Wisconsin. Conservation Biology 2:348-358.

Augustine, D.J. and P.A. Jordan. 1998. Predictors of white-tailed deer grazing intensity in fragmented deciduous forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1076-1085.

Behrend, D.F., G.F. Mattfeld, W.C. Tierson, and J.E. Wiley III. 1970. Deer density control for comprehensive forest management. Journal of Forestry 68:695-700.

Brown, S.E. and G.R. Parker. 1997. Impact of white-tailed deer on forest communities within Brown County State Park, Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Sciences. 106:39-51.

Casey, D. and D. Hein. 1983. Effects of heavy browsing on a bird community in deciduous forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:829-836.

DeCalesta, D.S. 1994. Effects of white-tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:711-718.

McCullough, D.R. 1982. The theory and management of Odocoileus populations in Biology and Management of the Cervidae. Wemmer, C. (ed.) 1987:535-549. Res. Symp. Natl. Zoo. Park.

McCullough, D.R. 1997. Irruptive behavior in ungulates. Pages 69-93 in W.J. McShea, H.B. Underwood, and J. H. Rappole, eds., The Science of Overabundance: Deer Ecology and Population Management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C

Miller, L.A., B.E. Johns, D.J. Elias, and G.J. Killian. 1999. Oral Vaccination of white-tailed deer using a Recombinant Bacillus Calmette-Guerin Vaccine expressing the Borrelia burgdorferi outer surface protein A: Prospects for Immunocontraception. American Journal of Reproductive Immunizology 41:279-285.

Porter, W.F.1991. White-tailed deer in eastern ecosystems: implications for management and research in National Parks. Natural Resources Report NPS/NRSSUNY/NRR-91/05.

Russell, F.L. and N.L. Fowler. 1999. Rarity of oak saplings in savannas and woodlands of the eastern Edwards Plateau, TX. Southwestern Naturalist 44:31-41.

Tilghman, N.G. 1989. Impacts of white-tailed deer on forest regeneration in northwestern

Page 19

Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:524-532.

Warren, R.J. 1997. Deer overabundance – special issue. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25.

Appendix ACompatibility Determination

1

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Hunting

REFUGE NAME: John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum

DATE ESTABLISHED: June 30, 1972

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES:

1) Public Law 92-326 (as amended)2) An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife {16 U.S.C. §667b}3) Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 {16 U.S.C. §742f(b)(1)}4) Migratory Bird Conservation Act {16 U.S.C. §715d}

REFUGE PURPOSES:

John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, refuge) was established in 1972 under Special Legislation for preserving, restoring, and developing the natural area known as Tinicum Marsh....a wildlife interpretative center for the purpose of promoting environmental education, and to afford visitors an opportunity for the study of wildlife in its natural habitat. (86 Stat. 891).

Additional refuge lands were acquired under the following authorities:

• To be of particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program.16 U.S.C. §667b (An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife).

• Development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish andwildlife resources...(16 U.S.C. §742f (a)(4))...for the benefit of the United States Fish andWildlife Service, in performing its activities and services.... 16 U.S.C. §742f(b)(1) (Fishand Wildlife Act of 1956).

• For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratorybirds…. 16 U.S.C. §715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).

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. (Pub. L. 105–57; 111 Stat. 1252)

2

DESCRIPTION OF USE: (a) What is this use? Is it a priority public use? The use is the public hunting of white-tailed deer, specifically an archery hunt for youth (and other archery-only Special Hunts as determined by the Refuge Manager) at John Heinz NWR at Tinicum. The refuge hunt will accommodate the following Pennsylvania Game Commission (PAGC) defined and licensed groups: Mentored Youth; Junior Hunter; Resident Military Personnel; Resident National Guard/Reserves; Resident Prisoners of War; Disabled War Veterans; and Hunters with Disabilities. Hunting is a priority public use of the Refuge System under the Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act; Public Law 105-57), when found to be compatible. (b) Where the use would be conducted? Archery hunting would occur throughout the refuge in three designated hunting zones (see attached map) totaling 170 acres. Non-hunted areas include the refuge administrative and visitor center area, areas adjacent to or near walking trails and boardwalks, and parking lots.

(c) When would the use be conducted? The designated archery hunting zones would be open to special hunts (e.g., youth) for white-tailed deer hunting during designated hours on specified days during the archery deer season (usually mid-September through January). The specified days will fall within season dates established annually by the PAGC, and each year the refuge will work closely with the PAGC to set refuge archery hunting dates. (d) How would the use be conducted? Hunting will take place within the regulatory framework established by the PAGC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The refuge would be open only to refuge-specific special hunts that follow state regulations. Refuge-specific special hunts are conducted within the framework of the State seasons and regulations for the species proposed to be hunted. Hunting at the refuge is at least as restrictive as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and in some cases, more restrictive.

When necessary, elevated stand locations and hunting blinds may be designated for refuge-specific special hunts. Stands and/or blinds would be located to ensure safety; provide quality hunting experiences; and to ensure deer harvest locations are reasonably distant from other hunters, public areas, and roadways.

When necessary, accommodations will be made for any disabled hunters involved in the archery hunting program. Limited vehicular access that may include all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) would be made available on an as needed basis at approved areas and times. Construction of a temporary hunting blind(s) with wheelchair accessibility would be available and those hunters recognized by PAGC as disabled will have preference regarding such use.

3

A small fee may be charged to cover administrative costs. That fee would be payable to John Heinz NWR and would be required per applicant. All applications must be received by the posted deadline. The permit will allow refuge staff to communicate with hunters and track use and interest. For all hunts, hunting information sheets and maps are updated annually and made available to hunters on the refuge website. (e) Why is this use being proposed? Hunting is one of the priority public uses of the Refuge System. Providing access for youth and other special hunts to wildlife-dependent public uses, including hunting, is a high priority for the refuge in an urban setting. The Service supports and encourages priority uses when they are compatible, which means the use has been determined to not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the Refuge System mission or the purposes of the national wildlife refuge. The refuge will continue the tradition of wildlife-related recreation by allowing hunting in compliance with State regulation.

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES: The annual cost to meet hunting program objectives is an estimated $9,000 out of an overall refuge operating budget of about $2 million. This cost includes operating expenses and staff salaries and materials. This also accounts for the installation of infrastructure for hunters with mobility challenges (e.g., new blinds and stands, some trail and parking maintenance and construction). The refuge will be assisted with some refuge-specific special hunts by partner organizations. It is expected that general refuge funds will continue to support the majority of the hunting program. Funds to be used to implement John Heinz NWR hunt program: Initial Costs: Boundary posting (materials) $1,000 Production of hunt flyers, public notices, posters, etc. $1,500 Design hunter orientation course and target qualifications $2,000 Total $4,500 Annual (recurring costs): Hunt staff administration (reservations, check-in/out, deer check) $2,000

Law Enforcement Officer (over time/detail) $5,000 Printing $1,000 Miscellaneous (signs, equipment, vehicle, etc.) $1,000

Total $9,000

4

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE: Refuge staff will monitor hunting activities to ensure wildlife resources are not impacted in a detrimental manner. Since the number of hunting days is restricted, disturbance and other impacts are not expected to be significant. Staff monitors species population and harvest trends to ensure that deer can be hunted at the refuge without appreciably and adversely affecting these species populations. These monitoring activities include direct observation, consultation with State and Service species specialists, and review of current species survey information and research. Refuge management activities can be accomplished without conflict with hunting activities through the use of administratively closed areas, timing of hunts, and methods of hunt.

Public Health and Safety Provision of parking areas and temporary refuge trail closures will minimize potential hazards associated with a limited archery-only hunt. The refuge will establish safety zones adjacent to residential areas. To further ensure visitor safety and a quality experience for all refuge visitors, the refuge will be closed to the public during hunt activities. John Heinz NWR will post signs at the main access points to notify the public that a deer hunt is in progress. The refuge will coordinate with local marinas to ensure that they are aware of the hunt season on the refuge and that they notify their customers. Vegetation A concern of land managers regarding deer populations at high densities is the impact to biodiversity. Because they are large herbivores, white-tailed deer are effective at altering habitat due to their energetic requirements and high reproductive potential (McCullough 1982, 1997). Many authors (Behrend et al. 1970, Tilghman 1989, Warren 1997, Miller et al. 1999) reported that vegetative species richness and the abundance of herbaceous and woody vegetation declined in areas with white-tailed deer densities exceeding 29 deer per square mile. In a northwestern Pennsylvania study, Behrend et al. (1970) and Tilghman (1989) recommended a herd density of 21 deer per square mile to allow for successful hardwood forest regeneration. Refuge staff estimated that the deer herd far exceeded this density for multiple years. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that adverse vegetative effects have also occurred on the refuge for some time. The damage caused by deer to forest regeneration on John Heinz NWR is evident. The presence of oak and maple saplings within long-term fenced deer exclosures is obvious, while similar vegetation outside of the exclosures is browsed to the ground or is not existent. Invasive species of plants, which are often consumed to a lesser extent by deer, have become dominant vegetation types on the refuge. While such impacts currently affect forest understory and the varied animals dependent on this vegetation zone, the longer term implications are that the refuge’s native forested areas could lose the ability to replace themselves through time.

5

Of the approximately 250,000 visits that the refuge receives from the public each year, hunters would make up less than 0.1 percent of the total, or approximately 220 visits. Hunters would traverse areas that are closed to all other users, except hunters. The physical effects on vegetation from hunting deer on the refuge are expected to be minimal. Hunting may result in some trampling of vegetation, but since most of the vegetation will be dormant for a majority of the hunting season, we expect the impact to be quite minimal. Additionally, hunter use during all seasons will be dispersed throughout the refuge, minimizing the impact to any one area. Birds and Wildlife In general, refuge visitors engaged in hunting will be walking off-trail in designated areas open to hunting. General disturbance from recreational activities, including hunting, vary with the wildlife species involved and the activity’s type, level, frequency, duration, and the time of year it occurs. The responses of wildlife to human activities, such as hunting, include avoidance or departure from the site (Owen 1973, Burger 1981, Kaiser and Fritzell 1984, Korschen et al. 1985, Kahl 1991, Klein 1993, Whittaker and Knight 1998), the use of suboptimal habitat (Erwin 1980, Williams and Forbes 1980), altered behavior or habituation to human disturbance (Burger 1981, Korschen et al. 1985, Morton et al. 1989, Ward and Stehn 1989, Havera et al. 1992, Klein 1993, Whittaker and Knight 1998), attraction (Whittaker and Knight 1998), and an increase in energy expenditure (Morton et al. 1989, Belanger and Bedard 1990). The amount of disturbance tends to increase with decreased distance between visitors and birds (Burger 1986). The refuge is a complex of critical habitats for birds in the highly urbanized landscape of greater Philadelphia. While most of the 300 plus avian species identified at the refuge utilize it as a migratory stopover, more than 80 species have been recorded nesting on the refuge over the years. Some disturbance of birds is unavoidable when sport-hunters are on the refuge. However, disturbance will be minimized because many spring and summer nesting forest songbirds will have migrated south. Disturbance to resident wildlife or winter migrants is not anticipated given the low density of hunters permitted (i.e., 1 bowhunter per 14 acres of the refuge’s 170 acres of hunt area) and archery hunting will occur on approximately 10 of the days allotted for the Pennsylvania hunting season.

Fish and Hydrology Freshwater tidal marshes, like Tinicum Marsh, are used by many aquatic species for spawning, year-round food and shelter, and as a nursery and rearing habitat (Mitch and Gosselink 1993). Freshwater tidal marshes are also a mixing zone for various groups of fish typically associated with certain habitats. The refuge protects the largest remaining freshwater tidal marsh in Pennsylvania and manages a 145-acre impoundment. Refuge staff have observed only negligible or minor erosion problems to date through current public uses. The archery-only hunt prevents any possible water quality issues associated with spent ammunition. Hunting would only occur on forested upland areas of the refuge, and no hydrologic impacts are anticipated from the use.

6

White-tailed Deer PAGC monitors deer populations and densities throughout the State. In hunting license year 2016-2017, an estimated total of 333,254 deer were harvested in Pennsylvania including 183,794 antlerless deer and 149,460 antlered deer. In Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 5D, which includes John Heinz NWR, a relatively large number of antlerless deer licenses per square mile of land area are allocated versus other areas of the State to curtail population growth of deer and to reduce deer-human conflicts. For the 2016-2017 hunting license year, 25,000 antlerless deer licenses were allocated in WMU 5D and an estimated 6,500 antlerless deer and 2,900 antlered deer were harvested. Hunting can have direct and indirect impacts on both deer and other species. These impacts include direct mortality of individuals; changes in wildlife behavior; changes in wildlife population structure, dynamics, and distribution patterns; and disturbance from noise and hunters walking on- and off-trail (Cole and Knight 1990, Cole 1990, Bell and Austin 1985). In many cases, hunting removes a portion of the wildlife population that will otherwise naturally succumb to predation, disease, or competition (Bartmann et al. 1992). Typical changes in deer behavior in response to hunting include avoidance of certain areas, becoming more wary, staying closer to cover, and shifting feeding times (e.g., feeding more at night) (King and Workman 1986). Although deer were hunted in the area prior to refuge establishment, they have since had decades of protection within refuge boundaries. Refuge staff reported a general increase in deer abundance as per annual staff deer surveys (Tables 1 and 2) and a dramatic shift towards non-native, invasive vegetation in response to over browsing by deer. Due to overpopulation in recent years, the refuge has implemented managerial biological control techniques.

7

Table 1. Annual white-tailed deer abundance estimates derived from standardized deer drives conducted by staff and volunteers at John Heinz NWR at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania from 2001 to 2010. Date of Survey Deer Abundance Estimate 2001* 86 2002* 106 February 2003 136 January 2004 193 December 2004 224 December 2005 245 December 2006 208 December 2007 199 December 2008 191 December 2009 243 December 2010 188

* Months of surveys during 2001 and 2002 were not specified. Table 2. Annual white-tailed deer abundance estimates derived from Forward Looking InfraRed deer surveys conducted by staff at John Heinz NWR at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania from 2011 to 2017. Date of Survey Deer Abundance Estimate (mi2) Winter 2011/2012 73.0 Winter 2012/2013 80.5 Winter 2013/2014 86.3 ** Cull conducted March 2014 88 deer removed Winter 2014/2015 32.9 Winter 2015/2016 52.6 Winter 2016/2017 26.8 ** Cull conducted March 2016 66 Deer removed Winter 2017-this report 21.0 ** Cull conducted November 2017 30 Deer removed

** Deer culls were conducted by the refuge and U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services to reduce herd. All of the meat was donated to Pennsylvania food banks.

About 25 deer are estimated to be harvested on the refuge under archery hunt. The addition of refuge lands and seasons will only negligibly impact these species populations on a regional scale. Threatened, Endangered Species, and Species of Concern Recreational hunting in designated areas will not cause significant impacts to threatened or endangered species. The refuge does not support any known federally listed threatened or endangered species. The refuge does provide potential foraging and nursery habitat for the federally listed, endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). This species is known

8

to occur in the nearby Delaware River. However, this species has not been identified within Darby Creek or on the refuge to date. Bald eagles and peregrine falcons are the only former federally listed threatened or endangered species known to use the refuge for roosting or feeding. Bald eagles now nest on the refuge and both species have been delisted the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). State-endangered birds such as the American bittern, least bittern, black crowned night heron, king rail, great egret, yellow-crowned night heron, and sedge wren all forage and/or breed on the refuge. The State-endangered southern leopard frog is known to breed in shallow wetlands found within refuge forests and grasslands. The State-threatened eastern redbelly turtle is also known to breed on the refuge as well. Recreational hunting in designated areas will not cause significant impacts to State-listed species due to the location of the hunting zones and the time of year that hunting will take place. The proposed action will have no effect on any threatened species, endangered species, or Species of Concern. Recreation Resources The Refuge Improvement Act highlights six priority public uses of the Refuge System along with its wildlife-first mandate. These six public uses include wildlife observation, interpretation, photography, environmental education, hunting, and fishing. John Heinz NWR currently provides opportunities for the public to participate in five of the six priority uses. With over 10 miles of trails, the refuge provides many areas for visitors to explore. Most refuge visitors are families, wildlife observers, and neighborhood residents interested in viewing nature and wildlife. Well over 90 percent of the estimated 250,000 visitors take part in some sort of wildlife-dependent recreation activity, be it wildlife observation, photography, or fishing. We estimate numbers of participants for the first white-tailed deer hunt to be up to 12 hunters per day, plus possible mentors for an estimated total of 220 to 240 participants. The public would have an increased awareness of the refuge and the Refuge System, and public demand for more areas to hunt and learn about wildlife would be met. The hunting program provides an administratively simple program that balances other public use activities. To further ensure safety for neighbors or other visitors, the refuge will establish safety zones adjacent to residential areas (i.e., a 500-foot, no-shooting zone around the refuge’s perimeter). Nature trails will be closed to the public on hunt days. Only negligible, short-term impacts to other refuge visitors are anticipated to occur because hunting will occur only on specified days during the hunting season, ensuring a reasonable balance among various refuge users. Socioeconomic Factors While hunting visitation may slightly increase due to increased opportunities, hunting would only account for 1 percent of expenditures related to the refuge. Therefore, additional economic impact is expected to be negligible under this use. The annual cost to meet hunting program objectives is an estimated $9,000 out of an overall refuge operating budget of about $2 million. This cost

9

includes operating expenses and staff salaries and materials. This also accounts for the installation of infrastructure for hunters with mobility challenges (e.g., new blinds and stands, some trail and parking maintenance). The refuge will be assisted with some refuge-specific special hunts by partner organizations. Initial startup funding is estimated to be $4,000 to $7,000 for the hunt program. Cultural Resources Limited investigations and surveys have occurred throughout the area to better understand cultural resource values in the area. It is unlikely the archery hunt program would impact cultural or archaeological resources. Impacts to Refuge Facilities (roads, trails, parking lots) The Service defines facilities as, “real property that serves a particular function(s) such as buildings, roads, utilities, water control structures, raceways, etc.” The facilities most utilized by hunters are parking areas and trails that are located on refuge. Access to hunting areas will be on foot to minimize soil erosion and potential negative impacts. The use of all-terrain vehicles is prohibited. PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT: The public review and comment period for this use was held from ________ to ________. A public notice was posted at the refuge headquarters visitor center and on the refuge web page. A public notice was also released in the Delaware County Daily Times, Town Talk and Philadelphia Inquirer, all of which have wide local distribution. X # comments were received during this period. This compatibility determination will be available for public review and comment for at least 2 weeks, in conjunction with the release of the Draft Hunt Plan for the refuge.

DETERMINATION (CHECK ONE BELOW): ____ Use is not compatible ____ Use is compatible, with the following stipulations STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY: To ensure compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System, hunting can occur at John Heinz NWR at Tinicum in accordance with State and Federal regulations, and special refuge-specific restrictions to ensure that wildlife and habitat management goals are achieved, and that the program is providing a safe, high-quality hunting experience for

10

participants. This hunting program will be monitored and potentially modified or eliminated if any the program’s components are found not compatible. The following stipulations are necessary to ensure compatibility:

1. Law Enforcement Officer(s) will promote and monitor compliance with state and federal regulations, monitor public use patterns and public safety, and document visitor interactions.

2. We prohibit the use of dogs while hunting deer to reduce impacts to other wildlife and avoid excessive habitat disturbance.

3. We prohibit the use of any bait, salt or enticement in order to reduce attracting other animals and limit behavioral change in deer.

JUSTIFICATION: Hunting is a priority wildlife-dependent use for the Refuge System through which the public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife (Executive Order 12996, March 25, 1996, and the Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57)). Service policy is to provide expanded opportunities for wildlife-dependent uses when compatible and consistent with sound fish and wildlife management and ensure that they receive enhanced attention during planning and management. Suitable habitat exists on refuge lands to support hunting as proposed. The viability of the white-tailed deer proposed to be hunted will not be negatively affected by hunting according to State regulations. Deer hunting may improve habitat for deer and other species. Reduction of plant species diversity and richness is a commonly noted effect of deer overpopulation. It can also alter ecosystems to the extent that they become unfavorable habitats for other wildlife. Gray squirrel, white-footed mouse, and some amphibian species have been shown to decline in areas highly browsed by deer (Elliot 1978; Nixon and Hanson 1987). Subsequently, predator populations of these species, such as owls, hawks and other carnivores, decline (Flowerdew and Elwood 2001). Further, the use is supported in the Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Refuge biologists have been conducting deer population inventories. The results of these surveys have consistently recorded population numbers in the range of 200 to 240 deer per square mile. By comparison, a deer and songbird population relationship study in northwestern Pennsylvania concluded that the threshold level for negative effects on songbird richness was between 20 and 38 deer per square mile (deCalesta 1994). Refuge biologists have completed a draft deer management plan in partnership with the USDA’s Division of Wildlife Services. Also, as noted in the CCP, the refuge will evaluate the possibility of providing deer hunting opportunities within 10 years.

11

This activity will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the Refuge System or purposes for which the refuge was established. The use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. Signature: Refuge Manager: ______________________________________ (Signature and Date) Concurrence: Regional Chief: _______________________________________

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date: ___________________________________

12

Figure 1. Designated hunting zones at John Heinz NWR, with 50-yard buffer from occupied buildings, refuge boundaries, and public roadways.

13

LITERATURE CITED: Alverson, W.S., D.M. Waller, and S.L. Solheim. 1988. Forests too edge: edge effects in northern Wisconsin. Conservation Biology 2:348-358.

Augustine, D.J. and P.A. Jordan. 1998. Predictors of white-tailed deer grazing intensity in fragmented deciduous forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1076-1085.

Bartmann, R.M., White, G.C., and Carpenter, L.H. (1992). Compensatory mortality in a Colorado mule deer population. Wildlife Monographs, 121, 1-39.

Behrend, D.F., G.F. Mattfeld, W.C. Tierson, and J.E. Wiley III. 1970. Deer density control for comprehensive forest management. Journal of Forestry 68:695-700.

Belanger, L., and Bedard, J. (1990). Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. Journal of Wildlife Management, 54, 36-41.

Bell, D.V. and Austin, L.W. (1985). The game-fishing season and its effects on overwintering wildfowl. Biological Conservation, 33, 65-80.


Burger, J. (1981). Effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 21, 231-241.


Cole, D.N. (1990). Ecological impacts of wilderness recreation and their management. In J.C. Hendee, G.H. Stankey, and R.C. Lucas (Eds.), Wilderness Management (pp. 425-466). Golden, CO: North American Press.

Cole, D.N. and Knight, R.L. (1990). Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues, 0, 33-40.


Erwin, R.M. (1980). Breeding habitat by colonially nesting water birds in two Mid-Atlantic U.S. regions under different regimes of human disturbance. Biological Conservation, 18, 39-51.

14

Havera, S.P., Boens, L.R., Georgi, M.M., and Shealy, R.T. (1992). Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 20, 290-298.

Kahl, R. (1991). Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 19, 242-248.

Kaiser, M.S. and Fritzell, E.K. (1984). Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. Journal of Wildlife Management, 48, 561-567.

King, M.M. and Workman, G.W. (1986). Response of desert bighorn sheep to human harassment: management implications. Transactions 51st North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference.

Klein, M.L. (1993). Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 21, 31-39.

Korschen, C.E., George, L.S., and Green, W.L. (1985). Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 13, 290-296.




Morton, J. M., Fowler, A.C., and Kirkpatrick, R. L. (1989). Time and energy budgets of American black ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management, 53, 401-410 (also see corrigendum in Journal of Wildlife Management, 54, 683.

Owen, M. (1973). The management of grassland areas for wintering geese. Wildfowl, 24,123-130.



15

Tilghman, N.G. 1989. Impacts of white-tailed deer on forest regeneration in northwestern Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:524-532.

Ward, D.H. and Stehn, R.A. (1989). Response of brant and other geese to aircraft disturbance at Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fish and Wildlife Research Center. Final report to the Minerals Management Service.

Warren, R.J. 1997. Deer overabundance – special issue. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25.

Whittaker, D. and Knight, R. (1998). Understanding wildlife responses to humans. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26(3), 312-317.

Williams, G.J. and Forbes, E. (1980). The habitat and dietary preferences of dark-bellied brant geese and widgeon in relation to agricultural management. Wildfowl, 31, 151-157.

Appendix BEnvironmental Assessment

Environmental Assessment for White-tailed Deer Management at John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum

Date: March 15, 2018

This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the effects associated with this proposed action and complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1509) and Department of the Interior (516 DM 8) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (550 FW 3) 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 allow hunting opportunities for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) on the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge) in accordance with the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), which was finalized in 2012. The use is conducting an archery-only deer hunt program, aimed primarily for youth and other special groups. As specified in the hunt plan, the hunt will accommodate the following Pennsylvania Game Commission defined and licensed groups: Mentored Youth; Junior Hunter; Resident Military Personnel; Resident National Guard/Reserves; Resident Prisoners of War; Disabled War Veterans; and Hunters with Disabilities. Hunting would be allowed in designated areas on the refuge, in accordance with Federal and State regulations. Approximately 170 acres would be open to white-tailed deer hunting.

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

John Heinz NWR at Tinicum was established in 1972 under Special Legislation for preserving, restoring, and developing the natural area known as Tinicum Marsh....a wildlife interpretative center for the purpose of promoting environmental education, and to afford visitors an opportunity for the study of wildlife in its natural habitat. (86 Stat. 891).

Additional refuge lands were acquired under the following authorities:

To be of particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program. 16 U.S.C. §667b (An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife).

Development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources...(16 U.S.C. §742f (a)(4))...for the benefit of the United States Fish and

2

Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services.... 16 U.S.C. §742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).

For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds…. 16 U.S.C. §715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).

The mission of the Refuge System, as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA), as amended by the 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:

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

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

● Ensure that the mission of the Refuge System 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 Refuge System are located;

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

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

● Ensure that opportunities are provided within the Refuge System 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 Refuge System. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action: Hunting is a healthy, traditional recreational use of renewable natural resources deeply rooted in America’s heritage, and it can be an important wildlife management tool. John Heinz NWR’s CCP identified goals and objectives to maintain and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy, functioning ecosystem by addressing the overabundance of deer that is threatening these components on the refuge (USFWS 2012). Also, the action will provide opportunities for high quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular emphasis on environmental education and interpretation as outlined by CCP (USFWS 2012).

3

The hunt plan further identifies the following objectives of a white-tailed deer hunting program on John Heinz NWR:

1. Provide the public with a high quality recreational experience on more refuge lands andincrease opportunities for hunters, with an emphasis on youth;

2. Improve vegetative conditions for the benefit of Federal trust species such as migratorybirds and threatened and endangered species;

3. Reduce damage to forested areas within 5 years of project implementation;4. Provide an opportunity for the priority wildlife-dependent recreational use of hunting

because it is compatible and necessary for the health of wildlife and habitat and byimproving habitat for wildlife viewing and photography:

5. Educate the public and neighboring landowners about effects of overpopulated deerherds.

To address the needs stated above, the purpose of the proposed action will bring the refuge into compliance with direction detailed in the CCP. Furthermore, Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3356 directs the Service to enhance and expand public access to lands and waters on national wildlife refuges for hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, and other forms of outdoor recreation. The proposed action will promote one of the priority public uses of the Refuge System, and providing opportunities for visitors to hunt will promote stewardship of our natural resources and increase public appreciation and support for the refuge.

The EA serves as the NEPA document which analyzes the impacts on environmental, cultural, and historical resources of providing archery hunting opportunities on the refuge.

Alternatives Considered:

No Action Alternative (Current Management) Under the No Action Alternative, current management direction would continue. The refuge would remain closed to deer hunting, and implementation of this alternative would not facilitate a wildlife-dependent priority use that has been found to be compatible with the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System.

Proposed Action Alternative – White-tailed Deer with Special Conditions The refuge has prepared a hunt plan, which is summarized in this EA as the Proposed Action Alternative. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the Service would allow limited white-tailed deer hunting, following State regulations where compatible, but with special restrictions on use of refuge lands, harvest methods, and hunter density as determined on a yearly basis by the Service. Hunters would be required to obtain a permit from the refuge to hunt, and pay a fee for the permit. Season dates (usually between September 15 and January 31), weapons and the permit process may be modified to maintain a balance between public safety, priority public uses and wildlife management goals.

Deer hunting units would have special restrictions on permissible weapons. Refuge parcels with only limited hunting opportunities due to their small size or public safety issues would not be

4

open to hunting. Approximately 170 acres would be open to deer hunting (Figure 1). Parking to access the hunting units will be in current parking lots for the refuge.

The annual cost of administering a refuge hunt program would be approximately $9,000. This amount is based on salaries for administrative personnel, creation and distribution of hunting information, transportation, monitoring, signing, and other miscellaneous expenses.

All deer hunting zones will be open for special archery hunts with dates established on an annual basis, and concurrent with the State seasons. If staff determines that the CCP management goals of the refuge and the hunt plan objectives are not being met, hunting dates, seasons, trail closures and hunter density will be modified. All hunting will be open in accordance with State and Federal regulations.

Refuge-specific regulations will be published in the Federal Register as part of the 2018-2019 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations. Proposed refuge-specific regulations include:

Big Game Hunting We allow archery hunting of white-tailed deer on designated areas of the refuge, during specified dates, in accordance with State regulations subject to the following conditions:

. 1. Hunters must possess a valid refuge hunting special use permit and comply with all terms

and conditions.2. Junior hunters under the age of 16 must be accompanied by an adult member of the

family (at least 18), or by an adult serving in the place of a parent.

This proposed action alternative offers increased opportunities for public hunting and fulfills the Service’s mandate under the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Service has determined that the hunt plan is compatible with the purposes of the John Heinz NWR and the mission of the Refuge System.

Mitigation Measures and Conditions: At a minimum, we commit that any action will:

1. Prior to implementation, be subject to inter-agency consultation to ensure allrequirements of the Endangered Species Act are fulfilled;

2. Ensure cultural resources be protected consistent with Section 106 of the NationalHistoric Preservation Act; and,

3. Be designed in such a way to protect public safety.

As detailed in the hunt plan (page 14), additional measures would be taken to avoid conflict with other management objectives. These include, but are not limited to:

• Conducting the hunt after spring and summer nesting forest songbirds have migratedsouth, and reptiles, amphibians, and some mammals will have entered a dormant stage;

• Primarily hunting on refuge upland habitat, where wetland areas and open water are moreoften occupied by eagles;

5

• Closing nature trails and access points to the public on hunt days; • Posting signs at the refuge access points (i.e., Route 420 and Lindbergh parking lots,

canoe launch and west end at lagoons) to notify the public that a deer hunt is in progress; • Coordinating with local marinas to ensure they are aware of the hunt season on the refuge

and that they notify their customers; and, • Instructing hunters that they are not authorized to shoot across waterways.

Affected Environment: John Heinz NWR consists of approximately 993 acres in Philadelphia and Delaware Counties in Pennsylvania. It is primarily comprised of freshwater tidal marsh, upland forest, impoundment, open field, and tidal creek habitat. The proposed action would occur mostly on forested, grasslands, and wet meadow areas (Figure 1). Vegetative Communities The refuge contains a variety of ecosystems unique within Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia metropolitan area including tidal and nontidal freshwater marsh, freshwater tidal creek, open impoundment waters, coastal plain and riparian forests, and early successional grasslands. Many of the refuge’s ecosystems have been degraded, damaged, or (in some cases) destroyed as a result of the numerous anthropogenic impacts. However, many of these impacted ecosystems have the potential to be restored or enhanced through various management efforts. Hunting will primarily occur on the floodplain forest and grasslands.

Coastal Plain and Floodplain Forests Coastal plain and floodplain forests are the habitat type that is considered to be the late-successional forest community typical of the Pennsylvania Coastal Plain region. These forests are dominated by a canopy mix of oak and sweetgum. Other typical canopy associates may dominate, including sweetgum, blackgum, and swamp white oak. Other wetland hardwood species can occur, including silver maple, river birch, and northern red oak. Native shrub and vine species are variable and may include dogwoods, spicebush, Virginia creeper, and elderberry. Intactness of this forest type varies between stands; however, most are impacted by excessive deer browse and invasive species colonization.

6

Figure 1. Designated hunting zones at John Heinz NWR with 50-yard buffer from occupied buildings, refuge boundaries, and public roadways.

Grasslands and Wet Meadows Several meadow and grassland communities at the refuge provide habitat for resident, as well as stopover habitat for migrating songbirds and raptors, amphibians, reptiles, and mammal species. These grasslands provide important habitat for focal species of concern such as the short-eared owl, sedge wren, marsh wren, and the southern leopard frog. Active management of these areas typically includes the removal of nonnative invasive species, replanting of lost native species, and control of woody species.

For more information regarding the affected environment, please see chapter 3 of the Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2012), which can be found here: https://www.fws.gov/refuge/John_Heinz/what_we_do/finalccp.html Environmental Impacts of the Action: This section analyzes the environmental consequences of the action on each affected resource, including direct and indirect effects. This EA only includes the written analyses of the environmental consequences on a resource when the impacts on that resource could be more than negligible and therefore considered an “affected resource.” Any resources that will not be more than negligibly impacted by the action have been dismissed from further analyses. Impact Types Direct effects are those which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are those which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Effects includes ecological (such as the effects

https://www.fws.gov/refuge/John_Heinz/what_we_do/finalccp.html

7

on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effect will be beneficial. Beneficial impacts are those resulting from management actions that maintain or enhance the quality and/or quality of identified refuge resources or recreational opportunities. Adverse impacts are those resulting from management actions that degrade the quality and/or quantity of identified refuge resources or recreational opportunities. Duration of Impacts Short-term impacts affect identified refuge resources or recreational opportunities; they occur during implementation of the management action but last no longer. Medium-term impacts affect identified refuge resources or recreational opportunities that occur during implementation of the management action; they are expected to persist for some time into the future though not throughout the life of the CCP. Long-term impacts affect identified refuge resources or recreation opportunities; they occur during implementation of the management action and are expected to persist throughout the life of the Plan and possible longer. Intensity of Impact Negligible impacts result from management actions that cannot be reasonably expected to affect identified refuge resources or recreational opportunities at the identified scale. Minor impacts result from a specified management action that can be reasonably expected to have detectable though limited effect on identified refuge resources or recreation opportunities at the identified scale. Moderate impacts result from a specified management action that can be reasonably expected to have apparent and detectable effects on identified refuge resources or recreation opportunities at the identified scale. Major impacts result from a specified management action that can be reasonably expected to have readily apparent and substantial effects on identified refuge resources and recreation opportunities at the identified scale. Public Health and Safety Both alternatives would have similar and minimal to negligible effects on human health and safety, excluding the risk of tick-borne disease and the rate of deer/vehicle collisions, both of which are expected to be less under the proposed action alternative. There is the potential for hypothermia or archery equipment incidents related to the proposed action. However, these potential concerns are no greater than for hunting activities located elsewhere. Additionally, many safety measures are already required by State law that will ensure public safety. Provision

8

of parking areas and temporary refuge trail closures will minimize potential hazards in the proposed action alternative. The refuge will establish safety zones adjacent to residential areas. To further ensure visitor safety and a quality experience for all refuge visitors, the refuge will be closed to the public during hunt activities. John Heinz NWR will post signs at the main access points to notify the public that a deer hunt is in progress. We will coordinate with local marinas to ensure that they are aware of the hunt season on the refuge and that they notify their customers. We will further instruct hunters that they are not authorized to shoot across waterways. Vegetation A concern of land managers regarding deer populations at high densities is the impact to biodiversity. Because they are large herbivores, white-tailed deer are effective at altering habitat due to their energetic requirements and high reproductive potential (McCullough 1982, 1997). Many authors (Behrend et al. 1970, Tilghman 1989, Warren 1997, Miller et al. 1999) reported that vegetative species richness and the abundance of herbaceous and woody vegetation declined in areas with white-tailed deer densities exceeding 29 deer per square mile. In a northwestern Pennsylvania study, Behrend et al. (1970) and Tilghman (1989) recommended a herd density of 21 deer per square mile to allow for successful hardwood forest regeneration. Refuge staff estimated that the deer herd far exceeded this density for multiple years. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that adverse vegetative effects have also occurred on the refuge for some time. The damage caused by deer to forest regeneration on John Heinz NWR is evident. The presence of oak and maple saplings within long-term fenced deer exclosures is obvious, while similar vegetation outside of the exclosures is browsed to the ground or is not existent. Invasive species of plants, which are often consumed to a lesser extent by deer, have become dominant vegetation types on the refuge. While such impacts currently affect forest understory and the varied animals dependent on this vegetation zone, the longer term implications are that the refuge’s native forested areas could lose the ability to replace themselves through time. Of the approximately 250,000 visits that the refuge receives from the public each year, hunters would make up less than 0.1 percent, or 220 visits, of that total. Hunters would traverse areas that are closed to other users. Hunting may result in some trampling of vegetation, but since most of the vegetation will be dormant for a majority of the hunting season, we expect the impact to be quite minimal. Additionally, hunter use during all seasons will be dispersed throughout the refuge, minimizing the impact to any one area. Birds and Wildlife In general, refuge visitors engaged in hunting will be walking off-trail in designated areas open to hunting. General disturbance from recreational activities, including hunting, vary with the wildlife species involved and the activity’s type, level, frequency, duration, and the time of year it occurs. The responses of wildlife to human activities, such as hunting, include avoidance or departure from the site (Owen 1973, Burger 1981, Kaiser & Fritzell 1984, Korschen et al. 1985, Kahl 1991, Klein 1993, Whittaker & Knight 1998), the use of suboptimal habitat (Erwin 1980, Williams and Forbes 1980), altered behavior or habituation to human disturbance (Burger 1981, Korschen et al. 1985, Morton et al. 1989, Ward & Stehn 1989, Havera et al. 1992, Klein 1993, Whittaker and Knight 1998), attraction (Whittaker & Knight 1998), and an increase in energy

9

expenditure (Morton et al. 1989, Belanger & Bedard 1990). The amount of disturbance tends to increase with decreased distance between visitors and birds (Burger 1986). The refuge is a complex of critical habitats for birds in the highly urbanized landscape of greater Philadelphia. While most of the 300 plus avian species identified at the refuge utilize it as a migratory stopover, more than 80 species have been recorded nesting on the refuge over the years. Some disturbance of birds is unavoidable when sport-hunters are on the refuge. However, disturbance will be minimized because many spring and summer nesting forest songbirds will have migrated south. Disturbance to resident wildlife or winter migrants is not anticipated given the low density of hunters permitted (i.e., 1 bowhunter per 14 acres of the refuge’s 170 acres of hunt area) and archery hunting will occur on approximately 10 of the days allotted for the Pennsylvania hunting season.

Fish and Hydrology The refuge provides important aquatic habitat as well as terrestrial habitat. Freshwater tidal marshes, like Tinicum Marsh, are used by many aquatic species for spawning, year-round food and shelter, and as a nursery and rearing habitat (Mitch and Gosselink 1993). Freshwater tidal marshes are also a mixing zone for various groups of fish typically associated with certain habitats. Refuge staff have observed only negligible or minor erosion problems to date through current public uses. The archery-only hunt prevents any possible water quality issues associated with spent ammunition. Hunting would only occur on forested upland areas of the refuge, and no hydrologic impacts are anticipated from the proposed use.

White-tailed Deer Pennsylvania Game Commission (PAGC) monitors deer populations and densities throughout the State. In hunting license year 2016-2017, an estimated total of 333,254 deer were harvested in Pennsylvania including 183,794 antlerless deer and 149,460 antlered deer. In WMU 5D, which includes John Heinz NWR, a relatively large number of antlerless deer licenses per square mile of land area are allocated versus other areas of the State to curtail population growth of deer and to reduce deer-human conflicts. For the 2016-2017 hunting license year, 25,000 antlerless deer licenses were allocated in WMU 5D and an estimated 6,500 antlerless deer and 2,900 antlered deer were harvested. Hunting can have direct and indirect impacts on both deer and other species. These impacts include direct mortality of individuals; changes in wildlife behavior; changes in wildlife population structure, dynamics, and distribution patterns; and disturbance from noise and hunters walking on- and off-trail (Cole & Knight 1990, Cole 1990, Bell & Austin 1985). In many cases, hunting removes a portion of the wildlife population that will otherwise naturally succumb to predation, disease, or competition (Bartmann et al. 1992). Typical changes in deer behavior in response to hunting include avoidance of certain areas, becoming more wary, staying closer to cover, and shifting feeding times (e.g., feeding more at night) (King & Workman 1986). Although deer were hunted in the area prior to refuge establishment, they have since had decades of protection within refuge boundaries. Refuge staff reported a general increase in deer abundance as per annual staff deer surveys (Tables 1 & 2) and a dramatic shift towards non-

10

native, invasive vegetation in response to over browsing by deer. Due to overpopulation in recent years, the refuge has implemented managerial biological control techniques. Table 1. Annual white-tailed deer abundance estimates derived from standardized deer drives conducted by staff and volunteers at John Heinz NWR at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania from 2001-2010. Date of Survey Deer Abundance Estimate 2001* 86 2002* 106 February 2003 136 January 2004 193 December 2004 224 December 2005 245 December 2006 208 December 2007 199 December 2008 191 December 2009 243 December 2010 188 * Months of surveys during 2001 and 2002 were not specified. Table 2. Annual white-tailed deer abundance estimates derived from Forward Looking InfraRed deer surveys conducted by staff at John Heinz NWR at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania from 2011-2017. Date of Survey Deer Abundance Estimate (mi2) Winter 2011/2012 73.0 Winter 2012/2013 80.5 Winter 2013/2014 86.3 ** Cull conducted 3/2014 88 deer removed Winter 2014/2015 32.9 Winter 2015/2016 52.6 Winter 2016/2017 26.8 ** Cull conducted 3/2016 66 Deer removed Winter 2017-this report 21.0 ** Cull conducted 11/2017 30 Deer removed ** Deer culls were conducted by the refuge and USDA Wildlife Services to reduce herd. All of the meat was donated to Pennsylvania food banks. About 25 deer are estimated to be harvested on the refuge under the proposed action alternative. The addition of refuge lands and seasons will only negligibly impact deer populations on a regional scale. Threatened, Endangered Species and Species of Concern Recreational hunting in designated areas will not cause significant impacts to threatened or endangered species. The refuge does not support any known federally listed threatened or endangered species. The refuge does provide potential foraging and nursery habitat for the federally listed, endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). This species is known

11

to occur in the nearby Delaware River. However, this species has not been identified within Darby Creek or on the refuge to date. Bald eagles and peregrine falcons are the only former federally listed threatened or endangered species known to use the refuge for roosting or feeding. Bald eagles now nest on the refuge and both species have been delisted under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The proposed action will have no effect on any threatened species, endangered species, or Species of Concern. Recreation Resources The Refuge Improvement Act highlights six priority public uses of the Refuge System along with its wildlife-first mandate. These six public uses include wildlife observation, interpretation, photography, environmental education, hunting, and fishing. John Heinz NWR currently provides opportunities for the public to participate in five of the six priority uses. With over 10 miles of trails, the refuge provides many areas for visitors to explore. Most refuge visitors are families, wildlife observers, and neighborhood residents interested in viewing nature and wildlife. Well over 90 percent of the estimated 250,000 visitors take part in some sort of wildlife-dependent recreation activity, be it wildlife observation, photography, or fishing. The proposed action would be promoting a wildlife-oriented recreational opportunity that is compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. We estimate numbers of participants for the first white-tailed deer hunt to be up to 12 hunters per day for up to 10 days, plus possible mentors for an estimate of 220 annual participants. The public would have an increased awareness of the refuge and the Refuge System, and public demand for more areas to hunt and learn about wildlife would be met. The hunting program provides an administratively simple program that balances other public use activities. To further ensure safety for neighbors or other visitors, the refuge will establish safety zones adjacent to residential areas (i.e., a 500-foot, no-shooting zone around the Refuge’s perimeter). Nature trails will be closed to the public on hunt days. Only negligible, short-term impacts to other refuge visitors are anticipated to occur because hunting will occur only up to a maximum of 10 days per season ensuring a reasonable balance among various refuge users. Socioeconomic Factors The refuge is located in southeastern Pennsylvania within Delaware and Philadelphia Counties. In 2010, the population of Delaware County was 558,979, an increase of 1.5 percent compared to 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2001, U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). The population of Philadelphia County was 1,526,006, an increase of 0.6 percent compared to 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2001, U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). This is compared to a 3.4 percent increase across the State of Pennsylvania and 9.7 percent for the country as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b). The surrounding landscape is demographically diverse. The percentage of the non-white or Hispanic population in surrounding neighborhoods ranges from less than 8 to over 30 percent. The average household income ranges from $27,000 to 51,800 in surrounding portions of Philadelphia County and $27,000 to 63,300 in neighboring portions of Delaware County.

12

The economic contribution of the refuge was evaluated as part of a nationwide survey and analysis conducted in 2006. In that year, the refuge recorded 106,491 visits. Ninety-eight percent of visits were for non-consumptive purposes such as hiking, wildlife observation, and photography. The majority of the visits (approximately 72 percent) were by nearby residents. Total visitor expenditures related to recreation on the refuge estimated a total of about $1.1 million in fiscal year 2006. Non-residents spent 67 percent of all visitor expenditures (about $719,500). Based on the analysis conducted by the evaluation final demand associated with refuge visitor recreational spending totaled $1.7 million. This represents the total dollars generated to the local economy as the result of refuge visits While hunting visitation may slightly increase due to increased opportunities, hunting would only account for 1 percent of expenditures related to the refuge. Therefore, additional economic impact is expected to be negligible under this action. The annual cost to meet hunting program objectives is an estimated $9,000 out of an overall refuge operating budget of about $2 million. This cost includes operating expenses and staff salaries and materials. This also accounts for the installation of infrastructure for hunters with mobility challenges (e.g., new blinds and stands, some trail and parking maintenance). The refuge will be assisted with some refuge-specific special hunts by partner organizations. Initial startup funding is estimated to be between $4,000 to $7,000 for the hunt program. Cultural Resources Limited investigations and surveys have occurred throughout the area to better understand cultural resource values in the area. It is unlikely either alternative would impact cultural or archaeological resources. Impacts to Refuge Facilities (roads, trails, parking lots) The Service defines facilities as, “real property that serves a particular function(s) such as buildings, roads, utilities, water control structures, raceways, etc.” Under the proposed action, naturally surfaced roads/real property may exist in the hunt area; but use levels anticipated to result from the project would cause minimal impacts to the surfaces or maintenance levels The facilities most utilized by hunters are parking areas and trails that are located on refuge. Access to hunting areas will be on foot to minimize soil erosion and potential negative impacts. The use of all-terrain vehicles is prohibited. Cumulative Impact Analysis: Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions”. For more information on the national cumulative impacts of the Service’s hunting and fishing program on the Refuge System, see the Service’s Cumulative Impact Report for 2018-2019.

13

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activity in Area of

Analysis Descriptions of Anticipated Cumulative Impacts

Hunting Hunting occurs on public and private lands that are found in PA Game Commission Wildlife Management Unit 5D in which John Heinz NWR is located.

Resident Wildlife (Deer): We conduct the refuge hunting program within the framework of State and Federal regulations. Population estimates of hunted species are developed at a regional and State scale. Hunting frameworks and take limits are set based upon these estimates. The proposed hunting program rules will be the same as, or more restrictive than, hunting regulations throughout the State of Pennsylvania. By maintaining hunting regulations that are the same as or more restrictive than the State, we can ensure that we are maintaining seasons that are supportive of management on a more regional basis. Such an approach also provides consistency with large-scale population status and objectives. The Refuge regularly coordinates with the State about the hunting programs at the other Pennsylvania refuges. About 25 deer are estimated to be harvested on the refuge under the proposed action alternative. Statewide, hunters harvested an estimated 333,254 deer in the 2016-17 season, an increase of about 6 percent compared to the 2015-16 harvest of 315,813. In WMU 5D, 2,900 deer were harvested in the 2016-17 season. The addition of refuge lands and seasons will only negligibly impact these species populations on a regional scale. Under the proposed action alternative, the refuge would allow the harvest of one game species. Even at the local level, the refuge only adds slightly to cumulative impacts on resident wildlife, and a negligible amount to regional and statewide populations. Wildlife management of populations is important to ensure the health of the ecosystem, and the refuge’s hunt program provides minor, additional beneficial impacts to the cumulative impacts of wildlife management in the State.

Climate Change Ecological stressors are expected to affect a variety of natural processes and associated resources into the future. One primary concern is sea level rise and the impact on marsh elevation. This is causing marsh migration, marsh inundation, and increased mortality in forests adjacent to saltmarshes. These habitat changes may dramatically reduce the amount and quality of both forest for resident wildlife and saltmarsh for migratory birds that are hunted. As a result, wildlife could be forced into reduced amounts of available habitat. Concentrating birds into smaller areas also has potential to more readily allow disease to spread within overwintering waterfowl populations, resulting in increased bird mortality.

Under this alternative, the refuge would use an adaptive management approach for its hunt program, reviewing the hunt program annually and revising annually (if necessary), the Service’s hunt program can be adjusted to ensure that it does not contribute further to the cumulative impacts of climate change on resident wildlife and migratory birds. To ensure sound wildlife management, the refuge will monitor the deer population, both through a continuation of the annual deer survey and the collection of age, sex, and weight information from harvested deer. For example, populations will continue to be monitored in collaboration with PAGC biologists to determine if harvest levels should be adjusted. The proposed monitoring and re-evaluating will help to ensure that the hunting programs continue to contribute to the biodiversity and ecosystem health of the refuge, and that these opportunities do not contribute to any cumulative impacts to habitat or wildlife from climate change, population growth and development, or local, State, or regional wildlife management.

14

Summary of Findings: This EA provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The term “significantly” as used in NEPA requires consideration of both the context of the action and the intensity of effects. Neither of the alternatives is expected to have any adverse effects on ecologically critical areas, historic/cultural/archaeological resources, air quality, fisheries resources, public health and safety, or water quality, including drinking water. No significant land use changes are expected. No hazardous wastes will be generated, transported, treated, stored, or disposed of as a result of the implementation of any of the alternatives. White-tailed deer hunting currently occur on other national wildlife refuges. Thus, the alternatives will not present unknown or unique environmental risks. Any additional hunting on the refuge proposed in the future will have to be assessed for its effects on resources. Thus, the proposed action alternative does not establish a precedent for future actions that will have significant effects on resources. None of the alternatives will lead to a violation of Federal, State, or local environmental laws. The effects of the alternatives on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. No Action Alternative. There would be no additional costs to the refuge under this alternative. There would be no change to current public use and wildlife management programs on the refuge under this alternative. Habitat conditions could continue to be negatively impacted by the white-tailed deer population. The refuge would not increase its impact on the economy and would not provide new hunting and access opportunities. This alternative has the least direct impacts of physical and biological resources; however, long-term impacts on habitat quality could be adverse. In addition, it would minimize compliance with our mandates under the NWRSAA and Secretarial Order 3356. Proposed Action Alternative. This alternative is the Service’s proposed action because it offers the best opportunity for public hunting that would result in minimal impact on physical and biological resources, while meeting the Service’s mandates under the NWRSAA and Secretarial Order 3356. There may be slight effects on migratory songbirds from disturbance by hunters. In particular, during the height of fall migration, (September 15 through October 31), migratory birds may be briefly disturbed as they attempt to forage or rest. However, disturbances would be minimal and no lasting effects are expected. Browsing pressure on plants would decrease allowing plants preferred by deer to recover. This includes native shrubs, tree seedlings and herbaceous forest understory plants. Plants unpalatable to deer, such as many nonnative, invasive plants, would find increased competition from native plants released from browsing pressure, and their spread could be slowed. Additionally, spread of nonnative, invasive plants through deer consumption and excretion of seeds and fruits should be reduced (Williams and Ward, 2006). This would increase plant diversity. The addition of deer hunting will not have significant impact on local or regional wildlife populations because the percentage likely to be harvested from the refuge, though possibly

15

additive to existing harvests, would be a small fraction of the estimated population. In addition, overall populations will continue to be monitored in collaboration with PAGC biologists to determine if harvest levels should be adjusted. Hunting would not add more than slightly to the cumulative impacts to resident wildlife stemming from hunting at the local or regional level, and would only result in minor, negative impacts to their populations.

16

References: Alverson, W.S., D.M. Waller, and S.L. Solheim. 1988. Forests too edge: edge effects in northern Wisconsin. Conservation Biology 2:348-358.

Augustine, D.J. and P.A. Jordan. 1998. Predictors of white-tailed deer grazing intensity I in fragmented deciduous forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1076-1085.

Bartmann, R.M., White, G.C., & Carpenter, L.H. (1992). Compensatory mortality in a Colorado mule deer population. Wildlife Monographs, 121, 1-39.

Behrend, D.F., G.F. Mattfeld, W.C. Tierson and J.E. Wiley III. 1970. Deer density control for comprehensive forest management. Journal of Forestry 68:695-700.

Belanger, L., & Bedard, J. (1990). Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. Journal of Wildlife Management, 54, 36-41.

Bell, D.V., & Austin, L.W. (1985). The game-fishing season and its effects on overwintering wildfowl. Biological Conservation, 33, 65-80.


Burger, J. (1981). Effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 21, 231-241.


Cole, D.N. (1990). Ecological impacts of wilderness recreation and their management. In J. C. Hendee, G.H. Stankey, and R.C. Lucas (Eds.), Wilderness Management (pp. 425–466). Golden, CO: North American Press.

Cole, D.N., & Knight, R.L. (1990). Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues, 0, 33-40.


Erwin, R.M. (1980). Breeding habitat by colonially nesting water birds in two Mid-Atlantic U.S. regions under different regimes of human disturbance. Biological Conservation, 18, 39-51.

Havera, S.P., Boens, L.R., Georgi, M.M., & Shealy, R.T. (1992). Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 20, 290-298.

17

Kahl, R. (1991). Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 19, 242-248.

Kaiser, M.S., & Fritzell, E.K. (1984). Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. Journal of Wildlife Management, 48, 561-567.

King, M.M., & Workman, G.W. (1986). Response of desert bighorn sheep to human harassment: management implications. Transactions 51st North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference.

Klein, M.L. (1993). Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 21, 31-39.

Korschen, C.E., George, L.S., & Green, W.L. (1985). Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 13, 290-296.




Morton, J. M., Fowler, A. C., & Kirkpatrick, R. L. (1989). Time and energy budgets of American black ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management, 53, 401-410 (also see corrigendum in Journal of Wildlife Management, 54, 683.

Owen, M. (1973). The management of grassland areas for wintering geese. Wildfowl, 24,123-130.



Tilghman, N.G. 1989. Impacts of white-tailed deer on forest regeneration in northwestern Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:524-532.

Warren, R.J. 1997. Deer overabundance–special issue. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25.

18

Ward, D.H., & Stehn, R.A. (1989). Response of brant and other geese to aircraft disturbance at Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fish and Wildlife Research Center. Final report to the Minerals Management Service. Whittaker, D., & Knight, R. (1998). Understanding wildlife responses to humans. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26(3), 312-317. Williams, G.J., & Forbes, E. (1980). The habitat and dietary preferences of dark-bellied brant geese and widgeon in relation to agricultural management. Wildfowl, 31, 151-157.

List of Preparers: Lamar Gore– Refuge Manager Mariana Bergerson – Deputy Refuge Manager Brendalee Phillips – Wildlife Biologist Heather Sharp – Federal Wildlife Officer David Stoughton – Visitor Services Manager State Coordination: Refuge staff communicated with USDA representatives on November 21, 2017, to discuss the proposal of a hunting program at the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge. Additional conversations in December 2017 were held and emails exchanged to gather more information and recommendations from PAGC including Bruce Metz, Jerrold Czech, John Morgan, and Bryan Burhans. PAGC staff will further review and provide comments on this EA and the associated draft hunting plan during the public comment period. Public Outreach: Initial scoping targeted representatives from Philadelphia and Delaware Counties. They were informed that all members and the general public would have the opportunity to provide comments later in the process. The EA and hunt plan will be advertised to the public for comment via the refuge’s website, social media accounts, and press releases. A public meeting will be held if interest warrants the need.

19

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 humanenvironment. See the attached “Finding of No Significant Impact”.

☐ The Service’s action may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and theService will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

Preparer Signature: __________________________________________Date:________

Name/Title/Organization: __________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Certifying Officer Signature: ___________________________________Date:________

Name/Title: ______________________________________________________________

20

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT

JOHN HEINZ NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Pennsylvania

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to allow limited white-tailed deer hunting at the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, refuge) at Tinicum. An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to provide decision-making framework that 1) explores a reasonable range of alternatives to meet project objectives, 2) evaluate potential issues and impacts to the refuge, resources and values, and 3) identifies mitigation measures to lessen the degree or extent of these impacts. The EA evaluated the effects associated with two alternatives.

Selected Action

Alternative B—Proposed Action Alternative: The proposal was selected over the other alternatives because:

This alternative is the Service’s proposed action because it offers the best opportunity for public hunting that would result in a minimal impact on physical and biological resources, while meeting the Service’s mandates under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA) and Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3356.

The addition of a limited archery-only deer hunt on approximately 170 acres will not have significant impact on local and regional wildlife populations because the percentage likely to be taken on the refuge, though possibly additive to existing hunting takes, would be a small fraction of the estimated populations. In addition, overall populations will continue to be monitored in collaboration with Pennsylvania Game Commission biologists to determine if harvest levels should be adjusted. Hunting would not add more than slightly to the cumulative impacts to resident wildlife stemming from hunting at the local or regional level, and would only result in minor, negative impacts to their populations.

Other Alternatives Considered and Analyzed

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, current management direction would continue. The refuge would remain closed to deer hunting, and implementation of this alternative would not facilitate a wildlife-dependent priority use that has been found to be compatible with the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System.

There would be no additional costs to the refuge under this alternative. There would be no change to current public use and wildlife management programs on the refuge under this alternative. Habitat conditions could continue to be negatively impacted by the white-tailed deer population. The refuge would not increase its impact on the economy and would not provide new

21

hunting and access opportunities. This alternative has the least direct impacts of physical and biological resources; however, long-term impacts on habitat quality would be moderately adverse. In addition, it would minimize compliance with our mandates under the NWRSAA and Secretarial Order 3356.

Summary of Effects of Selected Action Implementation of the agency’s decision would be expected to result in the following environmental, social, and economic effects:

This EA provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The term “significantly” as used in NEPA requires consideration of both the context of the action and the intensity of effects. This section summarizes the findings and conclusions of the analyses above so that we may determine the significance of the effects.

Affected Environment No Action Alternative: Proposed Action Alternative:

Hunted Species (deer) Minor, long-term adverse impact Minor, long-term beneficial impacts

Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species No impacts (disturbance) Minor, short-term adverse impacts

(disturbance)

Threatened and Endangered Species

Minor, long-term adverse impact (on native plants)

Minor, long-term positive impact (on native plants)

Vegetation No impacts (trampling) Negligible, short-term impacts (trampling)

Air Quality No adverse impacts No adverse impacts

Water Resources No adverse impacts No adverse impacts

Wetlands Negligible, short-term adverse impacts (trampling)

Negligible, short-term adverse impacts (trampling)

Cultural Resources No adverse impacts No adverse impacts Visitor Use and Experience

No impact (temporary inconvenience)

Negligible, short-term impacts (temporary inconvenience)

Socioeconomics Negligible, long-term positive impacts (economic growth)

Negligible, long-term positive impacts (economic growth)

Refuge Management & Operations

Minor, long-term adverse (providing opportunities) and

neutral (funding) impacts

Minor, long-term positive (providing opportunities) and

negative (funding) impacts Environmental Justice No adverse impacts No adverse impacts

22

Measures to mitigate and/or minimize adverse effects have been incorporated into the proposal. These measures include, but are not limited to:

• Limit the number of hunt days to limit impact on other refuge users and other wildlife• Establishment of hunt zones to limit the impact of trampling on vegetation• Use of special youth hunts to further meet the environmental education goals of the refuge.

While refuges, by their nature, are unique areas protected for conservation of fish, wildlife and habitat, the proposed action will not have a significant impact on refuge resources and uses for several reasons:

• The Service works closely with the PA Game Commission to ensure that species harvestedon a refuge are within the limits set by the State to ensure healthy populations of thespecies for present and future generations of Americans.

• The action will likely result in some beneficial impacts to the human environment,including the biodiversity and ecological integrity of the refuge, as well as the wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities and socioeconomics of the local economy, with onlynegligible adverse impacts to the human environment as discussed above.

• The adverse direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on air, water, soil, habitat,wildlife, and aesthetic/visual resources are expected to be minor and short-term. Thebenefits to long-term ecosystem health that these efforts will accomplish far outweigh anyof the short-term adverse impacts discussed in this document.

• The Refuge System uses an adaptive management approach to all wildlife management onrefuges, monitoring and re-evaluating the hunting opportunities on the refuge on an annualbasis to ensure that the hunting programs continue to contribute to the biodiversity andecosystem health of the refuge and these opportunities do not contribute to any cumulativeimpacts to habitat or wildlife from climate change, population growth and development, orlocal, State, or regional wildlife management.

• The action, along with proposed mitigation measures, will ensure that there is low dangerto the health and safety of refuge staff, visitors, and the hunters themselves.

• The action is not in an ecologically sensitive area.• The action will not impact any threatened or endangered species; or any Federally-

designated critical habitat.• The action will not impact any cultural or historical resources.• The action will not impact any wilderness areas.• There is no scientific controversy over the impacts of this action and the impacts of the

proposed action are relatively certain. The proposal is not expected to have any significantadverse effects on wetlands and floodplains.

The proposal is compatible with the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. See the Compatibility Determination (Appendix A of the Hunt Plan). The action is consistent with applicable laws and policies regarding the establishment of hunting on National Wildlife Refuges. Refuge-specific regulations promulgated in conjunction with this action will be finalized through the standard of the Federal Register.

Public Review The proposal has been thoroughly coordinated with all interested and/or affected parties.

23

Initial scoping was conducted during the refuge CCP process in 2012. The public was informed that they would have the opportunity to provide comments when the hunt plan was developed. The EA and hunt plan will be advertised to the public for comment via the refuge’s website, social media accounts, and press releases. At least one public meeting will be held.

Refuge staff met with USDA and Pennsylvania Game Commission (PAGC) representatives during the fall of 2017, to discuss the proposed hunting program and to discuss recommendations for the future. After that meeting, several further conversations were held and emails exchanged to gather more information and recommendations. PAGC and USDA will review and provide comments on this EA and the associated draft hunting plan.

Determination Based upon a review and evaluation of the information contained in the EA as well as other documents and actions of record affiliated with this proposal, the Service has determined that the proposal to implement an archery deer hunt on John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the meaning of section 102 (2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended). As such, an environmental impact statement is not required. An environmental assessment has been prepared in support of this finding and is available upon request to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge.

__________________________________ ____________ Title Date

Appendix CLetter of Support fromPennsylvania Game Commission

Mr. Lamar Gore Refuge Manager John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum 8601 Lindbergh Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19153

15 March 2018

Dear Mr. Gore:

It has been a pleasure working with you and your staff to develop the White-tailed Deer Hunt Plan for your refuge. As you know and have documented in your plan white-tailed deer in Philadelphia and the surrounding counties can be a management challenge. Residential development interspersed with woodlots, parks, and other natural areas provide quality food sources free from natural predators, in other words perfect deer habitat. This situation can lead to high deer numbers with accompanying problems such as, complaints from residents who are unable to grow gardens, high numbers of road kills with damage to vehicles and potential loss of human life, reductions in native plant species, and higher incidences of deer/human disease transmission particularly Lyme disease.

There are limits to the management strategies available for reducing deer numbers in urban/suburban areas. Sharp-shooting or a controlled lethal removal program is an option, but this can be expensive and can result in a negative public response. Before such severe measures are taken the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) would advocate for recreational hunting where it can be done effectively and safely. We believe this is the case at John Heinz. Your plan documents the problem and offers recreational hunting to reduce deer numbers. We appreciate your emphasis on safety. We also appreciate the emphasis on youth, disabled, and veterans in hunter selection.

The PGC fully supports your efforts in establishing a recreational hunting program at John Heinz NWR. We look forward to continuing to work with your staff to finalize the details and assist in any way we can.

Sincerely,

John Morgan, Ph.D. Wildlife Management Supervisor Southeast Region

Date post:	10-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service John Heinz€¦ · century in Pennsylvania and throughout much of its...

Documents