DRAFT Environmental Assessment for Proposed 2019 Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Sport Fish Plan

Date: February 2019

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

Proposed Action: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to open fishing opportunities for fish species open by state regulations on all fee title units of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) in accordance with the refuge’s 1998 Environmental Impact Statement, Interim CCP and the 2019 Sport Fishing Plan. The refuge is authorized for 77,000 acres (38,500 fee/38,500 easement) and is currently at 11,056 acres (4,837 fee title/6,219 easement). All 4,837 acres would be opened to fishing, and as additional fee title lands are acquired they would also be opened to fishing after compliance is completely. It is likely that a categorical exclusion would be used since <5% of the total acreage in future acquisitions over the next 20 years are projected to be suitable fish habitat and therefore would not cause a measurable increase in fishing pressure. The refuge ownership is constantly changing as new land is acquired.

This proposed action is often iterative and evolves over time during the process as the agency refines its proposal and learns more from the public, tribes, and other agencies. Therefore, the final proposed action may be different from the original. The final decision on the proposed action will be made at the conclusion of the public comment period for the EA and the Draft 2019 Refuge-Specific Sport Fishing Regulations. The Service cannot open a refuge to fishing until a final rule has been published in the Federal Register formally opening the refuge to fishing.

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

The refuge was established pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “… for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife

resources…” [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)] “…for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude…” [16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1).].

The refuge was developed to address the loss of America’s grasslands and mounting evidence indicating that many grassland species populations had precipitously declined as the prairies had vanished. The primary purpose of the refuge is to preserve and enhance the remaining remnant tracts of northern tallgrass prairie and aspen parklands habitats within Iowa and Minnesota.

The mission of the Refuge System, as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), is to:

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

The NWRSAA mandates the Secretary of the Interior in administering the System to (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4): ● Provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within the 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 National Wildlife Refuge System.

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to open fishing opportunities for fish species open by state regulations on all fee title units of the refuge. The need for the proposed

2

action is to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the NWRSAA to “recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the Refuge System” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the Refuge System for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses.” 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)). In addition, it declares that compatible wildlife-dependent public uses are legitimate and appropriate uses of the Refuge System that are to receive priority consideration in planning and management. There are six wildlife-dependent public uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation. The Refuge Improvement Act directs managers to facilitate recreational opportunities, including fishing, on national wildlife refuges when compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Fishing on Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge will allow refuge staff to manage wildlife populations at acceptable levels, provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for the public, and promote a better understanding and appreciation of tallgrass prairie habitats and their associated fish and wildlife resources. Implementation of the proposed actions will be consistent and compatible with the Refuge Recreation Act, Refuge Administration Act and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the establishment of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge.

In the Record of Decision (1998 Environmental Impact Statement), the Service selected the preferred alternative which stated that fishing would be permitted on most units of the refuge in accordance with state seasons. Additionally, fishing was identified in the 1998 Interim Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) as being a priority public use that would be authorized on most units of the refuge.

Alternatives Considered

Alternative A: Open Refuge to Sport Fishing in accordance with Federal regulations, refuge-specific regulations, and the laws of the States of Minnesota and Iowa. (Proposed Action Alternative):

The refuge has prepared a Sport Fishing Plan (Appendix B), which is presented in this document as the Proposed Action Alternative. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the refuge would open fishing pursuant to follow state fishing regulations. Minnesota and Iowa DNR publish their regulations each year and are available online at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/regulations/fishing/index.html and https://www.iowadnr.gov/Fishing/Fishing-Licenses-Laws.

Areas capable of being fished would cover approximately 5% of the existing 4,837 acres open to fishing on the refuge. As additional suitable lands are acquired, they would also be opened to fishing after completing required compliance needs. The refuge ownership is constantly changing as new land is acquired. This alternative would allow fishing on refuge fee title lands, described in the 2019 Sport Fishing Plan, within the refuge in accordance with federal regulations, refuge specific regulations, and the seasons and regulations set by the States of Minnesota and Iowa, after the following refuge specific regulations are made for each unit:

3

1) We prohibit the taking of any mussel (clam), crayfish, frog, leech, and turtle species by any method on the refuge (see §27.21 of this chapter); 2) All boats, decoys, blind materials, stands, platforms, and other personal property (see 27.93 and 27.94 of this chapter) brought onto the refuge, must be removed at the end of each day.

Fishing periods will correspond with state regulations. As additional lands are acquired and refuge management programs are instituted, it may become necessary to impose some regulations that are more restrictive than state laws (ie: closed areas, size limits). These modifications will be included during the annual amendment process through the Federal Register and the public will be informed through media and posting. Fishing success will be monitored by random interviews of anglers utilizing refuge lands.

Mitigation Measures to Avoid Conflicts: The refuge manager may establish specific regulations for an individual unit to ensure the above requirements are met. Certain units or portions of units may remain closed or be periodically closed to fishing if the Refuge Manager determines that there are specific habitat, wildlife protection, and/or public safety needs that require establishing sanctuary areas.

Additional factors are considered to determine if a unit will be open to fishing: 1) Public access to the unit does not require travel across private lands or closed government lands; 2) The unit is large enough to support the anticipated quantity, frequency, and duration of fishing use; 3) Sites are available for users to park their vehicles legally and in a manner that will not adversely affect the habitat in the unit or existing public travel routes; 4) Public fishing will not have adverse effects on any Federally listed or proposed species of concern; and 5) Fishing can be conducted without jeopardizing public safety.

Consultation will be made with Minnesota and Iowa DNR Fisheries, fisheries biologist and area managers to discuss the merit and success of the refuge fishing program, the status of the area's fish and game resources, and to consider recommendations for program modifications via the annual amendments.

Law enforcement activities will be conducted jointly by Service law enforcement personnel and the local Iowa and Minnesota DNR conservation officers.

Biological Conflicts The refuge minimizes conflict related to biological resources by adopting a “wildlife first” principle explicitly stated in the Refuge Improvement Act. Refuge Staff will monitor threatened and endangered species population trends to ensure that target species can be fished on the refuge without adversely affecting sensitive species. These monitoring activities include direct observation of populations, consultation with state and Service species specialists and review of current species survey information and research.

4

The refuge limits or excludes fishing activities where there are biological concerns. Although not proposed in this current plan, the refuge, in the future, could limit or exclude fishing activities on portions of the refuge to avoid conflicts related to biological resources, such as threatened or endangered species.

The refuge follows recovery plan guidelines for the management of the following federally threatened and endangered species. ● Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) The range of the endangered Indiana bat includes most of the upper Midwestern United States from Oklahoma, Iowa, and Wisconsin east to Vermont and south to Georgia. They are not present in Minnesota, but occur in central and southeast Iowa. ● Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Gray wolves in the western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment, which includes those in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin, are listed as threatened and can be found in the northern half of Minnesota. There are no resident gray wolf populations in Iowa. ● Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) The Northern Long-eared bat has been listed as threatened and occurs throughout the eastern and midwestern United States, including Minnesota and Iowa, as well as throughout Canada. ● Piping plover (Chadarius melodus) Piping plovers occur throughout the Great Plains in the United States and Canada, as well as the east coast. Piping plovers are listed as threatened in Iowa and nest in one or two known sites in western Iowa. They are listed as endangered in Minnesota, nesting in only one site, at Lake of the Woods. ● Least Tern (eastern population) (Sterna antillarum) The endangered Least Tern (eastern population) occurs throughout the Midwest and South United States, nesting along large rivers of the Colorado, Red, Mississippi, and Missouri river systems. They do not occur in Minnesota, and in Iowa they are found in only four counties: Jasper, Polk, Pottawattamie, and Woodbury. ● Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae) The range of the threatened Dakota skipper includes Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and southern Manitoba, Canada. Their range includes the western portion of Minnesota, but in Iowa includes only one county: Dickinson. ● Poweshiek skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek) The endangered Poweshiek skipperling occurs in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin and southeast Manitoba, Canada. In Iowa, their range encompasses the northern areas, and in Minnesota, they occur only in Polk county. ● Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) The endangered pallid sturgeon occurs throughout many states within the Missouri and lower Mississippi river basins. They are not found within Minnesota, but are present in western Iowa within the Missouri River. ● Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka) The endangered topeka shiner occurs in Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota. In Minnesota, they can be found in the southwest, and in Iowa they are present in northeast and central areas. ● Prairie bush clover (Lespedeza leptostachya) The threatened prairie bush clover occurs in the tallgrass prairie within Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois. It occurs throughout all of Iowa and in the southern areas of Minnesota. ● Rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) The endangered rusty patched bumblebee occurs throughout the Midwest and Eastern United States and Ontario, Canada.

5

● Western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara) The threatened western prairie fringed orchid occurs throughout the Midwest in the United States and in Manitoba, Canada. It can be found in western Minnesota and throughout all of Iowa. ● Candidate species: Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) Sprague’s pipit occurs throughout southern Canada, Midwest United States, and in Mexico. It is not present in Iowa, and in Minnesota, their range spans the northwest areas. Additional information about these species and their critical habitat can be found in the Appendix (Appendix C).

An Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation was conducted and it was determined that the proposed alternative will not conflict with the recovery and/or protection of these species. A determination of “No Effect” was made as the proposed project will not directly or indirectly affect (neither negatively nor beneficially) individuals of listed/proposed/candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat of such species (Appendix D). Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate potential impacts to Threatened and Endangered species and their habitats and an Environmental Assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act specifically for the fishing program and addresses each of these species.

Public Use Conflicts In an effort to minimize conflicts with priority non-fishing recreational uses outlined in the Improvement Act, and for public safety, the refuge designates areas open to fishing and enforces refuge-specific regulations. The boundaries of all lands owned or managed by the Service are posted with refuge boundary signs. Areas administratively closed to fishing are clearly marked with “No Fishing Zone” or “Area beyond This Sign Closed” signs. Overall, fishing impacts to visitor services/recreation opportunities are considered short-term, minor and local. Past conflicts have been minimal and we anticipate future conflicts to be about the same.

Administrative Use Conflicts The most potential for conflict with management activities occurs in areas where habitat treatments are conducted. Occasionally, an area open to fishing is proposed to receive a prescribed fire treatment. Typically, a notice of the impending treatment is posted at the unit public access points to alert all users, including those fishing. Prior to implementing the fire treatment, the treatment unit is scouted by refuge fire staff to ensure that no one is endangered by the treatment. Other habitat treatments such as invasive species treatment may generate a temporary closure of an area. Notice or information about any of these closures may be posted and available at the refuge Office to mitigate conflicts.

Alternative B – All fee title lands would remain closed to sport fishing. – [No Action Alternative]: Under this alternative, 4,837 acres of acquired refuge land (fee title) and future acquisitions would continue to serve as habitat for wildlife and provide for five of the wildlife dependent recreational uses – hunting, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Under this alternative, the public would not be able to participate in fishing opportunities on current and future refuge land.

6

Under the No Action alternative, the Service would continue to purchase conservation easements and fee title properties. Planning, managing, and implementing habitat restoration activities would continue to enhance these Refuge lands for wildlife.

Table 1 below summarizes the actions that are anticipated under each alternative and how they affect acquired lands. Detailed discussion of the environmental impacts of each alternative can be found in Section 4. Some of the issues carried into the impact assessment are described in more detail in Section 4.

Affected Environment Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge spreads across several identified landscapes. From north to south these areas are Aspen Parkland, Lake Agassiz Beach Ridges (encompassing the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Subsection), Prairie Coteau of Minnesota (encompassing the Minnesota River Prairie and Prairie Coteau Subsections), and Prairie Coteau of Iowa (includes the Northwest Iowa Plains and Des Moines Lobe Landform areas).

Refuge tracts, both fee and easement are scattered throughout 85 counties in northwest Iowa and western Minnesota. While the proposed action is for all current and future fee tracts located within each of these landscape types, fee title tracts with suitable fishing habitat have currently been acquired only within the Prairie Coteau of Minnesota (encompassing the Minnesota River Prairie and Prairie Coteau Subsections), and Prairie Coteau of Iowa (includes the Northwest Iowa Plains and Des Moines Lobe Landform areas). A map of the fee title areas proposed to be open for fishing can be found in the 2019 Sport Fish Plan. The map is missing a recent addition of fee title land of approximately 150 acres in Clay County, Minnesota. The map will be updated in the final plan to reflect this missing parcel (Appendix B).

Tables 1-6 provides additional, brief descriptions of each resource affected by the proposed action. For more detailed information regarding the affected environment, please see “Affected Environment” of the refuge’s establishing Environmental Impact Statement.

Environmental Consequences of the Action This section analyzes the environmental consequences of the action on each affected resource, including direct and indirect effects. This EA only includes the written analyses of the environmental consequences on a resource when the impacts on that resource could be more than negligible and therefore considered an “affected resource”. Any resources that will not be more than negligibly impacted by the action have been dismissed from further analyses.

Tables 1-5 provide: 1. A brief description of the affected resources in the proposed action area; 2. Impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives on those resources, including direct and indirect effects.

Table 6 provides a brief description of the cumulative impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives.

7

Impact Types: ● Direct effects are those which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. ● Indirect effects are those which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. ● Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. TABLE 1. AFFECTED NATURAL RESOURCES AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

NATURAL RESOURCES

AFFECTED RESOURCE ANTICIPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Game Fish Alternative A: Fish species open to harvest per Minnesota and Iowa DNR regulations. Minnesota and Iowa DNR manage and monitor fish populations and See:https://www.iowadnr.gov/Fishing/Fis harvest limits within their respective states. Season dates, species to hing-Licenses-Laws and be harvested, and catch limits are determined with the long-term https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/regulations/fi health of populations in mind. Fishery populations present on shing/index.html refuge lands are considered healthy enough to support recreational fishing limits set by the states. Popular game fish within Minnesota Minnesota and Iowa DNR set limits and and Iowa include basses, bluegills, walleye, yellow perch, and size for all species of fish harvested within crappie. Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge is a very small part of their state. Fish species to be harvested on the overall harvest on waterbodies in Iowa and Minnesota so we do the refuge may vary depending on not anticipate any impacts to overall harvest from opening the location. refuge to fishing. Alternative B: There would be neutral effects to the game fish population found on the refuge as no take or disturbance would occur under this alternative. Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species Alternative A: The refuge’s assorted habitats support a diverse grouping of wildlife species native Given the nature of these lands, disturbance of migratory birds, to western Minnesota and northwestern upland and small and big game, and resident wildlife will be the Iowa, described briefly as follows. same as occurs on the surrounding state Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) and Federal Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs). Birds – Approximately 243 species of Recreational fishing may cause disturbance to wildlife such as the birds use the native and restored prairie flushing of feeding, resting, or nesting birds, especially waterfowl, habitats within the boundaries of the and other terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species. This disturbance refuge during each year, with 152 may displace individual animals to other parts of the refuge. breeding here. Forty-eight species of However, this disturbance will be less than or similar to the concern occur in the refuge, including 43 disturbance received from other wildlife-dependent recreation that are known or likely to breed in the occurring on the refuge and will be limited in scope. The harvest of area. Approximately 44% of the species of refuge fish species through fishing will be in accordance with concern depend on native and restored Minnesota and Iowa state limits and additional, more restrictive grassland habitats. Some of the species of Federal regulations. It is anticipated that fishing visitation at concern, including the greater prairie Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge will be low based on the lack of chicken, northern harrier, upland suitable fishing habitat. Fishing visits on Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge will equate to less than 1% of all visits annually.

8

sandpiper, bobolink, Henslow’s sparrow and savannah sparrow, are area sensitive Non-game fish are typically not desirable to anglers and if caught and need large blocks of contiguous incidentally, are required to be released back into the water. Most grasslands for their life requirements. The non-game fish are impacted more by habitat changes than by refuge is also an important area for angling. migratory waterfowl, Gray (Hungarian) partridge and ring-necked pheasant Direct and Indirect impacts on other wildlife and aquatic species (USFWS 1998). that utilize the refuge is estimated to be negligible.

Mammals – Approximately 25 species of mammals are found within the refuge. Alternative B: White-tailed deer, coyote, badger, eastern There would be neutral effects to the nongame population found on cottontail rabbit, deer mouse, eastern the refuge as no additional disturbance would occur under this mole, fox squirrel, plains pocket gopher, alternative. prairie vole, and plains pocket mouse are some of the species specific to the tallgrass prairie. The refuge’s large size and diversity of habitats meet the needs of these mammals for food, cover, and water (USFWS 1998).

Amphibians and Reptiles – Thirty-three species of amphibians and reptiles are found in the Minnesota and Iowa portions of the northern tallgrass prairie. Seven turtle species, eight frog and toad species, and three salamanders are found in the Refuge. Tiger salamanders and northern leopard frogs are the most common amphibians. They provide food for herons, raccoons, snakes, owls, and northern pike (USFWS 1998).

Insects – The exact number of insect species found in the refuge is not known, however, it is estimated that several thousand live, breed in, or visit the tallgrass prairie. There are 50-60 butterflies in Iowa and one-third to one- fourth of these species are restricted to prairie habitat. Rare species found on northwest Iowa prairie sites include crossline skipper, Iowa skipper, Aphrodite fritillary, regal fritillary, orange-bordered blue and ottoe skipper butterflies. Of the 130 species of butterflies which breed in Minnesota, three native prairie species are endangered, two are threatened and one is considered a species of concern. All six are endemic to the northern prairie (USFWS 1998).

Non-game fish - The exact number of fish species found in the refuge is not known. In Iowa, there are 148 different species

9

(IADNR 2019), and in Minnesota there are over 150 species (MNDNR 2019).

Threatened and Endangered Species Alternative A: and Other Special Status Species The proposed action will not impact any species of special Federally listed threatened and management concern. While state species of concern and both endangered species that occur within the Federal threatened and endangered species may be present on or refuge acquisition boundary include the within the Northern Tallgrass Prairie acquisition boundary, a Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), gray wolf consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Canis lupus), northern long eared bat was conducted as part of this EA and the Sport Fishing Plan. With (Myotis septentrionalis), piping plover minimal visits anticipated to be attributed to fishing a determination (Chadarius melodus), least tern (eastern was made that there will be no effect under this alternative. At this population) (Sterna antillarum), Dakota time, no impacts are anticipated for state listed species. skipper (Hesperia dacotae) and Poweshiek skipperling (Oarisma Alternative B: poweshiek), the pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), Topeka shiner There would be neutral impacts to any Federally threatened or (Notropis topeka), prairie bush clover endangered species under this alternative. An ESA Section 7 (Lespedeza leptostachya), rusty patched evaluation is not required for this alternative to continue and would bumble bee (Bombus affinis), and the have been addressed in any recovery plans if it were seen as an western prairie fringed orchid issue. (Platanthera praeclara). Candidate species include Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii). See the Appendix for a full description of each of these species (Appendix D). Vegetation (including vegetation of Alternative A: special management concern) Fishing access, in most cases, will be by foot access only. Parking The Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge will be restricted to designated parking lots. Impacts on vegetation, includes approximately the western third such as vegetation trampling, should be temporary and similar to of Minnesota and the northwestern quarter that occurring from non-consumptive users. Additionally, there are of Iowa. The boundary line carefully a limited number of boat access points and the refuge is only follows the historic range of the northern permitting the use of non-motorized boats, which will further region of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem, mitigate impacts to aquatic vegetation. Fishermen with disabilities as identified by Bailey’s ecoregion will utilize existing gravel roads and trails and be accommodated on classification system. This area, a case by case basis. It is anticipated that fishing visitation at approximately 150 miles wide and 520 Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge will be low based on the lack of miles long, includes portions of 85 opportunity. Fishing visits on Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge counties, 48 in Minnesota and 37 in Iowa. will equate to less than 1% of all visits annually. Similar to other Refuge units focus on native and restored public uses, activity is typically dispersed across the landscape, prairie ranging from wet (wetlands) to dry resulting in negligible vegetation trampling or effects. (upland) sites. This can include hay fields, pastures, and fields in CRP. Greater than Alternative B: 90% of the acres within refuge units can be classified as grasslands (restored and No impacts to vegetation will result under this alternative as no remnant) often interspersed with forbs. additional use will occur from fishing.

Woodlands, occasionally on units, are typically woodlots and wooded margins of streams and rivers. Woodlands occupy the northern portions of the refuge’s tallgrass prairie landscape, gradually diminishing from north to south in Minnesota. The Aspen Parklands Ecosystem contains a greater acreage of trees and brush which are interspersed with native prairie

10

grassland. Invasive Species Alternative A: With this alternative, there is an increased risk of individuals Currently, about 7% of Minnesota’s lakes transporting and spreading invasive species, both in the uplands and are categorized as infested, meaning the wetlands, through such means as unclean boats, boots and bait lake contains an aquatic invasive species containers as individuals traverse through the refuge to access that could spread to other waters or is fishing areas. However, this is far less than the risk from existing connected to a body of water where an uses. Increased human traffic from fishing would likely result in a aquatic invasive species is present. Some minimal increased risk that would not add substantially to the of these infested waters are within the existing risk from natural dispersion of these species. Additionally, boundary of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie there are a limited number of boat access points and the refuge is Refuge. only permitting the use of non-motorized boats, which will further

mitigate impacts to aquatic vegetation. Furthermore, infested waters Invasive species of concern used in this are often well marked and have more strict state laws and determination include zebra mussels, regulations on activities within these identified areas, such as bait Eurasian water-milfoil, Louisiana red harvesting and water use. The state of Minnesota has a list of crayfish, and silver carp. The most infested waters on their website: pervasive infestations within the refuge https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/ais/infested.html. boundary occur within the Minnesota Similarly, the Iowa DNR lists infested waters by county in its River and Little Sioux River. Zebra fishing regulations: mussels have been recorded in the https://www.iowadnr.gov/Fishing/Fishing-Licenses-Laws Minnesota River, including many sections It is estimated there will be negligible impacts to the spread of that pass through counties within the invasive species by allowing fishing on the refuge. refuge boundary. Additionally, the upper

stretches of the Little Sioux River and its Alternative B: tributaries are infested with silver and No impacts to invasive species spread will result under this bighead carp. alternative as no additional use will occur from fishing.

TABLE 2. AFFECTED VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

AFFECTED RESOURCE ANTICIPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

11

Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge is Alternative A already open to hunting, wildlife observation and photography, The Service has allowed and administered a public fishing program on environmental education and adjacent and nearby Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) since the interpretation. By far, hunting and early 1960s. During its history, the Service has not noted any significant wildlife observation and photography adverse effects of fishing on the administration of WPAs, and has are the most popular uses on the determined that this use is compatible with the purposes of the WPAs refuge. and the Refuge System’s mission statement. The fishing program for Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge is similar and consistent with the Areas are open year round with program administered by the Service for WPAs. existing parking areas and informative kiosks (on some units) to provide It is anticipated that fishing visitation at Northern Tallgrass Prairie access and information. Wetland Refuge will be low based on the lack of opportunity. Fishing visits on Management Districts provide the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge will equate to less than 1% of all maintenance of these areas. visits annually.While difficult to track due to the sprawled location of individual units,, there were an estimated 5,000 visitors to the refuge in 2018. Of the 5,000 visitors, approximately 780 visitors participated in hunting activities. Other wildlife dependent recreational activities provided at the refuge include wildlife observation (725 participants), wildlife photography (75 participants), environmental education (168 participants), and interpretation (80 participants). An additional estimate of 3,172 participants visit certain units to see the native prairie with no particular wildlife dependent recreation objective.

Because of the relatively low expected participation rate in fishing (less than 1% of total visits) if fishing is opened, the potential for conflict with other uses is considered to have neutral impacts to and among other uses of the refuge.

Alternative B: There would be neutral impacts to and between other users of the refuge as there are no conflicts occurring between existing users and there would be no increase in users from fishing.

TABLE 3. AFFECTED CULTURAL RESOURCES AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

CULTURAL RESOURCES

AFFECTED RESOURCE ANTICIPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

There are no sites listed on the Alternative A and B: National Register of Historic Places Refuge fishing activities are not expected to disturb archeological located on the current refuge units. resources that may be buried in the ground. New parking or other A review of the National Register of facility enhancement will be reviewed for archeological compliance

12

Historic Places showed that within the before constructed. Fishing as proposed will not affect cultural 37 Iowa counties and 48 Minnesota resources and there will be no cumulative impacts to such resources. counties within the refuge’s Activities that might cause an effect to a historic property would be acquisition boundary, the vast subject to a case-by-case Section 106 review. majority of these properties are buildings in towns and cities. However, a number of properties are located in rural areas and are indicative of the kinds of historic properties that could be found on future fee title units of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge. These include farmsteads and farm buildings, especially barns, bridges, segments of the Red River Oxcart Trail, mill sites, battle sites and prehistoric archeological sites such as mounds, villages, camps and rock art.

TABLE 4. AFFECTED REFUGE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

REFUGE MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS

AFFECTED RESOURCE ANTICIPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Land Use: Alternative A: The refuge acquisition boundary is primarily in private ownership and in rural counties. Most Because of the low volume of fishing use if opened, the counties are dependent on agricultural income. Other dispersed nature, and the limited suitable habitat for land uses, although comprising a relatively small fishing, there are negligible, possibly even no effects on percent of the land area (with the exception of refuge land uses. Any increase in traffic can be sustained agriculture), are significant to the landscape and by the current road system. The most impacted activity important to the lifestyle of people within the project may be prescribed burning, but that can be managed area. Urban areas to accommodate 1-1.5 million through signage and other communications similar to that people within the refuge’s acquisition boundary for other public uses that are affected and at a much require manufacturing, retail services, government, greater rate. Maintenance or improvement of existing education services, transportation and utilities, and roads and parking areas will cause minimal short term other commercial services within the refuge’s impacts to localized soils and may cause some temporary acquisition boundary (USFWS 1998). The refuge wildlife disturbance. currently has trails, parking lots and kiosk infrastructure on some units to facilitate refuge uses. Alternative B: Due to the dispersed arrangement of refuge tracts, travel to and through the refuge is primarily by Impacts would be similar to those indicated in public roadways. Alternative A, however no additional use from fishing would impact the management of land use on the refuge. Administration Alternative A: Refuge units are managed by Wetland Management District offices that oversee the respective county a Staff are currently available to provide access, maintain particular tract is located in. roads, parking lots, signage and overall administration for other wildlife-dependent uses. Maintaining public use facilities is part of routine management duties and staff and funding are available under current station operations

13

funds. Refuge harvest limits mirror state regulations in large part, which allows both Iowa and Minnesota DNR conservation officers to assist in law enforcement. Refuge officers placed at various duty stations within the refuge’s acquisition boundary provide existing coverage. Fish census surveys and or monitoring could be completed by various station personnel that may require additional staff time. Additional administrative time to oversee the program could be required. While this would impact the refuge, it would not be significant because the refuge would still be able to carry out its other priority actions and obligations in meeting the purpose of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System.

Alternative B: No additional staff time would be required.

TABLE 5. AFFECTED SOCIOECONOMICS AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

SOCIOECONOMICS

ANTICIPATED DIRECT AND AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT INDIRECT IMPACTS Local and regional economies Alternative A The refuge acquisition boundary is approximately 520 miles long by 150 miles wide stretching from northwest Minnesota to northwest Less than an attributed 1% of visitation Iowa. It includes parts of 48 counties in Minnesota and 37 in Iowa. to the refuge is expected from from Since land use and economic activity vary across the project area, four fishing if opened. While there may be sub-units were identified in the EIS for conducting the economic a slight increase in visits, it is not analysis in the development of the EIS. The sub-units include 30 of the expected to have an impact on the 85 counties identified as the refuge. The four sub-units are: local economy. Hunting and wildlife observation/photography are much Tallgrass Aspen Parkland greater drivers in the local economies. This area includes the six Minnesota counties (Kittson, Roseau, Marshall, Pennington, and parts of Red Lake and Polk) most likely Alternative B directly affected by the refuge. The 2010 census shows these counties While minimal, there would be no are home to an estimated 79,239 people, 1.5 percent of Minnesota’s economic contribution from fishing population. It contains 7,460 square miles of land area and is 8.9 and the same economic impact would percent of Minnesota’s land area. The principal crops grown include occur as does without fishing being soybeans, wheat, and corn. Agriculture, manufacturing, tourism, and opened. forestry are the principal industries. Cropland sells for about $750 an acre, while pasture and hayland sells for about $350 an acre (USFWS 2014).

Agassiz Beach Ridges This area includes five Minnesota counties (Norman, Clay, Wilkin, and parts of Polk and Red Lake) most directly affected by the refuge. They are home to an estimated 108,116 people, 2.0 percent of Minnesota’s population. The 5,079 square miles is 6 percent of Minnesota’s land area. The principal crops grown include soybeans, corn, wheat, and

14

alfalfa. Agriculture, tourism, and agricultural products processing are the principal industries. Cropland sells for about $1,000 an acre and pasture and hayland sell for about $600 per acre (USFWS 2014).

Prairie Coteau-Minnesota The 13 Minnesota counties (Jackson, Nobles, Murray, Pipestone, Lincoln, Grant, Stevens, Pope, Big Stone, Swift, Lac Qui Parle, Chippewa, and Yellow Medicine) most directly affected by the refuge in this area are home to an estimated 127,790 people, 2.4 percent of Minnesota’s population. The 8,238 square miles is 9.8 percent of Minnesota’s land area. The principal crops grown are soybeans, corn, and alfalfa. Agriculture, agricultural products processing, and tourism are the principal industries. Cropland sells for $3,500 to $8,000 an acre, while pasture and hayland sell for approximately $1,000-$2,500 per acre (USFWS 2014).

Prairie Coteau-Iowa The eight Iowa counties (Osceola, Dickinson, Emmet, O’Brien, Clay, Palo Alto, Buena Vista, and Pocahontas) most directly affected by the refuge in this area are home to 100,603 people, 3.25 percent of Iowa’s population. The 4,078 square miles is 19 percent of Iowa’s land area. The principal crops grown are corn and soybeans. Agriculture, tourism, and agricultural products processing are the principal industries. Cropland sells for approximately $4,000 - $10,000 an acre, while pasture and hayland sell for about $2,000-4,000 per acre (USFWS 2014).

Outdoor recreation is an important component to residents of Minnesota and Iowa, and residents of both states more likely to participate in fishing activities than the average American. Seventy percent and 65% of Minnesota and Iowa residents, respectively, participate in outdoor recreation each year. Economically, outdoor recreation activities in Minnesota generate 1.4 billion in state and local tax revenue and residents spend 16.7 billion annually on outdoor recreation related activities and gear (OIA 2017a; OIA 2017b).

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental The Service has not identified any Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires potential high and adverse all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their environmental or human health missions by identifying and addressing disproportionately high or impacts from this proposed action or adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and any of the alternatives. The Service has policies on minorities and low-income populations and communities. identified no minority or low income communities within the impact area. Minority or low income communities will not be disproportionately affected by any impacts from this proposed action or any of the alternatives.

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

15

actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7).

TABLE 6. ANTICIPATED CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activity Impacting Descriptions of Anticipated Cumulative Affected Environment Impacts Fishing Alternative A: Both the states of Iowa and Minnesota monitor, assess and There are about 1.5 million anglers every year in implement fishing regulations in the best interest of Minnesota. Minnesota has 11,482 lakes, 5,400 maintaining healthy fish populations. which are specifically managed by DNR and there are 18,000 miles of fishable rivers and streams. Fishing opportunities are basically constituted by individual anglers visiting the refuge lands if any suitable fishing In 2017 Iowa had approximately 355,000 anglers habitat exists. These events are non-existent to sometimes with opportunities to fish in thousands of Iowa very sporadic. National wildlife refuges conduct or will lakes and ponds. Many are stocked and managed conduct fishing programs within the framework of state and by the Iowa DNR. In addition, Iowa has several Federal regulations. Public fishing has been allowed on interior rivers, trout streams, and is bordered by the numerous adjacent Federal and state lands long before the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. refuge began seeking fishing opportunities. Alternative A regulations are at least as restrictive as the states and in some cases, may be more restrictive. By maintaining fishing regulations that are as, or more, restrictive than the state’s, individual refuges ensure that they are maintaining seasons which are supportive of management on a regional basis.

Fishing in the refuge will have minimal impacts to fish populations on any of the water bodies present or future. All of these lands were opened to fishing prior to Service ownership. There may be a slight increase in the number of fish taken on refuge lands from when these lands were in private ownership simply because they are open to more people. However, limited opportunity and restrictions offset cumulative impact concerns. The Service believes that fishing on the Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge will not add significantly to the cumulative impacts on local or state level fisheries resources because the percentage taken would be a fraction of the estimated populations within the state. Additionally, it is estimated that <5% of the total acreage in future acquisitions over the next 20 years are projected to be suitable fish habitat and therefore would not cause a measurable increase in fishing pressure. Alternative B: There would be no cumulative impact to fishing on the refuge as this activity would not occur under this alternative. Land alterations Alternative A: Currently, there are no refuge tracts that encompass or Thousands of prairie wetlands have been drained border the Minnesota River. For any future acquisitions that and many of the rivers and streams have been include portions along the Minnesota River, if it is dammed, channelized and polluted. The Minnesota determined that the fishery cannot support or would be River is considered the state’s most polluted river.

16

The Red River watershed has been degraded by negatively impacted by additional fishing activities, areas dam construction, agricultural practices, that are closed to fishing can be established. Given the low channelization and loss of riparian vegetation. As a expected fishing use, it is likely that future fishing visits result the fishery resource has been severely would have negligible to non existent cumulative impacts. impacted. Alternative B: There would be no cumulative impact to other land alterations because of fishing on the refuge as this activity would not occur under this alternative. Other wildlife-dependent recreation (i.e. road Alternative A: and trail development and use) Infrastructure, trails, water accesses and roads used for wildlife-dependent recreation on the refuge and in the local On lands already acquired, no additional area has negatively affected the environment, to a marginal infrastructure will be added. However as new degree, through invasive species spread, habitat tracts are acquired, additional parking lots may be fragmentation and loss, or overall disturbance. However, constructed for general public use, including there are positive impacts of how wildlife-dependent fishing. Existing roads, trails, and parking areas recreation (that is reliant upon that infrastructure for access) will provide access for this opportunity currently. is contributing to the local economy. Wildlife dependent recreation in either alternative is a socio- economic driver locally, regionally, or at the state level. Future development of trails or access to support all wildlife dependent recreational opportunities on the refuge are not expected to have a cumulative impact on the environment. As projects are proposed they will go through additional environmental review and if found to have a negative cumulative impact the project will not be completed. Alternative B: Infrastructure to support other forms of wildlife-dependent recreation may be constructed in the future. Therefore, we anticipate similar impacts from the existing condition, however,there would not be the small anticipated increase in angling pressure on the refuge. The infrastructure projects will be evaluated on a case by case basis and cumulative impacts will be considered in the decision process. Use of lead ammunition/tackle Alternative A: The use of lead tackle for fishing is permitted in Lead tackle could be introduced into aquatic systems. both Minnesota and Iowa. Abandoned lead fishing gear can have harmful effects on waterfowl that ingest the gear, particularly piscivorous species. For some species, the ingestion of a single lead The use of lead tackle for fishing is popular. In piece, either directly or from prey, can cause mortality 2003-2004, Minnesota state legislature considered (Michael 2006). Lead is highly toxic to certain species, banning the sale and use of lead tackle. This ban including the common loon (Gavia immer) and bald eagle received much criticism and little support, and (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In Minnesota, loon deaths through conversations with and feedback from the attributed to ingestion of lead tackle can account for as much public and stakeholders, this legislation proposal as 5.4% of all loon deaths in Minnesota. Unless ingested, was withdrawn. abandoned lead fishing gear has little effect on wildlife (Rattner et al. 2008). Anglers are encouraged to use non-toxic tackle on the refuge and are given educational information With anticipated fishing visits predicted to account for less regarding non-toxic tackle. than 1% of total refuge visits and less than 5% of the refuge having suitable fishing habitat, there would be a minimal increased risk to wildlife of exposure to lead poisoning. Given that fishing will be minimal on the refuge, consumption and mortality is likely to be negligible. Through fishing, the amount of new lead over time that may be introduced into the system, will not result in a noticeable

17

increased risk of mortality to wildlife than is not already present from lead currently used in the surrounding areas. This results in an assumption that cumulative impacts will be negligible, as well. The refuge will provide education to anglers about the use of lead tackle and alternative gear to use. Alternative B: There would be no additional risk from lead tackle as fishing would not occur under this alternative.

Development/Population Increase Alternative A and B: The refuge acquisition boundary is primarily in Because the refuge uses an adaptive management approach private ownership and in rural counties. Most for its fishing program, reviewing the program with state counties are dependent on agricultural income. partners on a regular basis, the Service’s fishing program can Other land uses, although comprising a relatively be adjusted to ensure that it does not contribute to small percent of the land area (with the exception cumulative impacts due to increased outdoor recreational of agriculture), are significant to the landscape and use of the area. important to the lifestyle of people within the project area. Urban areas to accommodate 1-1.5 million people within the refuge’s acquisition boundary require manufacturing, retail services, government, education services, transportation and utilities, and other commercial services within the refuge’s acquisition boundary (USFWS 1998). As most of the refuge is located in rural Minnesota it is estimated that there will be no development issues as population in this area is declining (Asche 2018).

Climate Change Alternative A and B Under this approach the refuge uses an adaptive management Warming, whether it results from anthropogenic or approach to compensate for any anticipated impacts from natural sources, is expected to affect a variety of climate change. Through current and future planning efforts natural processes and associated resources. with refuge staff and partners, the refuge utilizes tools such However, the complexity of ecological systems as The Nature Conservancy Resilient Land Mapping Tool means that there is a tremendous amount of and both Minnesota and Iowa Prairie Plans to identify uncertainty about the impact climate change will critical prairie conservation areas. These tools assist in actually have. In particular, the localized effects of identifying critical acquisition strategies to conserve habitat climate change are still a matter of much debate. and prairie fauna/flora in Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge Fish adapted to coldwater streams may be while considering potential climate change impacts.. negatively affected by climate change. Game species in Minnesota and Iowa, such as brook, The refuge would review the fishing program annually as rainbow, and brown trout, and smallmouth bass well as information about coaster brook trout population are vulnerable to rising temperatures. These status to determine if any changes are necessary for the species are dependent upon cool groundwater and fishing program to ensure that it does not contribute further are sensitive to sedimentation. With more intense to the cumulative impacts of climate change on fisheries rainstorms, sediment in streams from erosion will populations. increase, further threatening these species (Berendzen et al. 2010).

According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, in Minnesota and Iowa, rising temperatures have been driven by a dramatic warming of winter and also nights, with both the

18

frequency and the severity of extreme cold conditions declining rapidly. Annual precipitation increases have been punctuated by more frequent and more intense heavy rainfall events. The heaviest snowstorms have also become larger, even as winter has warmed (ICAT 2017).

Mitigation Measures and Conditions There are additional mitigation measures we propose to assist in minimizing adverse effects on the Topeka Shiner. We proposed to add the following CFR to for both Minnesota and Iowa tracts on the refuge. (i) We prohibit the taking of any turtle, frog, leech, minnow, crayfish, and mussel (clam) species by any method on the refuge (see §27.21 of this chapter).

Monitoring Both Minnesota and Iowa DNRs regularly monitor and conduct surveys to assess the overall health of fish populations. Regular communication with both DNR offices is one tactic refuge staff use to obtain information on the general health and status of fish populations. Refuge specific fish monitoring surveys may look at the overall health of fish populations or focus on sensitive species, such as the Topeka shiner, in known occurrence areas. Since 2004, the Minnesota DNR has conducted annual presence/absence monitoring surveys on the Topeka shiner in areas designated as critical habitat. Additionally, Service biologists out of the Rock Island Ecological Services Field Office have coordinated with Iowa DNR and Iowa State University to conduct presence/absence surveys for the Topeka shiner as well as monitor known populations across multiple watersheds.

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

Alternative A – Proposed Action Alternative Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the refuge will be open pursuant to state fishing regulations. Areas open to fishing would include all 4,837 acres of fee lands in the refuge and as additional fee title lands are acquired they would also be opened to fishing after compliance is completely. It is likely that a categorical exclusion would be used since <5% of the total acreage in future acquisitions over the next 20 years are projected to be suitable fish habitat and therefore would not cause a measurable increase in fishing pressure. The refuge ownership is constantly changing as new land is acquired.

Fishing periods will correspond with state regulations. As additional lands are acquired and refuge management programs are instituted, it may become necessary to impose some regulations that are more restrictive than state laws (i.e. closed areas, size limits). These modifications will be included during the annual amendment process through the Federal Register and the public will be informed through media and posting.

19

Fishing is currently closed on the refuge. However, there are fishing opportunities on a few existing fee tracts. Opening fishing on the refuge will allow for minimal, yet new opportunity for visitors to participate in a wildlife-dependent recreational activity. Because so few suitable habitat acres exist, coupled with land acquisition projections, little conflict or impact is expected.

This alternative helps meet the purpose and needs of the Service as described above, because it provides additional wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities on the refuge. The Service has determined that the proposed action is compatible with the purposes of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. The Compatibility Determination can be found in the Sport Fishing Plan (Appendix B).

Alternative B – No Action Alternative Under this alternative the refuge continues to be closed to fishing. The refuge would not provide any access to fishing locations and refuge parking lots would not be available for use by anglers. Under the existing conditions, the refuge does not promote fishing and would not provide educational materials to anglers. Impacts on refuge resources would continue at the same level as currently approved uses.

List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Iowa Department of Natural Resources USFWS Personnel: Union Slough NWR Staff, Windom NWR Staff, Maggie O’Connell, Kristin Rasmussen, Tom Kerr, Andrew Horton

List of Preparers Scott Simmons, Project Leader Stephanie Bishir, Wildlife Biologist

State Coordination National wildlife refuges, including Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge, conduct fishing programs within the framework of state and federal regulations. All authorized fishing are regulated by the state of Minnesota and Iowa, but the refuge may elect to be more restrictive to support refuge management goals. The preferred alternative of this Environmental Assessment and the associated Sport Fishing Plan will be reviewed by the MN DNR and IA DNR. Fisheries staff for both states were contacted in February of 2019. The refuge has moved forward with developing an Environmental Assessment and Sport Fishing Plan based upon earlier formal coordination with these agencies during refuge establishment.

The results of this coordination are reflected in this Environmental Assessment and Sport Fish Plan. Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge will continue to consult and coordinate with the IA and MN DNRs annually to maintain regulations and programs that are consistent with the State; as well as, to monitor populations of game species and set harvest goals. The refuge will strive to maintain consistent regulations with both DNRs whenever applicable.

20

Tribal Coordination Notifications for request for comments were sent by email in February 2019 to the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Upper Sioux Community, Lower Sioux Indian Community and White Earth Nation natural resource directors.

Public Outreach: Public input was last sought regarding adding sport fishing on the refuge as a recreational opportunity as part of public outreach and open comment period during the planning stages for the Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge establishing Environmental Impact Statement and interim Comprehensive Conservation Plan (1998).

References:

Asche, K. 2018. The State of Rural Minnesota 2018. Center for Rural Policy and Development, Mankato, MN.

Berendzen, P. B., Cruse, R. M., Jackson, L. L., Mulqueen, R., Mutel, C. F., Osterberg, D., Rogovska, N. P., Schnoor, J. L., Swenson, D., Takle, E.S., and Thorne, P. S. 2011. Climate Change Impacts on Iowa, 2010. Leopold Center Pubs and Papers. 74.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IADNR). 2019. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines, IA. Retrieved February 15, 2019 from: https://www.iowadnr.gov/Fishing/Iowa-Fish-Species.

Interagency Climate Adaptation Team (ICAT). 2017. Adapting Climate in Minnesota. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Michael, P. 2006. Fish and wildlife issues related to the use of lead fishing gear. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 2019. Fishes of Minnesota Mapper. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN. Retrieved February 15, 2019 from: https://maps2.dnr.state.mn.us/ewr/fom/mapper.html?layers=lakes%20streams%20wshd_l ev01py3%20occurrences.

Outdoor Industry Association (OIA). 2017a. Outdoor Industry Association Report: Iowa. OIA, Boulder, CO.

Outdoor Industry Association (OIA). 2017b. Outdoor Industry Association Report: Minnesota. OIA, Boulder, CO.

Rattner, B. A., Franson, J. C., Sheffield, S. R., Goddard, C. I., Leonard, N. J., Stang, D., and Wingate, P. J. 2008. Sources and implications of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on natural resources. Wildlife Society Technical Review No. 08-01. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD.

21

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Hunt Plan - Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Northern Tallgrass Prairie Habitat Preservation Area Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Fort Snelling, MN.

22

APPENDIX A OTHER APPLICABLE STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS & REGULATIONS

STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS Cultural Resources This alternative will not have any impacts to cultural resources. No buildings or structures exist on-site that are listed on the National American Indian Religious Freedom Register of Historic Places. Fishing is not expected to cause ground Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1996 – disturbance. Any activity that might cause an effect to a historic 1996a; 43 CFR Part 7 property would be subject to a case-by-case Section 106 review.

Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431- 433; 43 CFR Part 3

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470aa – 470mm; 18 CFR Part 1312; 32 CFR Part 229; 36 CFR Part 296; 43 CFR Part 7

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470-470x- 6; 36 CFR Parts 60, 63, 78, 79, 800, 801, and 810

Paleontological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa – 470aaa-11

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; 43 CFR Part 10

Executive Order 11593 – Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 36 Fed. Reg. 8921 (1971)

Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites, 61 Fed. Reg. 26771 (1996) Fish & Wildlife Section 7 consultation for endangered species impacts was completed Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, by the refuge manager. Concurrence by local ecological sciences as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668-668c, 50 office was not needed as there was determined to be no effect. CFR 22

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 36 CFR Part 13; 50 CFR Parts 10, 17, 23, 81, 217, 222, 225, 402, and 450

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742 a-m

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

23

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

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

Natural Resources No additional steps were required to comply with these laws. Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q; 40 CFR Parts 23, 50, 51, 52, 58, 60, 61, 82, and 93; 48 CFR Part 23

Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species, 64 Fed. Reg. 6183 (1999)

Water Resources No additional steps were required to comply with these laws. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 923, 930, 933

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 320-330; 40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 230-232, 323, and 328

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 114, 115, 116, 321, 322, and 333

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 141- 148

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management, 42 Fed. Reg. 26951 (1977)

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

APPENDIX B

24

DRAFT NORTHERN TALLGRASS PRAIRIE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SPORT FISH PLAN

APPENDIX C THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT

25

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) The Indiana bat is listed as endangered. They are found over most of the eastern half and upper Midwestern portions of the United States, from Oklahoma, Iowa, and Wisconsin and east to Vermont and south to Georgia. They are not present in Minnesota, but occur in central and southeast Iowa. During summer, they roost under loose bark from dead or dying trees. Winter biennial surveys have been conducted since the 1980s, showing a decline of 20% over the past 10 years. Although Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge tracts are not heavily forested, it is possible that they could be found on refuge units.

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) The gray wolf’s primary range is the northern portion of Minnesota. Wolf packs live within territories, which they defend from other wolves. Their territories range in size from 50 square miles to more than 1,000 square miles, depending on the available prey and their seasonal movements. Wolves have been observed in southern Minnesota and in Iowa; however these observations are of single animals that are straying outside their normal range. MN DNR surveys show the wolf population in Minnesota is increasing. There is no resident gray wolf population in Iowa.

Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) The northern long-eared bat is listed as endangered. This species is found in the United States from Maine to North Carolina on the Atlantic Coast, westward to eastern Oklahoma and north through the Dakotas, even reaching into eastern Montana and Wyoming. In Canada, it is found from the Atlantic Coast westward to the southern Yukon Territory and eastern British Columbia. The entire Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge acquisition boundary falls within the range of this species. Northern long-eared bats spend the winter hibernating in caves and abandoned mines, collectively called hibernacula. During summer, they roost alone or in small colonies underneath bark or in cavities or crevices of both live trees and snags. Although Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge tracts are not heavily forested, it is conceivable that they could be found on refuge units.

Piping plover (Chadarius melodus) Piping plovers are tenuously present in Iowa and Minnesota. They nest in one site in Minnesota, Lake of the Woods, to the east of the refuge area, and on power company ash ponds at one or two sites in western Iowa. Piping plovers nest in coastal areas, but they are also prairie birds, nesting across the Great Plains of the U.S. and Canada, but in perilously low numbers. Loss of prairie wetlands areas has contributed to their decline.

Least Tern (eastern population) (Sterna antillarum) The least tern nests along large rivers of the Colorado, Red, Mississippi, and Missouri River systems and is a potential nester in the Missouri River area of Iowa. It nests on sand and gravel bars and protected beach areas of large rivers and winters in coastal Central and South America. The species is endangered because human disturbance and alteration of river systems has rendered much of its nesting habitat unusable. Additionally, pesticides may reduce food available to the tern by reducing the numbers of small fish in their feeding areas.

Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae) The Dakota skipper is listed as a federally threatened species. Found in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Canada, the Dakota skipper has experienced a dramatic decline in numbers and occurs on less than 50% of sites where it was previously found. The Dakota skipper has been documented on the refuge. Dakota skipper occur in two types of habitat. The first is relatively flat and moist native bluestem prairie in which three species of wildflowers are usually present and in flower when the skippers are in their adult state – wood lily (Lilium philadelphicum), harebell (Campanula rotundifolia), and smooth camas (Zygadenus elegans). The second habitat type is upland prairie that is often on ridges and hillsides. Blue stem grasses and needlegrasses dominate these habitats and three wildflower species are typically present in high quality sites that are suitable for the skipper: pale purple (Echinacea pallida) and upright (E. angustifolia) coneflowers, and blanketflower

26

(Gaillardia sp.). Historically, populations have declined due to widespread conversion of prairie for agriculture and other uses. Populations are currently isolated from one another in small areas of remnant native prairie.

Poweshiek skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek) The Poweshiek skipperling has recently been listed as endangered. This butterfly, once found in eight states and Canada, now occurs only in a few native prairie remnants in Wisconsin and Michigan, and in Manitoba, Canada. Surveys indicate that Poweshiek skipperlings are gone from nearly 90 percent of the sites where they were previously found.

Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) The pallid sturgeon, although technically found within the boundaries of the refuge, occurs primarily in the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers downstream of their confluence. It is highly unlikely that this species would be found on fee title tracts of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Refuge.

Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka) Topeka shiners were historically found within the waters of the refuge in both Minnesota and Iowa. Populations have decreased dramatically due to habitat losses. They have been documented within fee title tracts on the refuge.

Prairie bush clover (Lespedeza leptostachya) Prairie bush clover occurs in dry, gravelly hill prairies and in thin soil prairies over granite bedrock. It is common on prairies with big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi) and Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans). More sites are known for this species than were known when it was listed and it appears able to grow in disturbed areas. The species may be stable, or, if declining, declining slowly. The need for protection remains.

Rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) The Rusty Patched Bumble bee is listed as endangered and has declined by 87 percent in the last 20 years. The species is likely to be present in only 0.1% of its historical range, which encompasses portions of the refuge acquisition boundary.

Western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara) The western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara) historically occurred throughout the refuge and has been documented on the Touch the Sky Prairie Unit in Rock County, Minnesota. The species may be stable, but loss of tallgrass prairie habitat has markedly reduced its original range. Present sites are threatened by human activities, land use changes, and invasion by leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula).

Candidate species: Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) Sprague’s pipit is currently a candidate species. They nest in native grasses in Minnesota, preferring well-drained areas of open grassland with native grasses of intermediate height. Populations have declined historically due to widespread conversion of prairie to agriculture and other uses. The introduction of exotic grasses also degrades summer habitat.

APPENDIX D INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM

27