Draft Environmental Assessment

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

For the Implementation of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program - “Minnesota’s Plan to Improve Water Quality and Enhance Habitat”

Minnesota

Prepared for: U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency Minnesota State Office 375 Jackson, Suite 400 St. Paul, MN. 55101-1852

Prepared by: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Rd St. Paul, MN 55044

December 2016

Cover Page

Proposed Action: The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the State of Minnesota propose to implement the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), “Minnesota’s Plan to Improve Water Quality and Enhance Habitat” by enrolling up to 100,000 acres in fifty-four counties of Southern and Western Minnesota. CREP is a voluntary conservation program for agricultural producers.

Type of Document: Programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA)

Lead Agency: USDA, Farm Services Agency (FSA)

Sponsoring Agency: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources

Further Information: Bill Penning, Conservation Easement Section Manager Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55044 651-297-1894 Email: [email protected]

Comments: This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in accordance with the FSA National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementation procedures contained in 7 CFR 799, as well as NEPA of 1969, Public Law 91-190, 42 USC 4321-4347, 1 January 1970, as amended, and 40 CFR 1500-1508. The FSA will provide a public review and comment period prior to any final decision. An electronic copy of this EA will be available for public review at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and- services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve- enhancement/index Written comments regarding this assessment may be submitted to the CREP Program Manager at 6501 Beacon Drive, STOP 8108, Kansas City, MO 64133 or by email at [email protected]. Comments must be received on or before January 15, 2017. :

LIST OF ACRONYMS

BCR Bird Conservation Region BMPs Best Management Practices BWSR Board of Water and Soil Resources CCC Commodity Credit Corporation CFR Code of Federal Regulations CP Conservation Practice CRP Conservation Reserve Program CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program DWSMA Drinking Water Supply Management Area EA Programmatic Environmental Assessment EMV Estimated Market Value EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 FBAP Farm Bill Assistance Partnership FSA USDA-Farm Service Agency HEL Highly Erodible Land IBA Important Bird Area MASWCD Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts MLRA Major Land Resource Area MDA Minnesota Department of Agriculture MDH Minnesota Department of Health MDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources MLRA Major Land Resource Areas MNHP Minnesota Natural Heritage Program MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NHL National Historic Landmark NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NPS National Park Service NRCS USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service NRI National Rivers Inventory

PIP Practice Incentive Payment RIM Reinvest In Minnesota Reserve SGCN Species of Greatest Conservation Need SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIP Signing Incentive Payment SRR Soil Rental Rate SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S.C. U.S. Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service WQM Water Quality Management WRE Wetlands Reserve Easement program WRP Wetlands Reserve Program

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) proposes to implement the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) agreement for “Minnesota’s Plan to Improve Water Quality and Enhance Habitat” (MN-CREP). CREP is a natural resources conservation program that allows agricultural producers to voluntarily retire environmentally sensitive lands. This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to analyze the potential environmental consequences associated with the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations; and the 7 CFR 799 Environmental Quality and Related Environmental Concerns – Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The purpose of the MN-CREP is to reduce agriculture related non-point nutrient and sediment loading within the region’s streams and rivers in order to improve surface and ground water quality in Minnesota and beyond the State borders, as well as to establish and restore wildlife habitat. The initial allocation will be 60,000 acres with an eventual goal of up to 100,000 acres of eligible lands in the fifty-four county area. In recent months, a number of reports released by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) have highlighted serious threats to the quality of Minnesota’s waters, citing an increasing number of waters that are not swimmable, fishable, or drinkable. Most of these waters are found within the agricultural portion of the state, demonstrating the urgent need to provide producers with tools that address agricultural pollution. At the same time, attention also has been focused on sharp declines in grassland habitat and what diminishing habitat means for Minnesota wildlife. In December 2014, Governor Dayton convened the state’s first Pheasant Summit, during which stakeholders discussed the issue and developed a list of actions aimed at boosting pheasant populations. One key idea generated was to enhance the offering of private land programs, specifically CREP. Fortunately, Minnesota is well positioned to address these issues. Minnesota’s CREP proposal will benefit from significant watershed monitoring and assessment work already completed to assist with targeting practices on up to 100,000 acres of land within 54 counties in the southern and west central agricultural region of the state. This area includes the State’s highest priorities for achieving nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment reductions, protection of vulnerable drinking water areas, and enhancement of grassland and wetland habitats. Offers will be accepted on a continuous basis, same as under CCC’s continuous CRP signup process. The State of Minnesota will score offers, by CP, based on environmental evaluation tools developed by the State of Minnesota. Eligible offers will then be ranked by their environmental score and be approved for enrollment in RIM and for MN-CREP during batching periods. Eligible producers will enter into CRP contracts (no less than 14 nor more than 15 years) with FSA to install CPs and also enter into perpetual Reinvest In Minnesota (RIM) Reserve easements on eligible lands. Riparian areas, cropland, drained wetlands and certain priority ground water areas will be targeted for enrollment in the proposed MN-CREP. Specifically, the MN-CREP will include initially 60,000 acres with an eventual goal of up to 100,000 acres composed of Riparian Lands – Grass Filter strip (CP-21), Wetland Restoration (CP-23 - floodplain and CP- 23A – non-floodplain), and Establishment of Permanent Native Grasses (CP-2) in approved Wellhead Protection Areas. The total estimated cost of a 100,000 acre MN-CREP proposal is $795.5 million, with the iii

State of Minnesota committed to contributing $161.2 million and FSA contributing $634.3 million to the program. Given the limited acreage involved, outcomes from this program will be important locally and will contribute to overall basin and state goals found in numerous strategies and plans. Total annual pollution reductions accrued from the 100,000 acres (within the 24.4 million acre project area) are anticipated to be:  32,000 pounds of total phosphorus per year  2,400,000 pounds of total nitrogen per year  205,000 tons of sediment per year

So while these acres will help locally with existing levels of degradation, contribute to overall basin and state goals and curb future additions since enrolled land is permanently protected through a RIM easement, this MN-CREP alone will not solve the current water quality issues faced in the entirety of the project area. But again, it will be a contribution. Additional benefits include restored hydrology, groundwater recharge, drinking water protection, increased filtration, and enhanced habitat for resident and migratory wildlife. The Riparian Protection and Water Quality Practices Law, 2016 (MS 103F.48) requires a 50 foot buffer of perennial vegetation or alternative water quality practices on approximately 31,000 miles of Public Water (PW) Watercourses in the MN-CREP area. It has been estimated by the BWSR that a great majority of these miles already are protected with perennial vegetation. MS103F.48 also requires a 16.5 foot buffer or alternative water quality practices on public drainage systems, approximately 19,000 miles in the MN- CREP area. According to BWSR, this width is generally for access to the ditch with very limited water quality benefits. According to BWSR, it is estimated by the BWSR that a small percentage of the MN-CREP acreage will be utilized for areas that are governed by MS 103F.48. This EA documents the analysis of the Proposed Action (new CREP; Preferred Alternative) and the No Action Alternative (current management). Under the No Action Alternative, no lands within the fifty-four county area will be enrolled in MN-CREP. A small amount of acres of CPs (CP-2, 21, 23 and 23a) may be implemented but will not be targeted and will only provide benefits for a short-term (14 to 15 years). An even smaller amount of acres may be enrolled into State RIM easements but once again in a non-targeted way. In the No Action Alternative all of the watercourses covered by MS 103F.48 will either have a buffer or utilize alternative water quality practices by the compliance dates if they do not already. According to BWSR the new law will not meet most of the goals of the MN-CREP since it only covers a small percent of the watercourses of the state and also requires a smaller width than is generally required by NRCS standards to meet environmental concerns. 103F.48 ensures 50 foot buffers on certain public waters which before the law was only required in rule and was not uniformly implemented. The 50 foot is uniform across the state and does not consider site-specific conditions. The 16.5 foot required buffers on public ditches will provide access by drainage authorities to their public ditches and some water quality benefits.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Acronyms ...... i-ii Executive Summary ...... iii-vi Table of Contents ...... vii-ix List of Tables/Figures ...... x

CONTENTS

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 1

1.1 Introduction ...... 1

1.2 Background ...... 1 1.2.1 The Farm Service Agency and Conservation Reserve Program ...... 1 1.2.2 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program ...... 1 1.2.3 Previous Minnesota CREPs ...... 1 1.2.4 Minnesota’s Plan to Improve Water Quality and Enhance Habitat (MN-CREP) ...... 2

1.3 Purpose and Need ...... 2

1.4 Regulatory Compliance ...... 4

1.5 Organization of the EA ...... 6

1.6 Project Scoping ...... 6

2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative ...... 8

2.1 Proposed Action ...... 8 2.1.1 Eligible Lands ...... 9 2.1.2 Establish Conservation Practices ...... 10 2.1.3 Provide Financial Support to Landowners ...... 11

2.2 Alternatives ...... 13 2.2.1 Alternative A: No Action ...... 13 2.2.2 Alternative B: Preferred ...... 13

3.0 Affected Environment ...... 16

3.1 Biological Resources ...... 16 3.1.1 Vegetation ...... 16 3.1.2 Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife ...... 17 v

3.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat ...... 19

3.2 Cultural Resources ...... 21 3.2.1 Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office ...... 22 3.2.2 Minnesota USDA Processes ...... 22

3.3 Water Resources ...... 23 3.3.1 Surface Water ...... 23 3.3.2 Groundwater ...... 23 3.3.3 Water Quality ...... 24 3.3.4 Wetlands ...... 27 3.3.5 Floodplains ...... 29

3.4 Earth Resources...... 29 3.4.1 General Features ...... 29 3.4.2 Major Land Resource Areas...... 30 3.4.3 Geology and Soils ...... 32 3.4.4 National Natural Landmarks ...... 35

3.5 Recreational Resources ...... 36 3.5.1 Hunting in Minnesota ...... 37

3.6 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ...... 37 3.6.1 Demographic Profile and Environmental Justice ...... 38 3.6.2 Income and Poverty ...... 41 3.6.3 Farm Demographics ...... 41 3.6.4 Recreational Values ...... 41

4.0 Environmental Consequences ...... 43

4.1 Biological Resources ...... 44 4.1.1 Alternative A: No Action ...... 44 4.1.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action...... 45

4.2 Cultural Resources ...... 45 4.2.1 Alternative A: No Action ...... 45 4.2.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action...... 45

4.3 Water Resources ...... 46 4.3.1 Alternative A: No Action ...... 46 4.3.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action...... 47

4.4 Earth Resources...... 48 4.4.1 Alternative A: No Action ...... 48 4.4.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action...... 49

4.5 Recreational Resources ...... 49 4.5.1 Alternative A: No Action ...... 49 4.5.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action...... 49

4.6 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ...... 49 4.6.1 Alternative A: No Action ...... 49 4.6.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action...... 50

5.0 Cumulative Impacts and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 54

5.1 Cumulative Benefits ...... 54

5.2 Past, Present, and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions ...... 54

5.3 Cumulative Effect Analysis ...... 55

5.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 57

6.0 List of Preparers ...... 58

7.0 Person and Agencies/Organizations Contacted – ...... 59

8.0 References ...... 61

APPENDIX ...... 1

vii

LIST OF TABLES/FIGURES

Tables - Table 1. MN-CREP Summary Table of Project Costs Table 2. Federal Threatened and Endangered Species Present in the Minnesota MN-CREP Area Table 3. Population Demographics by Race and National Origin Table 4. Principal Operator by Race/National Origin for the State of Minnesota, 2012 Table 5. Summary of Environmental Consequences Table 6. Minnesota CRP Status

Figures - Figure 1. MN-CREP Proposed Project Area Figure 2. Land Use Figure 3. Ecological Sections of MN Figure 4. Percentage of streams and rivers that fully support fish and other aquatic life Figure 5. Major Land Resource Areas Figure 6. Population Demographics by Race and National Origin

viii

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

1.1 Introduction The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) proposes to implement the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) agreement, “Minnesota’s Plan to Improve Water Quality and Enhance Habitat”. MN-CREP is a natural resources conservation program that, when combined with the State’s Reinvest In Minnesota (RIM) Reserve program, allows agricultural producers to voluntary permanently retire environmentally sensitive lands. This Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to analyze the potential environmental consequences associated with the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations; and the 7 CFR 799 Environmental Quality and Related Environmental Concerns – Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

1.2 Background 1.2.1 The Farm Service Agency and Conservation Reserve Program FSA was established during the reorganization of USDA in 1994. Among the responsibilities of the FSA, is the conservation of the nation’s natural resources through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). FSA’s CRP is a voluntary agricultural conservation program that supports the implementation of long-term conservation measures designed to improve the quality of ground and surface waters, control soil erosion, and enhance wildlife habitat on environmentally sensitive agricultural land. The CRP offers producers an annual rental payment and a cost-share reimbursement for establishment of long-term conservation cover. In exchange, the producers agree to enroll environmentally sensitive lands into the program for ten to 15 years. 1.2.2 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) was established in 1997 under the authority of the CRP. The purpose of the CREP is to address agriculture-related environmental issues by establishing CPs on eligible land using funding from federal government, and non-federal government sources. The program is a partnership among farmers, local, state and federal government, and other groups. The CREP addresses high priority conservation issues in defined geographic areas such as watersheds. Producers who enroll their eligible lands in the CREP receive financial and technical assistance for establishing approved CPs on their land as well as annual rental payments and can include longer term retirement such as easements. Once eligible lands are identified, site-specific environmental reviews and consultation with and permitting from other federal agencies are completed by USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) or other technically qualified field staff, as appropriate. Eligible land criteria are set forth by the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, and the federal regulations at 7 CFR part 1410. 1.2.3 Previous Minnesota CREPs In Minnesota, CREP was first implemented from 1998 until 2002 in the Minnesota River Watershed and 100,000 acres were enrolled. A second CREP (II) was then implemented, from 2004 until 2007 in the SE, SW and NW corners of the state, generally the cropland part of the state not covered in the first CREP. 7,190 acres were enrolled in CREP II.

1.2.4 Minnesota’s Plan to Improve Water Quality and Enhance Habitat (MN-CREP) Implementing a third CREP on up to 100,000 acres in Minnesota will yield additional progress in addressing the state’s water quality and habitat needs. The objectives of the program are: 1. Targeting riparian areas that will benefit from buffers (CP-21) and wetlands (CP-23) being restored to perennial vegetation and permanently protected; 2. Restore hydrology, increase infiltration, provide wildlife habitat and provide flood mitigation by restoring drained wetlands and associated uplands (CP-23a); 3. Reducing nitrate loading in drinking water supplies in Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMAs) by restoring perennial vegetation and permanently protecting the land (CP-2). Fortunately, Minnesota is well positioned to address these objectives. Minnesota’s CREP proposal will benefit from significant watershed monitoring and assessment work already completed and will be in part used to target practices on up to 100,000 acres of land within 54 counties in the southern and west central agricultural region that are the highest priorities for achieving nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment reductions, protection of vulnerable drinking water areas, and enhancement of grassland and wetland habitats. This MN-CREP also will benefit from an established conservation delivery system. It will combine CRP (not less than 14 nor more than 15 year contracts) with Minnesota’s nationally-recognized Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Reserve conservation easement program to create permanent protection (through permanent RIM easements). It also will use the long-established Farm Bill Assistance Partnership concept, which places trained staff to work with producers in local offices.

1.3 Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed MN-CREP is to establish an area where eligible producers remove cropland from production and establish conservation practices to meet conservation goals identified by Minnesota in consultation with their State Technical Committee. The need for the Proposed Action is FSA’s responsibility under the 1985 Farm Bill, as amended, and Section 1231 of the Food Security Act, which require FSA to respond to Minnesota’s requested proposal in an effort to enter into contracts to take cropland out of production and put it into the Conservation Reserve Program.

The project area for the proposed MN-CREP focuses on 54 counties in the southern and western regions of Minnesota as the broad outside boundary, which is the dominant agricultural region of the state. This area was chosen by the five state agencies with responsibility for water quality and habitat as the appropriate work area for this effort. The 54 counties include - Becker, Big Stone, Blue Earth, Brown, Carver, Chippewa, Clay, Cottonwood, Dakota, Dodge, Douglas, Faribault, Fillmore, Freeborn, Goodhue, Grant, Hennepin, Houston, Jackson, Kandiyohi, Lac qui Parle, Le Sueur, Lincoln, Lyon, Martin, McLeod, Meeker, Mower, Murray, Nicollet, Nobles, Olmsted, Ottertail, Pipestone, Pope, Redwood, Renville, Rice, Rock, Scott, Sibley, Stearns, Steele, Stevens, Swift, Todd, Traverse, Wabasha, Waseca, Watonwan, Wilkin, Winona, Wright, and Yellow Medicine Counties. The MN-CREP will prioritize and target up to 100,000 acres of this 24.4 million acre area to treat agricultural related concerns and meet water quality and habitat objectives. It is critical as the first level 2

of prioritization to start this effort within the 54 county area (and not the entire state), since that is where the predominant water quality and habitat concerns have been identified and state level plans have focused here also. The up to 100,000 acres will then be targeted and prioritized in the following ways in order to maximize the water quality and habitat benefits:

1. Focusing on only four CPs (2, 21, 23 and 23a) and not all eligible CPs; 2. Directing outreach at specific watersheds and habitat types to secure producer sign-ups for targeted landscapes, farms and fields; 3. Allocating acreage to the highest pollution loading priority major watershed contributors in order to achieve maximum calculated pollution reductions, as prescribed in watershed and other local water plan documents. These watersheds are those already identified as major contributors to nutrient and sediment loading concerns in recently completed studies and statewide plans; 4. Focusing on wellhead areas in the “Very High” to “High” vulnerability categories (as defined by Minnesota Department of Health); 5. Prioritizing habitat projects that use diverse habitat models formulated by technical specialists and will prioritize building on existing complexes and corridors to maximize the environmental benefits; 6. Developing and using criteria based score sheets and ranked lists to select those offers to be approved. The scoring criteria evaluates the anticipated environmental benefits tied to each type of CP. The scoring criteria been developed utilizing technical specialists and is science based to achieve maximum environmental benefits

Offers will be accepted on a continuous basis, same as under CCC’s continuous CRP signup process. The State of Minnesota will score offers, by CP, based on environmental evaluation tools developed by the State of Minnesota. Eligible offers will then be ranked by their environmental score to determine eligibility for enrollment in RIM.

The primary reason BWSR has proposed this MN-CREP is to address water quality concerns that affect the use of those water resources related to nutrients and sediment by working directly with agricultural producers. The proposal is grounded in science-based monitoring, assessment and analysis that support the need for accelerated conservation efforts to effectively address agricultural impacts to water resources in Minnesota. Additional goals for the Proposed Action are to: 1. Provide incentives for producers to permanently restore and protect eligible cropland for water quality and habitat purposes; 2. Achieve water quality and habitat outcomes using a prioritized and targeted process; 3. Maximize leverage of Federal, State and local resources to achieve the greatest outcomes; and 4. Save fiscal resources by permanently protecting lands (through permanent RIM easements) which need permanent protection.

The loss of wetlands has reduced the capacity for upland water storage, decreased water recharge to ground water aquifers, reduced the capacity of the land to naturally filter nutrients and contaminants entering surface waters, and has reduced wildlife habitat for terrestrial and aquatic species.

In recent months, a number of reports released by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, and Minnesota Department of Health have highlighted serious threats to the quality of Minnesota’s waters, citing an increasing number of waters that are not swimmable, fishable, or drinkable. Most of these waters are found within the agricultural portion of the state, demonstrating the urgent need to provide producers with tools that address agricultural pollution. At the same time, attention also has been focused on sharp declines in grassland habitat and what diminishing habitat means for Minnesota wildlife. In December 2014, Minnesota Governor Dayton convened the state’s first Pheasant Summit, during which stakeholders discussed the issue and developed a list of actions aimed at boosting pheasant populations One key idea generated was to enhance the offering of private land programs, specifically CREP. Given the limited acreage involved, outcomes from this program will be important locally and will contribute to overall basin and state goals found in numerous strategies and plans. Total annual pollution reductions accrued from the 100,000 acres (within the 24.4 million acre project area) are anticipated to be:  32,000 pounds of total phosphorus per year  2,400,000 pounds of total nitrogen per year  205,000 tons of sediment per year

1.4 Regulatory Compliance This EA has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of NEPA (Public Law 91-190, 42 United States Code 4321 et seq.); implementing regulations adopted by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ; 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508); and FSA implementing regulations, Compliance with the NEPA (7 CFR 799). The intent of NEPA is to protect, restore, and enhance the human environment through well- informed federal decisions. A variety of laws, regulations, and Executive Orders (EOs) apply to actions undertaken by federal agencies and form the basis of the analysis presented in this EA. Minnesota has the authority to perform the activities contemplated by this MN-CREP Agreement pursuant to Minnesota statutes Section 103F.505 to 103F.531, and 84C, and Minnesota Administrative Rule 8400.3000 to 8400.3930. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 103F.505 to 103F.531, 84C, and Minnesota Administrative Rule 8400.3000 to 8400.3930, the Minnesota BSWR administers enrollments into RIM as a part of the state’s MN-CREP. Other pertinent statutory requirements include:  The Clean Water Act of 1970;  Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 470);  The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401), as amended;  The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543); 4

 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711);  EO 13186, Protection of Migratory Birds;  EO 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality;  EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations;  EO 11988 Floodplain Management; and  EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands.

1.5 Organization of the EA This EA assesses the potential impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative on potentially affected environmental and economic resources. Section 1.0 provides background information relevant to the Proposed Action and discusses its purpose and need. Section 2.0 describes the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Section 3.0 describes the Affected Environment or baseline conditions (i.e., the conditions against which potential impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative are measured) for each of the resource areas. Section 4.0 describes Environmental Consequences or the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative on these resources. Section 5.0 includes an analysis of cumulative impacts. Section 6.0 is a list of the preparers of this document, and Section 7.0 lists persons and agencies contacted during the preparation of this document. Section 8.0 contains the references used to compile this EA.

1.6 Project Scoping To comply with the requirements set forth in §1501.7 of the CEQ’s regulations and 7 CFR 799.16 of FSA’s regulations involving scoping and to provide agencies, tribes, and the public with an early opportunity to comment on the program, MN State Agencies and FSA have been discussing the MN-CREP and scoping efforts with potential partners from local, state, and federal agencies, and non-profit stakeholders starting in the Spring of 2014. This process identified resources and issues of concern as well as alternatives. Major phases included: I - Interagency Development Team created and scoping document prepared. II – Pre-Proposal developed including three alternative options and analysis, including: 1. Implementing Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategies Utilizing a Watershed Approach - The primary goal of this approach was to address water quality priorities identified in local and statewide management strategies, such as the Statewide Nutrient Management Strategy, WRAPS, and local water plans. This proposal addressed supplemental wildlife habitat and groundwater protection benefits to the State. 2. Targeting Hydrologic and Riparian Buffers within Agricultural Counties in Minnesota - This alternative focused on a resource concern, where a practice is used to address water quality problems near the water’s edge. This approach used the riparian buffer practice and hydrologic treatment practices to focus on critical waters as defined within the practice size and location. 3. Headwaters in the Prairie Region – Conservation Strategies for Healthy Watersheds - Clean water comes from healthy watersheds with biologically diverse and connected ecosystems. The primary goal of this approach was to focus on water quality in headwaters of the Minnesota, Red, and Mississippi Rivers. This approach addressed the root cause of water quality problems (changes to land and hydrology) and achieve multiple benefits. NOTE – State leaders utilized key parts of these three alternatives for the final MN-CREP Proposal. III – Feedback requested and gathered from a variety of agencies, non-profits and individuals IV – Proposal formulated and extensive outreach conducted including – Individual and Interest Group Meetings and input sessions (agricultural, environmental and conservation) were conducted;

Presentations and open dialogue to key funding groups occurred, including – the MN State Legislature, the Clean Water Council (CWC), The Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council (LSOHC), and the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR); Open Discussions with USDA FSA and NRCS including a number of meetings with the MN FSA State Committee were conducted; Detailed review and input from local government organizations, especially Soil and Water Conservation Districts, occurred. V – Proposal with a 100,000 acre MN-CREP and four CP’s (2, 21, 23 and 23a) submitted to USDA Secretary. 15 Letters of Support from organizations and agencies were included with the Proposal.

Additionally, this Draft EA will be released for public, agency, and tribal feedback for 30 days. It will be announced in both the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The comment period will be open from December 17, 2016 through January 15, 2017 and comments must be received on or before January 15, 2017. Once the comment period closes, comments will be reviewed and incorporated, as appropriate. Those individuals and entities who provide comments, and any others who request it, will be notified of FSA’s decision in writing.

2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative

2.1 Proposed Action The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) proposes to implement the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (MN-CREP) agreement, “Minnesota’s Plan to Improve Water Quality and Enhance Habitat”. The initial allocation will be 60,000 acres with an eventual goal of up to 100,000 acres of eligible farmland to be enrolled in a fifty-four county region of Minnesota (Figure 1). All MN-CREP enrollments will be for not less than 14 nor more than 15 year CRP contracts. The land must also be enrolled under a permanent conservation easement using Minnesota’s RIM Reserve program. Approved CPs will be established on these lands, and eligible participants will receive support for the costs of installing and maintaining such practices as well as annual rental payments (CRP through CREP) and a one-time RIM easement payment for lands enrolled in the program. Figure 1. MN-CREP Proposed Project Area

2.1.1 Eligible Lands The Minnesota CREP will enroll up to 100,000 acres of environmentally sensitive agricultural land in a fifty- four county region of southern and western Minnesota. Due to current budgets, the initial allocation will be 60,000 acres with an eventual goal of up to 100,000 acres. Participation in MN-CREP is voluntary; therefore, the anticipated enrollment is an estimate yet is expected to be fully realized. The location, size, and number of tracts that will be enrolled in the MN-CREP will be determined by producer interest and eligibility as well as prioritization and targeting processes. There will be an eight acre minimum enrollment requirement. The State of Minnesota may waive the minimum acre requirement as needed to enroll certain environmentally sensitive lands. The State of Minnesota will also waive the minimum acre requirement for Beginning, Limited Resource, or Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers (utilizing USDA definitions). This minimum acre enrollment option was proposed by the State of Minnesota and concurred with by USDA FSA in Washington. Primary purposes for the minimum are to provide a balance between administrative, programmatic, fiscal, and environmental benefits. According to the 2011 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), within the 54 county the MN-CREP area the 24.4 million acres are dominated by agricultural use. The MN-CREP will enroll 60,000 acres and up to- 100,000 acres from the 15.3 million acres of eligible cropland (0.6% of the total). Land use designations are shown and detailed in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Land Use

2.1.2 Establish Conservation Practices CRP Conservation Practices (CPs) to be included are - 2, 21, 23, 23a. These practices will be utilized to create filter strips, restore floodplain wetlands, restore depressional wetlands and associated uplands for water quality and habitat, as well as protect sensitive wellhead protection areas. Vegetation will be established according to USDA practice standards and prioritize the planting of native grasses and forbs that are tailored to the specific site. These native plantings provide additional perpetual benefits beyond the primary purposes of the practices, especially tied to pollinators, nesting, food and other habitat requirements. In addition, the restoration of wetlands back to their pre-altered condition will provide habitat, water quality and water storage benefits. Mid-contract management practices may be applied on the upland portions of all four CP’s. These will be included in the CRP plan, follow NRCS technical standards and will be evaluated in each contract’s site-specific environmental review.

Details related to each CP are listed below: 1. Riparian Lands-Grass Filter strips  CP 21  30’—350’ width. NRCS standard 393 criteria for water quality, wildlife, flooding, and farm ability  Acreage Goal: Up to 50,000 acres

2. Wetland Restoration-Non-floodplain  CP 23a  4:1 upland to wetland ratio  Acreage Goal: Up to 30,000 acres

3. Wetland Restoration-Floodplain  CP 23  3:1 upland to wetland ratio  Acreage Goal: Up to 15,000 acres

4. Wellhead Protection Areas  CP 2  Wellhead protection areas mapped by MN Dept. of Health as “High” or “Very High” vulnerability  Acreage Goal: Up to 5,000 acres Note - The initial total allocation will be 60,000 acres with an eventual goal of up to 100,000 acres.

2.1.3 Provide Financial Support to Producers Enrollment in the Federal CREP portion will have CRP contract lengths of not less than 14 and not more than 15 years. Eligible participants will receive annual rental payments for the duration of their contracts plus a one-time RIM easement payment, along with other applicable payments for implementing and maintaining approved CPs. Rental/Easement Payment to Producers The combined payment to eligible participants (Federal CREP and State RIM) will equal the RIM rate for the offered acres. This amount is what is needed to offer a producer a fair payment rate to permanently protect the land and also to provide maximum leverage of USDA and State funds to accomplish up to the 100,000 acre goal. RIM standard easement payment rates best approximate 90% (crop rate) and 60% (non-crop rate) of the land value for permanent easements anchored to the average assessor estimated market value (EMVs) as reported by the MN Dept. of Revenue via the University of Minnesota Land Economics website, based on local assessor’s reporting of prior year land sales. The landowner payment rate calculation is made according to the following: Landowner Total MN-CREP Payment = Federal CREP payment + State RIM payment.

Easement Services All costs to process and legally record RIM easements will be borne by the State. These costs are estimated to be $1,000 per easement based on current easement recordings. Typical easement services costs include – title commitment and title policy preparation, title insurance premium, recording fees and other associated costs. Easement Stewardship All costs to provide easement stewardship will be borne by the State. Perpetual monitoring and stewardship costs have been calculated at $6,500 per easement. This value is based on using local SWCD staff for monitoring and producer relations and existing enforcement authorities and covers costs of the SWCD regular monitoring, BWSR oversight, and any enforcement necessary. Practice Cost-Share Average total cost to restore buffers, wetlands/adjacent upland, floodplains and plant vegetation for wellhead protection were utilized as the starting point. The maximum 50% of FSA total cost was then subtracted from the total cost. A Practice Incentive Payment (PIP) was then calculated using the standard 40% of the FSA eligible cost for each practice. These two values were deducted for the average total cost to restore each type of practice. The remaining amount was assigned to the RIM portion of practice cost- share and will be paid by the State to the landowner as practices are installed. Technical Assistance The amount of technical assistance to process a CRP offer to contract approval, RIM - BWSR and SWCD easement processing from approval to recording, and planning and implementing restoration practices were computed and added together to arrive at the total technical assistance needed. All of these costs above and beyond normal FSA CRP Technical Assistance will be borne by the state. Total estimated costs are formulated that include both federal CREP and State CREP RIM, for a total project cost of $795,503,000 to achieve 100,000 acres of permanent protection over a five-year timeframe (see Table 1).

Farm Service Agency State of Minnesota Total Payment to Participants $589,227,500 $103,872,500 $693,100,000 Easement Services $ n/a $ 3,755,000 $ 3,755,000 Easement Stewardship $ n/a $ 14,456,750 $ 14,456,750 Practice Cost-share $ 45,090,000 $ 11,920,000 $ 57,010,000 Technical Assistance $ n/a $ 27,181,250 $ 27,181,250 Total $634,317,500 $161,185,500 $795,503,000

% 79.74% 20.26% Table 1. MN-CREP Summary Table of Five Year 100,000 acre Project Costs

2.2 Alternatives Two alternatives will be evaluated in this EA: the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action, implementation of the proposed MN-CREP on up to 100,000 acres prioritized and targeted in fifty-four counties in southern and western Minnesota. 2.2.1 Alternative A: No Action The No Action Alternative will result in no Minnesota MN-CREP acres being enrolled and, as such, the goals of the proposed MN-CREP will not be met. Under this alternative, existing programs like the CRP, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the RIM Reserve remain in place. Eligible lands could still be enrolled in the CRP or other conservation programs. It is unlikely that up to 100,000 acres will be enrolled in the four CP’s included in the Preferred Alternative. In addition, permanent protection will only be achieved with the RIM on approximately one third of the acres within the MN-CREP area, not the up to 100,000 acres in the Preferred Alternative. Both programs, CRP and RIM will not prioritize and target acres with as much focus as the MN-CREP. It is also uncertain if the CRP or RIM will continue with future new acres or funding not guaranteed. The Riparian Protection and Water Quality Practices Law, 2016 (MS 103F.48) requires a 50 foot buffer or alternative water quality practices on approximately 31,000 miles of Public Water (PW) Watercourses in the MN-CREP area. It has been estimated by the BWSR that a great majority of these miles already are protected with perennial vegetation. Local SWCD’s are in the process of assessing the use of the land next to these PW Watercourses and are assisting owners with compliance. MS103F.48 also requires a 16.5 foot buffer or alternative water quality practices on public drainage systems, approximately 19,000 miles in the MN-CREP area. According to BWSR, this width is generally for access to the ditch with very limited water quality benefits. In Alternative A all of the miles covered by 103F.48 will either have a buffer or utilize alternative water quality practices by the compliance dates if they do not already. According to BWSR, the new law will not meet most of the goals of the MN-CREP since it only covers a small percent of the watercourses of the state and also requires a smaller width than is generally required by NRCS standards to meet environmental concerns. 103F.48 ensures 50 foot buffers on certain public waters which before the law was only required in rule and was not uniformly implemented. The 50 foot is uniform across the state and does not consider site-specific conditions. The 16.5 foot required buffers on public ditches will provide access by drainage authorities to their public ditches and some water quality benefits. The majority of the up to 100,000 acres of cropland will continue to be annually cultivated causing the same type of loss of sediment, nutrients and lack of habitat that currently exists along with adverse environmental consequences. This alternative will be carried forward in the analysis to serve as a baseline against which to assess the impacts of the Preferred Alternative. 2.2.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action The Proposed Action is the enrollment in the proposed MN-CREP of up to 100,000 acres of eligible cropland prioritized and targeted to achieve maximum water quality, habitat and other environmental benefits in fifty-four counties in southern and western Minnesota. All MN-CREP enrollments will combine CRP contracts with the Minnesota RIM Reserve program to secure permanent conservation easements. Approved CPs will be established on these lands, and eligible participants will receive support for the costs

of installing practices as well as annual rental payments and a one-time RIM easement payment for lands enrolled in the program. The enrolled land will be restored with native vegetation established and where appropriate, hydrology restored. The environmental benefits will be substantial as compared to existing cropland conditions. The Riparian Protection and Water Quality Practices Law, 2016 (MS 103F.48) will be in place in Alternative B and will have the same impact as in Alternative A. It is estimated by the BWSR that a small percentage of the MN-CREP acreage will be utilized for areas that are governed by MS 103F.48. At this time, it is still being negotiated between FSA and the State whether MN-CREP offers will continue to be accepted after the deadline dates of MS 103F.48, but that detail will be agreed upon and detailed in the final signed MN- CREP Agreement. MN-CREP offers will follow the following process: 1. CRP Eligibility – Person, Land and Practice Eligibility (utilizing existing USDA CCRP practice eligibility guidance) 2. RIM Eligibility – Person and Land, including eight acre minimum offer criteria 3. RIM Environmental Benefits Scoring 4. Ranking offers from highest to lowest RIM Environmental Benefits Score for each of the four CP’s (CP2, CP21, CP23, and CP23a) and then selecting offers to approve at the end of batching periods

This process will ensure that the most environmentally beneficial offers will be funded to achieve the water quality and habitat goals as outlined in the MN-CREP proposal. RIM Environmental Benefits Scoring sheets will be developed for each of the four CP’s, including the listed criteria for each CP. At this time, the RIM Environmental Benefits Scoring sheets and criteria is being developed. The following are possible criteria that may be included.

CP-2 Wellhead Protection  Majority of offer within Wellhead Protection Area and mapped by Minnesota Department of Health as Very High and/or High  Spatial Relationship to other protected lands

CP-21 Filter Strip  Location of offer to certain waters  Linear Corridor Connectivity  Length of filter strip  Pollutant loading estimates

CP-23 Floodplain Wetlands  Restoration Benefits – hydrology  Ecological/habitat benefits  Spatial wildlife benefits  Other additional considerations 14

CP23a – Non Floodplain Wetlands  Restoration Benefits – hydrology  Ecological/habitat benefits  Spatial wildlife benefits  Other additional considerations

3.0 Affected Environment This section describes relevant existing conditions for the resources potentially affected by the Proposed Action. In compliance with guidelines contained in NEPA and CEQ regulations, as well as FSA’s NEPA regulations, the description of the affected environment focuses on those aspects potentially subject to impacts. The following resources will be evaluated in this EA: biological (vegetation, wildlife and protected species); water resources (floodplains, groundwater and surface water, and wetlands); earth resources; socioeconomics (agricultural land use, recreational spending, and environmental justice); cultural resources (archaeological resources, and traditional cultural properties); and recreation (Wild and Scenic Rivers; federal, state, and local parks and wildlife refuges). Resources that were eliminated from detailed study include air quality, historic architectural resources, human health and safety, and noise. Neither alternative considered includes construction or other activities that could potentially impact these resources. As such, it is projected that the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative will not affect ambient noise levels, ambient air quality levels, or the status of attainment of air quality standards, and will not have an effect on the human health or safety, noise, or historic architectural resources; therefore, these areas will be eliminated from study.

3.1 Biological Resources Biological resources include living plant and animal species and the habitats within which they occur. For this analysis, biological resources are divided into the following categories: vegetation; wildlife, including terrestrial and aquatic species; and threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and their defined critical habitats. Vegetation, wildlife, and aquatic species refer to the plant and animal species, both native and introduced, which characterize a region. Threatened and endangered species are those species that are protected by the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Minnesota Endangered and Threatened Species law (MS 84.0895). Critical habitat is designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as essential for the recovery of threatened and endangered species and, like those species, is protected by the ESA. 3.1.1 Vegetation Ecological Sections of the MN-CREP are depicted on Figure 3. Historically the MN-CREP area included a variety of native grassland and forest climax communities. The eastern portion includes the Minnesota and NE Iowa Morainal and Paleozoic Plateau Ecological Sections which were generally dominated by forested climax vegetation. The southern and western portions of the MN-CREP area were prairie dominated climax vegetation and are included in the North Central Glaciated Plains and the Red River Valley Ecological Section (in the northwest). As was displayed in section 2.1.1 Eligible Lands, agricultural lands dominate the MN-CREP area, today 75% of the area is covered by either cultivated crops or pasture/hayland. Corn and soybeans are the primary crops, sugar beets, vegetable crops, wheat and other minor crops are also grown. Where grass is dominant it is used primarily for grazing or hay production for cattle or dairy. Forestland vegetation is generally evident in areas that are not suitable to row crop agriculture due to steepness, rockiness, wetness, sandy soils or shallow soils. These forests are predominantly north central hardwoods.

Figure 3. Ecological Sections of MN

3.1.2 Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Minnesota has 316 regularly occurring, 39 casual, 81 accidental, two extirpated and one extinct species of birds. There are 78 species of wild mammals known to occur in the state. Some of the major wildlife species in the MN-CREP area are white-tailed deer, cottontail, red fox, gray fox, raccoon, muskrat, opossum, skunk, coyote, gray squirrel, wild turkey, pheasant, waterfowl, raptors and songbirds. Minnesota contains a portion of the Prairie Pothole and Prairie Hardwoods Transition Bird Conservation Areas. Priority potentially breeding species within the Prairie Pothole and Prairie Hardwoods Transition Bird Conservation Areas include Horned Grebe, Pied-billed Grebe, American Bittern, Least Bittern, Bald Eagle, Swainson's Hawk, Peregrine Falcon, Yellow Rail, Upland Sandpiper, Long-billed Curlew, Marbled Godwit, Black Tern, Black-billed Cuckoo, Short-eared Owl, Red-headed Woodpecker, Willow Flycatcher, Marsh Wren, Brown Thrasher, Sprague's Pipit, Blue-winged Warbler, Golden-winged Warbler, Cerulean Warbler, Henslow's Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow, Baird's Sparrow, Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow, Chestnut-collared Longspur, Dickcissel, and Bobolink. Terrestrial species that are declining in population are animals that inhabit more open areas. Grassland habitat has been drastically reduced in the last half-century, with grassland species paralleling this trend. Changes in farm crops and farm management are some of the factors that have reduced grassland 17

habitats in Minnesota. Historical farming practices that once resulted in rotational cropping allowing for dense herbaceous cover on idle lands has been replaced by intensive cropping systems with high nutrient inputs; and large animal operations that provide little wildlife habitat and have increased sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus loads coming from agricultural lands. Loss of hay and pastureland and the trend toward larger farm size under intensive production, has been detrimental to grassland species. In addition, acres enrolled in the CRP have been declining each year with an expected loss of hundreds of thousands of acres over the life of the MN-CREP. There are 147 species of fish in Minnesota 47 of which are Species of Greatest Conservation Need in the Minnesota State Wildlife Action Plan. Stream quality throughout the MN-CREP area is threatened by pollutants, sedimentation, and a lack of adequate riparian buffers. Figure 4 shows the percent of rivers and streams, by watershed, that fully support fish and other aquatic life. Surface waters are assessed to determine if they are of a quality needed to support the aquatic community that will be found in the waterbody under natural conditions. If they are of that quality then they are categorized as able to “fully support” fish and other aquatic life. Many of the region’s aquatic species are in decline, including freshwater mussels and fishes. In the MN-CREP area impairments have occurred and many systems do not fully support fish and aquatic life and do not meet fishable standards.

Figure 4. Percentage of streams and rivers that fully support fish and other aquatic life

3.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat The federal ESA of 1973 (U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended, authorizes the listing of species as Endangered and Threatened and provides for the conservation of critical habitat that support these species. EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, signed in 2001, directs all federal agencies to promote conservation of migratory bird populations. Species listed in the “Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the United States,” priority migratory bird species documented in plans such as Bird Conservation Regions in the North American Bird Conservation Initiative or Partners in Flight physiographic areas, and species listed in 50 CFR Part 17.11 should be given high priority in addition to those species protected under the ESA. There are 14 federally listed Threatened or Endangered species that occur within the MN-CREP area; two mammals, one fish, three insects, four mussels and four plants. In addition there is one candidate species, which is a bird and one proposed as threatened species, which is a reptile that occur within the MN-CREP Area. Table 2 shows these species and their federal statuses. Species Status County Habitat

Mammals

Gray wolf Threatened Becker and Otter Tail Northern forested areas (Canis lupus) Northern long- Threatened Statewide Hibernates in caves and mines - swarming in eared bat surrounding wooded areas in autumn. Roosts and forages in upland forests during spring and (Myotis summer. septentrionalis) Birds

Sprague's pipit Candidate Clay Large (>350 acre) patches of grassland - prefer (Anthus spragueii) native grassland, but also use non-native planted grasslands. Reptiles

Eastern Proposed as Houston, Wabasha, and Floodplain wetlands and nearby upland areas massasauga Threatened Winona along the Mississippi River and Tributaries in (Sistrurus Houston, Wabasha, and Winona Counties catenatus) Fish

Topeka shiner Endangered and Lincoln, Murray, Nobles, Prairie rivers and streams Critical Habitat Pipestone, and Rock (Notropis topeka) Insects

Dakota skipper Threatened Clay, Douglas, Lincoln, Native prairie habitat Lyon, Murray, (Hesperia Pipestone, and Pope dacotae)

Dakota skipper Critical Habitat Chippewa, Clay, Lincoln, Native prairie habitat Murray, Pipestone, (Hesperia Pope, and Swift dacotae) Karner blue Endangered Winona Pine barrens and oak savannas on sandy soils butterfly and containing wild lupines (Lupinus perennis), (Lycaeides melissa the only known food plant of larvae. samuelis) Poweshiek Endangered and Chippewa, Clay, Native prairie skipperling Critical Habitat Cottonwood, Douglas, La Qui Parle, Lincoln, (Oarisma Lyon, Murray, poweshiek) Pipestone, Pope, Swift, and Wilkin Mussels

Higgins eye Endangered Dakota, Goodhue, Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers pearlymussel Hennepin, Houston, (Lampsilis Wabasha, and Winona higginsii) Sheepnose Endangered Wabasha and Winona Mississippi River in Wabasha and Winona (Plethobasus counties, St. Croix River in Washington county cyphyus) Snuffbox Endangered Hennepin Mississippi River in Hennepin and Ramsey (Epioblasma counties; St. Croix River in Chisago and triquetra) Washington counties Spectaclecase Endangered Wabasha St. Croix River and Mississippi River (Cumberlandia monodonta) Winged mapleleaf Endangered Chisago, Ramsey, and St. Croix River and Mississippi River (Upper Pool Washington 2) (Quadrula fragosa)

Plants

Minnesota dwarf Endangered Dodge, Goodhue, Rice, North facing slopes and floodplains in deciduous trout lily and Steele forest (Erythronium propullans) Leedy's roseroot Threatened Fillmore, and Olmsted Cool, wet groundwater-fed limestone cliffs (Rhodiola integrifolia ssp. leedyi)

Prairie bush clover Threatened Brown, Cottonwood, Native prairie on well-drained soils (Lespedeza Dakota, Dodge, leptostachya) Goodhue, Jackson, Martin, Mower, Nobles, Olmsted, Redwood, Renville, Rice, and Rock Western prairie Threatened Clay, Kittson, Lincoln, Wet prairies and sedge meadows fringed orchid Mower, Nobles, (Platanthera Norman, Pennington, praeclara) Pipestone, Polk, Red Lake, and Rock Table 2. Federal Threatened and Endangered Species Present in the Minnesota CREP Area.

Thirty-one percent of Minnesota’s wildlife species are listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Need according to both federal and state designation. Wetland wildlife dominates the species of special concern list and remains the most imperiled habitat group. There are four mammals, 14 birds, five amphibians, two reptiles, eight fish, three species of mussels, and one insect either federally or state listed as threatened or endangered with potential to occur within the proposed MN-CREP area. See Appendix 1 for state listed species with known occurrences within the MN-CREP area. The vast majority of these species are aquatic, restricted to unplowed native prairie, native woods, or are highly mobile.

Minnesota’s Endangered Species Statute (Minnesota Statutes, Section 84.0895) requires the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to adopt rules designating species meeting the statutory definitions of endangered, threatened, or species of special concern. The resulting List of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species is codified as Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6134. The Endangered Species Statute also authorizes the DNR to adopt rules that regulate treatment of species designated as endangered and threatened. These regulations are codified as Minnesota Rules, Parts 6212.1800 to 6212.2300. Minnesota’s Endangered Species Statute and the associated Rules impose a variety of restrictions, a permit program, and several exemptions pertaining to species designated as endangered or threatened. A person may not take, import, transport, or sell any portion of an endangered or threatened species. However, these acts may be allowed by permit issued by the DNR, for State identified species only; plants on certain agricultural lands and plants destroyed in consequence of certain agricultural practices are exempt; and the accidental, unknowing destruction of designated plants is exempt. Species of special concern are not protected by Minnesota’s Endangered Species Statute or the associated Rules.

3.2 Cultural Resources Cultural resources are generally remnants or evidence of human activity on the environment. This includes archaeological sites, artifacts, historic buildings, historic districts, and areas of the natural landscape that have significance to a particular culture or community. Cultural resources can be broken down into three different categories: historic and pre-contact archaeological resources, architectural resources, and traditional cultural properties. Historic and pre-contact archaeological resources are physical evidence of prior human activity in the form of artifacts or subsurface features. Architectural resources are buildings, structures, or districts that are typically over 50 years old and are either listed in or eligible for listing in 21

the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Traditional cultural resources are important properties, cultural practices, or beliefs that are rooted in a particular community’s history and are essential in continuing the cultural identity of that community. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as implemented by 36 CFR 800, requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register. It requires that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) be afforded the opportunity to comment on the undertakings prior to project approval (ACHP 2004). 3.2.1 Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) runs an ongoing statewide survey program that has recorded more than 50,000 historic structures and approximately 16,500 archaeological sites representing every county in Minnesota. This information, housed at the SHPO offices, is generated by the SHPO, other government agencies, county and local historical societies, educational institutions, research organizations, and private property owners. These inventories contain Minnesota's known archaeological sites and historic standing structures. The majority of archaeological sites and many historic standing structures have not yet been inventoried; as that work is undertaken, additional properties will be added to SHPO files. National Register of Historic Places Files More than 7,000 Minnesota properties are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the nation's official list of properties deemed worthy of preservation. Of these, more than 1,600 are listed individually in the National Register and the rest are located within National Register-listed historic districts. The Minnesota Historic Preservation Office files on National Register properties may include the nominations, photographs, slides, and other information used as part of the nomination process. Standing Structures Inventory This inventory of approximately 50,000 buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts supplements the National Register of Historic Places database. Most properties included here have not been evaluated for nomination to the National Register. More than 1,000 additional reports on Minnesota's standing structures are on file. Most were generated by federal agencies as part of the environmental review process; others are products of SHPO initiatives and community-based, grant-funded studies. Archaeology Inventory These 16,500 prehistoric and historic archaeological sites are described by type, function, time period, artifacts, general location, and setting. Most properties have not been evaluated for nomination to the National Register. Most of the more than 4,000 archaeological reports on file are survey reports written as part of the environmental review process. Others are from grant-funded projects around the state. 3.2.2 Minnesota USDA-FSA Processes A step-by-step process is followed on all proposed projects that ensures that Section 106 and all other NEPA requirements are being met. This is done at the site specific level by local staff supported by State level personnel. There are 5 federally recognized Native American tribes within the MN-CREP area including the – Lower Sioux Indian Community, Prairie Island Indian Community, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota)

Community, Upper Sioux Community, and White Earth Reservation. Generally USDA utilizes the following process – Local offices submit a Cultural Resources Review Request form to the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) for tribes that have THPOs and directly to tribal governments for tribes that do not when working within reservation boundaries. If work is proposed within Tribal Ceded Territory boundaries requests are sent to both the THPO (or tribal governments) and SHPO.

3.3 Water Resources As applied to this analysis, water resources include surface water, groundwater, water quality, wetlands, and floodplains. The Clean Water Act (CWA), the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Water Quality Act of 1965 are the primary federal laws that protect the nation’s waters, including lakes, rivers, aquifers, and wetlands. Regulatory authority within the State of Minnesota rests with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Drainage has long been a part of the agriculture landscape in Minnesota. Agricultural drainage through an extensive network of public and private ditches and tile mains, as well as private, dense sub-surface tile, has converted poorly drained soils into some of the most productive agricultural land in the United States. Subsurface tile drainage and drainage system improvements have increased dramatically in the last decade. The main drivers for these changes have been an increase in demand for corn and soybean production and an aging drainage infrastructure statewide. Agriculture drainage, although necessary for crop production in many circumstances, can have negative water quality and quantity impacts. These impacts can include: loss of wetlands and upland water storage, increased transport of nitrates and other contaminants from fields to streams, and negative hydrologic impacts to stream flows during wet and dry periods. 3.3.1 Surface Water Surface water is all water stored and flowing above the surface of the ground, including rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, and ponds. The majority (85.8%) of the MN-CREP area is in the Mississippi River major watershed out letting into the Gulf of Mexico in Louisiana. The major watercourse in the MN-CREP area is the Minnesota River and its tributaries. It starts on the western boundary of the State and flows to the confluence with the Mississippi River in the Twin Cities at Fort Snelling. The northeastern and southeastern parts of the project area flow directly into the Mississippi River and its major tributaries. The far southwestern part of the project area flows into the Missouri Basin and eventually into the Mississippi River at St. Louis. A minor portion (14.2%), in the northwest part of the area is in the Red River of the North watershed. Surface water flows either directly or through its major tributaries into the Red River of the North and eventually north into Canada and Lake Winnipeg. 3.3.2 Groundwater Groundwater is defined as the water that is stored in and moves through spaces in underground layers of soil, sand, and rock. Layers of rock and soil within the saturated zone that are capable of transmitting water in accessible amounts are called aquifers (The Groundwater Foundation 2009). Groundwater in Minnesota is a vast resource. The occurrence of groundwater in Minnesota is related primarily to local geologic conditions that determine the type and properties of aquifers. There are six groundwater provinces in the state based on bedrock and glacial geology. In the MN-CREP area 4 provinces dominate including the – South-Central, 23

Southeastern, Central and Western. Within each province, groundwater sources and the availability of groundwater for drinking water, industrial, and agricultural uses are similar. The aquifers within these provinces occur in two general geologic settings: bedrock comprising a wide range of rock types and ages, and unconsolidated sediments deposited by glaciers, streams, and lakes. The combination of physical aquifer attributes (thickness, lateral extent, permeability, and porosity type) of the two settings distinguishes the six groundwater provinces within the state. Most residents within the MN-CREP area rely upon groundwater for drinking water. The Minnesota Department of Health has identified over 200 “High” to “Very High” vulnerable drinking water management areas within the MN-CREP project area. This vulnerability is an assessment of the likelihood for a potential contaminant source within the drinking water supply management area to contaminate a public water supply well based on the aquifer’s inherent geologic sensitivity; and the chemical and isotopic composition of the groundwater. In addition, this MN-CREP encompasses the Bonanza Valley Ground Water Management Area (GWMA) that has been identified as a critical priority area by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The purposes of a GWMA are to ensure sustainable use of groundwater appropriations and uses within the area to ensure sustainable supplies of groundwater that protects ecosystems, water quality, and the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Because of the nature of the aquifers and surficial soil characteristics in this region, farmland in the Bonanza Valley typically requires irrigation to produce viable crops. This area is of concern to the state because of drinking and ground water contamination issues related to leaching of nitrates. 3.3.3 Water Quality The MN-CREP area has experienced the most significant land-use conversion in the state. The water resources are important for the agricultural economy, human health, and recreational opportunities but have shown a dramatic declining trend. The following pages demonstrate what we know about water quality in the state, especially tied to some recent studies and reports. The document, Swimmable, fishable, fixable? – What we’ve learned so far about Minnesota waters (MPCA - April 2015), highlights that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and its partners have reached the midpoint of a comprehensive look at water quality and proposed what is needed to restore and protect water quality with a watershed approach in half of the states 80 major watersheds. A few conclusions include: Swimmable Watersheds that are heavily farmed tend to have high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended solids in their waters. These pollutants hurt aquatic life and recreational opportunities. Bacteria levels in streams are also a problem. Watersheds where fewer than half the streams fully support swimming because of bacteria levels are generally in areas with a higher density of people and livestock, the developed and agricultural portions of the state. The general pattern is that water quality is exceptionally good in the northeast part of the state and declines moving toward the southwest. Many of the waters in the southwest are no longer swimmable. Fishable The southern region of Minnesota has the highest numbers in the state of stressors to fish related to excess nutrients, excess sediments, lack of habitat, lack of connectivity, altered hydrology, and impaired biological communities. These stressors, singly or in combination, have caused many of the waters in the southern part of the state to not fully support a healthy fish population and not to be considered fishable.

Pollutant Levels Watersheds that are heavily farmed tend to have high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended solids in their waters. In the MN-CREP area there are over 2,000 waters listed on the Minnesota Impaired Waters List, as classified by the MPCA that fail to meet one or more water quality standards. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies must then be developed for these waters and many have been completed in the MN-CREP area. Nutrient Impacts The application of commercial fertilizers and manure from animal agriculture is important for successful crop production in Minnesota. Although, without proper nutrient management and planning, nutrients and pathogens such as E. coli can enter surface and groundwater resources. Within the MN-CREP project area and as identified in the Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy, this proposal includes the watersheds with the highest loads and greatest risks for the transport of nutrients in Minnesota. This is clearly evident in the southeastern portion of the MN-CREP project area, which has a large number of animal agriculture enterprises that have feedlots or fields where manure is land applied located near riparian zones or sensitive groundwater features (Ex. sinkholes). Drinking Water Contamination: Agriculture has direct impacts to ground and surface water within the MN-CREP project area. Specifically, impacts from agriculture have been documented in the Karst region of Southeastern Minnesota and areas with shallow, surficial ground-water aquifers. 75% of the community public water systems in the state with nitrate over the drinking water standard are located within the MN-CREP area. In other words, a disproportionate amount of nitrate impact to these systems in Minnesota occurs in the MN-CREP area. St. Peter, a small city of about 10,000 people within the MN- CREP area, has groundwater contaminated from nitrates and is currently considering utilizing an expensive reverse osmosis system to ensure their water is safe to drink. 80% of the St. Peter wellhead protection area is cultivated cropland and this and other potential causes have led to the challenges with drinking water for this community. Additionally, a number of cities within the MN-CREP project area derive their drinking water from surface water resources (Ex. City of St. Cloud, City of Fairmont). These impacts to ground and surface drinking water sources have been primarily from nitrates and pathogens sourced from agriculture. As explained in the Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy (MPCA – 2014) (NRS):  Nutrient impacts are widespread. Excessive nutrients pose a significant problem for Minnesota’s lakes, rivers, and groundwater, as well as downstream waters including the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg, the Mississippi River, and the Gulf of Mexico. Nutrients are important for human and aquatic life; however, when levels exceed normal conditions, problems can include excessive algae growth, low levels of oxygen, toxicity to aquatic life and unhealthy drinking water.

 The NRS is driven by the environmental needs of both waters within Minnesota and waters downstream of Minnesota, including Lake Winnipeg, the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Superior. Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters – Conditions, trends, sources, and reductions (MPCA - June 2013) stated the following:  Concern about N in Minnesota’s surface waters has grown in recent decades due to: 1) increasing studies showing toxic effects of nitrate on aquatic life, 2) increasing N concentrations and loads in the Mississippi River combined with nitrogen’s role in causing a large-oxygen depleted zone in the Gulf of Mexico, and 3) the discovery that some of Minnesota’s streams exceed the 10 milligram per liter (mg/l) standard established to protect potential drinking water sources.

 Minnesota contributes the sixth highest N load to the Gulf and is one of 12 member states serving on the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force.

 Maximum nitrite+nitrate-N (nitrate) levels in Minnesota rivers and streams (years 2000-2010) exceeded 5 mg/l at 297 of 728 (41%) monitored sites across Minnesota, and exceeded 10 mg/l in 197 (27%) of these sites. In most southern Minnesota Rivers and streams, nitrate concentrations at least occasionally exceed 5 mg/l.

 On average, 211 million pounds of TN (total nitrogen) leaves Minnesota each year in the Mississippi River at the Minnesota-Iowa border, with just over three-fourths of this load originating in Minnesota watersheds and the rest coming from Wisconsin, Iowa, and South Dakota.

 The highest TN loading tributary to the Mississippi River is the Minnesota River, which adds about twice as much TN as the combined loads from the Upper Mississippi River (at Anoka) and the St. Croix River (at Stillwater). The Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s, Minnesota Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan’s (MDA - March 2015) purpose is to prevent, evaluate and mitigate nonpoint source pollution from nitrogen fertilizer in groundwater. It includes components promoting prevention and developing responses to nitrogen fertilizer in groundwater. It has concluded that:  Water contamination from nitrate presents a potential health risk to human populations which rely on it for drinking water. Approximately 75% of Minnesotans (4 million) rely on groundwater for their drinking water. These residents are served by either private wells or public water supplies.

 It explained the public health risks, especially related to drinking water standards of high nitrate concentrations in water. Also impacts of high nitrates in water on livestock consumption, aquatic ecosystems and water treatment costs were discussed. Recently a number of news reports have been published that raise the profile of nitrate contamination in the state’s private and public drinking water wells. These problem wells have been monitored by state and local agencies and citizens have been warned about the impact to their health from consuming high nitrate contaminated water. Once a groundwater resource has high levels of nitrate the only solution becomes water treatment that is oftentimes too costly for the individual or water supplier to implement. Prevention of high nitrate contamination is a more attractive alternative. Sediment Impacts Upland soil erosion and sedimentation from agricultural fields continues to be problematic in Minnesota and particularly within the MN-CREP project area. Farmers and conservationists have long worked on addressing this issue through the implementation of best management practices. Although much progress has been made in recent decades, more work needs to be done to mitigate soil erosion from farm fields to reduce sedimentation to rivers and streams, maintain or increase soil productivity, and reduce the loss of nutrients tied to those soils. The Minnesota River and all of its major tributaries are impaired for turbidity due to sedimentation. The primary sources of sedimentation in the Minnesota River and its tributaries are erosion from agricultural fields and increased near-channel erosion due to increased flows from agricultural drainage.

3.3.4 Wetlands Wetlands are a home to many species of migratory and resident birds, reptiles and amphibians, fish, insects, and plants. They also benefit society by storing floodwaters, filtering pollutants, serving as a carbon sink, and providing recreation sites for boating and fishing, just to name a few. There are three major groups of wetlands: marine, tidal, and non-tidal. In the MN-CREP area non-tidal wetlands are all that occur and are not subject to tidal influences. These account for 94% of all the wetlands in the United States. Some examples of non-tidal wetlands are Prairie Potholes, Peat Bogs, Fens, and Riverine wetlands on floodplains. Sometimes these non-tidal wetlands are called “upland wetlands”, “fresh water wetlands”, or “inland wetlands” to designate them as occurring in areas not influenced directly by coastal waters (NRCS). Wetland Definition/Classification – Wetlands are defined differently by different people and different government agencies; but there are three factors of commonality in these various definitions. Wetlands can be defined by having wetland vegetation (hydrophytes); hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. As used by the (NRCS), “wetland” is defined in regulations, 16 U.S.C. Section 3801(a)(27), “as land that has –  A predominance of hydric soils  Is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions  Under normal circumstances supports a prevalence of such vegetation”. Two wetland classification methods are commonly used in Minnesota. The mapping method used for the initial wetland protection program and the DNR-regulated waters inventory (public waters inventory) legislation of 1976 and 1979 was identified in "Wetlands of the United States," published as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39 Document by Shaw and Fredine in 1956 (reprinted 1971). Eight wetland types are recognized in Minnesota, but none are assigned to rivers and lakes. In 1979, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published the Cowardin et al. method, "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the United States." This comprehensive representation of all wetland habitats is used on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps. (MN DNR) Regulatory Provisions – All applicable state and federal requirements, including those listed below and all others, will be complied with by all agency and partner staff who are providing assistance to producers with the MN- CREP. The Wetland Conservation (WC) provisions of the Federal Farm Bills, commonly referred to as Swampbuster, prohibit USDA program participants from converting remaining wetlands on their agricultural operations to cropland, pasture, or hay land unless the wetland acres, functions, and values are compensated for through wetland mitigation. USDA program participants must certify that they are in compliance with the WC provisions. The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) is a state law that regulates activities that result in the draining, filling, or excavating of wetlands in Minnesota, including those on agricultural land. It is administered by local government units; in rural areas this is usually the County or Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). SWCDs also provide technical assistance to participants.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities in waters of the United States regulated under this program include fill for development, water resource projects (such as dams and levees), infrastructure development (such as highways and airports) and mining projects. Section 404 requires a permit before dredged or fill material may be discharged into waters of the United States, unless the activity is exempt from Section 404 regulation. The basic premise of the program is that no discharge of dredged or fill material may be permitted if: (1) a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or (2) the nation’s waters will be significantly degraded. In other words, when you apply for a permit, you must first show that steps have been taken to avoid impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources; that potential impacts have been minimized; and that compensation will be provided for all remaining unavoidable impacts. Proposed activities are regulated through a permit review process. An individual permit is required for potentially significant impacts. Individual permits are reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which evaluates applications under a public interest review, as well as the environmental criteria set forth in the CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, regulations promulgated by EPA.

The Riparian Protection and Water Quality Practices law (Minnesota Statute 103F.48) was originally signed by Governor Dayton in June 2015. In the 2016 legislative session, the law was amended by the Legislature and then signed into law by Governor Dayton on April 25, 2016. The amendment provides clarifications to several provisions, including the riparian protection requirement by ensuring it only applies to public waters and public ditches, and compliance and enforcement responsibilities and processes.

The purpose of the law is to:  Protect state water resources from erosion and runoff pollution;  Stabilize soils, shores, and banks; and  Protect or provide riparian corridors

Minnesota Conditions –

In the MN-CREP area 2.0 million acres (8.2 % of the entire 24.4 million acre MN-CREP area) have been identified as open water or wetlands. As much as 90% of the naturally occurring wetlands present in the 1800s have been drained for the purposes of agricultural cultivation. Drainage has long been a part of the agriculture landscape in Minnesota. Agricultural drainage through an extensive network of public and private ditches and tile mains, as well as private, dense sub-surface tile, has converted poorly drained soils into some of the most productive agricultural land in the United States. Subsurface tile drainage and drainage system improvements have increased dramatically in the last decade. The main drivers for these changes have been an increase in demand for corn and soybean production and an aging drainage infrastructure statewide. Agriculture drainage, although necessary for crop production in many circumstances, can have negative water quality and quantity impacts. These impacts can include: loss of wetlands and upland water storage, increased transport of nitrates and other contaminants from fields to streams, and hydrologic impacts to stream flows during wet and dry periods. Wetlands are generally absent in cropland fields and usually only remain where adequate drainage capacity is not possible and soils are hydric. Before drainage they were prairie potholes, flats and swales. Riverine wetlands are associated with running water systems found along rivers, creeks, and drainage ways and have a defined channel and floodplain. Overbank flow from the stream exerts considerable influence on the hydrology of larger streams. Riverine wetlands include freshwater marshes, bottomland hardwood forest, and riverine swamp forest. 3.3.5 Floodplains All waterways from small creeks to major rivers have a riparian zone or floodplain. Floodplains are those riparian areas close to riverine channels that become inundated during flooding. Floodplains are essential for maintaining bank stability, water quality protection, and absorptive capacity of floodplain soils; reducing stream flow velocities; and providing flood storage. Disturbance of floodplain vegetation destabilizes the banks of surface water channels, which leads to increased erosion and sedimentation and exacerbates the intensity and frequency of flooding. The loss of vegetation adjacent to surface waters also reduces filtration of storm water runoff, thus degrading the quality of these waters. Floodplains also provide habitat for plant and animal species, recreational opportunities, and aesthetic benefits. Flooding has been a yearly occurrence along the major floodplains of the MN-CREP area. Of special note is the northwestern part of the MN-CREP area that is within the Red River of the North watershed. This area drains to the north and often outlets further downstream (north) are frozen when runoff occurs in the part of the MN-CREP area, thus causing severe flood events.

3.4 Earth Resources The principal source of data for this Section is from the United States Department of Agriculture Handbook 296, Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin, 2006. 3.4.1 General Features Minnesota is a geologically diverse state and the landscape has been influenced by a number of factors over the millennia. The majority of the MN-CREP project area was influenced directly by the glacial advances and retreats over the last 100,000 years and the extent of those effects are still visible today. Mollisols dominate throughout the 54 counties producing some of the most productive farmland in the 29

world. These soils formed under grassland cover and are generally deep, high in organic matter and very nutrient enriched. The major geologic features that are located within the MN-CREP project area include: Karst Geology of Southeastern Minnesota: In the Southeastern portion of the MN-CREP area, Karst (fractured, soluble bedrock) dominates the underlying geology. This can cause a groundwater concern in some areas and the state takes this into consideration in its decision-making and permitting processes. Former Lakebed of Lake Agassiz in the Red River Basin: At the end of the last glacial period, melt water from the Laurentide ice sheet covered much of what is now the Red River Basin and north into North Dakota, and Manitoba and Ontario in Canada. In the northwestern part of the MN-CREP area as the lake receded it left beach ridges and flat lake plain areas. Surficial Sand Plains: In West-Central Minnesota, surficial sand and gravel aquifers formed by glacial outwash are present and can dictate land use and pose risks to groundwater contamination. Minnesota River Valley: The Minnesota River Valley floodplain was carved out by the Glacial River Warren, which flowed for a short period of time after Glacial Lake Agassiz drained. The migration of nick points in the Le Sueur and Blue Earth River watersheds south of Mankato makes those watersheds extremely vulnerable to streambank, ravine, and bluff erosion. These two watersheds transport about 50% of the sediment load leaving the Minnesota River Basin. 3.4.2 Major Land Resource Areas Nine Major Land Resources Areas (MLRA) are recognized within the MN-CREP area, see Figure 5. MLRAs are geographically associated land resources defined by features including physiography, geology, climate, water, soils, and biological resources (USDA-NRCS 2006). The Central Feed Grains and Livestock Region makes up the majority of the MN-CREP area and includes the following MLRA’s – Rolling Till Prairie (102A), Loess Uplands (102C), Central Iowa and Minnesota Till Prairies (103), Eastern Iowa and Minnesota Till Prairies (104), Northern Mississippi Valley Loess Hills (105) and Iowa and Minnesota Loess Hills (107A). Along the northeastern boundary of the MN-CREP area is the Northern Minnesota Gray Drift (57) and the Central Minnesota Sandy Outwash (91A) MLRA’s which are in the Northern Lake States Forest and Forage Region. Finally in the far northwestern part of the MN-CREP area in the Northern Great Plains Spring Wheat Region is the Red River Valley of the North (56) MLRA.

Figure 5. Major Land Resource Areas (USDA-NRCS)

3.4.3 Geology and Soils Central Feed Grains and Livestock Region MLRA 102A – Rolling Till Prairie - Lies to the west of MLRA 103 and represents approximately 20% of the MN-CREP area. Geology –The dominant landforms in this area are stagnation moraines, end moraines, glacial outwash plains, terraces, and floodplains. The MLRA is dominated by till-covered moraines. The stagnation moraines are gently undulating to steep and have many depressions and poorly defined drainages. The steepest slopes are on escarpments adjacent to some of the larger tributaries. Small outwash areas are adjacent to the watercourses. The Cretaceous Pierre Shale underlies the till in most of the area. Precambrian rocks also occur at depth. Layers of silt in the quartzite near Pipestone, Minnesota, were quarried by Native Americans, and the stone was carved for pipe bowls. Soils - The dominant soil order in this MLRA is Mollisols. The soils in the area dominantly have a frigid soil temperature regime, an aquic or udic soil moisture regime, and mixed mineralogy. They generally are very deep, well drained to very poorly drained, and loamy. Hapludolls formed in loamy till (Barnes, Forman, and Hokans series), in loess or silty drift over till (Kranzburg, Poinsett, and Waubay series), in eolian deposits (Egeland and Embden series), and in glacial outwash (Arvilla, Fordville, and Renshaw series) on till plains and moraines. Calciudolls (Buse and Balaton series) formed in loamy till on rises and ridges. Argiaquolls (Parnell and Badger series) formed in loamy till and colluvial and alluvial sediment in swales and depressions. Argialbolls (Tonka series) and Endoaquolls formed in colluvial and alluvial sediment in depressions (Quam series) and in alluvial sediment on flood plains (Lamoure and Rauville series). Calciaquolls (Marysland and Moritz series) formed in alluvial sediments on flood plains.

MLRA 102C – Loess Uplands – Is small in size and is found in the far south western part of the MN-CREP area. Geology – Loess covers most of this area. It consists of pale brown or light grayish brown, calcareous, silty material deposited by the wind. The loess is mainly of Peorian age. It ranges from 6 to 70 feet (2 to 20 meters) in thickness. Deposits of glacial till underlie the loess in most of the area. The till is more than 200 feet thick (60 meters) in some areas. Where no glacial deposits occur, bedrock generally is at or near the surface, except in areas where deposits of Pleistocene sand and gravel fill the principal stream valleys. The glacial till is underlain by deposits of Pleistocene sand and gravel in some buried bedrock valleys. It rests directly on bedrock, however, throughout much of the area. The Dakota Sandstone, a bedrock formation of Cretaceous age underlies the area. The Dakota Sandstone is exposed in many areas along the eastern boundary of the area. Soils - The dominant soil order in this MLRA is Mollisols. The soils in the area dominantly have a mesic soil temperature regime, an ustic soil moisture regime, and mixed or smectitic mineralogy. They are shallow to very deep, moderately well drained to somewhat excessively drained, and loamy or clayey. Haplustolls formed in loess on uplands (Belfore, Moody, and Nora series), in loess over outwash on uplands (Dempster and Graceville series), in colluvium and alluvium on foot slopes (Alcester series), and in eolian deposits on uplands (Flandreau, Grovena, and Thurman series). Endoaquolls (Colo, Gibbon, and Zook series) formed in alluvium on flood plains. Ustorthents (Crofton series) formed in loess in steep areas on uplands.

MLRA 103 – Central Iowa and Minnesota Till Prairies - Represents nearly 50% of the MN-CREP area. Geology - This area is covered with glacial till, outwash, and glacial lake deposits. Recent alluvium consisting of clay, silt, sand, and gravel fill the bottoms of most of the major river valleys. Paleozoic bedrock sediments, primarily shale and limestone, underlie the glacial deposits in most of the area. Some Precambrian Sioux Quartzite is exposed on the western edge of the area, in southwestern Minnesota. Soils - The dominant soil orders are Mollisols and, to a lesser extent, Alfisols and Inceptisols. The soils in the area dominantly have a mesic soil temperature regime, an aquic or udic soil moisture regime, and mixed mineralogy. They generally are very deep, well drained to very poorly drained, and loamy. Hapludolls formed in loamy till on till plains and moraines (Amiret, Clarion, Nicollet, and Ves series) and in outwash deposits on outwash plains, terraces, and kames (Estherville and Hawick series). Argiudolls (Le Sueur series) and Argiaquolls (Cordova series) formed in loamy till on till plains and moraines. Endoaquolls (Canisteo, Glencoe, and Webster series) and Calciaquolls (Harps series) formed in loamy till and/or local alluvium on till plains and in swales and depressions. Endoaquolls also formed in alluvium on flood plains (Coland series). Hapludalfs (Hayden and Lester series) and Eutrudepts (Storden series) formed in loamy till on moraines.

MLRA 104 – Eastern Iowa and Minnesota Till Prairies is found between the till prairie (MLRA 103) and the loess hills (MLRA 105). Geology – This area is covered with glacial till and outwash deposits. Recent alluvium consisting of clay, silt, sand, and gravel fills the major river valleys. Paleozoic bedrock sediments, primarily shale and limestone, underlie most of the area. A shallow depth to limestone results in karst topography in much of the area. Some limestone units containing fossils are exposed in road cuts in the northeast corner of the area. Bedrock units also are exposed on the Mississippi River bluffs near Red Wing, Minnesota. Soils - The dominant soil orders in this MLRA are Mollisols and Alfisols. The soils in the area dominantly have a mesic soil temperature regime, an aquic or udic soil moisture regime, and mixed mineralogy. They generally are very deep, well drained to very poorly drained, and loamy. Hapludolls (Floyd, Kenyon, Marquis, Ostrander, and Readlyn series) and Hapludalfs (Bassett, Kasson, and Racine series) formed in loamy sediments over till on uplands. Argiudolls (Dinsdale series) formed in loess over till on uplands. Endoaquolls (Maxfield and Tripoli series) formed in loamy and silty sediments over till on uplands.

MLRA 105 – Northern Mississippi Valley Loess Hills is found in the south east corner of the MN-CREP area. Geology – This area is in the “Driftless Area” of southeastern Minnesota, but it shows some evidence of glaciation, especially in the western part. Cambrian sandstone, with some shale and dolomite layers, is exposed in the northern part of the area. The sandstone also underlies Ordovician sediments in the more deeply eroded river valleys. Sandstone, shale, dolomite, and limestone units of the St. Peter Formation and Prairie du Chien Group are at the surface, in road cuts, and in valley walls along the major rivers in the area. Some karst areas have formed where the carbonate rocks are near the surface. Loess deposits cover many of the bedrock units in this area. Soils - The dominant soil orders in this MLRA are Alfisols and Entisols and, to a lesser extent, Mollisols. The soils in the area dominantly have a mesic soil temperature regime, an udic soil moisture regime, and mixed mineralogy. They generally are moderately deep to very deep, well drained or moderately well drained, and loamy. Hapludalfs formed in loess (Downs, Fayette, Mt. Carroll, and Seaton series) or loess over residuum (Dubuque, La Farge, Norden, and Nordness series) on uplands and benches. Paleudalfs (Valton

series) formed in loess over residuum on uplands. Argiudolls (Tama series) formed in loess on uplands and terraces. Udifluvents (Chaseburg series) formed in alluvium on flood plains and alluvial fans. Udipsamments (Plainfield series) formed in glaciofluvial deposits on outwash plains, terraces, and valley trains.

MLRA 107A – Iowa and Minnesota Loess Hills – Is small in size and is found in the south western part of the MN-CREP area. Geology – The western half of this MLRA is underlain by pre-Illinoian glacial till, which was deposited more than 500,000 years ago and has since undergone extensive erosion and dissection. The eastern half is underlain by the much younger Wisconsin-age till layer that was deposited between 20,000 and 30,000 years ago. Both till surfaces are covered by about 4 to 20 feet (1 to 6 meters) of loess on the hillslopes and by Holocene alluvium in the drainage ways. The Quaternary deposits range from 150 to 450 feet (45 to 135 meters) in thickness and are underlain by Cretaceous bedrock consisting of sandstone and shale. Soils - The dominant soil order in this MLRA is Mollisols. The soils in the area dominantly have a mesic soil temperature regime, an aquic or udic soil moisture regime, and mixed mineralogy. Hapludolls (Annieville, Everly, Galva, McCreath, Primghar, and Sac series) and Endoaquolls (Gillett Grove, Letri, and Marcus series) formed in loess or loess over till on uplands. Hapludolls (Moneta series) also formed in till on steeply sloping valley slopes, and Endoaquolls (Havelock series) also formed in alluvium on flood plains.

Northern Great Plains Spring Wheat Region MLRA 56 – Red River Valley of the North is found in the north western part of the MN-CREP area and is bordered to the east by rolling till prairies (MLRA 102A). Geology – This area is the bed of glacial Lake Agassiz. It is a glacial lake plain with remnants of gravelly beaches marking its eastern border. The erosion resistance of the gravel causes the beaches to appear as ridges in an otherwise flat landscape. Some dunes have formed in areas near the beaches where sand has been deposited. Soil - The dominant soil orders in this MLRA are Mollisols and Vertisols. The soils in the area dominantly have a frigid soil temperature regime, an aquic or udic soil moisture regime, and mixed or smectitic mineralogy. They are very deep, somewhat poorly drained to very poorly drained, and loamy or clayey. Calciaquolls formed in lacustrine or outwash sediments on glaciolacustrine and outwash plains (Bearden, Colvin, Glyndon, Grimstad, Ulen, and Wheatville series) and in till on till plains (Hamerly, Vallers, Roliss, and Kratka series). Argiudolls (Doran series) formed in water-worked till or lacustrine sediments over till on glaciolacustrine plains. Hapludolls (Embden, Gardena, and Overly series), Epiaquerts (Fargo and Northcote series), Calciaquerts (Hegne series), and Epiaquolls (Perella series) formed in lacustrine sediments on glaciolacustrine plains.

Northern Lake States Forest and Forage Region MLRA 57 – Northern Minnesota Clay – is found in the north eastern corner of the MN-CREP area and is relatively small in size. Geology – All of this area is covered by Wisconsin-age drift. The glacial deposits are from four major ice lobes—Des Moines, Rainy, Superior, and Wadena. The thickness of the glacial till ranges from 300 to 600 feet (90 to 185 meters). Some areas of these deposits are overlain by outwash or lacustrine sediments. 34

Some depressional areas have an accumulation of organic matter. These organic deposits are more than 8 feet (2.5 meters) thick in some areas. Soil - The dominant soil orders in this MLRA are Alfisols, Entisols, and Histosols. Some Mollisols are in the westernmost part of the area. The soils in the area have a frigid soil temperature regime, an aquic or udic soil moisture regime, and mixed or smectitic mineralogy. They are very deep and generally are sandy to loamy. Their natural drainage class is related to landscape position. Endoaqualfs (Effie, Talmoon, and Willosippi series) formed in till on moraines. Epiaqualfs (Nokay, Paddock, and Watab series) and Glossudalfs (Blowers, Sol, and Steamboat series) formed in till on drumlins and moraines. Hapludalfs (Beltrami, Mahkonce, Naytahwaush, Nebish, Snellman, Sugarbush, Suomi, Two Inlets, and Waukon series) formed in till or outwash on moraines. Udipsamments (Eagleview, Graycalm, and Nymore series) formed in outwash on moraines. Haplosaprists (Cathro and Markey series) formed in organic material over outwash or till on moraines. Haplohemists (Rifle series) and Haplosaprists (Seelyeville series) formed in a thick layer of organic material on moraines.

MLRA 91A – Central Minnesota Sandy Outwash – is located along the eastern boundary of the MN-CREP area. Geology – Most of this MLRA consists of coarse textured outwash with a thin, discontinuous mantle of loamy material. The thickness of the outwash ranges from 3 feet (1 meter) to more than 100 feet (30 meters). Loamy glacial till typically underlies the outwash. Organic material is in many of the larger basins and depressions. Recent loamy alluvium is on flood plains. In a few areas glacial till is along steep valley sidewalls. The western part of the area is underlain by undifferentiated Precambrian crystalline rocks, and the bedrock under the eastern part of the area consists of numerous Cambrian-age sandstone and shale sedimentary units. Soils - The dominant soil orders in this MLRA are Mollisols and Histosols. The soils have a frigid soil temperature regime in the northern part of the area and a mesic soil temperature regime in the extreme southern part. They have an udic or aquic soil moisture regime and mixed mineralogy. The soils on uplands generally are well drained to excessively drained. Very poorly drained Histosols are in basins and depressions. Hapludolls (Arvilla, Estherville, and Fairhaven series) and Argiudolls (Dorset, Malardi, and Verndale series) formed in outwash mantled with loamy material. They are on outwash plains and stream terraces. Hapludolls (Hawick, Hubbard, Sandberg, and Sparta series) formed in outwash on outwash plains and stream terraces. Haplosaprists (Houghton, Markey, and Seelyeville series) formed in organic material in basins and depressions. 3.4.4 National Natural Landmarks There are 8 National Natural Landmarks in Minnesota but only one, the Ancient River Warren Channel is in the MN-CREP area. This is a channel cut by the Ancient River Warren during the last Ice Age. The primary feature is the Traverse Gap and it is an ancient river channel occupied by Lake Traverse, Big Stone Lake and the valley connecting them at Browns Valley, Minnesota. It is located on the border of the U.S. states of Minnesota and South Dakota. Traverse Gap has an unusual distinction for a valley: it is crossed by a continental divide, and in some floods water has flowed across that divide from one drainage basin to the other.

3.5 Recreational Resources Recreational resources are those activities or settings either natural or manmade that are designated or available for recreational use by the public. In this analysis, recreational resources include lands and waters utilized by the public for hunting, fishing, hiking, birding, canoeing, and other water sports and related activities. Minnesota offers a wide variety of recreational opportunities to its residents. Minnesotans take pride in the diversity of natural resources and their outdoor heritage. Outdoor recreation is an integral part of many Minnesotans’ lifestyles. According to the 2015 Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SPEIS) for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), maintaining CRP land in conservation will also allow the land to continue to be used for recreational activities. Improving the conservation cover will have benefits to wildlife habitat and water quality in the area, which in turn will improve wildlife related recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing, bird watching, and hiking. Because the lands that could be enrolled in CRP are privately held, access to these lands for recreational activities is controlled by the landowner. However, within the proposed MN-CREP area there are numerous public lands available for recreation. There are two state forests, numerous Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) administered by MNDNR and Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA) administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within the MN-CREP area. A number of national parks, state parks, state designated Scientific & Natural Areas, and county held land are also present in the MN- MN-CREP area. There are no National Wild and Scenic Rivers but there are four Minnesota Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers in the MN-CREP area including the: Cannon, Minnesota, Mississippi and North Fork Crow rivers. This designation, in part, reflects the outstanding recreational value of the rivers. These public lands provide recreational activities such as hunting, birding, hiking, camping, fishing, biking, and backpacking. In addition, the National Park Service (NPS) National Center for Recreation & Conservation manages The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) which is a listing of more than 3,400 free-flowing river segments in the United States that are believed to possess one or more "outstandingly remarkable" natural or cultural values judged to be of more than local or regional significance. Under a 1979 Presidential Directive, and related Council on Environmental Quality procedures, all federal agencies must seek to avoid or mitigate actions that will adversely affect one or more NRI segments. In the MN-CREP area there are reaches of eight rivers that are listed on the NRI, including – Blue Earth, Cannon, Des Moines West Fork, Minnesota, Mississippi, Root, Sauk and Shell Rock. None of these have a Potential Classification of Wild River, Scenic River or Recreational Rivers.

But in order to be listed on the NRI, a river must be free-flowing and possess one or more Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs). Thus, the eligibility analysis consists of an examination of the river's hydrology, including any man-made alterations, and an inventory of its natural, cultural, and recreational resources.

Eligibility Descriptions

All 8 are listed as Recreational (R) - Recreational opportunities are, or have the potential to be, popular enough to attract visitors from throughout or beyond the region of comparison or are unique or rare within the region.

Five of the rivers (Blue Earth, Cannon, Minnesota, Mississippi, Root) are listed as Scenery (S) - the landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water, color, and related factors result in notable or exemplary visual features and/or attractions. When analyzing scenic values, additional factors -- such as seasonal variations in vegetation, scale of cultural modifications, and the length of time negative intrusions are viewed -- may be considered. Scenery and visual attractions may be highly diverse over the majority of the river or river segment.

The Root and Mississippi Rivers are listed as Geology (G) - The river, or the area within the river corridor, contains one or more example of a geologic feature, process or phenomenon that is unique or rare within the region of comparison.

Only the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers are listed for Wildlife (W) and History (H).

Wildlife (W) values may be judged on the relative merits of either terrestrial or aquatic wildlife populations or habitat or a combination of these conditions.

 Populations: The river, or area within the river corridor, contains nationally or regionally important populations of indigenous wildlife species. Of particular significance are species considered to be unique, and/or populations of federal or state listed (or candidate) threatened, endangered or sensitive species.  Habitat: The river, or area within the river corridor, provides exceptionally high quality habitat for wildlife of national or regional significance, and/or may provide unique habitat or a critical link in habitat conditions for federal or state listed (or candidate) threatened, endangered or sensitive species. Contiguous habitat conditions are such that the biological needs of the species are met. Diversity of habitats is an important consideration and could, in itself, lead to a determination of "outstandingly remarkable."

History (H) includes the river or area within the river corridor contains a site(s) or feature(s) associated with a significant event, an important person, or a cultural activity of the past that was rare or one-of-a- kind in the region.

3.5.1 Hunting in Minnesota The harvest of Migratory Birds is regulated under Federal law by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and under Minnesota law administered and enforced by MNDNR. The harvest of non-migratory resident game species is regulated by the State of Minnesota. Licenses are required for all hunting activities and wildlife populations are managed to ensure sustained harvest in perpetuity. Ring-necked pheasants, turkey, waterfowl and white-tailed deer are the primary species hunted in Minnesota’s farmland region but numerous other species including, rabbit, squirrel, wild turkey, prairie chicken, sharp-tailed grouse, mourning dove and Sandhill cranes are pursued by hunters throughout the farmland regions.

3.6 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice For this analysis, socioeconomics includes investigations of population demographics, agricultural land use, and recreation spending. EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations requires a federal agency to:

“…make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low income populations.” (EO 12898) A minority population can be defined by race, ethnicity, or a combination of the two classifications. According to the CEQ, a minority population can be described as being composed of the following groups: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, not of Hispanic origin, or Hispanic; and exceeding 50 percent of the population in an area or in which the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population (CEQ 1997). The U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) defines ethnicity as either being of Hispanic origin or not being of Hispanic origin. Hispanic origin is further defined as “a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central America, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race” (USCB 2001). Every year the USCB defines the national poverty thresholds, which are measured in terms of household income and are dependent upon the number of persons within the household. Individuals falling below the poverty threshold are considered low-income individuals. USCB census tracts, in which at least 20 percent of the residents are considered poor, are known as poverty areas (USCB 1995). When the percentage of residents considered poor is greater than 40 percent, the census tract is considered an extreme poverty area. 3.6.1 Demographic Profile and Environmental Justice Over 3.3 million people (USCB 2010) live within the MN-CREP area which includes the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area and surrounding suburbs and a number of larger cities including Alexandria, Fergus Falls, Mankato, Marshall, Moorhead, Rochester, St. Cloud, and Willmar. However, most of the MN-CREP area is relatively sparsely populated with people living on farmsteads and in small towns in agricultural areas. Demographically in the MN-CREP area the Non-Hispanic race of the population was 82.71 percent White, 6.19 percent Black or African American, 0.95 percent Native American or Alaska Native, 4.18 percent Asian, 0.06 percent Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 0.16 percent some other race and 0.34 percent other multi-race. In addition 5.41 percent is considered Hispanic (USCB 2010). The total minority population was 17.3 percent of the total MN-CREP population (USCB 2010) and found primarily within major metropolitan areas and surrounding areas and not on individual farms. This is substantiated in Table 3, where 16.7 percent (551,113 total non-white population) of the 17.3 percent minority population is identified as residing in cities. The remaining 19,925 people (0.6 percent of the total population in the proposed MN-CREP area) primarily resides in townships adjacent to cities and American Indian reservations. Therefore the MN-CREP is not within a location with a concentrated minority population. See Figure 6 for additional depiction of the data found in Table 3.

Category City Township Total Population 2010 2,789,022 512,948 3,301,970 Hispanic 170,708 8,039 178,747 Non-Hispanic White 2,237,909 493,023 2,730,932 Non-Hispanic Black 202,349 2,178 204,527 Non-Hispanic Indian 26,416 4,837 31,253 Non-Hispanic Asian 134,087 4,023 138,110 Non-Hispanic 1,826 211 2,037 Hawaiian Non-Hispanic Other 4,827 318 5,145 Non-Hispanic Other 10,900 319 11,219 Multi Race Total Non-White 551,113 19,925 571,038 Table 3. Population Demographics by Race and National Origin (Source USCB 2010)

Figure 6. Population Depiction by Race and National Origin

Table 4 shows the principal farm operators in the State of Minnesota by race and national origin. The MN-CREP area is representative of the state as a whole and therefore the state data (especially the percentages) will be used for the MN-CREP area. The total minority and Hispanic percentage of operators within the State is 1.5 percent (USDA 2012). A large percentage of the Asian operators are near the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area (Dakota, Hennepin – 10% of the total producers, Ramsey, and Washington counties). These producers primarily grow vegetable and other specialty crops on small plots of land and often only rent the land that they farm. It is not anticipated that these producers will seek to offer their land for enrollment in the CREP. In addition, a majority of the American Indian operators are not in the MN-CREP area, but primarily in northern Minnesota.

White Black or Asian American Native Hawaiian More than All operators of Total African Indian or of Other Pacific One Race Spanish, Hispanic or American Alaska Native Islander Latino Origin Number 108,307 51 471 248 20 252 562 109,911 Percent 98.54 0.05 0.43 0.23 0.02 0.23 0.5 100 of the total Table 4. Principal Operator by Race/National Origin for the State of Minnesota, 2012. (Source: USDA 2012)

The population of the State of Minnesota has increased by 2.9% from 2010 to 2014 (USCB 2014). This increase has almost entirely occurred in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area and a few other major cities in the state. The rural counties that make up the majority of the MN-CREP area have decreased in population. On average this decrease is approximately 2% (USCB 2014). 3.6.2 Income and Poverty The American Community Survey part of the USCB 2010 to 2014 data was used for the economic information below. Median household income in the State of Minnesota was $60,828 and for the MN- CREP area it was lower and on average approximately $50,500. The higher median household incomes occurred closer to major metropolitan areas and the lowest values were in the most rural counties in the MN-CREP area. The average poverty rate for the State of Minnesota is 11.5 percent which closely mimics the average MN-CREP area of 11.23 percent. Therefore the MN-CREP area is not considered a low-income or poverty area. 3.6.3 Farm Demographics In Minnesota, there are over 74,000 farms covering 25.9 million acres operated with an average farm size of 350 acres (USDA NASS 2014). In the MN-CREP area there are over 52,000 farms on approximately 18.33 million acres of cropland and grassland (as previously detailed in Section 2.1.1). Minnesota ranks in the top ten in most major agricultural categories in the United States. A few examples from the Economic Research Service, USDA 2011 data include:  #1 in Sugar beet  #2 in Oats, Sweet Corn and Hogs  #3 in Soybeans, Spring Wheat, Dry Edible Beans and Green Peas  #4 in Corn, Flaxseed and Canola  #5 in Overall Crop Production Total Receipts 3.6.4 Recreational Values Recreational activities available on public and private lands throughout the MN-CREP area include photography, wildlife viewing, birdwatching, picnicking, hunting for both small and big game, fishing, and hiking/cross-country skiing. Camping at both primitive and developed commercial campgrounds, fall foliage viewing, resorts, geocaching, scientific research, eagle watching, education activities, and ranger- led activities are also popular.

The 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) found that recreational activities associated with wildlife substantively contributed to the economic activities of Minnesota. The survey estimated that in 2011, hunting and fishing activities in Minnesota created $3.3 billion in economic activity. Other wildlife-related activities, such as viewing, during 2011 were estimated to have generated approximately $621,000 statewide.

4.0 Environmental Consequences The Environmental Consequences of both the No Action and the Proposed Action alternatives will be detailed below for all of the resources that are being considered. The following four items directly under this introductory section refer to all of the resources in Section Four, they will result from implementation of either the No Action or Proposed Action alternatives, and therefore will not be completely repeated under each Resource.

The Riparian Protection and Water Quality Practices law (Minnesota Statute 103F.48)

This law was originally signed by Governor Dayton in June 2015. In the 2016 legislative session, the law was amended by the Legislature and then signed into law by Governor Dayton on April 25, 2016. The amendment provides clarifications to several provisions, including the riparian protection requirement by ensuring it only applies to public waters and public ditches, and compliance and enforcement responsibilities and processes.

The purpose of the law is to:  Protect state water resources from erosion and runoff pollution;  Stabilize soils, shores, and banks; and  Protect or provide riparian corridors

Landowners owning property adjacent to a water body identified and mapped on a buffer protection map must:  maintain a buffer to protect the state's water resources OR  implement alternative water quality practices One of these two options must be in place by:  November 1, 2017, for public waters; and  November 1, 2018, for public drainage systems The law and other companion Minnesota Laws of 2016 include a number of waivers and exemptions, most notably: (1) a waiver to the 2017 deadline, to 2018, if a landowner has applied for and maintained eligibility for financial assistance and, (2) an exemption from the law if the landowner is enrolled in CRP. Refer to MS 103F.48 for specific language. The Riparian Protection and Water Quality Practices Law, 2016 (MS 103F.48) requires a 50 foot buffer or alternative water quality practices on approximately 31,000 miles of Public Water (PW) Watercourses in the MN-CREP area. It has been estimated by the BWSR that a great majority of these miles already are protected with perennial vegetation. Local SWCD’s are in the process of assessing the use of the land next to these PW Watercourses and are assisting owners with compliance. MS103F.48 also requires a 16.5 foot buffer or alternative water quality practices on public drainage systems, approximately 19,000 miles in the MN-CREP area. According to BWSR, this width is generally for access to the ditch with very limited water quality benefits. In Alternative A all of these miles will either have a buffer or alternative water quality practice by the compliance dates if they do not already. The Riparian Protection and Water Quality Practices Law, 2016 (MS 103F.48) will be in place in Alternative B and will have the same impact as in Alternative A. According to BWSR, it is estimated by the BWSR that a small percentage of the MN-CREP acreage will be utilized for areas that are governed by MS 103F.48. At 43

this time, it is still being negotiated between FSA and the State whether MN-CREP offers will continue to be accepted after the deadline dates of MS 103F.48, but that detail will be agreed upon and detailed in the final signed MN-CREP Agreement.

MN-CREP Eligibility/Scoring/Ranking Process

MN-CREP offers will follow the following process:

1. CRP Eligibility – Person, Land and Practice Eligibility (utilizing existing USDA CCRP practice eligibility guidance) 2. RIM Eligibility – Person and Land, including The State of Minnesota eight acre minimum offer criteria 3. RIM Environmental Benefits Scoring 4. Ranking offers from highest to lowest RIM Environmental Benefits Score for each of the four CP’s (CP2, CP21, CP23, and CP23a) and then selecting offers to approve at the end of batching periods

This process will ensure that the most environmentally beneficial offers will be funded first to achieve the water quality and habitat goals as outlined in the MN-CREP proposal.

Existing CRP There are currently hundreds of thousands of acres of existing CRP contracts within the MN-CREP area. These contracts will be in place and will expire at the end of their CRP contract terms in either alternative. Therefore they will provide the same benefits also in either alternative.

National Rivers Inventory As was explained in Section 3.5 eight rivers have been identified by the National Park Service in the National Rivers Inventory (NRI) and had Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) primarily for Recreation and Scenery features. In addition, a few also had ORV’s for Geology, History and Wildlife identified. Both the No Action and Preferred Action alternatives will have no impact on the ORV’s assigned to these eight river reaches. Therefore additional discussion will not be needed for each of the resources listed below.

4.1 Biological Resources 4.1.1 Alternative A: No Action If the No Action Alternative is selected, the proposed MN-CREP will not be implemented. Lands that will have been eligible for enrollment will remain predominantly in agricultural production. A small amount of land may still be entered into the CRP or the permanent RIM easement program but it will not be targeted and at a level that will not have an impact on biological resources. The use of marginal land for agriculture will continue to degrade water quality, add to the stresses on wildlife and their habitats, and reduce opportunities for buffers between agricultural uses and natural habitats. Habitat for grassland species will be impacted the most. The runoff of agricultural chemicals, animal wastes, and sediment from agricultural practices on lands adjacent to water will continue to 44

degrade water quality and thus degrade drinking water supplies and habitat for native aquatic plants and animals. 4.1.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action The Proposed Action is expected to add up to 100,000 acres of permanent vegetation, restore wetlands, and improve wildlife habitat on previously cropped agricultural lands. Positive impacts to threatened and endangered species, particularly grassland species and their habitats, as well as habitat for other resident and migratory species are expected. Site-specific reviews for proposed, threatened, and endangered species will be conducted prior to the installation of CPs and, when determined to be needed by NRCS, at the mid-contract management stage to ensure no adverse or significant impacts are anticipated. It is anticipated that since all of the affected land has been previously altered through agricultural practices, including drainage, that the impact to listed species will be neutral to positive, albeit minor and on a local scale only.MN-will

4.2 Cultural Resources 4.2.1 Alternative A: No Action If the No Action Alternative is selected, the proposed MN-CREP will not be implemented. Lands that will have been eligible for enrollment will remain predominantly in agricultural production. The continuation of farming is expected to impact cultural resources at the same level as currently occurs. 4.2.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action Although specific sites have not been identified in this evaluation, accepted and agreed upon USDA processes will be followed to consider all cultural resources. Archaeological Resources. There is a potential for encountering archaeological resources but the majority of the activities will not be considered “Undertakings” due to a lack of disturbance below the tillage plow depth and since it is already on existing cropland. Site-specific archaeological reviews and when required coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), and/or Tribes will be conducted prior to the installation of CPs that are considered to be an “Undertaking”. These will be primarily associated with wetland restoration practices. Because many archeological and cultural resources have been found in or near floodplains where indigenous people once lived, the MN- CREP will serve to further minimize any potential impacts to these resources by retiring the land from crop cultivation. It will also reduce erosion and scouring and minimize the impact on traditional cultural places. Practices to be implemented in floodplains will generally be those not considered to be “Undertakings”. In addition, Tribal Consultation Protocols have been agreed upon in Memorandum’s of Understanding that detail processes to be used when USDA programs are conducted on tribally controlled lands. There are 5 federally recognized Native American tribes within the MN-CREP area including the – Lower Sioux Indian Community, Prairie Island Indian Community, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community, Upper Sioux Community, and White Earth Reservation. The only protocol that has been agreed upon is with the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa. Generally USDA utilizes the following process regardless of whether there is a Tribal Consultation Agreement – 45

Local offices submit a Cultural Resources Review Request form to the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) when working within reservation boundaries. If work is proposed within Tribal Ceded Territory boundaries requests are sent to both the THPO and SHPO. Architectural Resources. The MN-CREP area contains historic architectural resources that are eligible for, or listed in, the National Register. These resources include buildings, dwellings, districts, and agricultural properties. An USDA- NRCS or other local office representative will conduct a survey of the site-specific lands to be affected by a CP to determine if any historic architectural resources are present. It is anticipated that architectural resources will not be impacted by the MN-CREP. In the unlikely event that a practice requires the modification, alteration, or removal of an architectural resource that is potentially eligible for the National Register, the consultation with SHPO will occur. In summary each application will be addressed on a contract-by-contract basis as part of the existing USDA specific environmental evaluation (NRCS CPA-052 or FSA Environmental Screening Worksheet, FSA-850) and in line with any agency developed programmatic agreements and guidelines. Any contracts that will result in an “Undertaking” will require informal consultation with the SHPO/THPO/Tribes. Therefore it can be assumed that the MN-CREP as proposed will not have an adverse impact on cultural resources as a result of the proposed action.

4.3 Water Resources The Riparian Protection and Water Quality Practices Law, 2016 (MS 103F.48) requires a 50 foot buffer or alternative water quality practices on approximately 31,000 miles of Public Water (PW) Watercourses in the MN-CREP area. It has been estimated by the BWSR that a great majority of these miles already are protected with perennial vegetation. Local SWCD’s are in the process of assessing the use of the land next to these PW Watercourses and are assisting owners with compliance. MS103F.48 also requires a 16.5 foot buffer or alternative water quality practices on public drainage systems, approximately 19,000 miles in the MN-CREP area. This width is generally for access to the ditch with very limited water quality benefits. In Alternative A all of these miles will either have a buffer or alternative water quality practice by the compliance dates if they do not already. The Riparian Protection and Water Quality Practices Law, 2016 (MS 103F.48) will be in place in Alternative B and will have the same impact as in Alternative A. It is estimated by the BWSR that a small percentage of the MN-CREP acreage will be utilized for areas that are governed by MS 103F.48. The new law will not meet most of the goals of the MN-CREP since it only covers a small percent of the watercourses of the state and also requires a smaller width than is generally required by NRCS 393 standards for the MN-CREP to meet environmental concerns. 103F.48 ensures 50 foot buffers on certain public waters which before the law was only required in rule and was not uniformly implemented. The 50 foot is uniform across the state and does not consider site-specific conditions. The 16.5 foot required buffers on public ditches will provide access by drainage authorities to their public ditches and some water quality benefits. 4.3.1 Alternative A: No Action If the No Action Alternative is selected, the proposed MN-CREP will not be implemented. Lands that will have been eligible for enrollment will remain predominantly in agricultural production. A small amount of land may still be entered into the CRP or the permanent RIM easement program. Agricultural practices on marginal lands will continue to negatively impact water resources, as documented by many recent reports and studies.

Surface Water. Eligible lands could still be enrolled in other conservation programs, the benefits will not be as extensive as those gained from implementing a MN-CREP that is focused on particular CPs that target and prioritize the most highly sensitive land, that provides permanent protection, and that provides financial incentives to participants using federal and state resources. Surface water, hydrology in particular, will continue to be adversely impacted causing uneven flow and volume conditions and associated environmental consequences. Most areas next to designated watercourses governed by MS 103F.48 currently have at least 50 feet of perennial vegetation. It is estimated by the BWSR that a very small amount of additional buffers will be added due to MS 103F.48. and when added the 50 feet required may not provide required widths as prescribed by NRCS standards. Groundwater. Current agricultural practices that alter the water profile in the soil by tiling and other drainage practices are the primary reason for the success of farming in the MN-CREP area. Unfortunately these activities can impact water movement, especially related to lack of groundwater recharge, increased surface water flows and negative impacts on water quality. Sensitive wellhead areas likely won’t be protected to the extent necessary. Water Quality. Current agricultural practices introduce fertilizers, pesticides, and nutrients into water resources, resulting in the continuation for the potential of negative impacts to water quality. Although eligible lands could still be enrolled in other conservation programs, the benefits will not be as extensive as those gained from implementing a MN-CREP that is focused on particular CPs that target the most highly sensitive land, that provides permanent protection, and that provides financial incentives to participants using federal and state resources. It is estimated by the BWSR that a very small amount of additional buffers will be added due to MS 103F.48 and when added the 50 feet required may not provide required widths as prescribed by NRCS standards to meet water quality concerns.

Wetlands. Wetlands and their associated uplands that have been converted to farmland will remain predominantly in production and habitat and water quality benefits will not be recognized. Floodplains. Wetlands or the restoration of riparian buffers, both of which have beneficial effects on floodplain conditions, especially the ability of floodplains to store floodwaters will not occur. Most floodplain areas next to designated watercourses governed by MS 103F.48 currently have at least 50 feet of perennial vegetation. It is estimated by the BWSR that a very small amount of additional floodplain buffers will be added due to MS 103F.48 Agricultural lands could be enrolled in other conservation programs, but floodplain benefits will be temporary and less than if a coordinated effort was in effect targeting particular floodplain benefits from the implementation of MN-CREP. 4.3.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action The removal of marginal agricultural lands from farming will have a permanent, positive impact on water resources throughout the MN-CREP area and beyond the State borders. Surface Water. For those acres enrolled, within the context of the 24.4 million acre project area, surface water, hydrology in particular, will be positively impacted causing more natural flow and volume conditions and associated positive environmental consequences within localized areas and as a part of state plans and goals. Hydrology is generally restored back to its pre-altered condition meaning for example – ditches are filled, drain tile is broken or changed from perforated to non-perforated, sediment is removed and structures are installed. This will be primarily caused by holding water on the ground, through the use of the MN-CREP practices that establish vegetation and hydrology closer to a pre-altered condition. 47

Groundwater. Practices that alter the water profile in the soil by tiling and other drainage practices will no longer occur causing a localized positive impact on groundwater resources. This will be primarily caused by holding water on the ground, through the use of the MN-CREP practices that establish vegetation and hydrology closer to a pre-altered condition. In addition, acres of sensitive wellhead areas will be protected under this proposed action (within the 24.4 million acre project area). Water Quality. The discontinuation of agricultural production within the 60-100,000 acres (of the 24.4 million acre project area) will locally reduce runoff/leaching of sediment, nutrients, and agricultural chemicals that may enter water bodies and groundwater. In addition, the local benefits will assist with meeting state water quality plans and goals. Pollutant loadings will be commensurately decreased locally due to the MN-CREP practices which will establish native vegetation and hydrology closer to a pre-altered condition. It is estimated by the BWSR that a very small amount of additional buffers will be added due to MS 103F.48 and when added the 50 feet required may not provide required widths as prescribed by NRCS standards to meet water quality concerns. MN-CREP may be used to fully meet the NRCS standards when the resource concern is not fully addressed by the MS 103F.48 requirements .Over the past five years average buffer widths to treat field level concerns have been 100 feet wide or greater. The MN-CREP will follow the NRCS standards to achieve the required site specific water quality concerns. During the establishment of CPs, activities that remove vegetation or disturb soil may result in temporary minor increases in runoff, which may temporarily affect surface water quality locally. These potential impacts will be managed through the use of standard erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs). Wetlands. The acres of wetlands and their associated uplands that have been converted to farmland within the 24.4 million acre project area will be restored closer to their pre-altered condition. These will provide localized habitat and water quality benefits in the areas where these acres are enrolled and as a part of state plans and goals. In addition, the restored wetlands and the associated uplands will slow and store runoff providing a limited, but positive impact to water quantity. It is estimated by the BWSR that for this MN-CREP for every acre of wetland that is restored 2 acres of upland buffer will be restored. This will translate to 9 to 15,000 acres of wetlands along with 18 to 30,000 acres of associated upland. The primary purpose of the associated upland is for wetland health but other important benefits relate to earth and wildlife resources. Floodplains. Where they are established within the 24.4 million acre project area, the proposed MN-CREP practices are expected to locally and as a part of state plans and goals stabilize riparian areas and floodplains through the establishment of vegetation. This will have positive on-site and off-site impacts to water quality/quantity and habitat. That said, due to the limited acreage involved within the larger project area, it is not expected that these benefits will be significant.

4.4 Earth Resources 4.4.1 Alternative A: No Action If the No Action Alternative is selected, the proposed MN-CREP will not be implemented. Lands that will have been eligible for enrollment will remain predominantly in agricultural production. It is estimated that a small amount of land may still be entered into the CRP or the permanent RIM easement program. Erosion of soil from marginal agricultural lands will continue. The loss of the soil resource, reduction in soil health, and the sedimentation of water resources will continue.

4.4.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action All forms of soil erosion will be reduced and mostly eliminated on lands enrolled in the MN-CREP as lands are converted to permanent vegetation and wetlands. During the establishment of CPs, activities that remove vegetation or disturb soil may result in temporary minor increases in erosion. These potential impacts will be managed through the use of standard erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs). Within the MN-CREP area, soil health conditions will be improved locally as native vegetation and hydrology is restored back to pre-altered conditions. In time it is anticipated that soil health conditions will approach an un-altered condition.

4.5 Recreational Resources 4.5.1 Alternative A: No Action If the No Action Alternative is selected, the proposed MN-CREP will not be implemented. Lands that will have been eligible for enrollment will remain predominantly in agricultural production. There will be little to no increase in recreational land or land available for habitat that provides food and cover for wildlife and eventually a multitude of recreational opportunities. The buffers or alternative water quality practices that will be implemented due to MS 103F.48 will provide minor habitat improvements and the buffer areas will not be restricted in their use so the areas can be hayed or grazed, minimizing the value for habitat. In addition, these areas remain in private ownership and are not open for public access for recreational opportunities. Watershed-focused improvements to water, biological, and recreational resources will not occur. Indirectly, recreational resources, will be impacted by a continued decrease in water quality over time. This will impact fishing in the waterways and will also impact hunting as the game populations decrease. People’s ability to enjoy recreational areas through wildlife viewing, hiking, and camping will also decrease as the amount of wildlife declines and the aesthetics of the natural environmental are degraded. 4.5.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action Within the 60-100,000 MN-CREP area, localized and limited positive long-term effects on recreational resources are expected. The proposed MN-CREP is expected to increase habitat for game and non-game species in those areas where land is enrolled. Habitat that is restored closer to a natural state will increase a multitude of species that will ultimately positively impact recreational opportunities, albeit in a fashion that is dispersed within the 24.4 million acre project area. Water quality improvements will result in help to support localized improvements to recreational fishing, boating, and other water-related recreation.

4.6 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 4.6.1 Alternative A: No Action If the No Action Alternative is selected, the proposed MN-CREP will not be implemented. Lands that will have been eligible for enrollment will remain predominantly in agricultural production. Little to no change in current trends in socioeconomic conditions is expected. Land that is required to be perennial vegetation or alternative water quality practices according to MS103F.48 that currently is cropland will only be able to produce income tied to haying or grazing as compared to annual cropping. Depending on the cost of production and the price paid for that commodity this change in vegetation from 49

annual to perennial may or may not be beneficial to the producer. In either case it will be a very minor change in the socioeconomic conditions of the MN-CREP area. No disproportionate impact to low income and minority populations will occur. 4.6.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action The market and non-market benefits of the program are expected to outweigh the loss of sales of agricultural supplies, and the supplies and services needed to implement practices will provide additional economic multiplier benefits. CRP rental and RIM easement payments for those lands that are targeted will ideally stimulate other purchases, help to guarantee stable income for those producers with eligible lands, and locally increase overall economic activity in areas with targeted/enrolled lands. Landowners who have land that is required to be perennial vegetation when enrolled in MN-CREP and according to MS103F.48 will be compensated from CRP rental and RIM easement payments. These amounts will approximate 90% of the current value of the land Because the project area is not considered an area of concentrated low-income/poverty or minority population, and given the size of the potential MN-CREP relative to the larger project area, the MN-CREP will not have a disproportionate impact to these communities. There will be an eight acre minimum enrollment requirement. The State of Minnesota will waive the minimum acre requirement for Beginning, Limited Resource or Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers (utilizing USDA definitions). Therefore the eight acre minimum will not cause any negative impact on these groups. A summary of the potential impacts of the two alternatives evaluated is provided in Table 5.

RESOURCE PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION Biological Resources The Proposed Action is expected to add up to Continued degradation of 100,000 acres of permanent vegetation, restore riparian and aquatic habitats wetlands and improve wildlife habitat on and the decline of habitat for previously cropped agricultural lands. Positive grassland species. impacts to threatened and endangered species,

particularly grassland species and their habitats, as well as habitat for other resident and MS103F.48 will provide a migratory species are expected. minor localized benefit to biological resources the Site-specific reviews for threatened and same as with the Proposed endangered species will be conducted prior to Action. the installation of CPs. It is anticipated that since all of the affected land has been previously A small amount of land may altered through agricultural practices, including still be entered into the CRP drainage, that the impact to listed species will be or the permanent RIM neutral to positive. easement program but it will not be targeted and at a level MS103F.48 by itself will only provide a minor that will not have an impact localized benefit to biological resources the on biological resources. same as with the No Action.

RESOURCE PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION Cultural Resources There is a potential for encountering No additional impact is archaeological resources but the majority of the anticipated since the activities will not be considered “Undertakings” 100,000 acres are already due to lack of disturbance below the tillage plow altered and cropland. depth and since it is already on existing cropland. Site-specific archaeological reviews and when required coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will be conducted prior to the installation of CPs that are considered to be an “Undertaking”. These will be primarily associated with wetland restoration practices and anything that disturbs soil below the existing plow depth. Consultation with several tribes may be required once sites are selected.

RESOURCE PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION Water Resources The removal of marginal agricultural lands from Agricultural practices on farming will have a long-term, positive impact marginal lands will continue on local water resources throughout the MN- to degrade water resources, CREP area and a minor impact beyond the State as documented by many borders. recent reports and studies. It is expected that the discontinuation of agricultural production will reduce MS103F.48 will provide a runoff/leaching of sediment, nutrients, and minor localized benefit to agricultural chemicals that may enter water water resources the same as bodies and groundwater. with the Proposed Action. Existing wetlands will benefit from the newly

installed CPs. A small amount of land may Wetland restoration and other practices will still be entered into the CRP slow and store runoff that will otherwise directly or the permanent RIM impact off-site resources, and contributes to easement program. groundwater storage.

The proposed practices are expected to stabilize riparian areas and floodplains through the establishment of vegetation. During the establishment of CPs, activities that remove vegetation or disturb soil may result in temporary minor increases in runoff, which may temporarily affect surface water quality. These potential impacts will be managed through the use of standard erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs). While These impacts may seem sizeable, given their context – 60-100,000 acres within a 24.4 million acre project area – these impacts will be felt locally and will contribute to an overall beneficial trend, albeit on a relatively minor scale. The impacts will also assist with state plans and goals but again only a minor movement to meet those plans and goals. MS103F.48 will provide a minor localized benefit to water resources the same as with the No Action.

RESOURCE PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION Earth Resources Soil erosion will be reduced in the areas directly Erosion of soil from marginal impacted (60-100,000 acres within a 24.4 million agricultural lands will acre project area) and mostly eliminated on continue. The loss of the soil lands enrolled in the MN-CREP as marginal lands resource, reduction in soil are converted to permanent vegetation and health, and the wetlands. There will be minor soil disturbance sedimentation of water during establishment and mid-contract resources will continue. management. A small amount of land may Overall, soil health conditions will be improved still be entered into the CRP in the areas enrolled in the MN-CREP. or the permanent RIM easement program.

Recreational Positive long-term effects on recreational Continued water quality Resources resources are expected. The proposed CPs are degradation will affect game expected to increase habitat for game and non- fish or other water-related game species within the enrollment area (60- recreation and upland 100,000 acres in a 24.4 million acre project wildlife habitat. area). Water quality improvements will result in local improvements to recreational fishing, boating, and other water-related recreation. Socioeconomics and The market and non-market benefits of the No change in current trends Environmental program are expected to outweigh the relatively in socioeconomic conditions Justice minor loss of sales of agricultural supplies. is expected. No disproportionate impact to Because the project area is not considered an low income and minority area of concentrated poverty or minority populations will occur. population, the MN-CREP will not have a disproportionate impact to these communities.

Table 5. Summary of Environmental Consequences.

5.0 Cumulative Impacts and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

5.1 Cumulative Impacts CEQ regulations stipulate that the cumulative impacts analysis within an Environmental Assessment should consider the potential environmental impacts resulting from “the incremental impacts of the action when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Recent CEQ guidance in considering cumulative impacts involves defining the scope of the other actions and their interrelationship with the Proposed Action. The scope must consider geographical and temporal overlaps among the Proposed Action and other actions. It must also evaluate the nature of interactions among these actions. Cumulative impacts are most likely to arise when a relationship or synergism exists between the Proposed Action and other actions expected to occur in a similar location or during a similar time period. Actions overlapping with or in proximity to the Proposed Action will be expected to have more potential for a relationship than those more geographically separated. The affected environment for cumulative impacts in this EA includes the 54 counties where lands are eligible for enrollment in the MN-CREP. For the purposes of this analysis, the goals and plans of federal and the State of Minnesota programs designed to mitigate the risks of degradation of natural resources are the primary sources of information used in identifying past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions.

5.2 Past, Present, and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions In addition to the proposed MN-CREP, Minnesota maintains and implements numerous Federal programs authorized under the Farm Bill to conserve and enhance the natural resources of the area. These programs include the CRP, the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and its replacement the Wetlands Reserve Easement (WRE) program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP). Though not authorized by the Farm Bill, USFWS –Partners for Fish and Wildlife is another Federal program designed for conservation. Several state and non-profit programs are also available. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The CRP is the largest private land environmental conservation program. This voluntary program supports the implementation of long-term conservation measures designed to improve the quality of ground and surface waters, control soil erosion, and enhance wildlife habitat on environmentally sensitive agricultural land. Eligible participants can receive annual rental and maintenance payments, incentive payments, and cost-share support for the establishment of conservation measures. Both General and Continuous CRP have been used extensively in the proposed MN-CREP area. Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). The EQIP supports production agriculture and environmental quality as compatible goals. The program offers technical and financial assistance to producers who face serious threats to soil, water, wildlife, and related natural resources. In the 2014 Farm Bill WHIP was eliminated and wildlife concerns became an additional priority of EQIP. Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and Wetlands Reserve Easement (WRE). The WRP and now with the new Farm Bill of 2014 the WRE, is a voluntary program which provides technical and financial assistance to landowners who enhance wetlands and retire marginal agricultural lands. Under this program, lands can be enrolled in permanent conservation easements or 30-year conservation easements. 54

USFWS – Partners for Fish and Wildlife and Federal Conservation Grants Programs. These programs restore riparian, wetland, and associated upland habitat on private land through alliances between USFWS, other agencies, and non-profit organizations. The Clean Water, Land and Legacy Constitutional Amendment (Legacy Amendment). The Legacy Amendment was passed by Minnesota voters in 2008 and dedicates a percent of statewide sales tax to clean water, wildlife, trails and arts projects. The Clean Water Fund (CWF) part of the Legacy Amendment is used for water quality planning, protection, and implementation. While, the Outdoor Heritage Fund (OHF) part of the Legacy Amendment is utilized for wildlife focused protection and implementations projects. Reinvest In Minnesota (RIM) Reserve program. The RIM Reserve program has been in existence for 30 years providing landowners with an easement option. RIM is a critical component of the state’s efforts to improve water quality by reducing soil erosion, and phosphorus and nitrogen loading, and improving wildlife habitat and flood attenuation on private lands. RIM is implemented in cooperation with county Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs). RIM compensates landowners for granting conservation easements and establishing native vegetation habitat on economically marginal, flood-prone, environmentally sensitive or highly erodible lands. The program protects the state’s water and soil resources by permanently restoring wetlands, adjacent native grassland wildlife habitat complexes and permanent riparian buffers.

5.3 Cumulative Effect Analysis The incremental impacts of the Proposed Action, when considered in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, is expected to result in marginally positive impacts to water, soils, and biological resources. The following sections summarize the cumulative effects by resource area. The MN-CREP will enroll up to 100,000 acres in CRP that will also be perpetually protected with a State of Minnesota RIM Reserve easement. Landowners in Minnesota have been very active participants in USDA Farm Bill programs including the CRP. In recent years, the rate of CRP expiration has exceeded CRP enrollment and reenrollment netting a loss of approximately 50% of the CRP acres expiring each of the past five years. It is estimated that even with up to 100,000 acres of MN-CREP acres enrolled, the State of Minnesota will have 199,000 fewer acres enrolled in CRP at the end of the five year MN-CREP period (see Table 6).

Minnesota CRP Status

Acres expiring over next 5 years - 598,000

Expected acres retained based on recent average + 299,000

Minnesota CREP + 100,000

Projected net loss of acres - 199,000

Table 6. Minnesota CRP Status

Biological Resources. Many of the conservation programs available within the proposed MN-CREP Area have a direct goal to protect and enhance wildlife habitat (CRP, EQIP, Partners for Fish and Wildlife, Conservation Grants, and Outdoor Heritage Fund projects). The remaining conservation programs will also have an indirect benefit to wildlife through the restoration of native vegetation and enhancement of native habitat. The proposed MN-CREP will have similar goals and impacts as these programs; cumulatively MN-CREP and the other available conservation programs will have long-term beneficial impacts to biological resources. That said, given the continuing downward trend these resources face, these benefits will be largely and unfortunately overshadowed. That does not undermine their importance, rather it highlights their relevance for helping to maintain a positive trend in some small way or at least preventing the downward trend from being worse. Cultural Resources. Cultural resources could be affected by conservation activities that result in ground disturbance beyond that which was disturbed by agricultural practices (primarily wetland restorations). However, site-specific environmental evaluations on lands to be enrolled in any of the conservation programs will identify cultural resources of concern and develop a plan for avoiding or minimizing those potential impacts through coordination with the SHPO, THPO, and/or Tribes, as necessary. With the site- specific environmental evaluations and protection of important resources, negative cumulative impacts are not anticipated. Water Resources. All of the conservation programs will have direct or indirect positive impacts to water quality and quantity. Of particular note is the State of Minnesota Clean Water Fund projects that allocate approximately $100 million per year. The proposed MN-CREP will also result in improved water quality from the reduction of nutrient delivery and stabilization of soils causing less sedimentation to occur. Cumulatively, the goal is that MN-CREP and the other conservation programs will have long-term beneficial impacts to water resources. But as stated for Biological Resources, Water Resources face a declining trend as agriculture and ever-increasing populations, and other conflicts with these resources, continue. So while the goal is to benefit these resources, the need for that benefit underscores their current troubled status, and the limited, albeit positive impact anticipated from these cumulative efforts. The benefits of the MN-CREP will also contribute to overall state plans and goals. Earth Resources. Implementing conservation measures that will restore native vegetation and wetlands will ultimately increase soil health and stabilize soils, thus reducing sedimentation, runoff, and wind erosion potential. The proposed Agreement will also have a goal of stabilizing soils and reducing erosion potential. Cumulatively, the MN-CREP and the other conservation programs will have long-term beneficial impacts to soils. But again, while the goal is to benefit these resources, the need for that benefit underscores their current troubled status, and the limited, albeit positive impact anticipated from these cumulative efforts. Recreational Resources. Implementing conservation measures that will restore native vegetation and wetlands will ultimately increase habitat locally for game and non-game wildlife species, flora, fauna, and many other living beings. This increase in habitat will locally benefit all types of recreational activities. The MN-CREP and the other conservation programs will have localized beneficial impacts to recreation in/adjacent to those enrolled areas. Socioeconomics. The conservation programs listed above generally offer monetary compensation for restoration or retirement of agricultural lands. The loss of agricultural lands may slightly adversely affect the local economy from a small decrease in the sale of agricultural products, as well as an indirect impact to farm equipment and supplies (seed, fertilizer, pesticides, and chemicals, etc.) and farm employment. For CRP and CREP, there is also a county limitation for not enrolling more than 25 percent of a county’s

cropland into conservation programs, plus primarily marginal agricultural lands will be targeted, further limiting the impact. As such, cumulative impacts to socioeconomics are not anticipated. Environmental Justice. Enrollment in conservation programs is voluntary and the overall impacts are beneficial, albeit mainly localized. Environmental justice populations in the MN-CREP area are primarily found in urban areas and impacts to these populations are not be expected.

Summary. The cumulative benefits of the MN-CREP involve the ability to marginally improve and protect water quality and conserve and enhance wildlife habitat in the fifty-four county MN-CREP area and to retire land with the most fragile, erodible soils from cultivation. The No Action Alternative will not provide a new tool to help decrease degradation in water quality, as well as help stem ongoing habitat losses, increased flooding and the associated damages along the Red River into Canada, and it will not help to decrease hypoxic impacts in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of increased nutrient loading in both the Mississippi and Missouri River flowages. The Proposed Action Alternative, the MN-CREP will place up to 100,000 acres of marginal farmland under perpetual easements within the MN-CREP area. This will result in localized increased water quality, improved infiltration, reduced runoff, groundwater protection in the most sensitive wellhead protection areas, as well as potential corridor systems, adding to wildlife benefits as well, by tying other, permanent areas together with the newly offered MN-CREP acres.

5.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Irreversible and irretrievable commitments are related to the use of nonrenewable resources and the effect that the use of these resources has on future generations. Irreversible effects primarily result from the use or destruction of a specific resource that cannot be replaced within a reasonable time frame. Irretrievable resource commitments involve the loss in value of an affected resource that cannot be restored as a result of the action. The MN-CREP will provide local benefits and assist state plans and goals to natural resources, water resources, and wildlife habitat; there will be no irretrievable or irreversible resource commitments.

6.0 List of Preparers Bill Penning, Conservation Easement Section Manager, BWSR, St. Paul, MN. Tim Koehler, Senior Programs Advisor, BWSR, St. Paul, MN. Heather Staff, Office and Administrative Specialist, BWSR, St. Paul, MN. Aaron Spence, GIS Specialist, MN.IT, St. Paul, MN. Seth Weeks, IT Project Manager, MN.IT, St. Paul, MN.

7.0 Persons and Agencies/Organizations Contacted – To comply with the requirements set forth in §1501.7 of the CEQ’s regulations involving scoping and to provide agencies and the public with an early opportunity to comment on the program and environmental/human consequences, MN State Agencies and FSA have been discussing the MN-CREP and scoping efforts with local, state, and federal agencies, and non-profit stakeholders starting in the Spring of 2014. During the Proposal development phase of this effort all aspects of the Environmental Assessment (EA) were also concurrently being considered, discussed and input and assistance was received. Proposal data and analysis was used for portions of the EA. The Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Sections were in particular grounded in the Proposal and the data that was collected. The following agencies and organizations were contacted during EA development:  Clean Water Council  Ducks Unlimited  Freshwater Society  Land Stewardship Project  League of Minnesota Cities  Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council  Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water System  Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts  Minnesota Chapter of the Wildlife Society  Minnesota Farm Bureau  Minnesota Farmers Union  Minnesota Land Trust  Minnesota Rural Water Association  Minnesota Waterfowl Association  Pheasants Forever  Prairie Chicken Society  The Conservation Fund  The Nature Conservancy  University of Minnesota – Water Resources Center  U.S.D.A. - FSA State Committee  U.S.D.I. - Fish and Wildlife Service

Agencies have provided technical assistance and data in the formulation and review of the EA. Included below are those individuals and agencies that provided specific assistance in the EA development and review: Nell Fuller, National Environmental Compliance Manager, USDA-FSA, Washington D.C. Virgil Ireland, CREP Program Manager, USDA-FSA, Kansas City, MO. Ben Horter, Federal Preservation Officer, USDA-FSA, Washington, D.C. Lisa Joyal, Natural Resource Specialist, MN DNR, St. Paul MN. Ryan Galbreath, State Resource Conservationist, NRCS, St. Paul, MN.

John Beck, State Soil Scientist, NRCS, St. Paul, MN. Mark Oja, Biologist, NRCS, St. Paul, MN. Staff from the following five sponsoring State agencies have provided ongoing assistance and support to the MN-CREP and EA: Board of Water and Soil Resources MN. Department of Agriculture MN. Department of Health MN. Department of Natural Resources MN. Pollution Control Agency

8.0 References

 Minnesota Agricultural Statistics, Minnesota Department of Agriculture and United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statics Service, 2012.  Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. 2014. Nonpoint Priority Funding Plan.  Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program (MAWQCP).  Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 2015. Minnesota Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan.  Minnesota Department of Health. Links to drinking water supply management areas (DWSMAs).  Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2011. An Integrated Sediment Budget for the Le Sueur River Basin – Final Report.  Minnesota Pollution control Agency. 2014. Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy.  Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2013. Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters.  Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2015. Sediment Reduction Strategy for the Minnesota River Basin and South Metro Mississippi River.  Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2015. Swimmable, fishable, fixable? – What we’ve learned so far about Minnesota waters.  Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS).  Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2014. Building a Picture of a Watershed – Modeling with a Computer Simulation Program.  Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2014. Watershed Pollutant Load Monitoring Network.  Minnesota Prairie Plan Working Group. 2011. Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan.  Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office website, 2016.  National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), 2011.  National Park Service, National Center for Recreation and Conservation website for National Rivers Inventory.  United States Census Bureau dataset, 2010.  United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service dataset, 2014.  United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service website for Cultural Resource, Soils and Wetland references, 2016.  United States Department of Agriculture Handbook 296, Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Area of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin, 2006.  United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Listed believed to or known to occur in Minnesota. 61

 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, The 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife- Associated Recreation, 2011.

APPENDIX

Federal MN State Global Status Rank Rank Scientific Name (Common Name) Status

Vertebrate Animal

Accipiter gentilis (Northern Goshawk) SPC S3B,SNRN G5 Acipenser fulvescens (Lake Sturgeon) SPC S3 G3G4 Acris blanchardi (Blanchard's Cricket Frog) END S1 G5 Alosa chrysochloris (Skipjack Herring) END S1 G5 Ammodramus bairdii (Baird's Sparrow) END S1B,SNRM G4 Ammodramus henslowii (Henslow's Sparrow) END S1B G4 Ammodramus nelsoni (Nelson's Sparrow) SPC S3B G5 Anaxyrus cognatus (Great Plains Toad) SPC S3 G5 Anthus spragueii (Sprague's Pipit) END S1B,SNRM G4 Apalone mutica (Smooth Softshell) SPC S3 G5 Aphredoderus sayanus (Pirate Perch) SPC S3 G5 Asio flammeus (Short-eared Owl) SPC S3B G5 Athene cunicularia (Burrowing Owl) END S1B,SNRM G4 Buteo lineatus (Red-shouldered Hawk) SPC S3B,SNRN G5 Calcarius ornatus (Chestnut-collared Longspur) END S1B G5 Charadrius melodus (Piping Plover) LE,LT END S1B G3 Chondestes grammacus (Lark Sparrow) SPC S3B G5 Clinostomus elongatus (Redside Dace) SPC S3 G3G4 Coluber constrictor (North American Racer) SPC S3 G5 Coturnicops noveboracensis (Yellow Rail) SPC S3B G4 Crotalus horridus (Timber Rattlesnake) THR S2 G4 Crystallaria asprella (Crystal Darter) END S1 G3 Cycleptus elongatus (Blue Sucker) SPC S3 G3G4 Cygnus buccinator (Trumpeter Swan) SPC S3B,SNRN, G4 Empidonax virescens (Acadian Flycatcher) SPC S3B G5 Emydoidea blandingii (Blanding's Turtle) THR S2 G4 Erimystax x-punctatus (Gravel Chub) THR S2 G4 Etheostoma chlorosoma (Bluntnose Darter) SPC S3 G5 Etheostoma microperca (Least Darter) SPC S3 G5 Falco peregrinus (Peregrine Falcon) SPC S3B G4 Fundulus sciadicus (Plains Topminnow) THR S2 G4 Gallinula galeata (Common Gallinule) SPC S3B G5 Glyptemys insculpta (Wood Turtle) THR S2 G3

Appendix 1

Federal MN State Global Status Rank Rank Scientific Name (Common Name) Status Heterodon nasicus (Plains Hog-nosed Snake) SPC S3 G5 Hybognathus nuchalis (Mississippi Silvery Minnow) SPC S3 G5

Hybopsis amnis (Pallid Shiner) END S1 G4 Ichthyomyzon fossor (Northern Brook Lamprey) SPC S3 G4 Ictiobus niger (Black Buffalo) THR S2 G5 Lanius ludovicianus (Loggerhead Shrike) END S1B G4 Lepomis gulosus (Warmouth) SPC S3 G5 Leucophaeus pipixcan (Franklin's Gull) SPC S3B G4G5 Limosa fedoa (Marbled Godwit) SPC S3B G5 Lythrurus umbratilis (Redfin Shiner) SPC S3 G5 Microtus ochrogaster (Prairie Vole) SPC S3 G5 Microtus pinetorum (Woodland Vole) SPC S3 G5 Morone mississippiensis (Yellow Bass) SPC S3 G5 Moxostoma duquesnei (Black Redhorse) SPC S3 G5 Mustela nivalis (Least Weasel) SPC S3 G5 Myotis lucifugus (Little Brown Myotis) SPC S3 G3 Myotis septentrionalis (Northern Long-Eared Bat) LT SPC S3 G1G3 Necturus maculosus (Mudpuppy) SPC S3 G5 Notropis anogenus (Pugnose Shiner) THR S2 G3 Notropis nubilus (Ozark Minnow) SPC S3 G5 Notropis topeka (Topeka Shiner) LE SPC S3 G3 Noturus exilis (Slender Madtom) END S1 G5 Onychomys leucogaster (Northern Grasshopper Mouse) SPC S3 G5 Pantherophis obsoletus (Western Ratsnake) THR S2 G5 Parkesia motacilla (Louisiana Waterthrush) SPC S3B G5 Pelecanus erythrorhynchos (American White Pelican) SPC S3B G4 Perimyotis subflavus (Tricolored Bat) SPC S3 G3 Perognathus flavescens (Plains Pocket Mouse) SPC S3 G5 Phalaropus tricolor (Wilson's Phalarope) THR S2B G5 Pituophis catenifer (Gophersnake) SPC S3 G5 Plestiodon fasciatus (Common Five-lined Skink) SPC S3 G5 Podiceps auritus (Horned Grebe) END S1B G5 Polyodon spathula (Paddlefish) THR S2 G4 Progne subis (Purple Martin) SPC S3B G5 Rallus elegans (King Rail) END S1B,SNRM G4 Reithrodontomys megalotis (Western Harvest Mouse) SPC S3 G5

Appendix 2

Federal MN State Global Status Rank Rank Scientific Name (Common Name) Status Setophaga cerulea (Cerulean Warbler) SPC S3B G4 Setophaga citrina (Hooded Warbler) SPC S3B G5

Spilogale putorius (Eastern Spotted Skunk) THR S2 G4 Sterna forsteri (Forster's Tern) SPC S3B G5 Sterna hirundo (Common Tern) THR S2B G5 Tropidoclonion lineatum (Lined Snake) SPC S3 G5 Tympanuchus cupido (Greater Prairie-chicken) SPC S3 G4 Urocitellus richardsonii (Richardson's Ground Squirrel) SPC S3 G5 Vireo bellii (Bell's Vireo) SPC S3B G5

Invertebrate Animal Actinonaias ligamentina (Mucket) THR S2 G5 Aflexia rubranura (Red-Tailed Prairie Leafhopper) SPC S3 G2 Alasmidonta marginata (Elktoe) THR S2 G4 Anodonta suborbiculata (Flat Floater) SPC S3 G5 Arcidens confragosus (Rock Pocketbook) END S1 G4 Atrytone arogos iowa (Iowa Skipper) SPC S3 G3T3 Cicindela fulgida (Crimson Saltflat Tiger Beetle, fulgida END S1 G5T4 subspecies) Cicindela lepida (Ghost Tiger Beetle) THR S2 G3G4 Cicindela macra (Sandy Stream Tiger Beetle) SPC S3 G5T5 Cicindela patruela (Northern Barrens Tiger Beetle) SPC S3 G3T3 Cicindela splendida cyanocephalata (Splendid Tiger Beetle) SPC S3 G5T5 Cumberlandia monodonta (Spectaclecase) LE END S1 G3 Cyclonaias tuberculata (Purple Wartyback) END S1 G5 Ellipsaria lineolata (Butterfly) THR S2 G4G5 Elliptio crassidens (Elephant-ear) END S1 G5 Elliptio dilatata (Spike) THR S2 G5 Epioblasma triquetra (Snuffbox) END S1 G3 Erynnis persius (Persius Dusky Wing) END S1 G5T1T3 Fusconaia ebena (Ebonyshell) END S1 G4G5 Habronattus texanus (A Jumping Spider) SPC S3 GNR Hesperia assiniboia (Assiniboia Skipper) END S1 G5 Hesperia dacotae (Dakota Skipper) LT END S1 G2 Hesperia leonardus (Leonard's Skipper) SPC S3 G4 Hesperia leonardus (Leonard's Skipper) SHL-SPC S3 G4T4 Hesperia leonardus pawnee (Pawnee Skipper) SHL-SPC S3 G4T4 Hesperia ottoe (Ottoe Skipper) END S1 G3G4

Appendix 3

Federal MN State Global Status Rank Rank Scientific Name (Common Name) Status Lampsilis higginsii (Higgins Eye) LE END S1 G1G2 Lampsilis teres (Yellow Sandshell) END S1 G5

Lasmigona compressa (Creek Heelsplitter) SPC S3 G5 Lasmigona costata (Fluted-shell) THR S2 G5 Ligumia recta (Black Sandshell) SPC S3 G4G5 Lycaeides melissa samuelis (Karner Blue) LE END S1 G5T2 Marpissa formosa (A jumping spider) SPC S3 GNR Megalonaias nervosa (Washboard) END S1 G5 Oarisma garita (Garita Skipper) THR S2 G5 Oarisma poweshiek (Poweshiek Skipperling) LE END S1 G1 Oeneis uhleri varuna (Uhler's Arctic) END S1 G5T4 Oxyethira ecornuta (A Caddisfly) THR S2 G5 Paradamoetas fontana (A Jumping Spider) SPC S3 GNR Pelegrina arizonensis (A Jumping Spider) SPC S3 GNR Phidippus apacheanus (A Jumping Spider) SPC S3 GNR Phidippus pius (A Jumping Spider) SPC S3 GNR Plethobasus cyphyus (Sheepnose) LE END S1 G3 Pleurobema sintoxia (Round Pigtoe) SPC S3 G4G5 Quadrula fragosa (Winged Mapleleaf) LE END S1 G1 Quadrula metanevra (Monkeyface) THR S2 G4 Quadrula nodulata (Wartyback) THR S2 G4 Sassacus papenhoei (A Jumping Spider) SPC S3 GNR Schinia indiana (Phlox Moth) SPC S3 G2G4 Schinia lucens (Leadplant Flower Moth) SPC S3 G4 Simpsonaias ambigua (Salamander Mussel) END S1 G3 Speyeria idalia (Regal Fritillary) SPC S3 G3 Tritogonia verrucosa (Pistolgrip) END S1 G4G5 Truncilla donaciformis (Fawnsfoot) THR S2 G5 Venustaconcha ellipsiformis (Ellipse) THR S2 G4 Vertigo meramecensis (Bluff Vertigo) THR S2 G2G3

Vascular Plant

Agalinis auriculata (Eared False Foxglove) END S1 G3 Agalinis gattingeri (Round-stemmed False Foxglove) END S1 G4 Agrostis hyemalis (Ticklegrass) END S1 G5 Alisma gramineum (Narrow-leaved Water Plantain) SPC S3 G5 Allium cernuum (Nodding Wild Onion) SPC S3 G5

Appendix 4

Federal MN State Global Status Rank Rank Scientific Name (Common Name) Status Antennaria parvifolia (Small-leaved Pussytoes) SPC S3 G5 Arabis laevigata var. laevigata (Smooth Rock Cress) SPC S3 G5T5

Arisaema dracontium (Green Dragon) SPC S3 G5 Aristida purpurea var. longiseta (Red Three-awn) SPC S3 G5T5? Aristida tuberculosa (Sea-beach Needlegrass) THR S2 G5 Arnoglossum plantagineum (Tuberous Indian-plantain) THR S2 G4G5 Arnoglossum reniforme (Great Indian-plantain) THR S2 G4 Asclepias amplexicaulis (Clasping Milkweed) THR S2 G5 Asclepias hirtella (Prairie Milkweed) THR S2 G5 Asclepias stenophylla (Narrow-leaved Milkweed) END S1 G4G5 Asclepias sullivantii (Sullivant's Milkweed) THR S2 G5 Asplenium platyneuron (Ebony Spleenwort) SPC S3 G5 Astragalus flexuosus var. flexuosus (Slender Milk-vetch) SPC S3 G5T5 Astragalus missouriensis var. missouriensis (Missouri Milk-vetch) SPC S3 G5T5 Aureolaria pedicularia (Fernleaf False Foxglove) THR S2 G5 Avenula hookeri (Oat-grass) SPC S3 G5 Bacopa rotundifolia (Water-hyssop) THR S2 G5 Baptisia bracteata var. glabrescens (Plains Wild Indigo) SPC S3 G4G5T4T5 Baptisia lactea var. lactea (White Wild Indigo) SPC S3 G5T4T5 Berula erecta () THR S2 G4G5 Besseya bullii (Kitten-tails) THR S2 G3 Bidens discoidea (Bur-marigold) SPC S3 G5 Botrychium campestre (Prairie Moonwort) SPC S3 G3G4 Botrychium minganense (Mingan Moonwort) SPC S3 G4G5 Botrychium mormo (Goblin Fern) THR S2 G3 Botrychium oneidense (Blunt-lobed Grapefern) THR S2 G4 Botrychium pallidum (Pale Moonwort) SPC S3 G3 Botrychium rugulosum (St. Lawrence Grapefern) SPC S3 G3 Botrychium simplex (Least Moonwort) SPC S3 G5 Buchloe dactyloides (Buffalo Grass) SPC S3 G4G5 Calamagrostis montanensis (Plains Reedgrass) SPC S3 G5 Callitriche heterophylla (Larger Water-starwort) THR S2 G5 Carex annectens (Yellow-fruited Sedge) SPC S3 G5 Carex careyana (Carey's Sedge) END S1 G4G5 Carex conjuncta (Jointed Sedge) THR S2 G4G5 Carex davisii (Davis' Sedge) THR S2 G4

Appendix 5

Federal MN State Global Status Rank Rank Scientific Name (Common Name) Status Carex festucacea (Fescue Sedge) THR S2 G5 Carex formosa (Handsome Sedge) END S1 G4

Carex grayi (Gray's Sedge) SPC S3 G4 Carex hallii (Hall's Sedge) SPC S3 G4?Q Carex hookerana (Hooker Sedge) SPC S3 G4? Carex jamesii (James' Sedge) THR S2 G5 Carex laevivaginata (Smooth-sheathed Sedge) THR S2 G5 Carex laxiculmis (Spreading Sedge) THR S2 G5 Carex muskingumensis (Muskingum Sedge) SPC S3 G4 Carex obtusata (Blunt Sedge) SPC S3 G5 Carex plantaginea (Plantain-leaved Sedge) END S1 G5 Carex scirpoidea (Northern Singlespike Sedge) SPC S3 G5 Carex sterilis (Sterile Sedge) THR S2 G4 Carex typhina (Cattail Sedge) SPC S3 G5 Carex xerantica (Dry Sedge) SPC S3 G5 Chamaesyce missurica (Missouri Spurge) SPC S3 G5 Chrysosplenium iowense (Iowa Golden Saxifrage) END S1 G3? Cirsium pumilum var. hillii (Hill's Thistle) SPC S3 G3 Cladium mariscoides (Twig-rush) SPC S3 G5 Commelina erecta (Slender Dayflower) END S1 G5 Crassula aquatica (Pigmyweed) THR S2 G5 Cyperus acuminatus (Short-pointed Umbrella-sedge) THR S2 G5 Cypripedium arietinum (Ram's-head Lady's-slipper) THR S2 G3 Cypripedium candidum (Small White Lady's-slipper) SPC S3 G4 Dalea candida var. oligophylla (Western White Prairie-clover) SPC S3 G5T5? Decodon verticillatus (Waterwillow) SPC S3 G5 Deparia acrostichoides (Silvery Spleenwort) SPC S3 G5 Desmanthus illinoensis (Prairie Mimosa) SPC S3 G5 Desmodium cuspidatum var. longifolium (Big Tick-trefoil) THR S2 G5T5? Desmodium nudiflorum (Stemless Tick-trefoil) THR S2 G5 Diarrhena obovata (American Beakgrain) END S1 G4G5 Dicentra canadensis (Squirrel-corn) SPC S3 G5 Diplazium pycnocarpon (Narrow-leaved Spleenwort) THR S2 G5 Dodecatheon meadia (Prairie Shooting Star) END S1 G5 Draba arabisans (Rock Whitlow-grass) SPC S3 G4 Drosera anglica (English Sundew) SPC S3 G5

Appendix 6

Federal MN State Global Status Rank Rank Scientific Name (Common Name) Status Dryopteris goldiana (Goldie's Fern) SPC S3 G4G5 Dryopteris marginalis (Marginal Shield-fern) END S1 G5

Elatine triandra (Three Stamened Waterwort) SPC S3 G5 Eleocharis coloradoensis (Dwarf Spike-rush) SPC S3 GNR Eleocharis flavescens var. olivacea (Olivaceous Spike-rush) THR S2 G5 Eleocharis quinqueflora (Few-flowered Spike-rush) SPC S3 G5 Eleocharis rostellata (Beaked Spike-rush) THR S2 G5 Eleocharis wolfii (Wolf's Spike-rush) END S1 G3G4 Elodea bifoliata (Twoleaf Waterweed) END S1 G4G5 Erigeron lonchophyllus (Shortray Fleabane) THR S2 G5 Eryngium yuccifolium (Rattlesnake-master) SPC S3 G5 Erythronium propullans (Dwarf Trout Lily) LE END S1 G1 Escobaria vivipara (Ball Cactus) END S1 G5 Eupatorium sessilifolium (Upland Boneset) THR S2 G5 Fimbristylis puberula var. interior (Hairy Fimbristylis) END S1 G5T5 Floerkea proserpinacoides (False Mermaid) THR S2 G5 Gaillardia aristata (Blanket-flower) SPC S3 G5 Gaylussacia baccata (Black Huckleberry) THR S2 G5 Gentiana affinis (Northern Gentian) SPC S3 G5 Gentianella amarella (Felwort) SPC S3 G5 Gymnocarpium robertianum (Limestone Oak Fern) SPC S3 G5 Gymnocladus dioica (Kentucky Coffee-tree) SPC S3 G5 Hamamelis virginiana (Witch-hazel) THR S2 G5 Hasteola suaveolens (Sweet-smelling Indian-plantain) END S1 G4 Helianthemum canadense (Canada Frostweed) SPC S3 G5 Helianthus nuttallii ssp. rydbergii (Nuttall's Sunflower) SPC S3 G5T5 Heteranthera limosa (Mud Plantain) THR S2 G5 Hudsonia tomentosa (Beach-heather) THR S2 G5 Huperzia porophila (Rock Clubmoss) THR S2 G4 Hybanthus concolor (Green Violet) END S1 G5 Hydrastis canadensis (Golden-seal) END S1 G3G4 Iodanthus pinnatifidus (Purple Rocket) END S1 G5 Isoetes melanopoda (Blackfoot Quillwort) END S1 G5 Jeffersonia diphylla (Twinleaf) SPC S3 G5 Juglans cinerea (Butternut) END S1 G4 Juniperus horizontalis (Creeping Juniper) SPC S3 G5

Appendix 7

Federal MN State Global Status Rank Rank Scientific Name (Common Name) Status Lechea tenuifolia var. tenuifolia (Narrow-leaved Pinweed) END S1 G5TNR Leersia lenticularis (Catchfly Grass) THR S2 G5

Lespedeza leptostachya (Prairie Bush Clover) LT THR S2 G3 Limosella aquatica (Mudwort) SPC S3 G5 Malaxis monophyllos var. brachypoda (White Adder's-mouth) SPC S3 G4Q Malaxis paludosa (Bog Adder's-mouth) END S1 G4 Marsilea vestita (Hairy Water Clover) END S1 G5 Melica nitens (Three-flowered Melicgrass) THR S2 G5 Minuartia dawsonensis (Rock Sandwort) THR S2 G5 Montia chamissoi (Montia) END S1 G5 Najas gracillima (Thread-like Naiad) SPC S3 G5? Najas guadalupensis ssp. olivacea () SPC S3 G5T4? Najas marina (Sea Naiad) SPC S3 G5 Napaea dioica (Glade Mallow) THR S2 G4 Nuttallanthus canadensis (Old Field Toadflax) SPC S3 G5 Oenothera rhombipetala (Rhombic-petaled Evening Primrose) SPC S3 G4G5 Opuntia macrorhiza (Plains Prickly Pear) SPC S3 G5 Orobanche fasciculata (Clustered Broomrape) THR S2 G4 Orobanche ludoviciana var. ludoviciana (Louisiana Broomrape) THR S2 G5T5 Orobanche uniflora (One-flowered Broomrape) THR S2 G5 Panax quinquefolius (American Ginseng) SPC S3 G3G4 Paronychia canadensis (Canadian Forked Chickweed) END S1 G5 Parthenium integrifolium (Wild Quinine) END S1 G5 Pellaea atropurpurea (Purple Cliff-brake) SPC S3 G5 Phegopteris hexagonoptera (Broad Beech-fern) END S1 G5 Phemeranthus rugospermus (Rough-seeded Fameflower) THR S2 G3G4 Phlox maculata (Wild Sweet William) SPC S3 G5 Physaria ludoviciana (Bladder Pod) END S1 G5 Plagiobothrys scouleri (Meadow Popcorn-flower) SPC S3 G5 Plantago elongata (Slender Plantain) SPC S3 G4 Platanthera flava var. herbiola (Tubercled Rein-orchid) THR S2 G4?T4Q Platanthera praeclara (Western Prairie Fringed Orchid) LT END S1 G3 Poa paludigena (Bog Bluegrass) THR S2 G3 Poa wolfii (Wolf's Bluegrass) SPC S3 G4 Polanisia jamesii (James' Polanisia) END S1 G5 Polygala cruciata (Cross-leaved Milkwort) END S1 G5

Appendix 8

Federal MN State Global Status Rank Rank Scientific Name (Common Name) Status Polystichum acrostichoides (Christmas Fern) END S1 G5 Polytaenia nuttallii (Prairie-parsley) SPC SH G5

Potamogeton oakesianus (Oakes' Pondweed) END S1 G4 Psoralidium tenuiflorum (Slender-leaved Scurf Pea) END S1 G5 Quercus bicolor (Swamp White Oak) SPC S3 G5 Rhodiola integrifolia ssp. leedyi (Leedy's Roseroot) LT END S1 G5T1 Rhynchospora capillacea (Hair-like Beak-rush) THR S2 G4 Rorippa sessiliflora (Sessile-flowered Cress) SPC S3 G5 Rubus fulleri (A Bramble) THR S2 G4?Q Rubus multifer () SPC S3 G5 Rubus semisetosus (Half Bristly Bramble) THR S2 G5 Rubus stipulatus (Big Horseshoe Lake Dewberry) END S1 G4 Rudbeckia triloba var. triloba (Three-leaved Coneflower) THR S2 G5T4T5 Ruppia cirrhosa (Widgeon-grass) SPC S3 G5 Sagittaria brevirostra (Short-beaked Arrowhead) END SH G5 Sagittaria calycina (Long-lobed Arrowhead) THR SH G5 Salicornia rubra (Red Saltwort) THR S2 G5 Sanicula trifoliata (Beaked Snakeroot) SPC S3 G4 Schedonnardus paniculatus (Tumblegrass) SPC S3 G5 Scleria triglomerata (Tall Nut-rush) END S1 G5 Scleria verticillata (Whorled Nut-rush) THR S2 G5 Scutellaria ovata var. versicolor (Ovate-leaved Skullcap) THR S2 G5T5 Silene drummondii ssp. drummondii (Drummond's Campion) SPC S3 G5T5 Silene nivea (Snowy Campion) THR S2 G4? Solidago mollis (Soft Goldenrod) SPC S3 G5 Stellaria longipes ssp. longipes (Long-stalked Chickweed) SPC S3 G5T5 Stuckenia vaginata (Sheathed Pondweed) END S1 G5 Sullivantia sullivantii (Reniform Sullivantia) THR S2 G4 Symphyotrichum shortii (Short's Aster) SPC S3 G5 Taenidia integerrima (Yellow Pimpernel) SPC S3 G5 Tephrosia virginiana (Goat's-rue) SPC S3 G5 Trichophorum clintonii (Clinton's Bulrush) THR S2 G4 Trillium nivale (Snow Trillium) SPC S3 G4 Triplasis purpurea var. purpurea (Purple Sand-grass) SPC S3 G4G5TNR Utricularia geminiscapa (Hidden-fruited Bladderwort) THR S2 G4G5 Valeriana edulis var. ciliata (Valerian) THR S2 G5T3

Appendix 9

Federal MN State Global Status Rank Rank Scientific Name (Common Name) Status Verbena simplex (Narrow-leaved Vervain) SPC S3 G5 Viola lanceolata var. lanceolata (Lance-leaved Violet) THR S2 G5T5

Viola nuttallii (Yellow Prairie Violet) THR S2 G5 Vitis aestivalis var. bicolor (Silverleaf Grape) THR S2 G5TNR Woodsia oregana ssp. cathcartiana (Oregon Woodsia) SPC S3 G5T5 Xanthisma spinulosum var. spinulosum (Cutleaf Ironplant) SPC S3 G5T4Q

Nonvascular Plant

Bryoxiphium norvegicum (Sword Moss) END S1 G5? Fungus

Buellia nigra (A Species of Lichen) SPC S3 G1G2 Psathyrella cystidiosa (A Species of Fungus) END S1 GNR Psathyrella rhodospora (A Species of Fungus) END S1 G1?

An Explanation of Fields:

Federal Status: The status of the species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act: LE = endangered; LT = threatened; LE,LT = listed endangered in part of its range, listed threatened in another part of its range; LT,PDL = listed threatened, proposed for delisting; C = candidate for listing. If null or 'No Status,' the species has no federal status.

MN Status: The legal status of the plant or animal species under the Minnesota Endangered Species Law: END = endangered; THR = threatened; SPC = special concern.

State Rank: Rank that best characterizes the relative rarity or endangerment of the taxon or plant community in Minnesota. The ranks do not represent a legal status. They are used by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to set priorities for research, inventory and conservation planning. The state ranks are updated as inventory information becomes available. S1 = Critically imperiled in Minnesota because of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S2 = Imperiled in Minnesota because of rarity or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S3 = Vulnerable in Minnesota either because rare or uncommon, or found in a restricted range, or because of other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S4 = Apparently secure in Minnesota, usually widespread. S5 = Demonstrably secure in Minnesota, essentially ineradicable under present conditions. SH = Of historical occurrence in the state, perhaps having not been verified in the past 20 years, but suspected to be still extant. An element will become SH without the 20-year delay if the only known occurrences in the state were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. SNR = Rank not yet assessed. SU = Unable to rank. SX = Presumed extinct in Minnesota. SNA = Rank not applicable. S#S# = Range Rank: a numeric range rank (e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate the range of uncertainty about the exact status of the element. S#B, S#N = Used only for migratory animals, whereby B refers to the breeding population of the element in Minnesota and N refers to the non-breeding population of the element in Minnesota.

Global Rank: The global (i.e., range-wide) assessment of the relative rarity or imperilment of the species or community. Ranges from G1 (critically imperiled due to extreme rarity on a world-wide basis) to G5 (demonstrably secure, though perhaps rare in parts of its range). Global ranks are determined by NatureServe, an international network of natural heritage programs and conservation data centers. Appendix 10