U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Assessment for The

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Environmental Assessment

for the

2017 Proposed Hunt Plan Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge Polk County, Minnesota

Regional Director Region 3, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Abstract: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to provide compatible hunting opportunities for migratory game bird, upland game, and big game species on units of Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) acquired after 2005. Glacial Ridge NWR is located in northwestern Minnesota. This environmental assessment evaluates three possible alternatives for hunting opportunities. The Proposed Action Alternative will establish compatible hunting opportunities on units of the Refuge that were acquired since the 2005 Glacial Ridge NWR Hunt Plan was completed. It will also expand hunting opportunities to multiple species of non-migratory game birds and other small game. Concurrently, it will provide non-hunting visitors with other priority public use opportunities (i.e., wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation). Species and seasons approved as part of this plan will apply to future land acquired by the Service within the 35,670-acre approved acquisition boundary for Glacial Ridge NWR. The proposed hunting opportunities will only involve those lands owned in fee title by the Service. The general broad objectives of the hunting program are:

• Provide the public with safe and enjoyable hunts that are compatible with the Refuge purpose. • Provide quality hunting opportunities that minimize conflict with other public use activities. • Provide the public with opportunities to hunt migratory game birds, upland game, and big game species that are largely consistent with the state of Minnesota, that don’t adversely affect localized wildlife populations, and are consistent with the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act. • Promote a better understanding and appreciation of tallgrass prairie habitats and their associated wildlife resources. • Provide the flexibility for Refuge staff to explore specific hunting opportunities for people with disabilities and youth hunters in the future, under the life of this Hunt Plan.

For further information about the environmental assessment, please contact:

Gregg A. Knutsen, Refuge Manager Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge 17788 449th St. SE Erskine, MN 56530 218-687-2229 x16 [email protected]

Responsible Agency and Official: Thomas O. Melius, Regional Director U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 5600 American Blvd. West Bloomington, MN 55437-1458 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 1

Chapter 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND THE ALTERNATIVES ...... 5

Chapter 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 9

Chapter 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 19

Chapter 5 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ...... 75

Chapter 6 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 76

Chapter 7 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS ...... 77

Chapter 8 PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT DOCUMENTS ...... 78

Chapter 9 REFERENCES CITED…………………………………………………..79

iii CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

SECTION 1.1 Purpose

This Environmental Assessment and Hunt Plan is a step down plan of the Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP; USFWS 2016), as well as an update to the initial Hunting Chapter of the Glacial Ridge NWR Visitor Services Plan (2005), which initially opened Service-owned lands within the Glacial Ridge NWR acquisition boundary to hunting.

The Purpose of this Environmental Assessment is to evaluate alternatives for opening and administering a hunting program on units of the Refuge acquired since 2005, and expanding hunting opportunities throughout the Refuge to multiple species of non-migratory game birds and other small game.

SECTION 1.2 Need

Providing compatible wildlife-dependent recreation and education activities on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is a priority of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The NWRS Administration Act of 1966 (Act) as amended by the NWRS Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) provides authority for the Service to manage the Refuge and its wildlife populations. In addition, it declares that compatible wildlife- dependent public uses are legitimate and appropriate uses of the Refuge that are to receive priority consideration in planning and management. There are six wildlife-dependent public uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation. The Act directs managers to facilitate recreational opportunities, including hunting, on NWRs when compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established and the mission of the NWRS.

Hunting on Glacial Ridge NWR will allow Refuge staff to manage wildlife populations at acceptable levels, provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for the public, and promote a better understanding and appreciation of tallgrass prairie habitats and their associated wildlife resources. Implementation of the proposed actions will be consistent and compatible with the Refuge Recreation Act, Refuge Administration Act, and the Environmental Assessment for the Glacial Ridge NWR CCP.

SECTION 1.3 Scoping and Public Involvement

On February 22, 2017, Refuge staff hosted a Glacial Ridge NWR Hunt Plan Scoping Meeting in Crookston, MN. Ten members of the public attended the meeting. Overall, those in attendance were supportive of continued hunting on the Refuge. Two hunting-related written comments were received during the meeting. A summary of those comments follows:

1.) Glacial Ridge NWR should be closed to deer hunting with firearms. Only youth 1

and military veterans should be allowed to hunt deer on the Refuge with firearms. Other hunters should be restricted to archery equipment.

2.) Hunters should be able to use ATVs/UTVs to retrieve deer on the Refuge.

Refuge staff responses to the above comments are in Chapter 8 of this document.

On February 28, 2017, Refuge staff met with other conservation partners who own land within the Glacial Ridge NWR Acquisition Boundary. The meeting was attended by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) area Conservation Officer, Tom Hutchins, the MNDNR’s Acting Area Manager for the Crookston Wildlife Office, Emily Hutchins. Brian Winter and Matt Mecklinburg, both of The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) Glyndon Field Office, were also in attendance. Getting input from the MNDNR and TNC on future hunting plans on the Refuge was a critical part of plan development, given that land ownership within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary is currently a patchwork of privately owned land, Service land, MNDNR land, and TNC land. Current hunting regulations on the Refuge were reviewed and potential future changes to the hunt program were discussed. Partner staff in attendance were supportive of our potential proposed expansion of portions of the Refuge open to hunting, as well as opening the Refuge to certain new game species. A valuable part of the meeting was discussion on which species should potentially be opened to hunting on the Refuge. Although several species were readily agreed upon by all in attendance, others warranted much discussion. The decision process for which Minnesota game species to not open the Refuge to is included in Chapter 4, section 4.3.5A.

SECTION 1.4 Decisions That Need To Be Made

This Environmental Assessment is prepared to evaluate the environmental consequences of opening recently acquired units of Glacial Ridge NWR to hunting, and the types of hunting that will be allowed. Three alternatives are presented in this document:

• Only allow hunting on the three parcels of land, totaling 2,300 acres, that were opened to hunting of specific migratory bird species, greater prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus cupido), sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) as part of the original (2005) Glacial Ridge NWR Hunt Plan. (No Action Alternative)

• Expand hunting opportunities on the Refuge to units acquired post-2005 and through 2016, but otherwise keep the list of huntable species the same as in the 2005 Hunt Plan.

• Expand hunting opportunities on the Refuge to units acquired post-2005 and allow new hunting opportunities for tree squirrels (Sciurus spp.), rabbits and hares (Sylvilagus floridanus and Lepus spp.), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), gray (Hungarian) partridge (Perdix perdix), and wild turkeys 2

(Meleagris gallopavo). (Preferred Alternative).

The Regional Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota, is the official responsible for determining the action to be taken in the proposal by choosing an alternative. He will also determine whether this Environmental Assessment is adequate to support a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) decision, or whether there is a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, thus requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

SECTION 1.5 Background

Glacial Ridge NWR was created under the legal authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Feb. 18, 1929, 16 U.S.C. 715d and the Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C. 3901b. Funds appropriated by Congress, and the sale of Federal Duck Stamps were used to acquire land. The lands authorized for acquisition include:

“Sec. 715d. Purchase or rental of approved areas or interests therein; gifts and devises; United States lands. The Secretary of the Interior may –

(2) acquire, by gift or devise, any area or interests therein; which he determines to be suitable for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.”

“The primary purpose for the refuge under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act is ‘for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.’”

Glacial Ridge NWR was established in 2004 to restore and preserve the character of the historic prairie and savanna landscape (Figure 1). The Refuge started with an initial transfer of 1,993 acres of land TNC to the Service. Prior to the being transferred, these parcels were enrolled in the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) administered by the Natural Resource Conservation Service.

The initial transfer in 2004 was followed by 5,113 more acres in 2008; 7,056 acres in 2010; and a total of 5,947 acres in 2012 and 2013. Presently, the Refuge includes 22,851 acres owned in fee. The approved acquisition boundary encompasses a total of 35,670 acres. Some of the land inside of the 35,670 acre acquisition boundary is owned by the MNDNR and by TNC, and is likely to continue to be held by conservation partners as state wildlife management areas and TNC preserves. Glacial Ridge NWR contributes approximately 36,000 acres to the conservation landscape. By itself, the Refuge will have limited impact on the retention of open space, the persistence of wildlife species, and the maintenance of ecosystem services. However, Refuge efforts combined with activities and partnerships across the larger conservation network have great potential to provide a measure of sustainability to the Nation’s natural resources and provide the mechanism for the Service to meet its critical mission. The Refuge works in concert with several state and regional partners in the conservation of our trust resources through a variety of projects and programs. Oversight and coordination of Glacial Ridge NWR is the

Figure 1. Location of Glacial Ridge NWR 4

responsibility of the Project Leader of the Detroit Lakes WMD/Glacial Ridge NWR Complex.

CHAPTER 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND THE ALTERNATIVES

SECTION 2.1 Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Study

A “no hunting alternative” that would not allow hunting on any portion of Glacial Ridge NWR was eliminated from detailed study. This was done because portions of the Refuge have been hunted since 2006 and these same lands were also hunted prior to becoming part of the Refuge in 2004. Additionally, hunting is one of the Service’s six priority wildlife-dependent public uses. The NWRS Improvement Act of 1997 directs managers to facilitate recreational opportunities, including hunting, on NWRs when compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established and the mission of the NWRS.

SECTION 2.2 Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis

This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to evaluate the environmental consequences of opening and administering a hunting program on units of the Refuge that were acquired since 2005, and expanding hunting opportunities throughout the Refuge to multiple species of non- migratory game birds and other small game.

Three alternatives are presented in this document:

Alternative A: Only allow hunting on the three parcels of land, totaling 2,300 acres (Figure 2), that were opened to hunting of specific migratory bird species, greater prairie-chickens, sharp- tailed grouse, and white-tailed deer as part of the original (2005) Glacial Ridge NWR Hunt Plan. (No Action Alternative)

Alternative B: Expand hunting opportunities on the Refuge to units acquired post-2005 and through 2016, but otherwise keep the list of huntable species the same as in the 2005 Hunt Plan.

Alternative C: Expand hunting opportunities on the Refuge to units acquired post-2005 and allow new hunting opportunities for tree squirrels, rabbits, ruffed grouse, ring-necked pheasants, gray partridge, and wild turkeys. (Preferred Alternative)

2.2.1 Alternative A: Only allow hunting on the three parcels of land, totaling 2,300 acres, that were opened to hunting of specific migratory bird species, greater prairie-chickens, sharp-tailed grouse, and white-tailed deer as part of the original (2005) Glacial Ridge NWR Hunt Plan. (No Action Alternative)

Under this alternative, public hunting opportunities on the Refuge would be limited, as only 2,300 (10%) of the current 22,851 acres would be open to hunting. As land continues to be 5

Figure 2. Approved hunting areas on Glacial Ridge NWR, according to the 2005 Refuge Hunt Plan 6

acquired within the 35,670-acre acquisition boundary, it would not be opened to hunting under this Hunt Plan. Current hunting would be restricted to waterfowl, greater prairie-chickens (hereafter, prairie chickens) and sharp-tailed grouse, and white-tailed deer, as outlined in the 2005 Refuge Hunt Plan. Therefore, substantial inconsistencies would exist between hunting regulations on the Refuge, as compared to MNDNR-owned wildlife management areas that lie within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary. The Refuge units would continue to serve as habitat for wildlife and provide opportunity for five of the compatible wildlife dependent public uses – wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, interpretation, and hunting.

2.2.2 Alternative B: Expand hunting opportunities on the Refuge to units acquired post- 2005 and through 2016, but otherwise keep the list of huntable species the same as in the 2005 Hunt Plan.

This alternative would allow hunting on all Service lands acquired as part of Glacial Ridge NWR through 2016, with the exception of the portion of the Refuge that lies to the north of County Highway 45 and east of State Highway 32 and a small portion of the Refuge that borders the Glacial Ridge Project Office on its north, west, and south sides (Figure 3). The northeast portion of the Refuge would remain closed to all hunting. Future land acquisitions would have to be opened through a new environmental assessment and hunt plan. The huntable species outlined in the 2005 Refuge Hunt Plan would not change. Therefore, substantial inconsistencies would exist between hunting regulations on the Refuge, as compared to MNDNR-owned wildlife management areas that lie within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary.

2.2.2 Alternative C: Expand hunting opportunities on the Refuge to units acquired post- 2005 and allow new hunting opportunities for tree squirrels, rabbits, ruffed grouse, ring- necked pheasants, gray partridge, and wild turkeys. (Preferred Alternative)

This alternative would allow hunting on all Service lands acquired as part of Glacial Ridge NWR since the 2005 Refuge Hunt Plan, including any future land acquisitions within the Refuge’s approved acquisition boundary. However, as proposed in Alternative B, the portion of the Refuge that lies to the north of County Highway 45 and east of State Highway 32 would remain closed to all hunting, as would approximately 140 acres of land that surrounds the Glacial Ridge Project Office to its north, west, and south. Additionally, hunting opportunities would be expanded to include several new non-migratory bird species and small game species, thereby improving hunting regulation standardization with MNDNR-owned wildlife management areas that lie within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary and providing additional hunting opportunity for the public.

1.) The Refuge is large enough to support the anticipated quantity, frequency, and duration of expanded hunter use without adversely affecting game populations or habitat conditions within the local area. 2.) Increased acreage and species open to hunting will not have adverse effects on any federally listed or candidate species. 3.) An expanded area of the Refuge can be opened to hunting with jeopardizing public safety. 7

Figure 3. Service-owned property and other conservation lands within the Glacial Ridge NWR Acquisition Boundary (2016). 8

4.) Public access to newly opened hunting units would not require travel across private lands or closed government lands. 5.) Sites are available in parts of the Refuge that would be newly opened to hunting for hunters to park their vehicles legally and in a manner that will not adversely affect the habitat or existing public travel routes.

SECTION 2.3 Alternatives Action Table

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

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

SECTION 3.1 Physical Characteristics

Glacial Ridge NWR lies in the outwash plain (footprint) of ancient Glacial Lake Agassiz, formed 12,000 to 9,000 years ago. The wave action of this lake created beach ridges that still exist. The Agassiz beach ridges encompass an area greater than 600,000 acres in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie ecoregion (Teller and Clayton 1983). The beach ridges run from northeast to southwest with a glacial moraine located on the east side of the Refuge. This moraine helped form lakes which in turn created a “fire shield.” The fire shield stopped the frequent fires that occurred throughout the beach ridge landscape and allowed forests to develop where fire was rare, with grasslands in the fire-prone area. Thus, the Refuge is situated with its eastern edge bordered by lakes and hardwood forests and the western edge adjacent to the Red River Valley, historically occupied by tallgrass prairie (USFWS 2005a). Non-wooded areas east of the Refuge are now almost entirely farmed.

North American hydrology is influenced by continental divides causing water to flow in general directions and drain into various water bodies. Among these is the Northern or Laurentian Divide that causes water to flow to the Arctic Ocean. Glacial Ridge NWR is located north of this divide and so water flowing through the Refuge drains toward the Hudson Bay. Native peoples referred to the ridge causing this divide and running from east of Grand Rapids to Hoyt Lakes as the “sleeping giant” or “Mesabi” (U.S. Department of the Interior 2008).

The typical soils of Polk County are generally dark and range in texture from clayey to sandy. Soils in the western half of the county where Glacial Ridge NWR is located formed in silty and clayey lacustrine sediments. Soils in the eastern half of the county in the forest-prairie transition zone formed in loamy glacial till and sandy and gravelly outwash material.

The retreat of Glacial Lake Agassiz and gravel beach ridges, which the massive lake left behind have greatly influenced the hydrology and the mosaic of habitats found today. Dry and mesic 9

Table 1: Alternatives Action Table ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Action (No Action Alternative) Allow Hunting on Most Refuge Units (Preferred Alternative) Allow Hunting According to 2005 Acquired Through 2016 Allow Hunting on Most Refuge Units, Including Refuge Hunt Plan New Acquisitions, and Expand Huntable Species Species that Will be White-tailed deer, prairie chickens, White-tailed deer, prairie chickens, sharp- White-tailed deer, prairie chickens, sharp-tailed Hunted sharp-tailed grouse, ducks, geese, tailed grouse, ducks, geese, mourning grouse, ducks, geese, mourning doves, American mourning doves, American woodcocks, doves, American woodcocks, Wilson’s woodcocks, Wilson’s snipe, soras, Virginia rails, Wilson’s snipe, soras, Virginia rails, snipe, soras, Virginia rails, and American American coots, ruffed grouse, gray partridge, ring- and American coots, as allowed by coots, as allowed by federal, state, and necked pheasants, wild turkeys, tree squirrels, and federal, state, and Refuge-specific Refuge-specific regulations. rabbits, as allowed by federal, state, and Refuge- regulations. specific regulations. Compatible with Yes. Provides for priority public uses Yes. Provides for priority public uses and Yes. Provides for priority public uses and maintains Refuge Goals and and maintains healthy wildlife maintains healthy wildlife populations to healthy wildlife populations to benefit the northern Purpose populations to benefit the northern benefit the northern tallgrass prairie tallgrass prairie ecosystem. tallgrass prairie ecosystem. ecosystem. Provides for Priority Yes. Provides for limited hunting Yes. Provides for hunting opportunities. Yes. Provides for expanded hunting opportunities. Public Uses opportunities. Hunting and Non- Yes. Hunting is not allowed on 90% of No/Yes. Does not separate uses. Conflicts No/Yes. Does not separate uses. Conflicts possible, hunting Activities the Refuge; therefore, no conflict exists possible, but deemed minimal. If but deemed minimal. If conflicts exist, Refuge Segregated with non-hunting activities in this area. conflicts exist, Refuge manager would be manager would be able to close an area or unit to able to close an area or unit to alleviate alleviate conflicts. Area closed to hunting remains conflicts. Area closed to hunting remains open to non-consumptive uses. open to non-consumptive uses. Meets Needs No. Does not maximize hunting No. Does not maximize hunting Yes. Maximizes hunting opportunities as identified Identified by Public opportunities as identified by most opportunities as identified by most public by most public and partners. and Partners public and partners. and partners. Substantial inconsistencies remain between huntable species on Refuge versus state and privately owned lands.

prairies formed on the well-drained ridge tops, whereas groundwater discharge from the western slopes of the ridges created fens, wet meadows, wet prairies, and shallow wetlands. In recent times, agriculture has severely altered the natural hydrology of the Refuge as the drainage of wetlands has allowed more productive farmland and has set the foundation for development in some areas. Approximately 125 miles of drainage ditches existed at the time TNC purchased the property in 2000. In addition to the construction of drainage ditches, portions of the beach ridges throughout the Refuge acquisition area have been mined for gravel (Brown et al. 2005).

SECTION 3.2 Biological Environment

3.2.1 Habitat

Glacial Ridge NWR is situated on the edge of the prairie pothole region (PPR) of western Minnesota, between the flat Red River Valley floodplain on the west and the rolling hardwood forest and lakes region on the east. The acquisition area is a mosaic of pastures, cropland, small aspen woodlots, ungrazed prairie, numerous undrained and drained wetland basins, fen habitat, and several gravel/sand operations (Figure 4). The original goal of the Glacial Ridge Project was to facilitate restoration of the grasslands and wetlands to as close to pre-settlement conditions as practical.

The retreat of the Wisconsin glacier left approximately 25 million depressional wetlands of all shapes and sizes in the PPR. A variety of typical wetland types are found on Glacial Ridge NWR, defined by soil type, duration of standing water, and vegetation communities. Some are fed by groundwater, but most are fed by rain and snowmelt. Temporary and seasonal wetlands, those that hold water for a few days to a couple months after thaw, make up the greatest number but the least acreage of the all wetland types. Semi-permanent and permanent wetlands, which typically hold water for an entire growing season or longer, are found at lesser densities but have the most surface acres of water (Stewart and Kantrud 1971; Kantrud and Stewart 1977).

Historically, numerous wetlands and fens were located between the beach ridges, however many of these have been either completely or partially drained. Wetlands of the PPR are extremely important to North American waterfowl populations. The availability of wetlands (Kantrud and Stewart 1977) and distribution of emergent cover (Weller and Spatcher 1965; Murkin et al. 1982) drive the numbers of breeding waterfowl in the PPR. Hemi-marsh (equal interspersion of open water and emergent vegetation) has been shown to support the greatest waterfowl breeding pair density and species diversity (Weller and Spatcher 1965; Kaminski and Prince 1981; Murkin et al. 1982) and can be present in seasonal and semi-permanent wetlands. Although only 10 percent of the available waterfowl breeding habitat is found in the PPR, nearly 50 percent of waterfowl production occurs there (Batt et al. 1989). Historically, when the Dakotas and Saskatchewan experienced drought conditions, waterfowl shifted to the eastern and northern fringes of the PPR to breed, including the area of Glacial Ridge NWR.

Many wetlands were drained for farming as settlers began making their livelihood in the PPR. Rudimentary drainage ditches were dug to release water from small temporary or seasonal basins. 11

Figure 4. Current habitat types present within the Glacial Ridge NWR Acquisition Boundary.

As technology advanced, larger networks of surface ditches were created or subsurface tile installed to more efficiently drain all types of wetlands. Despite the extensive drainage, many former wetland sites still retain enough water to make crop production very difficult during wet years. Many farmers in this area have trouble with planting crops in wet fields and flooding losses are common. Today, interconnected temporary, seasonal, and semi-permanent wetlands are drained into basins at lower elevations, which increases their water level and permanence—a process known as consolidation drainage (Krapu et al. 2004). Consolidation drainage changes the hydrology and chemistry of wetlands, favoring the establishment and proliferation of cattail (Typha spp.; Kantrud 1986), sustaining introduced fish communities (Anteau 2011), and ultimately diminishing wetland quality for waterfowl breeding and brood rearing (Krapu et al. 2004; Anteau 2011) and shorebird foraging (Anteau 2011). This practice continues in force today. It is estimated that over 85 percent of wetlands in Minnesota’s PPR have been lost to drainage (Johnson et al. 2008). The former wetlands on the east side of the acquisition area once served as a major groundwater recharge location for the prairie habitats located on the west side. The instream waters of Burnham, Badger/Maple Creek and the Gentilly River, the field drainage ditches, gravel pit ponds, and a few remaining natural basins comprise the extent of permanent wetland types in the study area.

The prairies found throughout the Refuge acquisition area are in varying states of health; remnant prairies showcase the diversity that was once abundant throughout the landscape, whereas other sites have experienced a high rate of degradation. Prairie plants can be divided into three groups: grasses, shrubs, and forbs. Grasses make up 90 percent or more of the biomass of the prairie, but there are relatively few species. Shrubs make up a small percentage of the biomass, and like grasses, there are few species. Forbs account for 90 percent or more of the diversity in high quality remnant prairies. Therefore, utilizing remnant prairies as reference sites enables managers to set a level of quality and establish a benchmark for prairie assessment and measuring restoration success.

Prior to Refuge establishment, pasture and croplands, including cultivated row crop fields, alfalfa (Medicago sativa), and agricultural lands enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), encompassed over 80 percent of the acquisition area. The CRP is a voluntary program that offers annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to establish long-term resource-conserving covers on eligible land. Annual rental payments are made based on the agriculture rental value of the land. The program also provides cost-share assistance for establishing natural vegetative cover and for other approved conservation practices. The cultivated fields are planted primarily to soybeans or wheat. Additional tracts of tallgrass prairie have been cleared of boulders to facilitate future cultivation.

Historically, fires and bison (Bison bison) herds were major sources of disturbance on the prairie landscape (Collins and Wallace 1990; Biondini et al. 1999). Tallgrass prairie is a fire-dependent ecosystem (Collins and Wallace 1990). The climate is actually wet enough to support trees (Briggs et al. 2005), but fire kept the trees in check and favored grasses (Leopold 1949). Fire removes residual vegetation and litter layers, allowing seeds to germinate and new plants to

13 become established. It also revitalizes the soil, building up nutrients important for flower and seed production. When fire is removed from the system, prairie eventually succeeds to trees and forests (Heisler et al. 2003).

Most accounts from the historic literature show that fires in the tallgrass prairie region were most common in the fall (Wilcox 1907; Higgins 1986; McClain and Elzinga 1994; Pyne 1997), primarily the month of October. These same sources show that fires were quite frequent, with fires often referred to as “annual,” but not necessarily in the same location. Given the topography of the tallgrass prairie, Wright and Bailey (1980) suggest a fire frequency of five to ten years is reasonable. However, a more recent literature review suggests fire frequencies in the tallgrass region of Minnesota and Wisconsin were between two and three years but were highly dependent on the climate (Dickmann and Cleland 2002).

While lightning is the primary source of ignition in western forests, lightning in the Midwest is usually accompanied by heavy rains. Lightning does cause fires in tallgrass prairie, but only rarely. The vast majority of historic fires were set by indigenous people. The frequent records of October fires are during a time of the year when lightning storms are rare, lending more evidence that most fires were started by people. As Europeans settled the tallgrass prairie region, most fires were caused by locomotives and equipment used to clear the land, and fire frequencies remained high. By the 1920s, fire frequency and intensity waned as settlement increased and effective fire suppression programs began.

Grazing also is important to the maintenance of tallgrass prairie (Biondini et al. 1998). Bison were the primary grazers in western Minnesota, with deer browsing on shrubs and young woody vegetation and elk (Cervus canadensis) never being widespread and abundant like bison. Over 95 percent of the bison diet is grasses (Plumb and Dodd 1993). Removal of these grasses releases the forb community from competition, dramatically increasing plant species diversity in grazed prairie (Hartnett et al. 1996; Towne et al. 2005). The increased plant diversity increases the diversity and abundance of invertebrates (Joern 2005). Grazing creates a patchwork of vegetation structure from ungrazed to lightly grazed to heavily grazed areas. Patterns of standing vegetation affect fire pattern and behavior.

Fire and grazing interactions were important in the distribution of prairie vegetation communities across the landscape. Based on historical fire and grazing patterns, animals preferentially selected burned areas because of the young, green shoots and grazed them heavily. When another area burned, they moved to the newly burned patch. The interaction between fire and grazing created a shifting mosaic of microhabitats for grassland birds, prairie invertebrates, other wildlife, and vegetation.

Immediately to the east of the Refuge, the Des Moines ice lobe deposited a number of moraines from the last glaciation (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2005). The resulting collection of lakes along the node created a “fire shield” on the edge of the prairie that resulted in the development of a maple–basswood forest community, the farthest north and west extension

of this habitat type in Minnesota (Kuchler 1964). In addition, a few wooded areas are scattered throughout the acquisition area—mostly on state and private lands.

Locally, sandy flat areas that received periodic disturbance from fire-formed sand plains which occur locally within the moraines. These areas were dominated by prairie, savanna, and oak (Quercus spp.) and aspen (Populus spp.) woodlands. This is especially true of the Anoka Sand Plains and the sandy terraces along the major rivers. In these areas, droughty soils and absence of impediments to the spread of fire promoted fire-dependent prairie and woodland vegetation.

According to the 2012 USDA Census, Polk County had 1,322 farms totaling nearly 1.1 million acres which encompasses over 87 percent of the county’s total land base. The average farm size is about 828 acres, which is almost double the national average. Crops are planted on 991,405 acres which is higher than the national average, while buildings, woodland, and pasture/rangeland compose the remaining 100,000 acres. Cash receipts from livestock and products have remained relatively stable for the past 30 years while cash receipts from crops has greatly fluctuated through time. Farm employment accounts for 9.6 percent of the jobs in Polk County, which has remained relatively stable for the past 30 years.

3.2.2 Wildlife

Birds The tallgrass prairie and wetlands in the area that is now Glacial Ridge NWR are key habitats for resident birds, migratory birds, and other wetland- and grassland-obligate species. An estimated 98 percent of the tallgrass prairie and 90 percent of the wetlands have vanished from the prairie pothole region of Minnesota that once existed prior to settlement (Minnesota Prairie Plan Working Group 2011). Prairie chickens and sharp-tailed grouse are residents of the Refuge. In 1999, at least 21 prairie chicken booming grounds were documented within the acquisition area (Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society). Booming grounds, also known as dancing grounds or leks, are gathering sites for male prairie chickens and sharp-tailed grouse trying to attract females during the breeding season. Use of the recorded sites ranged from three to 30 individual males. Other birds known to use the area include Le Conte’s sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii), clay- colored sparrow (Spizella pallida), vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago delicata) and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). Farming practices have changed dramatically in the past 30 years. Much of the grazing of the past has given way to large- scale row crop farming. The loss of hay and pasture acreage is strongly correlated with declines in grassland bird populations throughout the Midwest (Herkert 1995).

The existing beach ridge wetlands are an important stopover in spring and fall for many migratory birds. Puddle ducks - primarily mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), some wood ducks (Aix sponsa), American wigeon (Anas americana), and blue-winged teal (Anas discors) - and Canada geese (Branta canadensis) are frequently observed where water is available. The Refuge is used during the migration periods by numerous shorebirds, waterfowl, sandhill cranes and tundra swans. Large numbers of sandhill crane (Grus canadensis; estimates of over 20,000) also frequent the area to refuel on their journey from wintering to nesting grounds and again during 15

their return south each autumn. A small number currently nest in the area each summer. Large flocks of American white pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) and tundra swans (Cygnus columbianus) are also seen in the spring when water conditions are favorable. Resident Canada geese (giant) use the open water wetlands, including the gravel pit located in the center of the Refuge acquisition area. Concentrations of geese are often observed on the pit during the fall migration period and provide local hunting opportunities.

Mammals The Refuge supports a variety of resident mammals that are locally abundant depending on the availability of food sources, loafing areas and security habitat. White-tailed deer and white-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus townsendii) are common throughout the acquisition area. Furbearers, including red fox (Vulpes vulpes), coyote (Canis latrans), long- and short-tailed weasels (Mustela frenata and Mustela erminea), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), mink (Neovison vison), beaver (Castor canadensis), and raccoons (Procyon lotor) also are locally common and seen in the area on a regular basis. All of these species are very familiar to local farmers, hunters, and highway motorists. Mammals tend to be most abundant in “edge” habitats, especially those that border agricultural fields. Agricultural crops are seasonally important food sources to some of the resident mammals, especially deer. However, the availability of natural foods during winter, spring, and early summer places a strict limit on local mammal populations. Moose (Alces alces) were common inhabitants of what is now Glacial Ridge NWR through the mid- 1990s, but they are now uncommon due to a widespread population decline throughout Minnesota.

Reptiles and Amphibians Streams, ditches and wetland basins provide the aquatic habitat required for a variety of turtles, frogs, toads, salamanders, and snakes. Site-specific abundance data is limited for the Refuge; however, at least 18 species of amphibians and reptiles have been documented at the nearby Rydell NWR (USFWS 2001). These species are important food sources for many mammals, birds and fish. Their numbers and diversity are often indicators of the health of an ecosystem. Many species of reptiles and amphibians are declining on state and national levels.

Fish and Other Aquatics Three drainage systems occur within Glacial Ridge NWR. A fishery survey of the Red Lake River system documented 46 species. No current information is available on the Sandhill River system. In addition, no surveys have been conducted on the streams or lakes within the Refuge. Populations of gamefish, such as yellow perch (Perca flavescens), panfish (Lepomis spp.), and northern pike (Esox lucius) are probably restricted to Bakken Lake and the scattered deepwater lakes on the southeast end of the acquisition area. The extensive drainage that has occurred throughout the study area has left limited fish habitat; however, some small native species, such as white sucker (Catostomus commersonii) and creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) can be observed in the drainage ditches and in pools near road culverts.

Focal Species Priority wildlife species of concern on Glacial Ridge NWR, as identified in the Glacial Ridge CCP (USFWS 2016) include the following: Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae), Poweshiek skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), prairie chicken, upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), western meadowlark, blue-winged teal, mallard, northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), sedge wren (Cistothorus platensis), and marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa).

3.2.3 Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species

Federally listed Threatened and Endangered Species that may occur within the boundaries of the Refuge’s acquisition boundary include the gray wolf (Canis lupus), Dakota skipper and Poweshiek skipperling, the western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara) the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and the rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis). Candidate species include the Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii).

Gray wolf The gray wolf is listed as a threatened species in Polk County. In recent years the gray wolf has expanded its range to include oak savannah and tall grass prairie areas that were historically occupied. The Refuge is on the edge of currently occupied range at this time. No known packs or territories are known to be present on the Refuge.

Dakota skipper The Dakota skipper is listed as a threatened species in Polk County. No Dakota skippers or their critical habitat have been identified on Glacial Ridge NWR. The Dakota skipper occurs in two types of habitat (both found on isolated tracts within the Refuge). The first is relatively flat and moist native bluestem prairie in which three species of wildflowers are usually present and in flower when Dakota skippers are in their adult (flight) stage - wood lily (Lilium philadelphicum), harebell (Campanula rotundifolia), and smooth camas (Zygadenus elegans). The second habitat type is upland (dry) prairie that is often on ridges and hillsides. Bluestem grasses and needle grasses (Stipa spp.) dominate these habitats and three wildflowers are typically present in high quality sites that are suitable for Dakota skipper: pale purple (Echinacea pallida) and upright (E. angustifolia) coneflowers and blanketflower (Gaillardia sp.) This species is highly tied to native prairie.

Poweshiek skipperling The Poweshiek skipperling is listed as an endangered species in Polk County, Minnesota. Poweshiek skipperlings have not been found on Glacial Ridge NWR, but habitat to meet this species needs is found on the refuge. No Critical Habitat for POSKs has been designated on Glacial Ridge NWR. The Poweshiek skipperling is currently thought to be extirpated from Minnesota. Poweshiek skipperlings use similar high quality prairie sites as Dakota skipper, with a preference for more mesic to wet prairie including the following species: joe-pye-weed (Eutrochium maculatum), common boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum), Virginia mountain mint

(Pycnanthemum virginianum), black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta), and Graminoid dominants include the sedges Carex stricta, C. buxbaumii, C. tetanica, and C. lasiocarpa, hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans), and fringed brome (Bromus ciliatus). This species is highly tied to native prairie.

Western prairie fringed orchid The western prairie fringed orchid is listed as a threatened in Polk County and is found in numerous locations on the Refuge. The moist tall grass prairie and sedge meadow plant communities that are known habitats for the western prairie fringed orchid are found on Glacial Ridge NWR. Annual inventory and regular communication with the Twin Cities Field Office regarding the population status and management actions planned for maintaining conditions on Glacial Ridge NWR are ongoing and will continue.

Northern long-eared bat The northern long-eared bat is listed as a threatened species in Polk County. To date, no known northern long-eared bats have been documented on Glacial Ridge NWR, and old records of bat surveys conducted by the Minnesota DNR also do not show any occurrences. In addition, the Natural Heritage Information System database documented the closest occurrence down in the Sherburne, MN-area, approximately 220+ miles away.

Rusty patched bumble bee The rusty patched bumblebee is listed as an endangered species in Polk County; however, Polk County is not one of 11 Minnesota counties in which it is expected to be found. Rusty patched bumble bees inhabit large expanses of grasslands and tallgrass prairie. Minnesota is one of only 13 states in which this species has been documented since 2000.

SECTION 3.3 Land Use

All lands owned by the Service within Glacial Ridge NWR currently consist of a mix of grassland, savanna, wetlands, and small aspen woodlots. The Refuge’s acquisition area also includes a mosaic of pastures, cropland, and several gravel/sand operations. Lands surrounding the Refuge include scattered conservation properties (i.e., USFWS waterfowl production areas, TNC preserves, MNDNR wildlife management areas), but are predominantly agriculture. According to the 2012 USDA Census, Polk County had 1,322 farms totaling nearly 1.1 million acres which encompasses over 87 percent of the county’s total land base. The average farm size is about 828 acres, which is almost double the national average. Crops are planted on 991,405 acres which is higher than the national average, while buildings, woodland, and pasture/rangeland compose the remaining 100,000 acres. Cash receipts from livestock and products have remained relatively stable for the past 30 years while cash receipts from crops has greatly fluctuated through time. Farm employment accounts for 9.6 percent of the jobs in Polk County, which has remained relatively stable for the past 30 years. The Glacial Ridge Project Area is essentially an island of habitat within a sea of agriculture.

SECTION 3.4 Historical Properties and Cultural Resources

As of September 26, 2000, Polk County contains six properties on the National Register of Historic Places, and all are historic period structures located in cities. European settlement of the Glacial Ridge area was slow and sparse compared to other regions of Minnesota. During the mid- 19th century the area that is now the Refuge was part of the historic Red River oxcart trail system. The oxcart trails were used by immigrants traveling between St. Paul, MN and the Selkirk Settlement near present day Winnipeg, Manitoba. The Woods (Pembina) Trail, a segment of the main route, traversed the west end of the study area (Minnesota Historical Society 1979). Despite such a limited data base, the assumption must be made that undiscovered prehistoric sites are likely, especially for the Woodland culture (500 BP to anno Domini [AD] 1650), as well as the sites of former buildings and structures. The Cheyenne tribe is the earliest historic period tribe in the area, replaced by the Ojibwa.

SECTION 3.5 Local Socio-Economic Conditions

Glacial Ridge NWR is located in Polk County in northwestern Minnesota, east of Crookston, MN. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the total population in Polk County was 31,600, which is about a 0.01 percent increase since the 2000 U.S. Census. The population is 93 percent from a European descent, primarily German and Norwegian, 5.4 percent Hispanic or Latino, and 1.4 percent Native American. Twenty percent of the population has attained a bachelor’s degree or higher, and about 17 percent of the population is over the age of 65.

The median income in 2009 for Polk County was $43,731, which is lower than the state median. From 2000 to 2010 Polk County’s unemployment rate increased from 4.8 percent to 5.7 percent. A total of 14,610 housing units exist in which 72.7 percent are owner occupied. Equipment manufacturing, crop farming, and wholesale trade are the major industries in Polk County. Polk County is highly ranked within the state of MN in terms of total value of agricultural goods sold. The major crops of Polk County include oilseed, sunflowers, small grains, sugar beet, corn, and soybean.

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter describes the foreseeable environmental consequences of implementing the three management alternatives in Chapter 2. When detailed information is available, a scientific and analytic comparison between alternatives and their anticipated consequences is presented, which is described as “impacts” or “effects.” When detailed information is not available, those comparisons are based on the professional judgment and experience of Refuge staff and Service and MNDNR biologists.

SECTION 4.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative - Only allow hunting on the three parcels of land, totaling 2,300 acres, that were opened to hunting of specific migratory bird species, greater prairie-chickens, sharp-tailed grouse, and white-tailed deer as part of the original (2005) Glacial Ridge NWR Hunt Plan.

Without a hunting program on Refuge land acquired since the 2005 Hunt Plan, 20,550 acres of Refuge land would essentially represent a sanctuary unavailable to the public for the harvest of wildlife resources. Under this Alternative, the Refuge would not fully meet one of its priority objectives: increasing public opportunities for outdoor recreation and environmental education, and would be contrary to the President's Executive Order (Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System) directing the Service to provide expanded opportunities on Refuges for compatible wildlife dependent recreational activities, including hunting. Maintaining new Refuge lands as sanctuaries could encourage land acquisition adjacent to Refuge lands by private parties lured by the prospects of enhanced hunting opportunities. The result could impede the Service's ability to purchase properties within the Refuge Acquisition Boundary, thereby reducing the potential to fully realize the purposes for which the Refuge was established.

4.1.1 Habitat Impacts

No hunting-related public use impacts on vegetation are expected under this alternative.

4.1.2 Biological Impacts

This alternative will result in few, if any, biological impacts given that only a small percentage of the Refuge will be open to hunting. Potential damage to adjacent agricultural croplands, as well as to young prairie reconstructions, may occur without the white-tailed deer and resident (breeding) giant Canada goose population control provided by hunting. Also, when population levels exceed carrying capacity, deer and waterfowl are susceptible to disease outbreaks (e.g., botulism, avian cholera, chronic wasting disease) that can result in high mortality. This can result in an abrupt decline in population, which can adversely affect a species’ genetic structure.

4.1.3 Listed Species

No effect is expected for any of the threatened and endangered species found within the boundaries of Glacial Ridge NWR as a result of this alternative. Any effect that does occur is not likely to be adverse.

4.1.4 Historic Properties and Cultural Resources

There are no properties documented on the National Register of Historic Places within the Glacial Ridge NWR acquisition boundary. However, during the mid-19th century the land which 20

is now the Refuge was part of the historic Red River oxcart trail system. The Woods (Pembina) Trail, a segment of the main route, traverses the western half of the Refuge from north to south. The oxcart trails were used by immigrants traveling between St. Paul, MN and present day Winnipeg, Manitoba (Minnesota Historical Society 1979). No impact to this trail from hunting is anticipated, since only walking access of the trail will be allowed. No vehicle use of the trail is allowed for hunting or other public uses.

4.1.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis of the No Action Alternative

4.1.5.A Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impact on Wildlife Species

Under this alternative, 2,300 acres of Refuge land acquired prior to 2005 would remain open to hunting as described in the 2005 Hunt Plan, whereas new (post-2005) acquisitions described in this Hunt Plan would be closed to hunting. The Service has allowed and administered a public hunting program on the Refuge since the 2005. The ability of staff to estimate hunting visits to the Refuge is limited, but past staff observations suggest hunting pressure is and has been low.

This alternative could allow deer populations to become too large on portions of the Refuge, which in turn would create a situation of over browsing of sensitive vegetation, such as bur oak (Quercus marcrocarpa) seedlings and saplings or over grazing of new prairie seedings or associated cover crops. This can cause degradation of the plant community and reduction of food available for the population. This would have negative impacts on grassland-nesting birds and on other resident and non-resident wildlife populations whose life requirements include diverse grassland communities.

Disturbance to Refuge wildlife would continue, as it is presently caused by non-consumptive users (e.g., birdwatchers) on tracts not open to hunting.

Non-hunted Resident Wildlife:

Non-hunted wildlife would include small mammals such as voles, moles, mice, and shrews; reptiles and amphibians such as snakes, skinks, turtles, lizards, salamanders, frogs and toads; and invertebrates such as butterflies, moths, other insects and spiders. Except for migratory birds and some species of migratory butterflies and moths, these species have very limited home ranges and hunting would not affect their populations regionally. Some species of butterflies and moths are migratory. Cumulative effects to these species at the “flyway” level should be negligible. Any hunter interaction would be similar to that of non-consumptive users. Disturbance to non-hunted wildlife would increase slightly. However, significant disturbance would be unlikely since many of these species are nocturnal and many are relatively inactive during the fall season in northwestern Minnesota. Both of these life history traits make hunter interactions with small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians during most of the hunting season uncommon. Invertebrates are also not active during cold weather and would have few interactions with hunters during the hunting season. Refuge regulations further mitigate possible disturbance by hunters to non-

hunted wildlife. Vehicles are restricted to roads and the harassment or taking of any wildlife other than the game species legal for the season is not permitted.

Hunted Resident (State-Managed) Wildlife:

White-tailed Deer

The portion of Glacial Ridge NWR that is open to hunting under this alternative lies only within white-tailed deer hunting permit area (PA) 256 (Figure 5); therefore, the annual framework for white-tailed deer harvest during the youth, archery, regular firearms, and muzzleloader seasons is managed by the MNDNR, according to their annual harvest designation (e.g., lottery, hunters choice, managed) for each PA. PA 256 is 654 square miles in size (2016 MNDNR Deer Harvest Report; http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/wildlife/deer/reports/harvest/deerharvest_2016.pdf; accessed 6/12/2017); therefore, the huntable land within the Refuge comprises only 0.5% of the PA. In 2016, overall hunting pressure within this PA was less than four hunters per square mile and only 1.9 deer were harvested per square mile. A total of 1,039 deer were harvested in this PA during 2016, when the yearly limit was one deer of either sex per hunter. Using the MNDNR’s estimate of 1.9 deer harvested per square mile, a maximum number of seven deer were harvested in 2016 on the approximately 3.6 square miles of Refuge land open to hunting under this alternative. That equates to less than 0.7% of the entire harvest in PA 256. According to the Service’s Refuge Annual Performance Planning (RAPP) database, there were approximately 150 “Big Game Hunting” visits on Glacial Ridge 2016.

Between 2006 and 2016, the annual deer harvest in PA 256 has ranged from 335 to 1,361. The 11-year mean harvest during that timeframe is 971; comparable to but less than the harvests in both 2015 and 2016. MNDNR wildlife researchers conduct simulation modeling of deer populations within PAs to understand historical deer herd dynamics, predict population sizes, and to explore the impacts of various hunting regulations on populations. To aid in decision-making, the output from population modeling is considered along with deer harvest metrics, hunter success rates, surveys of hunter and landowner satisfaction with deer populations, and deer population goals set through a public process. Hunting is the primary method to manage white- tailed deer populations in Minnesota and the MNDNR annually adjusts how conservative or liberal the harvest framework is in each PA, in order to keep deer populations within their established goal ranges. Refuge staff feel that the MNDNR’s deer management strategy will ensure a healthy and huntable deer population on Glacial Ridge NWR into the future.

Prairie Chickens

Hunting seasons for prairie chickens in Minnesota were closed from 1943 through 2002. During October 2003, a limited-entry, five-day hunting season for prairie chickens was held within seven contiguous permit areas in western Minnesota. Permits were awarded through a lottery system, and each hunter could harvest a maximum of two prairie chickens. In 2003, prairie chicken hunting was held on portions of land that later became Glacial Ridge NWR. At that

Figure 5. Minnesota deer hunting permit area boundaries (256 and 257), as they relate to Glacial Ridge NWR. 23

time, the land was owned by TNC. Following the completion of the 2005 Hunt Plan, prairie chicken hunting was allowed on three parcels of Glacial Ridge NWR (2,300 acres). These parcels all lay within the MNDNR’ s prairie chicken zone 805A (Figure 6). Zone 805A is approximately 66,000 acres in size; therefore, the huntable Refuge land within comprises only 3% of it. Between 2006 and 2016, the number of prairie chickens harvested in all of Zone 805A has ranged from 2 to 20 and averaged 13 per year over the 11-year peri od (2016 MNDNR Prairie Chicken Harvest Report; http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/prairiechicken/2016- harvest.pdf; accessed 6/17/2017). Refuge staff estimate that only a portion of this harvest occurred on Refuge land. According to the Service’s RAPP database, there have been approximately 60 “Upland Game Hunting” visits per year on Glacial Ridge NWR since 2012. Overall prairie chicken harvest in MN has ranged from 78 to 133 and averaged 112.6 per year over this same period of time. Annual MNDNR-led spring surveys of prairie chicken leks (breeding grounds) throughout Minnesota suggest that the population has been relatively stable in recent years and that reduced densities in the years after 2008 are tied to dramatic reductions in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acreage, rather than hunting (Figure 7), according to the 2016 MNDNR Spring Prairie Chicken Survey (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/prairiechicken/2016-survey.pdf; accessed 6/17/2017). Because surveys of breeding prairie chickens are completed annually and hunter harvest is controlled through a conservative lottery-based permit system and nine-day season, Refuge staff feel that this hunting season results in a negligible long-term change (i.e., compensatory mortality) to the Refuge’s prairie chicken population.

Sharp-tailed Grouse

The traditional sharp-tailed grouse hunting season is closed in Minnesota, south of U.S. Highway 2, because this area represents the southern “fringe” of their range in northwestern Minnesota (Figure 8). Therefore, no part of Glacial Ridge NWR is open to this season. However, due to the potential for misidentification of sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chickens, licensed prairie chicken hunters who are hunting south of U.S. Highway 2 are allowed to harvest up to two sharp- tailed grouse in place of their allotted two prairie chickens. The MNDNR does not keep track of sharp-tailed grouse harvest by individual prairie chicken permit area. Therefore, Refuge staff anticipate that a very small number of sharp-tailed grouse are harvested from the Refuge and allowing them to be taken in lieu of prairie chickens has no impact on their population.

Migratory Birds:

Figure 6. Minnesota prairie chicken hunting zone boundaries (804A and 805A), as they relate to hunting on Glacial Ridge NWR. 25

Figure 7. Prairie chicken population trend in Minnesota. Mean males/breeding ground (circles connected by solid line) and booming grounds/km2 (triangles connected by dashed line) in survey blocks with 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 8. Minnesota sharp-tailed grouse range and hunting area. General ranges of the northwest (NW) and east-central (EC) sharp-tailed grouse populations are depicted, as well as the southern boundary (line) of the state’s hunting area.

giving due regard to "the zones of temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such birds, and are updated annually” (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This responsibility has been delegated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the lead federal agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States. Acknowledging regional differences in hunting conditions, the Service has administratively divided the nation into four Flyways for the primary purpose of managing migratory game birds. Each Flyway (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) has a Flyway Council, a formal organization generally composed of one member from each State and Province in that Flyway. Glacial Ridge NWR is located in the Mississippi Flyway.

The process for adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations, located in 50 CFR part 20, is constrained by three primary factors. Legal and administrative considerations dictate how long the rule making process will last. Most importantly, however, the biological cycle of migratory game birds controls the timing of data-gathering activities and thus the dates on which these results are available for consideration and deliberation. The process of adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations includes two separate regulations-development schedules based on "early" and "late" hunting season regulations. Early hunting seasons pertain to all migratory gamebird species in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; migratory game birds other than waterfowl (e.g., dove); and special early waterfowl seasons, such as teal or resident Canada geese. Early hunting seasons generally begin prior to October 1. Late hunting seasons generally start on or after October 1 and include most waterfowl seasons not already established. There are basically no differences in the processes for establishing either early or late hunting seasons. For each cycle, Service biologists and others gather, analyze, and interpret biological survey data and provide this information to all those involved in the process through a series of published status reports and presentations to Flyway Councils and other interested parties.

Because the Service is required to take an abundance of migratory birds and other factors in to consideration, the Service undertakes a number of surveys throughout the year in conjunction with the Canadian Wildlife Service, state and provincial wildlife-management agencies, and others. To determine the appropriate framework for each species, the Service considers factors such as population size and trend, geographical distribution, annual breeding effort, the condition of breeding and wintering habitat, the number of hunters, and the anticipated harvest. After frameworks are established for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting, migratory game bird management becomes a cooperative effort of state and federal governments. After Service establishment of final frameworks for hunting seasons, the states may select season dates, bag limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons. States may always be more conservative in their selections than the federal frameworks, but never more liberal. Season dates and bag limits for national wildlife refuges open to hunting are never longer or larger than the state regulations. In fact, based upon the findings of an environmental assessment developed when a National Wildlife Refuge opens a new hunting activity, season dates and bag limits may be more restrictive than the State allows. The waterfowl season on Glacial Ridge NWR will follow the frameworks set in place for Minnesota.

Service policy 605 FW2 states, “If a refuge, or portion thereof, has been designated, acquired, reserved, or set apart as an inviolate sanctuary, we may only allow hunting of migratory game birds on no more than 40% of that refuge, or portion, at any one time unless we find that taking of any such species in more than 40% of such area would be beneficial to the species.” This environmental assessment ensures that the management of migratory bird hunts at Glacial Ridge NWR strictly adheres to this policy and that migratory bird hunting is restricted to the season, bag limits, and other regulations based on the state in which the hunting occurs and on any Refuge-specific regulations.

Waterfowl

Glacial Ridge NWR contributes to existing waterfowl production at an average rate of 6-50 breeding duck pairs per square mile, depending on the part of the Refuge. In general, Glacial Ridge NWR provides the following benefits to waterfowl: 1) protect prairie remnants containing wetland/grassland complexes that are critical to waterfowl production, 2) enhance waterfowl recruitment by providing adequate and secure nesting cover, 3) improve degraded prairie remnant habitat, and 4) provide upland prairie restoration. The above efforts will contribute to the following breeding waterfowl populations: northern pintail (Anas acuta), redhead (Aythya americana), northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), blue-winged teal, mallard, gadwall (Anas strepera), wood duck, canvasback (Aythya valisineria), lesser scaup (Aythya affinis), hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus), ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), and Canada. Grassland management techniques also result in enhanced quality of nesting cover for waterfowl.

Breeding population estimates are made each year for 10 key species of ducks in the principal breeding areas of Alaska, Canada, and the north central United States. Surveys are conducted in May and early June by the Service, Canadian Wildlife Service, and provincial and state conservation agency personnel. Ducks are counted from fixed-wing aircraft on the same transects each year. Estimates of ducks and ponds seen from the air are corrected for visibility bias by conducting ground counts on a sample of the transects. Although numbers of breeding ducks have fluctuated substantially from year to year, trend analysis suggests that total duck numbers are stable. This stable trend, however, is the result of increasing numbers of some species (e.g., gadwall, green-winged teal [Anas crecca], shovelers, blue-winged teal) and decreasing numbers of others (e.g., pintails, lesser scaup). Despite the improvements in duck numbers in the mid- 1990s, there are still concerns about the long-term loss of both wetland and upland habitat in the prairie pothole region and the long-term outlook for duck populations in the future. Duck populations have fluctuated substantially over time. Duck populations will continue to fluctuate in the future as the numbers of “wet ponds” on the landscape in north-central North America rise and fall during periods of drought and deluge.

assessments are based on the distribution, abundance, and flight corridors of migratory birds. The 2016 report showed that in the traditional survey area, the total breeding duck population was 48.4 ± 0.8 (SE) million birds. This estimate is similar to the 2015 population estimate (49.5 ± 0.8 (SE) million birds) and 38% above the long-term average (USFWS 2016).

In Minnesota, overall wetland conditions in spring 2016 were dry, similar to 2015. During early May 9% of the state was considered in drought condition, and by early June, 43% was under a drought. The number of permanent or semi-permanent wetlands was similar to 2015 and 13% below the long-term average. Despite the dry conditions, the total duck population in Minnesota, excluding scaup (Aythya spp.), was 768,000, 47% above last year’s index of 524,000, and 25% above the long-term average (1968–2015). The 2016 estimated Minnesota mallard breeding population was 243,000, similar to last year’s estimate of 206,000, and to the long-term average of 228,000 (USFWS 2016).

According to the MNDNR’s 2016 Waterfowl Population Survey Report (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/waterfowl/waterfowl_survey2016.pdf; accessed 6/1/2017) the 2016 breeding Canada goose population estimate was 108,000, which was 33% lower than in 2015 and 32% below the 10-year average. For survey purposes, two distinct populations of Canada geese migrate through Minnesota. These include the Mississippi Flyway Interior Population (MFIP) and the Central Flyway Arctic Nesting Population (CFAN). The CFAN can be sub-divided into the East and West tiers. Only the East Tier of the CFAN migrates through Minnesota (USFWS 2016). In 2016, the MFIP was 70,000 and no prior survey population was available. The CFAN was 625,000, which was a 25% decrease from 2015, but comparable (- 1%) to the 10-year average. The Mid-continent Population of light geese (collectively snow geese [Chen caerulescens] and Ross’s geese [Chen rossii], was 3,453,000 (USFWS 2016). The Mid-continent Population migrates through Minnesota. This was a 5% increase from 2015, and similar (+ 4%) to the 10-year average.

According to the Service, the statewide duck harvest (all species) in Minnesota over the past 10 years (2006-2015) has ranged from 392,300 to 749,360 and averaged 582,803. Figure 9 depicts “all species” duck harvest in the state from 1961 - 2015 (Flyways.us; https://flyways.us/regulations-and-harvest/harvest-trends; accessed 6/7/17). The 2015 duck harvest was nearly identical to the 10-year average, at 573,350 and was approximately 2,000 ducks greater than the 2014 harvest. Table 2 lists the 2014 and 2015 Minnesota and Mississippi Flyway duck harvest totals by species (Raftovich et al. 2016). The statewide fall goose harvest (all species) over the past 10 years has ranged from a low of 143,700 in 2015 to a high of 248,310 in 2011. Figure 10 depicts “all species” goose harvest in the state from 1961 - 2015 (Flyways.us; https://flyways.us/regulations-and-harvest/harvest-trends; accessed 6/7/17). The 10- year average was 197,745 geese. A Minnesota hunting framework that continues to include a special early Canada goose season, with liberal daily bag limits on targeted breeding giant Canada geese, has resulted in the intended results of a reduced Minnesota breeding goose population and, therefore, a reduced annual goose harvest trend.

Figure 9. Minnesota duck harvest (all species) from 1961 - 2015. 31

Table 2. Preliminary estimates of waterfowl harvest in Minnesota and the Mississippi Flyway in 2014 and 2015 (Raftovich et al. 2016)

Minnesota Harvest Mississippi Flyway Harvest Species 2014 2015 2014 2015

Mallard 161,859 166,366 1,992,886 1,695,598 Domestic mallard 0 0 680 1,087 American black 1,465 0 15,885 16,254 duck Black X mallard 0 343 1,747 1,692 Gadwall 12,451 17,510 947,364 559,674 American wigeon 7,690 8,927 84,575 63,988 Green-winged 31,859 41,199 911,663 529,417 teal Blue-winged teal 82,028 76,562 648,805 506,316 Northern shoveler 13,549 8,240 294,147 155,309 Northern pintail 2,563 8,240 115,644 95,746 Wood duck 114,620 130,465 602,451 557,838 Redhead 25,268 16,480 122,872 86,213 Canvasback 6,592 12,703 43,558 30,696 Greater scaup 366 2,060 37,927 25,053 Lesser scaup 2,563 13,046 156,083 118,419 Ring-necked 67,014 65,546 250,727 183,485 duck Goldeneye 1,099 3,777 32,910 25,123 Bufflehead 15,014 23,690 70,647 73,064 Ruddy duck 2,197 1,030 20,930 4,805 Scoters 0 0 9,309 3,100 Long-tailed duck 0 343 1,774 11,409 Hooded 20,873 7,210 54,723 37,751 merganser Other 732 0 3,384 2,925 mergansers/ducks

Figure 10. Minnesota goose harvest (all species) from 1961 - 2015.

The portion of the Refuge open to migratory bird hunting and therefore “waterfowl” according to the 2005 Hunt Plan consists of approximately 900 acres of land. Within these “open” areas, there are less than 20 acres of semipermanent and permanent wetlands (2017 National Wetland Inventory Update for Minnesota; https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-nat-wetlands-inv-2009- 2014; accessed 6/28/2017), which constitute the wetland habitats most likely to provide fall hunting opportunities in most years. According to the Service’s RAPP database, there were approximately 175 “Waterfowl Hunting” visits to Glacial Ridge NWR in 2014, 2015, and 2016.

Based primarily on anecdotal evidence, Refuge staff anticipate that the Refuge waterfowl harvest on the Refuge in past years has been minimal and falls into the category of “compensatory” versus “additive” mortality, thereby resulting in no impact to continental or Minnesota breeding populations for all of the huntable species. According to Raftovich et al. (2016), Minnesota duck hunters harvested an average of 1.6 ducks per day in 2015. Therefore, one can expect a harvest of 280 ducks per year on Glacial Ridge NWR. This is likely a maximum duck harvest, because some of the estimated 175 “Waterfowl Hunting” visits were likely focused on the hunting of geese, versus ducks. This equates to less than 0.05% of the overall Minnesota duck harvest. During 2015, Minnesota goose hunters harvested an average of 0.5 geese per day. Therefore, we can expect a harvest of 88 geese per year on Glacial Ridge NWR, under this alternative. This equates to 0.06% of the overall Minnesota goose harvest. The estimated harvest of 88 geese per year, based on “Waterfowl Hunting” visits is likely inflated. Little targeted goose hunting likely occurs on the Refuge, as the vast majority of goose hunting in Minnesota is done in harvested agricultural fields, versus over water. There is presently zero opportunity to hunt geese over harvested crops on Glacial Ridge NWR. Ultimately, we expect no impact to continental or Minnesota breeding waterfowl populations will occur under this alternative.

Mourning Doves

The mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) is one of the most abundant species in both urban and rural areas of North America. The annual harvest is estimated to be between 5% and 10% of the population (Otis et al. 2008). Population assessments, such as counts of doves heard, are used to monitor mourning dove populations. The resulting information is used by wildlife administrators in setting annual hunting regulations (Seamans 2016). Over their entire range, there has been a dove decline in the last 50 years, but not the most recent 10 years (Seamans 2016). Overall abundance of doves in the Central Management Zone, of which Minnesota is a part, remained unchanged from 2014 to 2015 (Seamans 2016).

Relatively little mourning dove habitat exists within the two areas (~ 900 acres) open to migratory bird hunting within the 2005 Refuge Hunt Plan and therefore, this alternative. Nesting and roosting habitat is limited to scattered pockets and rows of trees located in a tallgrass prairie landscape. This is reflected in the fact that the Service’s RAPP databased estimates only 30 “Other Migratory Bird Hunting” visits annually, over the last five years. This category includes, but is not limited to, mourning dove hunters. Despite the fact that Minnesota’s mourning dove hunting season is typically more than two months long, in northern Minnesota the onset of cold

temperatures typically results in most mourning doves having left the area by mid-late September.

In 2015, an estimated 96,700 mourning doves were harvested in Minnesota, with an average harvest of 10 doves per hunter (Seamans 2016). Annual mourning dove harvest is tracked through the Service’s Harvest Information Program (HIP). It is reasonable to expect that 10 of the 30 “Other Migratory Bird Hunting” visits are dove hunters. We know that each Minnesota dove hunter harvested 3.3 doves per day in 2015; therefore, an estimated 33 doves were harvested from the Refuge that year. This is 0.03% of the statewide harvest.

Woodcock

The American woodcock (Scolopax minor) is a popular game bird throughout eastern North America. The management objective of the Service is to increase populations of American woodcock to levels consistent with demands of consumptive and non-consumptive users (USFWS 1990). The Woodcock Singing Ground Survey for 2016 indicated that indices for singing American woodcock males in the Central Management Region (which includes Minnesota) are not significantly different from 2015 (Seamans & Rau 2016). The 10-year trend was not significantly different and it was the fifth straight year that the trend has remained stable (Seamans & Rau 2016). Specifically, Minnesota was the only state in the Central Management Region that showed a significantly increasing 10-year trend.

Relatively little American woodcock habitat exists within the two areas (~ 900 acres) open to migratory bird hunting within the 2005 Glacial Ridge NWR Hunt Plan. The early successional woody habitat is limited to scattered pockets and rows of trees and brush located in a tallgrass prairie landscape. This is reflected in the fact that the Service’s RAPP databased estimates only 30 “Other Migratory Bird Hunting” visits annually, over the last five years. This category includes, but is not limited to, American woodcock hunters. It is reasonable to expect that 10 of the 30 “Other Migratory Bird Hunting” visits are by woodcock hunters. We know that each Minnesota woodcock hunter harvested 0.5 woodcock per day in 2015; therefore, an estimated 5 woodcock were harvested from the Refuge that year. This is 0.02% of the statewide harvest. In 2015, an estimated 25,600 American woodcock were harvested in Minnesota and the average seasonal harvest per hunter was 1.9 birds (Seamans and Rau 2016).

Snipe, Rail, and Coot

The life histories of Wilson’s snipe, sora (Porzana carolina) Virginia rails (Rallus limicola), and American coots (Fulica Americana) make it difficult to estimate their populations. Breeding season data for rails in Minnesota and the Mississippi Flyway indicate that long-term populations are more or less stable (Sauer et al. 2014). The 10-year trend for sora shows a slight decrease, whereas the 10-year trend for Virginia rails is stable (non-significant increase) based on 2003- 2013 data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (Sauer et al. 2014). The MNDNR estimated the American coot population at 9,888 for 2015 (Dexter 2015).

Refuge staff expect that very few hunters attempt to harvest these species on Glacial Ridge NWR. Of the 30 “Other Migratory Bird Hunting” visits to the Refuge each year, we anticipate that the majority are for mourning doves and American woodcock. We estimate that 10 of the 30 “Other Migratory Bird Hunting” visits are for coot, snipe, and rails combined. Table 3 shows the 2015 harvest estimates for Minnesota, for woodcock, coot, snipe, and rails (Raftovich et al. 2016). Based on statewide harvest information, we estimate that zero rails are harvested off the Refuge in most years, and that less than 6 coots and 3 snipe are harvested from the Refuge in most years.

Table 3. 2015 Harvest Data for Woodcock, Coot, Snipe, and Rail (Raftovich et.al. 2016).

MINNESOTA

Active Seasonal Harvest Harvest Hunters per Hunter

American woodcock 25,600 13,500 1.9 American coot 4,400 1,500 3.0 Wilson’s snipe 500 200 2.5 Rail 0 0 0

4.1.5.B Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impact on Refuge Programs, Facilities, and Cultural Resources

Although hunting is one of the priority public uses and compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established, this alternative would not allow the public to participate in this activity on anything more than the three units and 2,300 acres that were originally opened as part of the 2005 Refuge Hunt Plan. Therefore, more than 20,550 acres of Refuge land would not be open to hunting. Hunting is also a way for the public to gain an increased awareness of Glacial Ridge NWR and the National Wildlife Refuge System. By prohibiting hunting on such a large percentage (~ 90%) of the Refuge and any future land acquisitions, the Service would not be meeting a public use demand and public relations would not be enhanced with local 36

communities.

The 20,551 acres of the Refuge not open to hunting under this alternative would be open to other priority public uses, including nature observation, photography, education, and interpretation.

Refuge Facilities. No additional impacts to Refuge facilities (e.g., roads, parking areas) will occur with this alternative. Under this alternative, Refuge facilities would continue to be used by non-consumptive visitors. Maintenance or improvement of existing roads and parking areas will cause minimal short-term impacts to localized soils and may cause some temporary wildlife disturbance.

Cultural Resources. This alternative will not have any additional impacts to cultural resources. No sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places are located on fee title tracts within the designated Refuge acquisition boundary. Any activities that might cause an effect to a historic property would be subject to a case-by-case Section 106 review.

4.1.5.C Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impact on Refuge Environment and Community The No Action Alternative will have little if any impact on soils, air quality, water quality or solitude. Vegetation, as stated above, could be affected if the deer population increases to a level to cause degradation of oak savanna and restored prairie communities.

This alternative may have impacts on hunting opportunities in the local area. Over the last 15 years it has become increasingly difficult for hunters to acquire access on private land throughout Minnesota. More and more landowners are either leasing their land for an entire season, charging hunters a daily fee, or selling their land for recreation use. This change in land use has increased the importance of public lands to hunters. Not opening new Refuge acquisitions to hunters will result in the continued decrease of lands open to hunting for the hunter. This will be exacerbated as additional lands are added to the Refuge. However, this alternative could possibly make the private land adjacent to these units more valuable. Most of Glacial Ridge NWR’s neighboring landowners will have a wildlife sanctuary adjacent to their land which, could conceivably make their property more valuable for leasing or to sell.

4.1.5.D Other Past, Present, Proposed, and Reasonably Foreseeable Hunts and Anticipated Impacts Hunting was allowed on most of these lands before they became part of Glacial Ridge NWR. These hunts were all done within the state regulations and seasons. This alternative would only allow hunting on 2,300 acres of the Refuge, regardless of how large it eventually gets. Therefore, we would not expect any anticipated impacts from this alternative.

4.1.5.E Anticipated Impacts If Individual Hunts are Allowed to Accumulate This alternative would not allow hunting on the newly acquired fee title units of Glacial Ridge NWR and therefore there would be no anticipated impacts.

4.1.6 Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Bill Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The Order directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The Order is also intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment, and to provide minority and low- income communities access to public information and participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. This assessment has not identified any adverse or beneficial effects for any of the three alternatives unique to minority or low-income populations in the affected area. None of the alternatives will disproportionately place any adverse environmental, economic, social, nor health impacts on minority or low-income populations. Hunting opportunities proposed on Glacial Ridge NWR already exist on state land and land owned by TNC located within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary.

Maintaining the “closed to hunting” status on the majority of a refuge’s fee title lands does not provide for all the priority public uses identified as goals of the Refuge or the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460K) and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668-ddee) provide authorization for hunting and fishing on National Wildlife Refuges. he effects of hunting on Refuges have been examined in several environmental review documents, including the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Operation of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1976), Recommendations on the Management of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1978), and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Management of the National Wildlife Refuges (1988). Nothing in the establishing authority for Glacial Ridge NWR [Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956{16U.S.C. 742f}] precludes hunting on the Refuge.

In the Glacial Ridge NWR CCP and Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2016), Alternative B was selected. Within Alternative B, Objective 2-1 reads: Develop and provide high quality hunting opportunities for the public while creating an educational and inclusive youth hunt program within five years of CCP approval.

SECTION 4.2 Alternative B: Expand hunting opportunities on the Refuge to units acquired post-2005 and through 2016, but otherwise keep the list of huntable species the same as in the 2005 Hunt Plan.

Under this Alternative, the Refuge would have the authority to open 16,963 of the acres that have

been acquired as part of Glacial Ridge NWR as of December 31, 2016. This acreage total includes the 2,300 acres that were originally opened under the 2005 Hunt Plan. The portion of the Refuge that lies to the north of County Highway 45 and to the east of State Highway 32 will remain closed to hunting and function as a wildlife sanctuary. The approximately 140 acres of land that surrounds the Glacial Ridge Project Office to its north, west, and south would also be closed to hunting as a safety measure (Figure 11). Presently, this proposed “closed” portion of the Refuge contains 5,888 acres. Any additional land acquisitions as part of the Refuge would have to be opened to hunting through a new environmental assessment and hunt plan. This would allow the Refuge to meet one of its priority objectives: increasing public opportunities for outdoor recreation and environmental education, and would be in line with the President's Executive Order (Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System) directing the Service to provide expanded opportunities on refuges for compatible wildlife dependent recreational activities, including hunting. However, given that under this alternative, the Refuge would still not be open to the hunting of several state-managed non-migratory game bird species (e.g., ruffed grouse, ring-necked pheasant) and small game species (e.g., tree squirrels, rabbits), there would still be a substantial regulatory discrepancy for hunters between Refuge land and state, TNC, and private lands that exist as a “patchwork” within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary.

4.2.1 Habitat Impacts

Hunting-related public use impacts on vegetation are expected to be minimal under this alternative. One issue that must be considered is the “trampling” of vegetation. However, despite the proposed increase in Refuge acreage open to hunting, the density of hunters is expected to remain low. Expanding the huntable area within the Refuge by more than 14,500 acres is actually likely to reduce hunter crowding and potential trampling impacts. Regarding sensitive species, such as the federally threatened western prairie fringed orchid, potential impact is greatly minimized due to the fall timing of hunting activity. Western prairie fringed orchids are generally fully senesced by mid-September, thereby eliminating potential impacts for the majority of the fall hunting seasons. Altogether, possible hunter trampling is likely less impactful than the prescribed cattle grazing that is implemented annually on Glacial Ridge NWR. In 2016, 100 cow/calf pairs grazed over 3,200 acres of the Refuge, with expected positive vegetative impacts.

4.2.2 Biological Impacts

Despite as many as 16,963 acres of Refuge land being open to hunting, this alternative will result in few, if any, biological impacts given what is expected to be a modest overall harvest of huntable species. Damage potential to adjacent agricultural croplands, as well as to native prairie vegetation, including young prairie reconstructions, should be minimal under this alternative. Wildlife disease outbreak potential should also be less than that associated with Alternative A, given the broad land base that would be open to hunting. Consideration does need

Figure 11. Portion of Glacial Ridge NWR that would remain closed to hunting under Alternative B and Alternative C. 40

to be given to potential disturbance of other wildlife species. However, despite the increased acreage open to hunting, we do not expect a substantial increase in hunting visits from the annual total of 415 reported in the RAPP database from 2014-2016. Hunting accounts for less than half of the 900-1,351 estimated overall visits to the Refuge during that same timeframe. Additionally, none of the hunting seasons under this alternative occur during migratory bird nesting seasons. Overall, we expect any increase in wildlife disturbance to be negligible under Alternative B.

4.2.3 Listed Species

No effect is expected for any of the threatened and endangered species found within the boundaries of Glacial Ridge NWR as a result of this alternative. With the exception of the gray wolf, all of the other listed species that may occur on the Refuge would likely not be present or active in the area (Dakota skipper, Powshiek skipperling, northern long-eared bat, rusty patched bumble bee) or would have senesced for the season (western prairie fringed orchid) during the fall hunting timeframe. Because coyotes are not a huntable species on the Refuge, there is essentially zero potential for accidental hunter harvest of a gray wolf.

4.2.4 Historic Properties and Cultural Resources

There are no properties documented on the National Register of Historic Places within the Glacial Ridge NWR acquisition boundary. However, during the mid-19th century the land which is now the Refuge was part of the historic Red River oxcart trail system. The Woods (Pembina) Trail, a segment of the main route, traverses the western half of the Refuge from north to south. The oxcart trails were used by immigrants traveling between St. Paul, MN and present day Winnipeg, Manitoba (Minnesota Historical Society 1979). No impact to this trail from hunting is anticipated, since only walking access of the trail will be allowed. No vehicle use of the trail is allowed for hunting or other public uses.

4.2.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis of the Proposed Action

4.2.5.A Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impact on Wildlife Species

Under this alternative, 16,963 acres of Refuge land acquired prior to 2017 would be opened to hunting. The Service has allowed and administered a public hunting program on the Refuge since 2005. The ability of staff to estimate hunting visits to the Refuge is limited, but past staff observations suggest hunting pressure is and has been low. This alternative should result in a deer population of an appropriate size, by following the population framework established by MNDNR big game biologists, who annually monitor and model Minnesota’s deer population. Similar to the deer population, the prairie chicken population is managed through a lottery-based framework by the MNDNR, who monitors breeding populations of this species annually. Regarding migratory birds, these fall hunting seasons would not interfere with the breeding and nesting seasons and despite the increased acreage open to hunting, as compared to Alternative A,

we still expect a very low harvest of ducks, geese, mourning doves, coots, rails, and snipe. This harvest would be negligible concerning population levels of these migratory species.

Disturbance to Refuge wildlife would continue, as it is presently caused by non-consumptive users on tracts not open to hunting.

Non-hunted Resident Wildlife:

Hunted Resident (State-Managed) Wildlife:

White-tailed Deer

Under this alternative, huntable portions of Glacial Ridge NWR lie within white-tailed deer hunting PAs 256 and 257 (Figure 5); therefore, the annual framework for white-tailed deer harvest during the youth, archery, regular firearms, and muzzleloader seasons is managed by the MNDNR, according to their annual harvest designation (e.g., lottery, hunters choice, managed) for each PA.

Between 2006 and 2016, the annual combined deer harvest in PAs 256 and 257 has ranged from 573 and 2509. The 11-year mean harvest during that timeframe is 1,669. This is comparable to the 2014 harvest and considerably less than the 2015 and 2016 harvests. MNDNR wildlife researchers conduct simulation modeling of deer populations within PAs to understand historical deer herd dynamics, predict population sizes, and to explore the impacts of various hunting regulations on populations. To aid in decision-making, the output from population modeling is considered along with deer harvest metrics, hunter success rates, surveys of hunter and landowner satisfaction with deer populations, and deer population goals set through a public process. Hunting is the primary method to manage white-tailed deer populations in Minnesota

42 and the MNDNR annually adjusts how conservative or liberal the harvest framework is in each PA in order to keep deer populations within their established goal ranges. Refuge staff feel that the MNDNR’s deer management strategy will ensure a healthy and huntable deer population on Glacial Ridge NWR into the future, regardless of how many acres of the Refuge are open to hunting.

Nonetheless, it is important to estimate how the increased acreage open to hunting under Alternative B will change the number of hunter visits and harvest. PAs 256 and 257 are a combined 1,066 square miles in size (2016 MNDNR Deer Harvest Report; http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/wildlife/deer/reports/harvest/deerharvest_2016.pdf; accessed 6/12/2017); therefore, the huntable land within the Refuge would comprise only 2.5% of the two PAs. In 2016, the average overall hunting pressure within these two PAs was 4.25 hunters per square mile and only 1.9 deer were harvested per square mile. A total of 1,861 deer were harvested in these two PAs during 2016, when the yearly limit was one deer of either sex per hunter. Using the MNDNR’s estimate of 1.9 deer per square mile, a maximum number of 51 deer would be harvested in 2016 on the approximately 26.5 square miles of huntable Refuge land, under this alternative. That equates to approximately only 2.7 percent of the total harvest in PAs 256 and 257. In reality, under this alternative, we anticipate that there will not be a significant increase in the number of “Big Game Hunting” visits reported in the RAPP database from the 150 that were estimated in 2016. A less than 5% increase in deer hunting activity on the Refuge is expected under this alternative, as compared to Alternative A.

Prairie Chickens

Under this alternative, huntable portions of the Refuge would lie in both prairie chicken zone 805A and 804A (Figure 6). Zone 805A is approximately 66,000 acres in size and Zone 804A is approximately 106,850 acres in size. Altogether, both zones total approximately 238,830 acres. Under this alternative, the huntable Refuge land within comprises less than 8% of them. Between 2006 and 2016, the number of prairie chickens harvested in all of Zone 805A has ranged from 2 to 20 and averaged 13 per year over the 11-year period (Table 3; cite MNDNR harvest report online). During that same timeframe, the number of prairie chickens harvested in all of Zone 804A ranged from 0 to 21 and averaged eight per year over the 11-year period (Table 3). Refuge staff estimate that only a portion of this harvest in both zones occurred on Refuge land. According to the Service’s RAPP database, there have been approximately 60 “Upland Game Hunting” visits per year on Glacial Ridge NWR, since 2012.

this alternative, the percentage of prairie chickens harvested from the Refuge may increase by as much as 5%. Based on the average number of prairie chickens harvested in zones 805A and 804A and the fact that not all of them are harvested from the Refuge, a 5% increase in harvest that might accompany this alternative would equate to one additional prairie chicken harvested within the Refuge each year. This increase in mortality is negligible and can be considered compensatory (versus additive) when considering the life history of this species. Overall prairie chicken harvest in MN has ranged from 78 to 133 and averaged 112.6 per year over this same period of time. Annual MNDNR-led spring surveys of prairie chicken leks (breeding grounds) throughout Minnesota’s prairie chicken range suggest that the prairie chicken population has been relatively stable in recent years and that reduced densities in the years after 2008 are tied to dramatic reductions in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acreage, rather than hunting (Figure 7), according to the 2016 MNDNR Spring Prairie Chicken Survey (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/prairiechicken/2016-survey.pdf; accessed 6/17/2017)). Because surveys of breeding prairie chickens are completed annually and hunter harvest is controlled through a conservative lottery-based permit system and nine-day season, Refuge staff feel that this hunting season results in a long-term negligible change (i.e., compensatory mortality) to the Refuge’s prairie chicken population.

Sharp-tailed Grouse

The traditional sharp-tailed grouse hunting season is closed in Minnesota, south of U.S. Highway 2, because this area represents the southern “fringe” of their range in northwestern Minnesota. Therefore, no part of Glacial Ridge NWR is open to this season (Figure 8). However, due to the potential for misidentification of sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chickens, licensed prairie chicken hunters who are hunting south of U.S. Highway 2 are allowed to harvest up to two sharp- tailed grouse in place of their allotted two prairie chickens. The MNDNR does not keep track of sharp-tailed grouse harvest by individual prairie chicken permit area. Therefore, Refuge staff anticipate that a very small number of sharp-tailed grouse are harvested from the Refuge and allowing them to be taken in lieu of prairie chickens has no impact on their population. Even with the potential increased harvest of one prairie chicken on the Refuge, if upland game hunting activity increased on the Refuge by 5% due to increased huntable acreage, the harvest of sharp- tailed grouse would only increase by one or less.

Migratory Birds:

annually” (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This responsibility has been delegated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the lead federal agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States. Acknowledging regional differences in hunting conditions, the Service has administratively divided the nation into four Flyways for the primary purpose of managing migratory game birds. Each Flyway (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) has a Flyway Council, a formal organization generally composed of one member from each State and Province in that Flyway. Glacial Ridge NWR is located in the Mississippi Flyway.

The process for adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations, located in 50 CFR part 20, is constrained by three primary factors. Legal and administrative considerations dictate how long the rule making process will last. Most importantly, however, the biological cycle of migratory game birds controls the timing of data-gathering activities and thus the dates on which these results are available for consideration and deliberation. The process of adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations includes two separate regulations-development schedules based on "early" and "late" hunting season regulations. Early hunting seasons pertain to all migratory game bird species in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; migratory game birds other than waterfowl (e.g., dove); and special early waterfowl seasons, such as teal or resident Canada geese. Early hunting seasons generally begin prior to October 1. Late hunting seasons generally start on or after October 1 and include most waterfowl seasons not already established. There are basically no differences in the processes for establishing either early or late hunting seasons. For each cycle, Service biologists and others gather, analyze, and interpret biological survey data and provide this information to all those involved in the process through a series of published status reports and presentations to Flyway Councils and other interested parties.

Because the Service is required to take an abundance of migratory birds and other factors in to consideration, the Service undertakes a number of surveys throughout the year in conjunction with the Canadian Wildlife Service, state and provincial wildlife-management agencies, and others. To determine the appropriate framework for each species, the Service considers factors such as population size and trend, geographical distribution, annual breeding effort, the condition of breeding and wintering habitat, the number of hunters, and the anticipated harvest. After frameworks are established for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting, migratory game bird management becomes a cooperative effort of state and federal governments. After Service establishment of final frameworks for hunting seasons, the states may select season dates, bag limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons. States may always be more conservative in their selections than the federal frameworks, but never more liberal. Season dates and bag limits for national wildlife refuges open to hunting are never longer or larger than the state regulations. In fact, based upon the findings of an environmental assessment developed when a national wildlife refuge opens a new hunting activity, season dates and bag limits may be more restrictive than the State allows. The waterfowl season on Glacial Ridge NWR will follow the frameworks set in place for Minnesota.

Service policy 605 FW2 states, “If a refuge, or portion thereof, has been designated, acquired, reserved, or set apart as an inviolate sanctuary, we may only allow hunting of migratory game

birds on no more than 40% of that refuge, or portion, at any one time unless we find that taking of any such species in more than 40% of such area would be beneficial to the species.” This plan ensures that the management of migratory bird hunts at Glacial Ridge NWR strictly adheres to this policy and that migratory bird hunting is restricted to the season, bag limits, and other regulations based on the state in which the hunting occurs and on any Refuge-specific regulations.

Waterfowl

The annual Waterfowl Population Status Report (USFWS 2016) includes data on the 2015 breeding population and production information available for waterfowl in North America and is a result of cooperative efforts by the Service, the Canadian Wildlife Service, various state and provincial conservation agencies, and private conservation organizations. These annual assessments are based on the distribution, abundance, and flight corridors of migratory birds. The 2016 report showed that in the traditional survey area, the total breeding duck population was 48.4 ± 0.8 (SE) million birds. This estimate is similar to the 2015 population estimate (49.5 ± 0.8 (SE) million birds) and 38% above the long-term average (USFWS 2016).

In Minnesota, overall wetland conditions in spring 2016 were dry, similar to 2015. During early May 9% of the state was considered in drought condition, and by early June, 43% was under a drought. The number of permanent or semi-permanent wetlands was similar to 2015 and 13% below the long-term average. Despite the dry conditions, the total duck population in Minnesota, excluding scaup, was 768,000, 47% above last year’s index of 524,000, and 25% above the long- term average (1968–2015). The 2016 estimated Minnesota mallard breeding population was 243,000, similar to last year’s estimate of 206,000, and to the long-term average of 228,000 (USFWS 2016).

According to the MNDNR’s 2016 Waterfowl Population Survey Report (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/waterfowl/waterfowl_survey2016.pdf; accessed 6/1/2017), the 2016 breeding Canada goose population estimate was 108,000, which was 33% lower than in 2015 and 32% below the 10-year average. For survey purposes, two distinct populations of Canada geese migrate through Minnesota. These include the Mississippi Flyway Interior Population (MFIP) and the Central Flyway Arctic Nesting Population (CFAN). The CFAN can be sub-divided into the East and West tiers. Only the East Tier of the CFAN migrates through Minnesota (USFWS 2016). In 2016, the MFIP 70,000 and no prior survey population was available. The CFAN was 625,000, which was a 25% decrease from 2015, but comparable (- 1%) to the 10-year average. The Mid-continent Population of light geese (collectively snow geese and Ross’s geese, was 3,453,000 (USFWS 2016). The Mid-continent Population migrates through Minnesota. This was a 5% increase from 2015, and similar (+ 4%) to the 10-year average.

According to the Service, the statewide duck harvest (all species) in Minnesota over the past 10 years (2006-2015) has ranged from 392,300 to 749,360 and averaged 582,803. Figure 9 depicts

“all species” duck harvest in the state from 1961 - 2015 (Flyways.us; https://flyways.us/regulations-and-harvest/harvest-trends; accessed 6/7/17). The 2015 duck harvest was nearly identical to the 10-year average, at 573,350 and was approximately 2,000 ducks greater than the 2014 harvest. Table 2 lists the 2014 and 2015 Minnesota and Mississippi Flyway duck harvest totals by species (Raftovich et al. 2016). The statewide fall goose harvest (all species) over the past 10 years has ranged from a low of 143,700 in 2015 to a high of 248,310 in 2011. Figure 10 depicts “all species” goose harvest in the state from 1961 - 2015 (Flyways.us; https://flyways.us/regulations-and-harvest/harvest-trends; accessed 6/7/17). The 10- year average was 197,745 geese. A Minnesota hunting framework that continues to include a special early Canada goose season, with liberal daily bag limits on targeted breeding giant Canada geese, has resulted in the intended results of a reduced Minnesota breeding goose population and, therefore, a reduced annual goose harvest trend.

The portion of the Refuge open to migratory bird hunting and therefore “waterfowl” under this alternative would consist of no more than 9,140 acres of land (according to Service policy 605 FW2). Within these proposed “open” areas, there are approximately 165 acres of semipermanent and permanent wetlands. This compares to approximately 20 acres of semipermanent and permanent wetlands within the portion of the Refuge open to migratory bird hunting under Alternative A (2017 National Wetland Inventory Update for Minnesota; https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-nat-wetlands-inv-2009-2014; accessed 6/28/2017), which constitute the wetland habitats most likely to provide fall hunting opportunities in most years. According to the Service’s RAPP database, there were approximately 175 “Waterfowl Hunting” visits to Glacial Ridge NWR in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Based primarily on anecdotal evidence, Refuge staff anticipate that the waterfowl harvest on the Refuge in past years has been minimal and falls into the category of “compensatory” versus “additive” mortality, thereby resulting in no impact to continental or Minnesota breeding populations for all of the huntable species. We anticipate no more than a 5% increase in waterfowl hunter use under this alternative, which would mean no more than 184 waterfowl hunter visits. According to Raftovich et al. (2016), Minnesota duck hunters harvested an average of 1.6 ducks per day in 2015. Therefore, we can expect a harvest of 294 ducks per year on Glacial Ridge NWR, under this alternative. This equates to 0.05% of the overall Minnesota duck harvest and is only a 14 duck per year increase over the expected harvest under Alternative A. This is likely a maximum duck harvest, because some of the estimated 184 waterfowl hunter visits were focused on the hunting of geese, versus ducks. During 2015, Minnesota goose hunters harvested an average of 0.5 geese per day. Therefore, we can expect a harvest of 92 geese per year on Glacial Ridge NWR, under this alternative. This equates to 0.06% of the overall Minnesota goose harvest and is only a 4 goose per year increase over the expected harvest under Alternative A. The estimated harvest of 92 geese per year, based on “Waterfowl Hunting” visits is likely inflated. Little targeted goose hunting likely occurs on the Refuge, as the vast majority of goose hunting in Minnesota is done in harvested agricultural fields, versus over water. There is presently zero opportunity to hunt geese over harvested crops on Glacial Ridge NWR. Ultimately, we expect no impact to continental or Minnesota breeding waterfowl populations will occur.

Mourning Doves

The mourning dove is one of the most abundant species in both urban and rural areas of North America. The annual harvest is estimated to be between 5% and 10% of the population (Otis et al. 2008). Population assessments such as counts of doves heard are used to monitor mourning dove populations. The resulting information is used by wildlife administrators in setting annual hunting regulations (Seamans 2016). Over their entire range, there has been a dove decline in the last 50 years, but not the most recent 10 years (Seamans 2016). Overall abundance of doves in the Central Management Zone, of which Minnesota is a part, remained unchanged from 2014 to 2015 (Seamans 2016).

Relatively little mourning dove habitat exists within the proposed areas (~ 9,140 acres) open to migratory bird hunting within under this alternative. Nesting and roosting habitat is limited to scattered pockets and rows of trees located in a tallgrass prairie landscape. Preferred watering habitat for mourning doves consists of wetland margins that are devoid of vegetation. In particular, manmade “dugouts” that are associated with livestock operations. Little that resembles that habitat exists on Glacial Ridge NWR. When the surface water in small, seasonal or semipermanent wetlands recedes during periods of drought, bare soil is rapidly colonized by a variety of emergent vegetation, including mudflat annuals or cattails. Mourning doves avoid watering at wetlands where dense emergent vegetation exists. This overall lack of dove habitat is reflected in the fact that the Service’s RAPP databased estimates 30 “Other Migratory Bird Hunting” visits annually, over the last five years. This category includes, but is not limited to, mourning dove hunters. Despite the fact that Minnesota’s mourning dove hunting season is typically more than two months long, in northern Minnesota the onset of cold temperatures typically results in most mourning doves having left the area by mid-late September. Refuge staff expect a < 5% increase in dove hunting activity on the Refuge under this alternative.

In 2015, an estimated 96,700 mourning doves were harvested in Minnesota, with an average harvest of 10 doves per hunter (Seamans 2016). Annual mourning dove harvest is tracked through the Service’s Harvest Information Program (HIP). A 5% increase in the amount of dove hunting on the Refuge would equate to 10.5 hunter days, as compared to 10.0 hunter days under Alternative A. Based on an average harvest of 3.3 doves per hunter per day in 2015, the annual dove harvest on the Refuge would increase by less than two doves (35 total doves) under Alternative B. This is only 0.03% of the statewide harvest. The overall annual dove harvest from the Refuge would still be small and negligible from a population standpoint.

Woodcock

The American woodcock is a popular game bird throughout eastern North America. The management objective of the Service is to increase populations of American woodcock to levels consistent with demands of consumptive and non-consumptive users (USFWS 1990). The Woodcock Singing Ground Survey for 2016 indicated that indices for singing American woodcock males in the Central Management Region (which includes Minnesota) are not

significantly different from 2015 (Seamans and Rau 2016). The 10-year trend was not significantly different and it was the fifth straight year that the trend has remained stable (Seamans and Rau 2016). Specifically, Minnesota was the only state in the Central Management Region that showed a significantly increasing 10-year trend.

Relatively little American woodcock habitat exists within the proposed areas (~ 9,140 acres) open to migratory bird hunting within the Refuge, under this alternative. The early successional woody habitat is limited to scattered pockets and rows of trees and brush located in a tallgrass prairie landscape. This is reflected in the fact that the Service’s RAPP databased estimates 30 “Other Migratory Bird Hunting” visits annually, over the last five years. This category includes, but is not limited to, woodcock hunters. We expect that 10 of the 30 “Other Migratory Bird Hunting” visits are by woodcock hunters. A less than a 5% increase in woodcock hunting activity would be expected on the Refuge under Alternative B, compared to Alternative A. A 5% increase in woodcock hunting activity would equate to 10.5 hunter days, as compared to 10.0 hunter days under Alternative A. Based on an average daily harvest of 0.5 woodcock per hunter in 2015, the annual woodcock harvest on the Refuge would increase by less than one woodcock each year and would still equate to only 0.02% of the statewide harvest of this species (Seamans and Rau 2016).

Snipe, Rail, and Coot

The life histories of Wilson’s snipe, sora, Virginia rails, and American coots make it difficult to estimate their populations. Breeding season data for rails in Minnesota and the Mississippi Flyway indicate that long-term populations are more or less stable (Sauer et al. 2014). The 10- year trend for sora shows a slight decrease, whereas the 10-year trend for Virginia rails is stable (non-significant increase) based on 2003-2013 data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (Sauer et al. 2014). The MNDNR recorded the American coot population as 9,888 for 2015 (Dexter 2015).

Refuge staff expect that very few hunters attempt to harvest snipe, rails, and coots on Glacial Ridge NWR. Of the 30 “Other Migratory Bird Hunting” visits to the Refuge each year, we anticipate that the majority are for mourning doves and American woodcock. Targeted hunting of snipe, coots, and rails is not common in the Midwest. Additionally, the vast majority of rail hunting occurs on wetlands that harbor stands of wild rice (Zizania aquatica). Glacial Ridge NWR does not have any wetlands that support wild rice. We estimate that 10 of the 30 “Other Migratory Bird Hunting” visits are for coot, snipe, and rails combined. Despite the increase in huntable acres for migratory birds proposed under Alternative C, the hunting of rails, coots, and snipe is rare enough in northwestern Minnesota, that we do not expect any increase in hunting activity for these species under this alternative. Based on statewide harvest information, we estimate that zero rails are harvested off the Refuge in most years, and that less than 6 coots and 3 snipe are harvested from the Refuge in most years.

4.2.5.B Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impact on Refuge Programs, Facilities, and Cultural Resources

Other Refuge Wildlife-Dependent Recreation. Approximately 1,000 visits were recorded on the Refuge in 2016. The majority of these visits took place from April through November. Wildlife observation visits, particularly bird watching, account for the highest wildlife-dependent recreational use recorded for the Refuge. Any increased use that results from opening additional part of the Refuge to hunting will come during a season that typically does not receive much visitation from non-consumptive users. Birdwatchers and botonists/wildflower enthusiasts predominantly use the Refuge between May and August, with a lesser extent of visitation during the fall migration (September and October).

Hunting is one of the priority public uses and compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established. This alternative would allow the public to participate in this activity on as much as 14,663 acres more than the original three units and 2,300 acres that were originally opened as part of the 2005 Refuge Hunt Plan. Hunting is a way for the public to gain an increased awareness of Glacial Ridge NWR and the National Wildlife Refuge System. By increasing the amount of public land on which hunting is allowed, the Service would meet public use demand and public relations would be enhanced within local communities.

Refuge Facilities. No additional impacts to Refuge facilities (e.g., roads, parking areas) will occur with this alternative. Under this alternative, existing Refuge facilities would continue to be used by both consumptive and non-consumptive visitors. Maintenance or improvement of existing roads and parking areas will cause minimal short-term impacts to localized soils and may cause some temporary wildlife disturbance.

4.2.5.C Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impact on Refuge Environment and Community Alternative B will have little if any impact on soils, air quality, water quality, or solitude within or adjacent to the Refuge. Potential trampling of vegetation was addressed in 4.2.1 (Habitat Impacts) and determined to likely not be an issue under this alternative.

Over the last 15, years it has become increasingly difficult for hunters to acquire access on private land throughout Minnesota. More and more landowners are either leasing their land for an entire season, charging hunters a daily fee, or selling their land for recreational use. This change in land use has increased the importance of public lands to hunters. Opening additional Refuge land to hunters will result in improved opportunity for hunters.

4.2.5.D Other Past, Present, Proposed, and Reasonably Foreseeable Hunts and Anticipated Impacts Hunting was allowed on most of these lands before they became part of Glacial Ridge NWR. These hunts were all done within the state regulations and seasons and there is no evidence that any hunting-related negative impacts occurred in this area in recent history. Rather, impacts to both hunted and non-hunted wildlife within the area that is now the Refuge came in the form of habitat degradation, including conversion of grassland and wetlands to agricultural croplands. The MNDNR manages season frameworks and harvest limits on a species-by-species basis, as needed, in order to maintain wildlife populations within a desired range.

This alternative would allow hunting within the landbase that includes the Refuge at a scale more similar to what it was prior to Refuge establishment. Refuge staff have no reason to anticipate any negative impacts from this alternative.

4.2.5.E Anticipated Impacts If Individual Hunts are Allowed to Accumulate This alternative would result in additional hunting visits to Glacial Ridge NWR; however, the analysis of impacts to the various game open to hunting (e.g., deer, migratory birds) have been evaluated and determined to be negligible with respect to the population levels of both state- managed species (e.g., deer, prairie chicken) and migratory birds. Additionally, the 16,963 acres that could be potentially be open to hunting would be sufficient to support the anticipated number of hunters and provide a safe, quality hunting experience.

4.2.6 Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Bill Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The Order directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The Order is also intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment, and to provide minority and low- income communities access to public information and participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. This assessment has not identified any adverse or beneficial effects for any of the three alternatives unique to minority or low-income populations in the affected area. None of the alternatives will disproportionately place any adverse environmental, economic, social, nor health impacts on minority or low-income populations.

Hunting opportunities proposed on Glacial Ridge NWR already exist on state land and land owned by TNC located within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary.

Expanding the acreage open to hunting to the majority of a refuge’s fee title lands helps to provide for all the priority public uses identified as goals of the Refuge or the National Wildlife

Refuge System. The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460K) and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668-ddee) provide authorization for hunting and fishing on National Wildlife Refuges. The effects of hunting on Refuges have been examined in several environmental review documents, including the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Operation of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1976), Recommendations on the Management of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1978), and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Management of the National Wildlife Refuges (1988). Nothing in the establishing authority for Glacial Ridge NWR [Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956{16U.S.C. 742f}] precludes hunting on the Refuge.

SECTION 4.3 Alternative C: Expand hunting opportunities on the Refuge to units acquired post-2005 and allow new hunting opportunities for tree squirrels, rabbits, ruffed grouse, ring-necked pheasants, gray partridge, and wild turkeys. - Preferred Alternative

Under this Alternative, the Refuge would have the authority to open 16,963 of the acres that have been acquired as part of Glacial Ridge NWR between the approval of the 2005 Refuge Hunt Plan and December 31, 2016. This acreage total includes the 2,300 acres that were originally opened to hunting under the 2005 Hunt Plan. The portion of the Refuge that lies to the north of County Highway 45 and to the east of State Highway 32 will remain closed to hunting and function as a wildlife sanctuary. The approximately 140 acres of land that surrounds the Glacial Ridge Project Office to its north, west, and south would also be closed to hunting as a safety measure (Figure 11). Presently, this portion of the Refuge contains 5,888 acres. Any additional land acquisitions as part of the Refuge (within the approved acquisition boundary and outside of the aforementioned sanctuary area) would automatically be opened to hunting through this environmental assessment and hunt plan. This may eventually amount to as much as 7,489 acres of “new” land within the area of the Refuge that is open to hunting and bring the total area of Refuge land open to hunting to 24,452 acres. This alternative would allow the Refuge to meet one of its priority objectives: increasing public opportunities for outdoor recreation and environmental education, and would be in line with the President's Executive Order (Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System) directing the Service to provide expanded opportunities on refuges for compatible wildlife dependent recreational activities, including hunting. An additional aspect of this alternative is that it would open the Refuge to several new state-managed non-migratory game bird species (i.e., ruffed grouse, gray partridge, ring-necked pheasant, wild turkey) and small game species (i.e., tree

squirrels, rabbits). None of the aforementioned game animals are USFWS “trust” species and their population management authority lies with the MNDNR. Opening the Refuge to these species would still be compatible with management and public use objective and it would substantially reduce the amount of regulatory discrepancy for hunters between Refuge land and state, TNC, and private lands that exist as a “patchwork” within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary. Table 4 shows all of the species that are open to hunting in northwestern Minnesota, as well as on Glacial Ridge NWR, under Alternative C.

4.3.1 Habitat Impacts

Hunting-related public use impacts on vegetation are expected to be minimal under this alternative. One issue that must be considered is the “trampling” of vegetation. However, despite the proposed increase in Refuge acreage open to hunting, the density of hunters is expected to remain low. Expanding the huntable area within the Refuge by more than 14,500 acres is actually likely to reduced hunter crowding and potential trampling impacts. Regarding sensitive species, such as the federally threatened western prairie fringed orchid, potential impact is greatly minimized due to the fall timing of hunting activity. Western prairie fringed orchids are generally fully senesced by mid-September, thereby eliminating potential impacts for the majority of the fall hunting seasons. Altogether, possible hunter trampling is likely less impactful than the prescribed cattle grazing that is implemented annually on Glacial Ridge NWR. In 2016, 100 cow/calf pairs grazed over 3,200 acre of the Refuge, with anticipated positive vegetative impacts.

4.3.2 Biological Impacts

Despite as many as 24,452 acres of Refuge land being open to hunting, this alternative will result in few, if any, biological impacts given what is expected to be a modest overall harvest of huntable species. Damage potential to adjacent agricultural croplands, as well as to native prairie vegetation, including young prairie reconstructions, should be minimal under this alternative. Wildlife disease outbreak potential should also be less than that associated with Alternative A (and similar to Alternative B), given the broad land base that would be open to hunting. Consideration does need to be given to potential disturbance of other wildlife species. However, despite the increased acreage open to hunting, we do not expect a significant increase in hunting visits from the annual total of 415 reported in the RAPP database from 2014-2016. Hunting accounts for less than half of the 900-1,351 estimated overall visits to the Refuge during that same timeframe. Additionally, a minimal amount of hunting (spring turkey) under this alternative occur during migratory bird nesting seasons. Overall, we expect any increase in wildlife disturbance to be negligible under Alternative C.

4.3.3 Listed Species

No effect is expected for any of the threatened and endangered species found within the boundaries of Glacial Ridge NWR as a result of this alternative. With the exception of the gray

Table 4: Huntable Species in northwestern Minnesota and on Glacial Ridge NWR under Alternative C

Species Hunted Minnesota Glacial Ridge NWR White-tailed deer X X Wild Turkey X X Ring-necked pheasant X X Gray partridge X X Ruffed grouse X X Sharp-tailed grouse X X Prairie chicken X X Cottontail rabbit X X Jackrabbit X X Snowshoe hare X X Squirrel (fox and gray) X X Raccoon X Fox (red and gray) X American badger X Coyote X Striped skunk X Bobcat X American crow X Ducks and geese X X American coot X X Rails (Virginia and sora) X X Wilson’s snipe X X American woodcock X X Mourning dove X X Sandhill crane X Hunting zone is north of the Refuge Bear X Elk X Not present on the Refuge

wolf, all of the other listed species that may occur on the Refuge would likely not be present or active the area (Dakota skipper, Powshiek skipperling, northern long-eared bat, rusty patched bumble bee) or would have senesced for the season (western prairie fringed orchid) during the fall hunting timeframe. Because coyotes are not a huntable species on the Refuge, there is essentially zero potential for accidental hunter harvest of a gray wolf. Spring turkey hunters would have some potential to encounter one or more of the listed species during late April and May, but that timeframe is still sufficiently early to minimize chance encounters with listed bats or insects. No turkey hunting would be expected to occur in habitats necessary to support western

prairie fringed orchids (fens, wet prairies) or rusty patched bumble bees, Dakota skippers, and Poweshiek skipperlings (remnant tallgrass prairie).

4.3.4 Historic Properties and Cultural Resources

4.3.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis of the Preferred Alternative

4.3.5.A Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impact on Wildlife Species

Under this alternative, 16,963 acres of Refuge land acquired prior to 2017 could be opened to hunting. In the future, there is potential to acquire up to 7,489 acres of privately owned land within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary and outside the proposed sanctuary area (Figure 12) and under this alternative, as land is acquired as part of the Refuge it would be legally open to hunting. This would include land owned by individuals, as well as land owned by TNC that is currently under a gravel lease. Only a small portion of these potential acres will likely be acquired in the foreseeable future; however, for the purpose of this plan “total potential acquisition acres” will be considered. Land holdings within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary that are not included in potential acquisition acres include MNDNR-owned wildlife management areas and scientific and natural areas, a TNC-owned preserve, and a Red Lake Watershed District flood storage impoundment. These areas total 4,864 acres (Figure 12) and the majority of them are open to hunting. The Service has allowed and administered a public hunting program on the Refuge since 2005. The ability of staff to estimate hunting visits to the Refuge is limited, but past staff observations suggest hunting pressure is and has been low.

This alternative should result in a deer population of an appropriate size, by following the population framework established by MNDNR big game biologists, who annually monitor and model Minnesota’s deer population. Similar to the deer population, the prairie chicken population is managed through a lottery-based framework by the MNDNR, who monitors breeding populations of this species annually. Regarding migratory birds, these fall hunting seasons would not interfere with the breeding and nesting seasons and despite the increased acreage open to hunting, as compared to Alternative A (and similar to Alternative B), we still expect a very low harvest of ducks, geese, mourning doves, coots, rails, and snipe. This harvest would be negligible concerning population levels of these migratory species. Regarding, the additional game species that would be allowed to be hunted on Glacial Ridge NWR under this

Figure 12. Potential land to be acquired in the future as part of Glacial Ridge NWR. 56

alternative, Refuge staff anticipate hunting pressure to be low for all of them. A modest amount of habitat exists for both tree squirrels (fox [Sciurus niger] and gray squirrels [Sciurus carolinensis]) and rabbits (white-tailed jackrabbits, snowshoe hares [Lepus americanus], and eastern cottontails [Sylvilagus floridanus]) on the Refuge. Similarly, only a modest amount of ruffed grouse habitat exists on the Refuge. Although abundant suitable habitat exists on the Refuge for both ring-necked pheasants and gray partridge, populations of these two species are low on the Refuge. Glacial Ridge NWR is located well north of what is considered the ring- necked pheasant’s typical range in MN and observations of this species are scattered and rare. Both pheasants and gray partridge are non-native to North America and were introduced into the United States in the 1900s, specifically for the purpose of hunting. Similarly, wild turkeys are not native to northern Minnesota. They were introduced here in the early 2000s, specifically for the purpose of hunting. Of all of these new huntable species proposed under Alternative C, Refuge staff anticipate that the wild turkey is the only one that hunters will actually target on Glacial Ridge NWR. All of the others will likely only be harvested incidentally while hunters are pursuing other game, such as deer, prairie chickens, or migratory birds. The wild turkey population on the Refuge is increasing, but there is a limited amount of suitable habitat within the Refuge and there is not currently a tradition of hunting turkeys in northwest Minnesota, so we anticipate hunting pressure will be low. Disturbance to Refuge wildlife would continue, as it is presently caused by non-consumptive users on tracts not open to hunting.

Non-hunted Resident Wildlife:

Non-hunted wildlife would include small mammals such as voles, moles, mice, and shrews; reptiles and amphibians such as snakes, skinks, turtles, lizards, salamanders, frogs and toads; and invertebrates such as butterflies, moths, other insects and spiders. Except for migratory birds and some species of migratory butterflies and moths, these species have very limited home ranges and hunting would not affect their populations regionally. Some species of butterflies and moths are migratory. Cumulative effects to these species at the “flyway” level should be negligible. Any hunter interaction would be similar to that of non-consumptive users. Disturbance to non-hunted wildlife would increase slightly. However, significant disturbance would be unlikely since many of these species are nocturnal and many are relatively inactive during the fall season in northwestern Minnesota. Both of these qualities make hunter interactions with small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians during most of the hunting season uncommon. Invertebrates are also not active during cold weather and would have few interactions with hunters during the hunting season. The only hunting seasons that would take place during the spring breeding and nesting season would be for wild turkey. Hunter participation on the Refuge is expected to be minimal for wild turkey. Refuge regulations further mitigate possible disturbance by hunters to non- hunted wildlife. Vehicles are restricted to roads and the harassment or taking of any wildlife other than the game species legal for the season is not permitted.

Hunted Resident (State-Managed) Wildlife:

White-tailed Deer, Prairie chicken, and Sharp-tailed Grouse

It is important to estimate how the potential eventual increase of acreage open to hunting (up to 7,489 acres) under Alternative C will change the number of white-tailed deer hunter visits and harvest. PAs 256 and 257 are a combined 1,066 square miles in size (2016 MNDNR Deer Harvest Report; http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/wildlife/deer/reports/harvest/deerharvest_2016.pdf; accessed 6/12/2017); therefore, the huntable land within the Refuge - after adding the possible eventual 7,489 acres - would comprise only 3.6% of the two PAs. In 2016, the average overall hunting pressure within these two PAs was 4.25 hunters per square mile and only 1.9 deer were harvested per square mile. A total of 1,861 deer were harvested in these two PAs during 2016, when the yearly limit was one deer of either sex per hunter. Using the MNDNR’s estimate of 1.9 deer per square mile, a maximum number of 73 deer would be harvested in 2016 on the approximately 38.2 square miles of huntable Refuge land (including the 7,489 possible eventual acres), under this alternative. That equates to approximately only 3.9 percent of the total harvest in PAs 256 and 257. Under this alternative, if we project that an additional 7,489 acres of huntable land are included, we anticipate that would result in no more than a 10% increase in the number of “Big Game Hunter” visits reported in the RAPP database from the 150 that were estimated in 2016. Therefore, the total “Big Game Hunter” visits might, at some point, reach 165 per year on the Refuge.

Because prairie chicken hunting in Minnesota is regulated by a maximum number of state-issued permits in each hunting zone, the number of hunters in the two zones that include the Refuge would not increase, despite the number of acres on the Refuge that are open to hunting. Refuge staff would not anticipate a substantial increase in “Upland Game Hunting” visits to the Refuge, even if a possible eventual 7,489 acres of huntable land were added. We would expect no more than a 10% increase in “Upland Game Hunting” visits from the 60 estimated in 2016. herefore, although the overall number of prairie chickens harvested within zones 805A and 804A will likely not increase under this alternative, the percentage of prairie chickens harvested from the Refuge may increase by as much as 10%. Based on the average number of prairie chickens harvested in zones 805A and 804A and the fact that not all of them are harvested from the Refuge, a 10% increase in harvest that might accompany this alternative would equate to two additional prairie chickens harvested within the Refuge each year. This increase in mortality is negligible and can be considered compensatory (versus additive) when considering the life history of this species.

The traditional sharp-tailed grouse hunting season is closed in Minnesota, south of U.S. Highway 2, because this area represents the southern “fringe” of their range in northwestern Minnesota. Therefore, no part of Glacial Ridge NWR is open to this season (Figure 8). However, due to the potential for misidentification of sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chickens, licensed prairie chicken hunters who are hunting south of U.S. Highway 2 are allowed to harvest up to two sharp- tailed grouse in place of their allotted two prairie chickens. The MNDNR does not keep track of sharp-tailed grouse harvest by individual prairie chicken permit area. Therefore, Refuge staff anticipate that a very small number of sharp-tailed grouse are harvested from the Refuge and allowing them to be taken in lieu of prairie chickens has no impact on their population. Even with the potential increased harvest of two prairie chickens on the Refuge, if upland game hunting activity increased on the Refuge by 10% due to eventual increased acreage, the harvest of sharp-tailed grouse would only increase by two or less.

Tree Squirrels

In Minnesota, both gray squirrels and fox squirrels are considered small game species and their harvest is regulated by a daily limit and a defined hunting season. Gray squirrels live in hardwood forests, as well as parks and residential areas. Fox squirrels live primarily in open woodlands, and shelterbelts, as well as parks and residential areas. Both of these species are uncommon on Glacial Ridge NWR. Minnesota has a strong population of both gray and fox squirrels and it is estimated that hunters harvest 150,000 and 160,000 of these two rodent species, respectively, each year (MNDNR Small Game and Furbearer Information; http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/smallgame/more.html, accessed 6/14/17).

Refuge staff anticipate there would little to no targeted hunting of tree squirrels on the Refuge. Including tree squirrels as huntable game on the Refuge would be primarily intended to help improve hunting regulation consistency between Refuge and other lands (e.g., private, MNDNR). Thereby, if a deer or bird hunter wanted to opportunistically harvest a gray or fox squirrel on the Refuge, they could legally do so. Although no data exist related to prior hunting of tree squirrels on the Refuge, professional judgment of the Refuge staff anticipates that no more than four hunters each year would target them on the Refuge. We expect that this would consist of two hunters pursuing fox squirrels and two hunters pursuing gray squirrels. The average annual harvest of fox squirrels and gray squirrels per hunter is 3.7 and five, respectively (MNDNR Hunter Harvest Statistics; http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_wildlife/wildlife/2015_small_game_harvest_survey.pdf; accessed 7/13/2017). Therefore, if the four hunters who targeted squirrels on the Refuge harvested all of their squirrels on the Refuge, and including incidental harvest of squirrels by hunters pursuing other species, we expect the annual Refuge harvest to be less than 20. Based on a calculated total Minnesota harvest of 142,783 fox and gray squirrels (combined) in 2015 (MNDNR Hunter Harvest Statistics; http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/wildlife/populationstatus2008/6_hunting_harvest.pdf; accessed 7/13/2017), the predicted Refuge harvest would equate to 0.01% of the total statewide harvest.

Rabbits

In Minnesota, white-tailed jackrabbits, snowshoe hares, and eastern cottontails are all considered small game species and their harvest is regulated by a daily limit and a defined hunting season. White-tailed jackrabbits typically inhabit open prairie areas. Several thousand are killed each year in Minnesota; however, predators kill several times more jackrabbits than do hunters (MNDNR White-tailed Jackrabbit Information; http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/whitetailedjackrabbit.html; accessed 6/14/2017). Snowshoe hares live primarily in dense woodlands and forest bogs. There is little to no suitable snowshoe hare habitat on Glacial Ridge NWR. Because snowshoe hare populations fluctuate widely on 10-year cycles, their annual harvest in Minnesota fluctuates widely as well. For example, in the winter of 1980-81, hunters harvested more than 286,000 and just five years later, after a population crash, the harvest was only 12,000 (MNDNR Snowshoe Hare Information; http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/snowshoehare.html; accessed 6/14/2017). Eastern cottontails are the smallest of these three species and favor brushy areas, woodlots, shelterbelts, and residential areas. There is only a modest amount of cottontail habitat on the Refuge. Cottontail hunting is a popular sport in Minnesota and it is the number one game animal in the United States. Minnesota hunters commonly harvest around 60,000 cottontails each year. Each year approximately 80% of the state’s cottontail population succumbs to weather, disease, or predators. The remaining 20% readily repopulate the landscape (MNDNR Eastern Cottontail Information; http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/easterncottontail.html; accessed 6/14/2017).

Refuge staff anticipate there would little targeted hunting of any rabbit species on the Refuge. Including rabbits as huntable game on the Refuge would be primarily intended to help improve hunting regulation consistency between Refuge and other lands (e.g., private, MNDNR). Thereby, if a deer or bird hunter wanted to opportunistically harvest a rabbit on the Refuge, they could legally do so. Although no data exist related to prior hunting of rabbits on the Refuge, professional judgment of the Refuge staff anticipates that no more than 10 hunters per year would target them on the Refuge. We expect that this would consist of zero hunters pursuing snowshoe hares, five hunters pursuing eastern cottontails, and five hunters pursuing white-tailed jackrabbits. The average annual harvest of eastern cottontail and white-tailed jackrabbit is 3.6 and two, respectively (MNDNR Hunter Harvest Statistics; http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/wildlife/populationstatus2008/6_hunting_harvest.pdf; accessed 7/13/2017). Therefore, if the 10 hunters who targeted rabbits on the Refuge harvested all of their rabbits on the Refuge, and including incidental harvest of rabbits by hunters pursuing other species, we expect the annual Refuge harvest to be less than 35. Based on a calculated total Minnesota harvest of 42,458 cottontails and jackrabbits (combined) in 2015 (MNDNR Hunter Harvest Statistics; http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/wildlife/populationstatus2008/6_hunting_harvest.pdf; accessed 7/13/2017), the predicted Refuge harvest would equate to 0.08% of the total statewide harvest.

Ruffed Grouse

In Minnesota, ruffed grouse are considered small game and their harvest is regulated by a daily limit and a defined hunting season. Ruffed grouse are the state’s most popular game bird. Young to middle-aged aspen forests provide the best ruffed grouse habitat. Alder lowlands and patches of gray dogwood are especially attractive to ruffed grouse in summer and fall. For unknown reasons, ruffed grouse populations rise and fall at intervals of about 10 years; similar to snowshoe hares. The annual hunter harvest varies from 150,000 to more than 1.4 million ruffed grouse, and averages 500,000 per year, according to the MNDNR’s 2016 Spring Grouse Survey Report (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/grouse/grouse_survey_report16.pdf; accessed 6/14/2017). Hunting does not affect ruffed grouse populations either at the top or bottom of their population cycle (MNDNR Ruffed Grouse Information; http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/birds/ruffedgrouse.html; accessed 6/14/2017). Additionally, the MNDNR closely monitors ruffed grouse population trends via annual spring “drumming” surveys. In 2016, more than 100 of these survey routes were completed throughout the state.

Relatively little ruffed grouse habitat exists within the Refuge. Stands of aspen, oak savanna, and early successional woody habitat is limited to scattered pockets and rows of trees located in a tallgrass prairie landscape. Refuge staff anticipate that there would be little direct hunting pressure on ruffed grouse on Glacial Ridge NWR. Including ruffed grouse as huntable game on the Refuge would be primarily intended to help improve hunting regulation consistency between Refuge and other lands (e.g., private, MNDNR). Thereby, if a migratory bird or prairie chicken hunter wanted to opportunistically harvest a ruffed grouse on the Refuge, they could legally do so. Although no data exist related to prior hunting of ruffed grouse on the Refuge, professional judgment of the Refuge staff anticipates that no more than four hunters each year would target them on the Refuge. The average annual harvest of ruffed grouse per hunter is four (MNDNR Hunter Harvest Statistics; http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_wildlife/wildlife/2015_small_game_harvest_survey.pdf; accessed 7/13/2017). Therefore, if the four hunters who targeted ruffed grouse on the Refuge harvested all of their grouse on the Refuge, and including incidental harvest of ruffed grouse by hunters pursuing other species, we expect the annual Refuge harvest to be less than 20. At the lowest expected point of the cyclic ruffed grouse harvest in Minnesota, this would still equate to only 0.01% of the statewide harvest.

Gray (Hungarian) Partridge and Ring-necked Pheasants

Gray partridge are native Europe and Asia and were introduced into North America in the early 1990s, from Czechoslovakia and Hungary, for the purpose of hunting. They are a bird of prairies, grassy, weedy fields, and agricultural croplands. They are considered small game in Minnesota and their harvest is regulated by a daily limit and a defined hunting season. In Minnesota and other upper Midwestern states, the gray partridge population has been in decline since the mid- 1990s. Data from the MNDNR August Roadside Survey estimates gray partridge observations per 100 miles driven on routes throughout the state in 2016 were 72% below the long-term

average (1955-2016). Conversely, 3.2 gray partridge were recorded per 100 miles driven in 2016, compared to only 2.3 in 2015 (2016 MNDNR Roadside Survey; http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/pheasant/roadside_survey.pdf; accessed 6/14/2017). On Glacial Ridge NWR, portions of grassland that are especially short and sparse and border privately owned agricultural fields provide the best gray partridge habitat. However, coveys of partridge on the Refuge are believe to be scattered and few. Incidental Refuge sightings are uncommon.

The ring-necked pheasant was first successfully imported from China to the United States in 1881 for the purpose of hunting. Their first successful release in Minnesota was in 1916. The ring-necked pheasant is one of Minnesota's most popular upland game birds. It is a grassland- dependent species and commonly associated with agricultural fields. Minnesota hunters harvest an average of 350,000 pheasants each year (MNDNR Ring-necked Pheasant Information; http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/birds/ringneckedpheasant.html; accessed 6/14/2017). Despite their popularity as a gamebird and the fact that Glacial Ridge NWR has an abundance of ideal pheasant habitat, the Refuge is well north of the typical pheasant range in Minnesota (Figure 13). The pheasant is typically a bird of central and southern Minnesota, because they are especially susceptible to extreme winter weather conditions, including blizzards. The difference in winter weather severity – especially average snowpack – between northern Minnesota and central and southern Minnesota is substantial enough to serve as a limiting factor for this species. Regardless, pheasants are occasionally seen in and around Glacial Ridge NWR. Refuge staff anticipate that there would be little direct hunting pressure on both gray partridge and ring-necked pheasants on Glacial Ridge NWR. Including these two exotic species as huntable game on the Refuge would be primarily intended to help improve hunting regulation consistency between Refuge and other lands (e.g., private, MNDNR). Thereby, if a migratory bird or prairie chicken hunter wanted to opportunistically harvest a gray partridge or pheasant on the Refuge, they could legally do so. Although no data exist related to prior hunting of gray partridge and pheasants on the Refuge, professional judgment of the Refuge staff anticipates that no hunters will specifically target these species on the Refuge – due largely to their scarcity – and less than 5 gray partridge and 3 ring-necked pheasants will be harvested on the Refuge each year.

Wild Turkeys

The pre-Columbian range of the wild turkey included only extreme southeastern Minnesota (Steadman 1980). However, shortly after Euro-settlement in the 1880s, turkeys were extirpated from Minnesota via unregulated hunting and logging. Minnesota’s initial reintroduction efforts failed. Pen-raised turkeys from Texas, Maryland, and Pennsylvania were released in the 1920s and 1950s. All failed to survive. In the mid-late 1960s, wild turkeys from Nebraska and South Dakota were relocated to Minnesota. However, these were Merriam’s sub-species and were less hardy that the eastern sub-species that was native to Minnesota. They could not adapt to

Figure 13. Ring-necked pheasant range in Minnesota.

Minnesota’s landscape and weather and they died out. In 1971, 13 eastern wild turkeys from Missouri were released. This was the start of Minnesota’s successful reintroduction and population expansion success story. Trap and transplant operations in Minnesota continued until 2009 and altogether 5,000 turkeys were released around the state. Turkey releases in close proximity to Glacial Ridge NWR occurred north of Red Lake Falls, southwest of Thief River Falls, and northwest of Erskine (pers. commun, Ross Hier, MNDNR, retired). The present turkey population in Minnesota is estimated to be 30,000 (MNDNR Wild Turkey Information; http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/birds/wildturkey.html; accessed 6/16/2017). Currently, a small number of turkeys can be found in three or four different locations on Glacial Ridge NWR. Refuge staff expect the number of turkeys that occupy the Refuge to increase somewhat in the future, but be limited by available woodland habitat. Minnesota’s turkeys live primarily in open wooded areas, brushy grasslands, and river bottoms (MNDNR Wild Turkey Information; http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/birds/wildturkey.html; accessed 6/16/2017). A turkey’s critical requirement of large trees as a component of their habitat relates to roosting sites. This habitat component is limited on Glacial Ridge NWR.

Minnesota held its first modern-day turkey season in 1978 and 400 hunters killed 94 gobblers. In 2015, 11,734 turkeys were harvested in the spring in Minnesota and 1,124 turkeys were harvested in the fall, according to the MNDNR’s 2016 Turkey Harvest Report (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/turkey/harvest-2016.pdf; accessed 6/15/2017). Presently, the entire state is open to turkey hunting and is divided up into 12 different PAs. Glacial Ridge NWR lies within PA 509 (Figure 14). A total of 166 turkeys were harvested in PA 509 in the spring of 2016. This compares with 144 turkeys harvested in this PA during the 2015 spring season. As evidenced by yearly harvest totals, the spring turkey season is much more popular than the fall season. Refuge staff anticipate that the majority of the turkey hunting on Glacial Ridge NWR would be done in the spring season, versus the fall. Presently, there is no limit to the number of licenses sold during the fall season in Minnesota, due to limited hunter participation. The spring season is currently split into six time periods that begin in mid-April last for seven days each. More than 50% of the total harvest generally occurs during the first two time periods. Therefore, available tags are limited in those periods and issued through a lottery, with the exception of youth and archery hunters. Any hunter can purchase a permit for the remaining five time periods. Controlling the number of hunters during the first two time periods and limiting the harvest to one gobbler per hunter are the two primary mechanisms used by the MNDNR to ensure the stability of the state’s turkey population. Additionally, the fact that (1) the majority of hunting will occur from mid-late April, (2) the portions of the Refuge that support turkeys are few and scattered, and (3) we anticipate only a small amount of turkey hunting pressure each year, diminish any concerns about this spring hunting season negatively impacting spring migratory birds or nesting birds on the Refuge.

In recent years, Refuge staff have received multiple inquiries about turkey hunting on Glacial Ridge NWR. Opportunistic observations of turkeys on the Refuge have also increased in recent years. Additionally, hunting of turkeys presently occurs on state and private land within and adjacent to Glacial Ridge NWR’s acquisition boundary. Therefore, Refuge staff have determined

Figure 14. Wild turkey hunting permit areas in Minnesota. 65

that opening the Refuge to turkey hunting under this alternative is an appropriate action. Although no data exist related to prior hunting of turkeys on the Refuge, professional judgment of the Refuge staff anticipates that less than 15 hunters will pursue turkeys on the Refuge each year (12 during the spring season and 2 during the fall season). Based on the 43.2% and 14% hunter success rates during the spring and fall seasons, respectively, the number of turkey harvested on the Refuge each year will likely be less than six (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/turkey/harvest-2016.pdf; accessed 6/15/2017).

Migratory Birds:

Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in conventions between the United States and several foreign nations for the protection and management of these birds. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C.703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to determine when "hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or export of any ... bird, or any part, nest, or egg" of migratory game birds can take place, and to adopt regulations for this purpose. These regulations are written after giving due regard to "the zones of temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such birds, and are updated annually” (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This responsibility has been delegated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the lead federal agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States. Acknowledging regional differences in hunting conditions, the Service has administratively divided the nation into four Flyways for the primary purpose of managing migratory game birds. Each Flyway (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) has a Flyway Council, a formal organization generally composed of one member from each State and Province in that Flyway. Glacial Ridge NWR is located in the Mississippi Flyway.

The process for adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations, located in 50 CFR part 20, is constrained by three primary factors. Legal and administrative considerations dictate how long the rule making process will last. Most importantly, however, the biological cycle of migratory game birds controls the timing of data-gathering activities and thus the dates on which these results are available for consideration and deliberation. The process of adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations includes two separate regulations-development schedules based on "early" and "late" hunting season regulations. Early hunting seasons pertain to all migratory game bird species in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; migratory game birds other than waterfowl (e.g., dove); and special early waterfowl seasons, such as teal or resident Canada geese. Early hunting seasons generally begin prior to October 1. Late hunting seasons generally start on or after October 1 and include most waterfowl seasons not already established. There are basically no differences in the processes for establishing either early or late hunting seasons. For each cycle, Service biologists and others gather, analyze, and interpret biological survey data and provide this information to all those involved in the process through a series of published status reports and presentations to Flyway Councils and other interested parties.

Service policy 605 FW2 states, “If a refuge, or portion thereof, has been designated, acquired, reserved, or set apart as an inviolate sanctuary, we may only allow hunting of migratory game birds on no more than 40% of that refuge, or portion, at any one time unless we find that taking of any such species in more than 40% of such area would be beneficial to the species.” This plan ensures that the management of migratory bird hunts at Glacial Ridge NWR strictly adheres to this policy and that migratory bird hunting is restricted to the season, bag limits, and other regulations based on the state in which the hunting occurs and on any Refuge-specific regulations.

Waterfowl, Mourning Doves, Woodcock, Snipe, Rail, and Coot

Under this alternative, specifics related to the hunting of these species would be identical to those of Alternative B, with one exception. In the future, there is potential to acquire up to 8,581 acres of privately owned land within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary. According to Service policy 605 FW2, no more than 40% of the total Refuge acreage (31,432 acres, including additional new acquisitions) could be opened to migratory bird hunting, which would bring the total maximum Refuge acres on which migratory birds could be hunted to 12,573 (versus 9,140 acres under Alternative B). This would include land owned by individuals, as well as land owned by TNC that is currently under gravel leases. Only a small portion of these potential acres will likely be acquired in the foreseeable future; however, for the purpose of this plan “total potential acquisition acres” will be considered. Land holdings within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary that are not included in potential acquisition acres include MNDNR-owned wildlife management areas and scientific and natural areas, a TNC-owned preserve, and a Red Lake Watershed District flood storage impoundment. These areas total 4,864 acres and the majority of them are open to hunting.

Of the additional 3,433 acres that, if acquired as part of the Refuge, could be open to migratory bird hunting there are only 11 acres of semipermanent and permanent wetlands (2017 National Wetland Inventory Update for Minnesota; https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-nat-wetlands-inv- 2009-2014; accessed 6/28/2017), which constitute the wetland habitats most likely to provide fall duck and goose hunting opportunities in most years. Based primarily on anecdotal evidence, Refuge staff anticipate that the waterfowl harvest on the Refuge in past years has been minimal and falls into the category of “compensatory” versus “additive” mortality. Because of the small amount of additional “suitable” waterfowl hunting habitat (11 acres of semipermanent and permanent wetlands) that would accompany Alternative C compared to Alternative B, we do not anticipate any appreciable increase in waterfowl hunter use or harvest under this alternative. This would mean an expected 184 waterfowl hunter visit and a harvest of 294 ducks per year on Glacial Ridge NWR. This equates to 0.05% of the overall Minnesota duck harvest and is only a 14 duck per year increase over the expected harvest under Alternative A. Ultimately, we expect no impact to continental or Minnesota breeding waterfowl populations will occur. Similar to Alternative B, under this alternative we anticipate a modest increase in “Waterfowl Hunting” visits under this alternative, but that no change in impact to continental or Minnesota breeding waterfowl populations will occur.

Relatively little mourning dove habitat exists within the additional 3,433 acres that could be open to migratory bird hunting, if acquired as part of the Refuge, under this alternative. Nesting and roosting habitat is limited to scattered pockets and rows of trees located in a tallgrass prairie landscape. Preferred watering habitat for mourning doves consists of wetland margins that are devoid of vegetation. In particular, manmade “dugouts” that are associated with livestock operations. Some of the privately owned land, including TNC land that is currently being mined for gravel may currently modified wetland areas that resemble ideal dove watering areas and scattered treerows and woodlots that surround existing buildings are associated with potential private land acquisitions; however, those would likely only persist until habitat restoration activities (upland and wetland restoration) occurred as part of planned Refuge management. This overall lack of dove habitat is reflected in the fact that the Service’s RAPP databased estimates 30 “Other Migratory Bird Hunt” visits annually, over the last five years. Refuge staff expect that Alternative C would result in a < 5% increase in dove hunting activity over Alternative B. Ultimately, this would be an increase of 0.5 day of dove hunting and no more than two doves in the annual Refuge harvest. Under this alternative. an estimated 37 doves would be harvested annually, based on 2015 harvest statistics (Seamans 2016). This is still only 0.03% of the statewide harvest. The overall annual dove harvest from the Refuge would still be small and negligible from a population standpoint.

Relatively little American woodcock habitat exists within the additional 3,433 acres that could be open to migratory bird hunting, if acquired as part of the Refuge, under this alternative. The early successional woody habitat is limited to scattered pockets and rows of trees and brush located in a tallgrass prairie landscape. This is reflected in the fact that the Service’s RAPP databased estimates 30 “Other Migratory Bird Hunt” visits annually, over the last five years. This category includes, but is not limited to, woodcock hunters. We anticipate a less than a 5% increase in

woodcock hunting activity would be expected on the Refuge under Alternative C, as compared to Alternative B. Ultimately, this would be an increase of 0.5 day of woodcock hunting and less than one additional woodcock per year. The Refuge harvest would still equate to only 0.02% of the statewide harvest of this species (Seamans and Rau 2016).

Refuge staff expect that very few hunters attempt to harvest snipe, rails, and coots on Glacial Ridge NWR. Of the 30 “Other Migratory Bird Hunt” visits to the Refuge each year, we anticipate that the majority are for mourning doves and American woodcock. Targeted hunting of snipe, coots, and rails is not common in the Midwest. Additionally, the vast majority of rail hunting occurs on wetlands that harbor stands of wild rice (Zizania aquatica). Glacial Ridge NWR does not have any wetlands that support wild rice. We estimate that 10 of the 30 “Other Migratory Bird Hunt” visits are for coot, snipe, and rails combined. Despite the increase in huntable acres for migratory birds proposed under Alternative C, the hunting of rails, coots, and snipe is rare enough in northwestern Minnesota, that we do not expect any increase in hunting activity for these species under this alternative. Based on statewide harvest information, we estimate that zero rails are harvested off the Refuge in most years, and that less than 6 coots and 3 snipe are harvested from the Refuge in most years.

Game Species Considered, but Not Proposed to Open to Hunting on Glacial Ridge NWR

In addition to the above species that were proposed to add to the list of huntable species on the Refuge, under Alternative C, there were several others which Refuge staff and conservation partners from the MNDNR and TNC discussed, but were not included under the preferred alternative. Below are those species and principal justification of why they were not included under this alternative.

Black Bear (Ursus americanus) – This big game species is almost exclusively hunted over bait in Minnesota. No form of baiting is allowed on any NWR. Therefore, the primary black bear hunting method would not be allowed on the Refuge. Also, little black bear habitat exists on the Refuge and Glacial Ridge NWR lies outside of the species’ primary range in Minnesota.

Sandhill Crane – Currently, the hunting zone for this species in northwestern Minnesota lies to the north of U.S. Highway 2; therefore, Glacial Ridge NWR is just south of the huntable area. Even if the hunting zone for cranes is expanded, they are hunted almost exclusively over decoys in agricultural fields. Currently no agricultural fields exist on the Refuge and they may only exist in the future as part of a seedbed preparation phase for prairie reconstruction.

American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) – This is one of the Service’s Trust Species and currently, there is no daily limit associated with the Minnesota hunting season. One of the four allowed crow seasons in Minnesota (March 1-31) lies outside of seasons for any other huntable or proposed game species on the Refuge. There is also high potential for this species to be confused with the common raven (Corvus corax), which is a protected species throughout

Minnesota. Also, the crow, more so than any other gamebird species in Minnesota, is likely to be shot for target practice and left afield, presenting wanton waste violations.

Elk – Presently, a limited elk hunting season is allowed only in Kittson County. Elk are not a resident animal on Glacial Ridge NWR.

Furbearers – This category would include raccoon, fox, badger (Taxidea taxus), and bobcat (Lynx rufus) as huntable species. Unlike any of the huntable or proposed game species on the Refuge, hunting at night is allowed for furbearers, which would present law enforcement and other challenges for Refuge staff. Also furbearers, in general, are not eaten, but rather their hides are sold for their monetary value. Portions of the open season for several furbearers lie outside of seasons for any other huntable or proposed game species on the Refuge.

Unprotected Species – This category includes a wide range of species, from house sparrows (Passer domesticus), to skunks, to porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum). There is no closed season for these species, and they may be legally taken at night and by means that differ from standard Minnesota hunting practices. The majority of unprotected species are also not eaten, but sometimes their hides are sold for their monetary value (e.g., coyote, weasel) or they are submitted for township-level bounties (e.g., pocket gophers [Geomys bursarius]). Additionally, some unprotected species present potential for the harvest of protected species. For example, someone on Glacial Ridge NWR could kill one of more than a dozen protected sparrow species intending to shoot a similar looking house sparrow. Also, a hunter could kill a federally threatened gray wolf, intending to shoot a coyote.

4.3.5.B Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impact on Refuge Programs, Facilities, and Cultural Resources

Hunting is one of the priority public uses and compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established. This alternative would allow the public to initially participate in this activity on as much as 22,152 acres more than the three units and 2,300 acres that were originally opened as part of the 2005 Refuge Hunt Plan. In the future, there is potential to acquire up to 8,581 acres of privately owned land within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary and under this alternative, as land is acquired as part of the Refuge it would be opened to hunting. Hunting is a way for the public to gain an increased awareness of Glacial Ridge NWR and the National Wildlife Refuge System. By increasing the amount of public land on which hunting is allowed, the Service would meet public use demand and public relations would be enhanced within local communities.

Refuge Facilities. Minimal additional impacts to Refuge facilities (e.g., roads, parking areas) will occur under this alternative. The Refuge would plan to construct no more than three new minimum maintenance parking areas over the timeframe that the additional 7,489 acres of huntable land is acquired. Similar to the existing 13 parking areas on the Refuge, any new parking areas would consist of a simple graveled area that is less than 35 yards by 35 yards in size, and is mowed once per year, in early September. A single kiosk would be constructed at each new parking area, similar to those that are present at existing parking areas. As outlined in the Glacial Ridge NWR CCP, in the near future we plan to develop parking area kiosks into multi-use (e.g., hunting, birdwatching, wildlife photography) interpretive panels as part of a self- guided Refuge auto tour, that utilizes existing gravel roadways and parking areas (USFWS 2016). Under this alternative, Refuge facilities would continue to be used by non-consumptive visitors. Maintenance or improvement of existing roads and parking areas will cause minimal short-term impacts to localized soils and may cause some temporary wildlife disturbance.

Cultural Resources. This alternative will not have any additional impacts to cultural resources. No sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places are located within the designated Refuge acquisition boundary. Review of any potential historic properties would be completed by the Service’s Regional Historic Preservation Officer in Bloomington, Minnesota, prior to acquiring any new property as part of the Refuge. Any activities that might cause an effect to a historic property would be subject to a case-by-case Section 106 review.

4.3.5.C Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impact on Refuge Environment and Community Alternative C will have little if any impact on soils, air quality, water quality, or solitude within or adjacent to the Refuge. Potential trampling of vegetation was addressed in 4.2.1 (Habitat Impacts) and determined to likely not be an issue under this alternative.

Over the last 15 years it has become increasingly difficult for hunters to acquire access on private land throughout Minnesota. More and more landowners are either leasing their land for an entire season, charging hunters a daily fee, or selling their land for recreational use. This change in land use has increased the importance of public lands to hunters. Opening additional Refuge land to hunters will result in improved opportunity for hunters.

4.3.5.D Other Past, Present, Proposed, and Reasonably Foreseeable Hunts and Anticipated Impacts Hunting was allowed on most of these lands before they became part of Glacial Ridge NWR. These hunts were all done within the state regulations and seasons and there is no evidence that any hunting-related negative impacts occurred in this area in recent history. Rather, impacts to both hunted and non-hunted wildlife within the area that is now the Refuge came in the form of habitat degradation, including conversion of grassland and wetlands to agricultural croplands. The MNDNR manages season frameworks and harvest limits on a species-by-species basis, as needed, in order to maintain wildlife populations within a desired range.

This alternative would allow hunting within the landbase that includes the Refuge at a scale more

similar to what it was prior to Refuge establishment. Refuge staff have no reason to anticipate any negative impacts from this alternative.

4.3.5.E Anticipated Impacts If Individual Hunts are Allowed to Accumulate This alternative would result in additional hunting visits to Glacial Ridge NWR; however, the analysis of impacts to the various game open to hunting (e.g., deer, migratory birds) have been evaluated and determined to be negligible with respect to the population levels of both state- managed species (e.g., deer, prairie chicken) and migratory birds. Additionally, the 24,452 acres that would potentially be open to hunting, if the potential 8,581 acres of privately owned land within the Refuge’s acquisition is acquired in the future, would be sufficient to support the anticipated number of hunters and provide a safe, quality hunting experience.

4.3.6 Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Bill Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The Order directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The Order is also intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment, and to provide minority and low- income communities access to public information and participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. This assessment has not identified any adverse or beneficial effects for any of the three alternatives unique to minority or low-income populations in the affected area. None of the alternatives will disproportionately place any adverse environmental, economic, social, nor health impacts on minority or low-income populations.

Hunting opportunities proposed on Glacial Ridge NWR already exist on state land and land owned by TNC located within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary.

Expanding the acreage open to hunting to the majority of a refuge’s fee title lands helps to provide for all the priority public uses identified as goals of the Refuge or the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460K) and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668-ddee) provide authorization for hunting and fishing on National Wildlife Refuges. The effects of hunting on Refuges have been examined in several environmental review documents, including the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Operation of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1976), Recommendations on the Management of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1978), and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Management of the National Wildlife Refuges (1988). Nothing in the establishing authority for Glacial Ridge NWR [Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956{16U.S.C. 742f}] precludes hunting on the Refuge.

SECTION 4.4 Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C (NO ACTION ) Open most of Refuge land acquired (PREFERRED) EFFECT Maintain Hunting Status through 2016 to the same species listed Open most of Refuge land acquired through according to 2005 Refuge Hunt Plan in 2005 Refuge Hunt Plan 2016 and future acquisitions to species listed in 2005 Refuge Hunt Plan and additional non- migratory bird and small game species Habitat Possible depredation of native Minimal Effect Minimal Effect vegetation and cropland due to elevated populations of deer and resident Canada geese. Biological Deer and resident Canada goose Some disturbance of migratory birds, Some disturbance of migratory birds, populations remain high and may upland/small game and big game upland/small game and big game species. cause some depredation. Elevated species. risk of wildlife disease. Listed Species May affect but not likely to May affect but not likely to adversely May affect but not likely to adversely affect. adversely affect. affect. Historic and No effect. No effect. No effect. Cultural Resources Cumulative Impacts Public use conflicts minimized. Similar to hunting on the surrounding Similar to hunting on the surrounding state state WMAs and federal WPAs. WMAs and federal WPAs. Environmental Does not maximize hunting Hunt authorized by Migratory Bird Hunt authorized by Migratory Bird Justice opportunities as identified by most Conservation Act, Refuge Recreation Conservation Act, Refuge Recreation Act, public and partners. Hunt authorized Act, NWR Admin. Act, and NWR NWR Admin. Act, and NWR Improvement by Migratory Bird Conservation Improvement Act. Listed in Refuge Act. Listed in Refuge CCP as public use Act, Refuge Recreation Act, NWR CCP as public use goals. goals. Admin. Act, and NWR Improvement Act. Listed in Refuge CCP as public use goals.

CHAPTER 5. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C 460k) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer National Wildlife Refuges for public recreation as an appropriate incidental or secondary use (1) to the extent that is practicable and consistent with the primary objectives for which an area was established, and (2) provided that funds are available for the development, operation, and maintenance of permitted recreation.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 688dd-ee) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit the use of any area within the NWR System for any purpose, including but not limited to hunting, fishing, and public recreation whenever those uses are determined to be compatible with the purposes for which the area was established. The Improvement Act of 1997 is the latest amendment to the NWR System Administration Act. It supports the NWR System Administration Act’s language concerning the authorization of hunting and other recreational uses on Refuge lands. The NWR Improvement Act substantiates the need for the NWR System to focus first and foremost on the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats and states that other uses will only be authorized if they are determined to be compatible with this mission statement and the purposes for which the Refuge was established.

Glacial Ridge NWR was established under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 5 715-7I5r, as amended) and the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of L986 (P.1. 99-645). The primary purpose for which Glacial Ridge NWR was established was, under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, "for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." Hunting was identified in Glacial Ridge NWR’s CCP as being a priority public use that would be authorized on most or all of the Refuge. The Service has determined (i.e., Compatibility Determination included with the 2016 CCP) that this use is compatible with the purpose of the Refuge and the mission statement of the NWR System.

CHAPTER 6. LIST OF PREPARERS

Submitted by:

Gregg Knutsen Date Refuge Manager

Concur:

Ryan Frohling Date Project Leader

Tom Kerr Date Refuge Supervisor, Area 3

Charles Blair Date Regional Chief National Wildlife Refuge System

Approve:

Thomas Melius Date Regional Director

CHAPTER 7. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH THE PUBLIC

This Environmental Assessment was made available for public comment from August 18, 2017 through September 16, 2017. It was posted on the Glacial Ridge NWR website and news releases were sent out to newspapers and radio stations in the communities surrounding Glacial Ridge NWR, directing them to the document. A notice was posted on the Rydell and Glacial Ridge NWR Facebook page. Notice of opportunity for review and comment was also posted at local public libraries. Additionally, a letter was sent to the MNDNR Regional Wildlife Office in Bemidji, requesting review and comment by their regional director.

CHAPTER 8. PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT EA AND RESPONSE

On February 22, 2017, during a Glacial Ridge NWR Hunt Plan Scoping Meeting in Crookston, MN, attendees provided two hunting-related comments. Below are the comments along with Refuge staff response.

1.) Glacial Ridge NWR should be closed to deer hunting with firearms. Only youth and military veterans should be allowed to hunt deer on the Refuge with firearms. Other hunters should be restricted to archery equipment.

RESPONSE – As outlined within this Environmental Assessment, the Refuge supports a sufficient number of deer (population monitored and regulated by the MNDNR) such that licensed hunters will not result in reducing the deer population within the Refuge below desired levels, regardless of the type of legal weapon being used. Additionally, as noted in this Environmental Assessment, there are presently no safety concerns related to the use of high powered rifles or other firearms by deer hunters on the Refuge. No concerns of this kind are anticipated under the preferred alternative, due to the large amount of huntable acreage within the Refuge, its rural setting, and its low hunter density. There is no reason why the Refuge should be limited to archery hunting only for the majority of licensed hunters, when hunters on the private and state-owned lands scattered throughout the Refuge acquisition boundary will be allowed to use firearms.

2.) Hunters should be able to use ATVs/UTVs to retrieve deer on the Refuge.

RESPONSE – Use of all-terrain vehicles (ATV) and utility task vehicles (UTV) of any kinds is strictly prohibited for all forms of public use on the Refuge. Because ATVs/UTVs have potential to cause disturbance to wildlife, other public using refuge lands, and sensitive habitats (e.g., fens, wet meadows, remnant prairie), their use is generally not allowed on th majority of national wildlife refuges. With respect to use of ATVs/UTVs on Glacial Ridge NWR by hunters who have harvested a deer, there are numerous potential issues that could result. These include, but aren’t limited to 1) misuse of a ATV/UTV deer-retrieval privledge (i.e., use of ATVs/UTVs for more than deer retrieval), 2) destruction of rare and sensitive fen, wet meadow, and remnant prairie habitats, 3) disturbance of other hunters on the Refuge, and 4) undue disturbance of wildlife on the Refuge. In order to aid in retrieval of deer, hunters are allowed to use non- motorized (wheeled) game carts on all portions of the Refuge that are open to hunting.

CHAPTER 9. REFERENCES CITED

Anteau, M. J. 2011. Do interactions of land use and climate affect productivity of waterbirds and prairie-pothole wetlands? Wetlands, 32:1–9.

Batt, B.D.J., M.G. Anderson, C.D. Anderson, and F.D. Caswell. 1989. The use of prairie potholes by North American ducks in vand der Valk, A., editor, Northern prairie wetlands, Amers, Iowa, Iowa State University, 204–227.

Biondini, M. E., A. A. Steuter, and R. G. Hamilton. 1999. Bison use of fire-managed remnant prairies. Journal of Range Management, 52: 454–461.

Briggs, J., A. Knapp, J. Blair, J. Heisler, G. Hoch, M. Lett, and J. McCarron. 2005. An ecosystem in transition: causes and consequences of the conversion of mesic grassland to shrubland. BioScience, 55(3): 243–254.

Brown, J., M. Cornett, J. Ekstein, P. Gerla, and S. Wahl. 2005. Master plan for restoration, management, and monitoring at Glacial Ridge. The Nature Conservancy. 99 pages + appendices.

Collins, S. L. and L. L. Wallace. 1990. Fire in North American tallgrass prairies. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.

Dexter, M.H., editor. 2015. Status of wildlife populations, fall 2015. Unpub. Rep., Division of Fish and Wildlife, Minn. Dept. Nat. Res., St. Paul, Minnesota. 305 pp.

Dickmann, D. I. and D.T. Cleland. 2002. Fire return intervals and fire cycles for historic fire regimes in the Great Lakes Region: A synthesis of the literature. Great Lakes Ecological Assessment, 21.

Hartnett, D. C., K. R. Hickman, and L. E. Fischer Walter. 1996. Effects of bison grazing, fire, and topography on floristic diversity in tallgrass prairie. Journal of Range Management, 49:413–420.

Heisler, J. L., J. M. Briggs, and A. K. Knapp. 2003. Long-term patterns of shrub expansion in a C4-dominated grassland: fire frequency and the dynamics of shrub cover and abundance. American Journal of Botany, 90:423–428.

Herkert, J.R. 1995. An analysis of Midwestern breeding bird population trends: 1966-1993. American Midland Naturalist,134: 41–50.

Higgins, K.F. 1986. Interpretation and compendium of historical fire accounts in the Northern Great Plains. Resource Publication 161. Washington D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish 79

and Wildlife Service.

Joern, A. 2005. Disturbance by fire frequency and bison grazing modulate grasshopper assemblages in tallgrass prairie. Ecology, 86: 861–873.

Johnson R.R., F.T. Oslund, and D. R. Hertel. 2008. The past, present, and future of prairie potholes in the United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 63: 84a–87a.

Kaminski, R. M. and H. H. Prince. 1981. Dabbling duck activity and foraging responses to aquatic macroinvertebrates. Auk, 98: 115–126.

Kantrud, H. A. 1986. Effects of vegetation manipulation on breeding waterfowl in prairie wetlands: A literature review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Technical Report 3.

Kantrud, H. A. and R. E. Stewart. 1977. Use of natural basin wetlands by breeding waterfowl in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management, 41:243–253.

Krapu, G. L., P. J. Pietz, D. A. Brandt, and R. R. Cox. 2004. Does presence of permanent fresh water affect recruitment in prairie-nesting dabbling ducks? Journal of Wildlife Management, 68: 332–341.

Küchler, A.W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. Speci al publication number 36. American Geographical Society. New York, NY.

Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, 226pp.

McClain, W.E. and S.L. Elzinga. 1994. The occurrence of prairie and forest fires in Illinois and other Midwestern states, 1679–1854. Erigenia,13:79–90.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Field guide to the native plant communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN, U.S.

Minnesota Historical Society. 1979. The Red River Trails: Oxcart routes between St. Paul and the Selkirk Settlement 1820-1870. St. Paul, Minnesota.

Minnesota Prairie Plan Working Group. 2011. “Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan.” Minnesota Prairie Plan Working Group, Minneapolis, MN. 55.

Murkin, H. R., R. M. Kaminski, and R. D. Titman. 1982. Responses by dabbling ducks and aquatic invertebrates to an experimentally manipulated cattail marsh. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 60:2324–2332.

Otis, D. L., J. H. Schulz, D. A. Miller, R. Mirarchi, and T. Baskett. 2008b. Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). In The Birds of North America, No. 117. (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C., USA. Plumb, G. E. and J. L. Dodd. 1994. Foraging ecology of bison and cattle. Rangelands, 16:107–109.

Pyne, S. J. 1997. Fire in America: A Cultural History of Wildland and Urban Fire. University of Washington Press, 264.

Raftovich, R.V., S. Chandler, and K.A. Wilkins. 2016. Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest during the 2014-15 and 2015-16 hunting seasons. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2014. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2012. Version 02.19.2014 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. http://www.mbr- pwrc.usgs.gov

Seamans, M. E. 2016. Mourning dove population status, 2016. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, D.C.

Seamans, M.E., and R.D. Rau. 2016. American woodcock population status, 2016. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland. 17 pp.

Steadman, D. W. 1980. A review of the osteology and paleontology of turkeys (Aves: Meleagridinae). Contribution of the Science and Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, California 330: 131-207.

Stewart, R.E. and H.A. Kantrud. 1971. Classification of ponds and lakes in the glaciated prairie region. Resource Publication 92, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.npwrd.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/pondlake/index.htm (Version16APR1998).

Teller, J.T. and L. Clayton (editors) 1983. Glacial Lake Agassiz. Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 26. 451.

Towne E. G., D. C. Hartnett, and R. C. Cochran. 2005. Vegetation trends in tallgrass prairie from bison and cattle grazing. Ecological Applications 15:1550-1559.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Continental divides in North Dakota and North America (Internet, updated 2008 April 29, cited 2009 May 2). Available from http://www- atlas.usgs.gov/articles/geology/a_continentalDiv.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. American woodcock management plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, Rydell National Wildlife Refuge.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Draft Environmental Assessment to the Wildland Fire Management Plan for Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Waterfowl population status, 2016. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. USA.

Weller, M. W. and C. E. Spatcher. 1965. Role of habitat in the distribution and abundance of marsh birds. Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Special Report 43, 31p.

Wilcox, A.H. 1907. A Pioneer History of Becker County. Pioneer Press Company, St. Paul, MN, 757pp.

Wright, H. A. and A. W. Bailey. 1980. Fire ecology and prescribed burning in the Great Plains: A research review. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, INT-77.