U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

For

Proposed 2018 Migratory Bird, Upland Game and Big Game Hunt Plan

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Rochert, Minnesota

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

5600 American Blvd West

Bloomington, Minnesota 55437-1458

Table of Contents Proposed Action 3

Background 3

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 7

Alternatives Considered 7

Affected Environment 13

Environmental Consequences of the Action 13

Table 1. Affected Natural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Proposed Action and Any Alternatives 14

Table 2. Affected Visitor Use and Experience and Anticipated Impacts of the Proposed Action and ContAny Alternatives 20

Table 3. Affected Cultural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Proposed Action and Any Alternatives 21

Table 4. Affected Refuge Management and Operations and Anticipated Impacts of the Proposed Action and Any Alternatives 23

Table 5. Affected Socioeconomics and Anticipated Impacts of the Proposed Action and Any Alternatives 25

Cumulative Impact Analysis 26

Table 6. Anticipated Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action and Any Alternatives 26

Monitoring 33

Summary of Analysis 33

List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted 34

List of Preparers 34

State Coordination 34

Tribal Consultation 35

Public Outreach 35

References 35

Determination 37

Appendix A. Other applicable Statutes, Executive Orders and Regulations Appendix B. Draft Compatibility Determination Appendix C. Draft Migratory Bird, Upland Game and Big Game Tamarac NWR Hunt Plan Appendix D. Proposed Tamarac Hunt Map Appendix E. Current Tamarac Refuge Hunting Map (from CCP) Appendix F. Species List

2

Environmental Assessment for the 2018 Migratory Bird, Upland Game and Big Game Hunt Plan for Tamarac

National Wildlife Refuge

Date: 01/12/2019 This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to evaluate the effects associated with this proposed action and complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1509) and Department of the Interior (43 CFR 46; 516 DM 8) and Service (550 FW 3) regulations and policies. NEPA requires examination of the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environment. Other applicable statutes, executive orders and regulation compliance is addressed in Appendix A. Proposed Action

The Service is proposing to open hunting opportunities for sora, Virginia rail, mourning dove, wild turkey, American crow, bobcat and proposing to expand hunting opportunities for migratory birds, upland game, big game, and furbearers on Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge (Tamarac Refuge) in accordance with the refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, completed in 2010 (https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/5969). The proposed hunting opportunities will increase the total huntable area for upland game, big game, and furbearers by 160 acres and reduce the total huntable acres for migratory birds by 414 acres. The reduction in acres open to migratory bird hunting is to comply with existing law. Tamarac Refuge was acquired with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds and therefore a maximum of 40% of the acreage can be open to migratory bird hunting. Even though a reduction in migratory birds acres is proposed, the overall proposed realignment of hunting areas would improve hunting opportunity for migratory bird species like American woodcock, sora, and Virginia rail. The final decision on the proposed action will be made at the conclusion of the public comment period for the EA and the Draft 2019-2020 Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Regulations.

Background

National wildlife refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge as defined through establishing

3

legislation, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Tamarac Refuge was established in 1938…

● “…as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife: …” Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938.

● “…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18, 1929, 16 U.S.C. 715d

Tamarac Refuge encompasses nearly 43,000 acres and is located in Becker County, in northwestern Minnesota, 18 miles northeast of Detroit Lakes and 60 miles east of Fargo, North Dakota. The north half of Tamarac Refuge (22,180 acres) lies within the original White Earth Indian Reservation that was established in 1867. Because two federal agencies, the “Indian Service” and ”Bureau of Biological Survey”, now recognized as the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” and “U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service” respectively, had parallel interests in the area, a collaborative agreement was developed before Tamarac Refuge could be established. The “Collier Agreement”, dated June 4, 1935 [Appendix G. in the 2010 Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)] paved the way for refuge establishment.

Following establishment, much of the area in the north half and considerable land in the southern portion of the refuge were acquired from willing sellers and through Becker County tax forfeited lands. Significant lands however, in the south half were owned by influential hunting clubs opposed to the refuge. This opposition resulted in legislative action in 1941 requiring the Governor’s consent before future land acquisition could occur in the southern portion of the refuge. The “Governor’s Line” that resulted essentially blocked Tamarac Refuge from completion for several decades.

In 1955 the Minnesota Legislature passed legislation allowing Tamarac Refuge to resume acquisition and on March 3, 1958 the Migratory Bird Treaty Commission approved that lands necessary for completion of the refuge could proceed as well. By 1968, acquisitions from willing private sellers and land exchanges with the State of Minnesota completed the most significant remaining additions to the current refuge boundary.

Tamarac Refuge currently provides hunting opportunities for upland game (ruffed grouse, gray squirrel, red squirrel, fox squirrel, cottontail rabbit, and snowshoe hare), big game (white-tailed deer), and migratory birds (ducks, geese, coot, American woodcock, and Wilson’s (common) snipe), and furbearers (red fox, raccoon, and striped skunk) during the state seasons.

Refuge goals identified in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan include:

1. Wildlife: protect, restore and maintain a diversity of wildlife species native to habitats naturally found on the refuge with specific emphasis on Service Regional Conservation Priority Species.

2. Habitat: protect, restore and enhance the wetland and upland habitat on the refuge to emulate naturally functioning, dynamic ecosystems emphasizing a variety of habitat conditions that were present prior to European settlement.

4

3. People: provide people with opportunities to experience quality wildlife-dependent

activities and make a connection with a natural, functioning landscape. Specific objectives/rationale of the hunting program identified in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan include:

1. Annually, provide no less than 7,000 quality hunting experiences on the refuge. 2. Seventy-five percent of hunters will report no conflicts with other users, a reasonable

harvest opportunity and satisfaction with the overall experience. 3. Hunting shall be consistent with the refuge mission and the National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act of 1997. 4. Refuge lands will be open to hunting, subject to state and tribal regulations and public

safety concerns, and where biologically feasible. 5. When necessary, refuge staff will seek ways to ensure that hunters have the opportunity

for high quality experiences with both primitive and improved access opportunities. 6. All hunting will be conducted within the framework of the refuge, Minnesota Department

of Natural Resources and White Earth Reservation Tribal Conservation Code. The mission of the NWRS, as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), is to: “... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” The NWRSAA mandates the Secretary of the Interior in administering the System to (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

● Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge. The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460K) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use. The Refuge

5

Recreation Act requires 1) that any recreational use permitted will not interfere with the primary purpose for which the area was established; and 2) that funds are available for the development, operation, and maintenance of the permitted forms of recreation.

Fundamental to the management of lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) is the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57), an amendment to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 provided a mission for the System and clear standards for its management, use, planning, and growth. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 recognized that wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation, when determined to be compatible with the mission of the System and purposes of the refuge, are legitimate and appropriate public uses of the System. Compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the System and shall receive priority consideration in planning and management. Hunting as specified in this plan is a wildlife-dependent recreational use and the law states that as such, it “shall receive priority consideration in national wildlife refuge planning and management.” The Secretary of Interior may permit hunting on a refuge if it is determined that the use is compatible and does not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the purposes of the refuge or the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Recreational hunting authorized by the regulations does not materially interfere or detract with the primary purpose for which Tamarac Refuge was established. This determination is based upon the completion of a Compatibility Determination signed on December 12, 2018 (Appendix B.

Tamarac Refuge was established by Executive Order 7902 on May 31, 1938. “…as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife…” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) administers lands acquired as part of Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge under the following authorities:

● Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 ● Migratory Bird Conservation Act 16 U.S.C. 715d, “…for use as an inviolate

sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” ● Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) ● National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2),

“…conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans…”

Therefore, it is a priority of the Service to provide for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, including hunting and fishing, when those opportunities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. There are no official visitor counts for hunting on Tamarac Refuge. We have estimated that the number of visitors for the following hunts is: big game hunting – 3,400 visits, waterfowl or

6

migratory bird hunting – 2,250 visits, upland game hunting - 1,800 visits. These anecdotal assessments are based upon car count surveys and informal staff observations. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose of this proposed action is to provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge. The need of the proposed action is to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the NWRSAA to “recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the NWRS” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses.” 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)) The first Hunt Plan for Tamarac Refuge was completed in May 1987 (https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/4273https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/4118), with a few reviews and amendments in 1990, 1992, and 1994. The refuge’s existing hunt plan needs to be updated since it is 30 years old. In addition, Secretarial Order No. 3356, signed on September 15, 2017 directs the Fish and Wildlife Service to identify expanded opportunities for hunting and fishing. Alternatives Considered

Alternative A – As described in the 2018 Hunt Plan, in addition to current authorized hunting opportunities; allow expanded (new) hunting of migratory birds (sora, Virginia rail, and mourning dove), upland game (wild turkey, American crow), and furbearer (bobcat) in accordance with federal regulations, refuge-specific regulations, the White Earth Reservation Tribal Conservation Code, and the laws of the State of Minnesota. All other existing public uses will remain unchanged. [Proposed Action Alternative]: The refuge has prepared a draft hunt plan (Appendix C), which is presented in this document as the Proposed Action Alternative. The objectives of migratory bird (duck, goose, coot, woodcock, and snipe), big game (white-tailed deer), upland game (ruffed grouse, gray, red, and fox squirrel, rabbit and hare), and furbearer (red fox, raccoon, and striped skunk) hunting programs on Tamarac refuge and this hunt plan include:

1. Provide high quality, diverse, and safe hunting opportunities on refuge lands that minimize conflict with other wildlife-dependent public recreation activities and are compatible with the refuge purpose and Service policy.

2. Maintain biological diversity and wildlife populations at levels sustainable with refuge habitat.

3. Promote public understanding of and increase public appreciate for the refuge’s and surrounding area’s natural resources.

In addition to the existing hunting of migratory birds, we propose to allow expanded (new) hunting of migratory birds (mourning dove, sora and Virginia rail), upland game (wild turkey, American crow), and furbearer (bobcat) in accordance with federal regulations, refuge-specific

7

regulations, the White Earth Reservation Tribal Conservation Code and the laws of the State of Minnesota.

Proposed Changes The following is a list of proposed changes to the refuge hunting program. A more detailed description can be found in the 2018 Hunt Plan (Appendix C) and on the Proposed Hunting Areas map in Appendix D.

Areas to be Opened/Closed ● Close October 15 area, Area B, (remove 2,387 acres; East of Hwy 29, West of Blackbird,

North of Pine Lake, and South of Co Hwy 26) to migratory bird hunting, but would remain open for upland game, big game, and furbearers only after Oct 15.

● Open the Loon Marsh area, Area B, (add 2,121 acres; West of Co Hwy 35 and South of Egg Lake Trail) for migratory bird hunting as specified.

● Open Johnson Tract, Area E, (add 160 acres) to upland game, big game, and furbearers according to State seasons and regulations.

● Close a portion of the area West of Egg Lake Trail, Area A, (minus 102 acres) to migratory birds so to align with existing law.

● Close a portion of the area East of 400th Ave and South of Co Hwy 26, Area A, (minus 46 acres) to migratory birds so to align with existing laws and policy.

Access to be Improved/Limited ● Airboats are prohibited on all refuge waters.

Species to be Taken – Migratory Birds ● Mourning dove to be hunted throughout the migratory bird hunting areas according to

State and Tribal seasons and regulations. ● American crow to be hunted from September 1 through end of February within the

migratory bird hunting areas throughout the refuge in concurrence with State and Tribal seasons and regulations.

● American crow to be hunted from March 1- end of the season in migratory bird areas only south of County Highway 26 in concurrence with State seasons and regulations.

● Rails (Virginia rail and sora) to be hunted throughout the migratory bird hunting areas according to State and Tribal seasons and regulations.

Species to be Taken –Furbearers ● Bobcat to be hunted throughout the refuge from September 1 through end of February in

concurrence with State and Tribal seasons and regulations.

Species to be Taken – Upland Game ● Wild turkey to be hunted throughout the refuge during the fall season (All Areas) and

only south of Co Hwy 26 minus the area East of Co Hwy 29, North of Pine Lake, and

8

West of Chippewa Water Control Structure Road (Area D & E) within the upland game hunting areas in the spring season according to State and Tribal seasons and regulations.

Hunting Periods ● Extend the seasons in areas South of Co Hwy 26 open to hunting upland game, big game,

migratory birds, and furbearers consistent with State seasons and regulations, including refuge-specific regulation. This allows hunting opportunities after the last day of February outside of the Sanctuary Area if the state season allows (i.e. Apr18 – May 31: wild turkey; Mar 1-31: American crow; Mar 15: red fox, and raccoon).

o 50 CFR 32.42, B2. You may only hunt fox and raccoon from 1/2 hour before legal sunrise until legal sunset.

o 50 CFR 32.42, B3. You may only hunt striped skunk from 1/2 hour before legal sunrise until legal sunset from September 1 through the last day of February.

o General Regulation, furbearers may only be hunted from ½ hour before sunrise until sunset.

o Sanctuary Area is only open to hunting from September 1 through the last day of February.

Proposed Regulation Changes These refuge-specific regulations will be published in the Federal Register as part of the 2019-2019 Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Regulations. (q) Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge. (1) Migratory Game Bird Hunting. We allow the hunting of goose, duck, coot, woodcock, dove, crow, rail and snipe on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions: (i) Hunting by tribal members is in accordance with White Earth Reservation regulations on

those portions of the Reservation that are a part of the refuge. (ii) All boats, decoys, blind materials, stands, platforms, and other personal property (see 27.93

and 27.94 of this chapter) brought onto the refuge, must be removed at the end of each day.

(iii) We allow the use of dogs for hunting, provided the dog is under the immediate control of the hunter at all times. (see §26.21(b)).

(iv) American crow may be hunted from September 1 through the end of February within all migratory bird hunting areas and in areas open to migratory bird hunting south of County Highway 26 from March 1 through the end of season.

(v) Hunters must dismantle hunting blinds, platforms, and ladders made from natural vegetation at the end of each day

9

(2) Upland Game Hunting. We allow hunting of ruffed grouse; red, gray, and fox squirrel; cottontail rabbit; jackrabbit; snowshoe hare; turkey, red fox; bobcat, raccoon; and striped skunk on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions: (i) Hunting by tribal members is in accordance with White Earth Reservation regulations on

those parts of the Reservation that are part of the refuge. (ii) You may only hunt fox and raccoon from ½ hour before legal sunrise until legal sunset from

the beginning of the State season through the last day of February and from March 1 through the end of the season south of County Highway 26.

(iii) You may only hunt striped skunk from ½ hour before legal sunrise until legal sunset from September 1 through the last day of February.

(iv) Wild turkey may only be hunted south of County Highway 26 during spring seasons. (v) You may possess only approved non-toxic shells (see 32.2(k)) when hunting wild turkey. (vi) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (q)(1)(ii), (q)(1)(iii) and (q)(1)(v) apply. (3) Big Game Hunting. We allow hunting of white-tailed deer on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions: (i) Hunting by tribal members is in accordance with White Earth Reservation regulations on

those parts of the Reservation that are part of the refuge. (ii) We prohibit shooting on, from, over, across, or within 30 feet (9 meters) of a road edge open

to public vehicle transportation at a big game animal or a decoy of a big game animal (ii) The condition set forth at paragraph (q)(1)(ii) and (v) apply.

Mitigation Measures to Avoid Conflicts This alternative offers increased opportunities for public hunting/fishing and fulfills the Service’s mandate under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Service has determined that the hunt plan is compatible with the purposes of the Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and the mission of the NWRS. This alternative would allow new hunting of migratory bird, upland game and furbearer species described in the 2018 Hunt Plan within the refuge in accordance with federal regulations, refuge specific regulations, White Earth Reservation Tribal Conservation Code and the seasons and regulations set by the State of Minnesota. New hunting opportunities are expected to potentially attract hunters currently not using the refuge, thus affording an opportunity for the refuge to engage new segments of the public to promote natural resources conservation, environmental education and natural resources stewardship. Opportunities to create additional outdoor recreation experiences would be consistent with goals and priority uses identified by the National Wildlife Refuge System. Detrimental impacts to wildlife habitats and adjacent private lands caused by robust species population growth could also be mitigated by providing hunting opportunities. The refuge manager may establish specific regulations for individual species or portions of the refuge depending on conflicts with other wildlife dependent recreation priorities. Permanent or

10

periodic hunting closures for specific species or closures of portions of the refuge may be necessary if the refuge manager determines that there is specific habitat, wildlife protection, and/or public safety requirements. Hunting would be conducted in accordance with all applicable state, refuge, White Earth Reservation Tribal Conservation Code and Federal regulations. Coordination with the public and refuge stakeholders including the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the White Earth Natural Resources Department will promote continuity and understanding of refuge and Service resource goals and objectives, and will help assure that the decision-making process takes into account all interests.

Biological Conflicts The refuge minimizes conflict related to biological resources by adopting a “wildlife first” principle explicitly stated in the Refuge Improvement Act. Population trends of species are monitored to ensure that target species can be hunted on the refuge without adversely affecting the species. These monitoring activities include direct observation of populations, consultation with state and Service species specialists, or review of current species survey information and research. The refuge limits or excludes hunting activities where there are biological concerns. Certain areas of the refuge are not hunted specifically to provide areas of sanctuary for nesting and breeding wildlife. For example, the Blackbird Lake and South Chippewa Lake area serves as a sanctuary for migratory birds in an area otherwise hunted heavily for migratory birds. Although not proposed in this current plan, the refuge, in the future, could limit or exclude hunting activities on additional portions of the refuge to avoid conflicts related to biological resources, such as threatened or endangered species. Special hunts could also be used to manage hunting pressure, provided increased opportunities, and manage overall take at appropriate levels. State hunting seasons for some upland game species extend into the spring migration period. For these species (i.e. wild turkey), hunting within the sanctuary area will not take place during the closed period (March 1 to August 31) to ensure that disturbance to migrating and breeding birds is minimized and to balance public use activities with trust wildlife resource responsibilities. Tribal hunting seasons within the reservation boundary are subject to special regulation. Three federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species occur or have the potential to occur on the refuge. These species include the gray wolf, northern long-eared bat and rusty patched bumble bee. In addition, federally protected eagles occur on the refuge. The proposed opening of the refuge to hunting will not conflict with the recovery and/or protection of these species. Attached and included in this proposal is a Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requiring Federal agencies to evaluate potential impacts to Threatened and Endangered species and their habitats and an Environmental Assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act specifically for the hunting program and addresses each of these species.

Public Use Conflicts In an effort to minimize conflicts with priority non-hunting recreational uses outlined in the Improvement Act, and for public safety, the refuge designates areas open to hunting and enforces refuge-specific regulations.

11

The boundaries of all lands owned or managed by the Service are posted with refuge boundary signs. Areas administratively closed to hunting are clearly marked with “No Hunting Zone” or “Area Beyond This Sign Closed” or “Area Closed Wildlife Sanctuary March 1 – August 31 All Public Entry Prohibited” signs. Overall, hunting impacts to visitor services/recreation opportunities are considered short-term, minor and local since other parts of the refuge are available for use by non-hunters (other wildlife-dependent recreation users). Past conflicts have been minimal and we anticipate future conflicts to be about the same.

Administrative Use Conflicts The most potential for conflict with management activities occurs in areas where habitat treatments are conducted. Occasionally, an area open to hunting is proposed to receive a prescribed fire treatment. Typically, a notice of the impending treatment is posted at the unit public access points to alert all users, including hunters. Prior to implementing the fire treatment, the treatment unit is scouted by refuge staff to ensure that no one will be put in danger. Other habitat treatments such as timber harvesting or invasive species treatment may generate a temporary or long-term closure of an area. Aquatic invasive species detection could lead to closure of one or more water bodies to prevent further spread. Notice or information about any of these closures will be posted and available at the refuge visitor center.

Alternative B – Maintain current hunting opportunities for upland game (ruffed grouse, red, gray and fox squirrel, rabbit and hare), big game (white-tailed deer), furbearer (red fox, raccoon and striped skunk) and migratory bird (duck, goose, coot, woodcock and snipe) on refuge lands as described in the 1987 Hunt Plan as amended (1990, 1992, and 1994). New hunting opportunities for species identified in the 2018 Hunt Plan would remain closed to hunting. All other existing public uses will remain unchanged. [No Action Alternative]:

Under this alternative, current refuge hunting opportunities for specific upland game, big game, furbearer and migratory bird species would continue and remain the same across those portions of the refuge (see map Appendix E). The refuge would continue to serve as habitat for fish and wildlife as well as provide outdoor recreational opportunities for all six priority wildlife dependent public uses – hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Opportunities to create additional outdoor recreation experiences by adding additional species would be lost. In addition, the refuge’s ability to connect with certain segments of the public would potentially be diminished since hunting for some popular game species would not be permitted. Hunters would pursue these species off-refuge and thus the refuge’s ability to reach those members of the public and promote natural resources conservation, environmental education and natural resources stewardship may be more limited. Conversely, the refuge will continue to provide hunting opportunities for the public, offering reasonable opportunities for the refuge to promote natural resources conservation, environmental

12

education and natural resources stewardship. Under this alternative, the public would have more limited access to hunt certain species on public lands in the general area. All other public uses on the refuge would not change and would continue to be managed as described in current plans. Affected Environment

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge (Tamarac Refuge), encompassing nearly 43,000 acres, is located in Becker County, 18 miles northeast of Detroit Lakes (pop. 7,400) and 60 miles east of Fargo, North Dakota. Tamarac Refuge lies in the glacial lake country of northwestern Minnesota, in the heart of one of the most diverse transition zones in North America. Here eastern deciduous hardwoods, northern coniferous forests and western tall grass prairie converge, creating a rich assemblage of both plants and animals. The landscape is characterized by rolling forested hills interspersed with shallow lakes, rivers, marshes and shrub swamps. Sixty percent of the refuge is forested with aspen, jack pine, red pine, balsam fir, paper birch, red and white oak, sugar maple and basswood tree types. Large and small wetland complexes comprise about thirty-five percent of the refuge. Many refuge lakes and rivers contain large native wild rice beds which produce abundant food for waterfowl and other wetland dependent species. Twenty-eight lakes lie within the refuge and three rivers flow through the refuge, while marshes and wooded potholes number several thousand. The remaining five percent of Tamarac Refuge are grassland, mostly remnants of early settler clearings or small farms. Tables 1-6 provide additional, brief descriptions of each resource affected by the proposal. For more information regarding the affected environment, please see Chapter 3 of the refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Environmental Consequences of the Action

This section analyzes the environmental consequences of the action on each affected resource, including direct and indirect effects. This EA only includes the written analyses of the environmental consequences on a resource when the impacts on that resource could be more than negligible and therefore considered an “affected resource”. Any resources that will not be more than negligibly impacted by the action have been dismissed from further analyses. Tables 1-5 provide:

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

direct and indirect effects. Table 6 provides a brief description of the cumulative impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives. Impact Types:

● Direct effects are those which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

13

● Indirect effects are those which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther

removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. ● Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.

TABLE 1. AFFECTED NATURAL RESOURCES AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

NATURAL RESOURCES  

AFFECTED RESOURCE  

ANTICIPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 

Mourning Dove The mourning dove is the most abundant and most harvested migratory game bird in the U.S. In the Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvest During the 2015-16 and 2016-17 Hunting Seasons report (August 2017), the Service estimates approximately 748,800 dove hunters harvested 13,157,300 (±6%) mourning doves in 2015 and 837,800 hunters harvested 13,502,000 (±8%) in 2016. For Minnesota specifically, the estimated seasonal dove harvest was 96,700 in both 2015 and 2016. According to the Service’s Morning Dove Population Status (2016), the most recent estimates indicate that there were 266 million mourning doves in the U.S. immediately prior to the 2015 hunting season. Compared to previous years, abundance appeared to remain relatively unchanged in the central management unit, which includes Minnesota.

Alternative A: The Minnesota state season for harvesting mourning doves in 2018 is from September 1-November 9 is confined within the central management unit (a national management unit that stretches from Montana to Minnesota and south to Texas). The daily limit is 15 and the possession limit is 45. It is estimated that less than 150 mourning doves will be harvested under Refuge hunts. Hunting would not have a significant impact on the local, regional, or national populations because the percentage taken would only be a fraction of the mourning dove population in the U.S. (279 million mourning doves prior to the 2016 hunting season; Seamans 2017).

Alternative B: The likelihood of disturbance to migratory waterfowl populations would be less as there would be no hunting season for mourning dove and because the frequency of human disturbance would be less. Therefore, minor impacts would be expected on non-target wildlife.

Virginia Rail and Sora Very few hunters attempt to harvest these species and the population sizes and trend abundance is unknown at a local level. In the Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvest During the 2015-16 and 2016-17 Hunting Seasons report (August 2017), the Service estimates approximately 6,400 rail hunters harvested 26,800 (±68%) birds in 2015 and 1,300 rail hunters harvested 14,500 (±41%) birds in 2016 throughout the US.Due to a low number of rail hunters and harvest reports in Minnesota, it is estimated that there are less than 100 rail hunters in the state.

Alternative A: The Minnesota state season for harvesting Virginia rail and sora in 2018 is from September 1 – November 5 and is confined to the Mississippi Flyway. The aggregate daily limit is 25 and the aggregate possession limit is 75. It is estimated that very few hunters will attempt to harvest these species as recent data suggests and that less than 100 rail will be harvested under hunts on the Refuge. Hunting would not have a significant impact on the local, regional, or national populations because the percentage taken would be so low.

14

Alternative B: The likelihood of disturbance to migratory waterfowl populations and breeding raptors would be less as there would be no hunting season for rails and because the frequency of human disturbance would be less. Therefore, minor impacts would be expected on non-target wildlife.

American Crow Presently, there is no hunting season for the American crow on the refuge, however, this a proposed “new” harvestable species. Using the total number of statewide hunters (7,412) multiplied by the estimated rate of hunter success (86%), the number of “successful” hunters can be estimated (6,374). Multiplying the mean harvest for successful hunters (7.6 birds) by the number of success hunters (6,374), the refuge estimates that approximately 48,442 American crow were harvested throughout the State of Minnesota in the 2016-2017 season according to the 2016 Small Game Hunter Mail Survey data. The American crow is a very abundant permanent resident and a migrant throughout the refuge. Breeding Bird Survey data show significant increases nationwide for American crow populations from 1966-1996 (Verbeek and Caffrey 2002).

Alternative A: Currently the state has established four hunting seasons for American crow, for 2018: the first is from January 1-15, second is from March 1-31, third is from September 1 - October 31, fourth is from December 15-31. The total hunting days for American crow is 124 and excludes the nesting season. There is no daily limits or procession limit for American crow. It is estimated that very few hunters will come to the refuge to hunt American crow and harvest rates will be very low of less than 100 crow. Hunting would not have a significant impact on the local, regional, or national populations because the percentage taken is anticipated to be so low.

Alternative B: The likelihood of disturbance to migratory waterfowl populations and breeding raptors would be less as there would be no hunting season for American crow and because the frequency of human disturbance would be less. Therefore, minor impacts would be expected on non-target wildlife.

Wild Turkey According to the Minnesota’s Wild Turkey harvest – Fall 2016, Spring 2017 report by the MNDNR, in the spring of 2016 the MNDNR reported 12,313 turkey were harvested over a 49-day season by 39, 648 permit holders. This same report also indicated that 8,562 permit holders throughout the state harvested 1,111 turkey over a 30-day season in the fall of 2016. Since 1990, spring turkey harvest rates have slightly increased and fall turkey harvest rates have remained relatively stable. According to the MNDNR, Minnesota's wild turkey population is expanding north and west and has grown from just a few birds in the early 1970s to more than 70,000 today.

Alternative A: Currently the MNDNR offers two seasons each year to harvest wild turkey, in the fall and in the spring. For 2017, the fall season was from September 30 – October 29 and the spring season from April 18 – May 31 by lottery only and split into 6 seven-day time periods (A, B, C, D, E, & F). The season limit is one bird with a beard. Informal surveys and staff observations indicate a stable to slightly increasing resident wild turkey population on the refuge. The refuge predicts that approximately 10 individuals would be harvested annually. Hunting would not have a significant impact on the local, regional, or national populations of wild turkey because the percentage taken is anticipated to be so low.

Alternative B: The likelihood of disturbance to migratory waterfowl populations and breeding raptors would be less as there would be no hunting season for wild turkey and because the frequency of human disturbance would be

15

less. Therefore, minor impacts would be expected on non-target wildlife.

Bobcat Minnesota DNR show stable, huntable populations of these furbearers. The refuge does not perform any management practices specifically for bobcat populations, although they may benefit from some of the habitat management practices and habitat restoration efforts undertaken on the refuge for other species. The vast majority of the refuge provides suitable habitat for bobcat species. The Registered Furbearer Harvest Statistics 2015-16 report by the MNDNR stated that 109 bobcat were harvested by 68 hunters throughout Minnesota in the 2015-2016 season (this does not include the take of 657 bobcat by 355 trappers).

Alternative A: The State hunting season for bobcat in 2018 is from November 24 – January 6 with a daily, season, and possession limit of five, which also includes the trapping limit. The hunting pressure of these species is dependent on the price of pelts in any given year. The refuge predicts that less than five individuals would be harvested annually throughout the refuge. Hunting would not have a significant impact on the local, regional, or national populations of bobcat because the percentage taken by hunting is anticipated to be so low.

Alternative B: The likelihood of disturbance to migratory waterfowl populations would be less as there would be no hunting season for bobcat. However, the trapping of this species would still take place and the frequency of human disturbance would remain consistent with previous years. Therefore, minor impacts would be expected on non-target wildlife.

Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species (Species list in Appendix F)

Birds Tamarac Refuge is especially important for migratory birds, both during the migrating and nesting seasons. Fifty-three species of birds that are on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Region 3 Regional Conservation Priority Species list reside on the refuge or migrate through, although only 21 of these species breed within the refuge. The remaining 32 species have been documented in migration. Many of these species, as well as other species, are listed species of greatest conservation concern by the Minnesota DNR. Of the 257 species of birds that have been observed on the Refuge, 113 species are reported to have nested here.

Waterfowl have been an important bird group throughout the history of the refuge. Primary nesters include: mallard, wood duck, blue-winged teal, ring-necked duck, Canada goose and trumpeter swan. Duck nesting densities are among the highest reported for the woodland transition zone in Minnesota. Spring surveys indicate slightly more than 40 breeding pairs of ducks per square mile. In addition to the breeding population, approximately 50,000 ducks also migrate through the refuge each fall stopping to feed on the abundant annual wild rice crops.

The refuge was the focal point for the 1987 Minnesota DNR trumpeter swan reintroduction program. The trumpeter swan was extirpated from Minnesota in the early 1900s. The population within the Refuge has grown to more

Alternative A: Increased hunting may result in additional short-term disturbance to wildlife over a larger area, since additional units would be open to hunting. However, the proposed hunt plan will also close units to migratory bird hunting similar in size. This disturbance may include temporary displacement of turkey, waterfowl, and other resident wildlife from foot traffic moving through the area, but this is likely to be less than other forms of refuge recreation.

The active breeding season for most birds (with the exception of winter breeding raptors) is within April-July. Most hunting will not occur within this period, with the exception of wild turkey (closes May 31). To offset this conflict, the sanctuary area, which includes the northern two-thirds of the Refuge, is closed to public access from March 1 – August 31 and will continue to provide breeding and nesting habitat for migratory birds with minimal disturbance.

Alternative B: Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative A (minimal, short-term disturbance related to increased human presence and noise associated with hunting). Under this alternative, the harvest of

16

than 50 breeding pairs and an annual production of around 150 cygnets per year.

As recently as the early 1970s, the bald eagle population was in jeopardy throughout the United States. Only one bald eagle nest was active on the refuge. Since that time the number of eagle nests has increased to approximately 30 occupied territories and 25 active nests on an annual basis, producing 20-30 eaglets per year. Other raptors, such as red-tailed hawks, red-shouldered hawks, broad-winged hawks, cooper’s hawks, and sharp-shinned hawks breed and migrate through the refuge.

Refuge wetlands are particularly important to other water-birds. These wetlands are ideal nesting sites for species such as: common loon, great blue heron, black tern, American bittern and sora rail.

The diverse forests of Tamarac Refuge are well suited for providing habitat for migrating and nesting passerines. Red-eyed vireos, ovenbirds, veery’s, scarlet tanagers, rose-breasted grosbeaks, golden-winged warblers and chestnut-sided warblers are common breeders throughout the refuge.

Although not abundant on the refuge, various species of shorebirds can be seen throughout the refuge. The refuge contains very little mudflat habitats or shallow water (<10 cm) that most shorebirds prefer. Despite low shorebird densities, the American woodcock breeds in significant numbers throughout the refuge, again primarily due to the abundance of young forest habitats. The American woodcock is also a Resource Conservation Priority species for the Midwest Region due to long-term declines in breeding populations.

Resident bird or year-round species include: ruffed grouse, wild turkey, great-horned owl, barred owl, downy woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, blue jay, black-capped chickadee, white-breasted nuthatch.

Mammals The refuge supports 53 species of resident mammals and seven species of bats that migrate off-refuge to overwinter. Some of the mammal species found on the refuge are listed as RCPs for Region 3 (ie: gray wolf) and numerous other species are listed species of greatest conservation concern by the Minnesota DNR (ie: Franklin’s ground squirrel). Two packs of gray wolves have successfully produced young on the refuge. White-tailed deer, beaver, striped skunk, raccoon, muskrat, mink and red squirrels are abundant. White-tailed deer and beaver can severely impact the refuge’s ability to restore or manage habitats. Beaver can have significant effects on water levels which can directly impact the production of wild rice within lakes. Cottontail rabbits and snowshoe hare populations follow a cyclical pattern. Other furbearers, including red fox, coyote,

big game, upland game, upland game, and furbearers may occur over a shorter period, concurrent with state hunting regulations. The likelihood of disturbance to non-target wildlife associated to hunting is likely to be less than other forms of refuge recreation.

17

bobcat, fisher, river otter, long and short-tailed weasels, are locally common and seen in the area on a regular basis.

Amphibians and Reptiles Eleven species of amphibians and five species of reptiles have been recorded. Lakes, streams, ditches and other wetland basins provide aquatic habitat required for a variety of turtles, frogs, toads and salamanders. Spring peeper, American toad, wood, chorus, northern leopard, gray tree, Cope’s gray tree and mink frogs are common. Snapping and painted turtles and garter snakes are also common.

Invertebrates More than 25 species of butterflies (including the monarch), 50 species of dragonflies, and many other insects and pollinators have been documented on the refuge to date although formalized surveys have not occurred. Refuge wetlands are presumed to contain typical freshwater invertebrates found in the area but only limited sampling has been done as well. There is speculation that some freshwater invertebrate species have been negatively impacted by fish species that were not historically present within several wetland basins (ie: fathead minnows). Freshwater invertebrates are an extremely important food source for waterfowl, during spring migration, egg laying and brood rearing.

Fish Fish surveys have been conducted on select lakes and streams by the Minnesota DNR , the LaCrosse Fishery Resource Office (USFWS), the White Earth Biology Department and various universities in cooperation with the refuge staff on a periodic basis. Sampling by various methods has documented 37 species of fish including: walleye, yellow perch, black crappie and large-mouth bass. Numerous other fish species were also documented including shiners, dace, chubs, darters and other minnow species. Walleye and lake sturgeon are both listed as Regional Conservation Priority Species (USFWS) for Region 3; however, only the lake sturgeon is listed as a state listed species of special concern.

Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Special Status Species Three Federally listed endangered, threatened or candidate species occur or have the potential to occur on the refuge. These species include the gray wolf, northern long-eared bat and rusty patched bumble bee.

Gray Wolf Recent survey trends have indicated a stable wolf population in Minnesota which was well above recovery goals established in the eastern gray wolf recovery plan. In recent years, two gray wolf packs have produced young on

Alternative A: In 2018, the refuge completed an intra-service Section 7 evaluation that addressed the implementation of the proposed hunt plan (Alternative A). The evaluation determined that the northern long-eared bat would not be affected by the proposal. The evaluation also determined that the rusty patched bumble bee is not likely to be present on the refuge and therefore it is not included in the Section 7. Based on the review and previous work on gray wolves, the Service determined that the proposed 2018 hunt plan may affect but is not likely to adversely affect gray wolf populations.

18

the refuge. The wolf density is considered viable and sustainable, with as many as 20 individuals on the refuge in recent years.

Northern Long-eared Bat To date, NLEB have not been documented on Tamarac Refuge and there are no known maternal roost trees or hibernacula within Tamarac Refuge or Becker County based on the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS database) and surveys conducted by Minnesota County Biological Survey staff (MN DNR). The NHIS database documented the closest occurrence near Sherburne Refuge, Minnesota which is approximately 160+ miles from Tamarac Refuge.

Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Tamarac Refuge staff will continue to monitor the distribution and status of the RPBB in Minnesota and more specifically, within the refuge. Should a population assessment indicate the presence of RPBB on or adjacent to Tamarac Refuge, a new Section 7 consultation will be initiated at that time.

Alternative B: N/A

Vegetation (including vegetation of special management concern) Vegetation varies quite widely, encompassing grassland, shrubby, forested, and herbaceous communities. Forest communities dominate sixty percent of the refuge and include the following species: aspen (Populus spp.), jack pine (Pinus banksiana), red pine (Pinus resinosa), white pine (Pinus strobus), balsam fir (Abies balsamea), black spruce (Picea mariana), tamarack (Larix laricina), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), red and white oak (Quercus spp.), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), American basswood (Tilia americana).

Alternative A: No effect is expected under Alternative A or B for any vegetation impacts. Use is dispersed or on designated access trails or parking areas so negative vegetation impacts will be minimal. Moderate, beneficial impacts to vegetation and to a variety of species habitat may occur due to control of the deer population to acceptable carrying capacity.

Alternative B: N/A

Wilderness The Tamarac Wilderness Area was established by law in 1976 and includes the northwest corner of the refuge (2,080 acres) and three islands (68 acres) within North Tamarac Lake. The Wilderness Area is managed under the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act as a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. That is, it is “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain” (The Wilderness Act, September 3, 1964; (16 U.S.C. 1121 (note), 1131-1136)). Staff carries out no active management in the Tamarac Wilderness Area, but does conduct research in the unit. The management strategy for the wilderness area calls for passive management with natural succession allowed to take its course. In theory, examples of almost all forest types on the refuge would be preserved in this one single complex of wilderness. White-tailed deer, upland game, and furbearer hunting currently occurs within these boundaries, however access is

Alternative A: There are no additional impacts to the wilderness areas anticipated under Alternative A or B. Alternative B: N/A

19

limited and generally restricted to the peripheries.

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

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE  

AFFECTED RESOURCE  

ANTICIPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 

In an effort to minimize conflicts with priority non-hunting recreational uses outlined in the Improvement Act, and for public safety, the refuge designates areas open to hunting and enforces refuge-specific regulations.

The boundaries of all lands owned or managed by the Service are posted with refuge boundary signs. Areas administratively closed to hunting are clearly marked with “No Hunting Zone” or “Area Beyond This Sign Closed” or “Area Closed Wildlife Sanctuary March 1 – August 31 All Public Entry Prohibited” signs.

The refuge has identified areas open to recreation use that is closed temporarily to hunting in order to provide outdoor recreation opportunities to the non-hunting public.

Alternative A: All other public uses on the refuge would not change and would continue to be managed as described in current plans. Overall, hunting impacts of Alternative A and B to visitor services or other recreation opportunities are considered short-term, minor and local since other parts of the refuge are available for use by non-hunters (other wildlife-dependent recreation users). Impacts between hunters and non-hunters are anticipated to be similar to the impacts between other user groups (i.e. like that between hikers and photographers).

Alternative B: Under this alternative, current refuge hunting opportunities for specific upland game, big game, furbearer and migratory bird species would continue across those portions of the refuge. The refuge would continue to serve as habitat for fish and wildlife as well as provide outdoor recreational opportunities for all six priority wildlife dependent public uses – hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Opportunities to create additional outdoor recreation experiences by adding additional species would be lost.

20

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

CULTURAL RESOURCES

AFFECTED RESOURCE  

 ANTICIPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT 

IMPACTS   

Evidence found on Tamarac Refuge has revealed a rich history of human use by many cultures. Refuge staff strive to protect and preserve archeological and historic sites against degradation, looting, and other adverse impacts.

Tamarac Refuge has never been intensely surveyed for archeological resources. However, several site and project specific investigations have occurred on the refuge. In addition, known archeological and historic sites were summarized and mapped in 1977 by two archeologists working under contract for the Service (USFWS 1977). This survey provided background on the periods of habitation in Minnesota and identified prehistoric and historic sites on refuge lands.

In late prehistoric times, the Tamarac Refuge area was occupied by the ancestors of the historic Sioux, or Dakota/Lakota, who were based in the Mille Lacs area and were in the process of fragmenting into the various historic bands when the French Jesuits and fur traders first arrived there at the end of the 17th Century. By the mid 1700s, the Ojibwe (or Chippewa) moved into Minnesota from the east as a direct result of the spread of the French fur trade. By 1800, the Ojibwe were known to hunt regularly in the plains areas west of the Mississippi. The Otter Tail Band of the Pillager Ojibwe was probably well established in the Tamarac Refuge area before 1820.

The first documented European occupants of the area were traders of the Northwest Fur Company, who established a trading post at White Earth Lake in October, 1802. At about the same time, a small independent post at Shell Lake was started. However, actual European “settlement” did not occur in the region until around 1868. The logging industry made an appearance in Becker County relatively early, to take advantage of the expansive forest stands. Commercial pine and oak were probably first cut within the county by about 1870. By about 1908, the forests of the area had been extensively logged and the logging era ended. There were several attempts at farming within the refuge, but farming never achieved much prominence due to the dense forest, marginal soils and numerous wetlands.

An inventory of archeological collections from Tamarac Refuge was completed under contract by the Institute of Minnesota Archeology (1993). There have been five

Alternative A: Impacts to cultural or historical resources/properties as a result of the refuge hunt program are unlikely for both Alternative A and B. To date, no conflicts have been reported. Any activities that might cause an effect to a historic property would be subject to a Section 106 review of the National Historic Preservation Act. Alternative B: N/A

21

archaeological projects including reconnaissance and collections from Tamarac Refuge since 1978, totaling an inventory of 1,432 artifacts and eco-facts. Currently, these collections are being curated by the Minnesota Historical Society at Fort Snelling and the Department of Anthropology, Hamline University, St. Paul, Minnesota. Due to the overlap in habitation by both Ojibwe and Siouan speakers, most of the archaeological components present cannot be related to any particular historic tribe or tribal activity. There is evidence that a large number of historic Ojibwe sites are present within the refuge, however, no cultural materials in the collections can be assigned to the Ojibwe.

From these reconnaissance projects, historic (post 1700s) and prehistoric sites have been identified. Among the historic sites, those associated with logging activities (road, camps, dams, and ditches) are most abundant. Other types include clearings, foundations, unidentified sites, settler’s communities, bridges, cemetery or grave, standing structures, a Civilian Conservation Corps camp, and a school. Habitations comprise nearly one-third of the prehistoric sites, followed by seasonal camps. The remaining sites include trails, clearings, cemetery/grave, and unidentified sites. There are stone markers on the refuge that identify some of these historic sites. The markers were placed in the mid-1960s with the cooperation of Becker County Historical Society and Minnesota State Historical Society.

Cultural resources management in the Service is the responsibility of the Regional Director and is not delegated for the Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing archeological permits, and for Indian tribal involvement. The Regional Historic Preservation (RHPO) advises the Regional Director about procedures, compliance, and implementation of cultural resources laws. The Refuge Manager assists the RHPO by informing the RHPO about Service undertakings, by protecting archeological sites and historic properties on Service managed and administered lands, by monitoring archeological investigations by contractors and permittees, and by reporting violations.

22

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

REFUGE MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS  

AFFECTED RESOURCE  

ANTICIPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS  

 Land Use: Within the 42,748 acre refuge boundary there are approximately 24,309 acres of forest, 1,360 acres of grassland, 4,176 acres of shrubland and 13,368 acres of open water and wetlands. The predominant land uses are associated with management actions that support fish, wildlife and plant conservation.

Consistent with its authorizing legislation, Tamarac Refuge conducts a broad array of wildlife and habitat management activities while providing for a variety of visitor services. Efforts to balance competing demands for natural resources, wildlife, and protection from environmental hazards are crucial. Refuge management has made significant progress in implementing planned activities over the years since establishment. Refuge planning and management, however, are a continual work in progress and evolve over time, depending on feedback and monitoring as well as changing values, needs, and priorities in wildlife management at the refuge, regional, and national scale.

The refuge’s comprehensive conservation plan and associated step down plans provide direction for refuge habitat management programs including prescribed fires, water level management and silviculture programs.

Alternative A: Due to the number of days of hunting currently allowed on the refuge, the refuge would need to continue to engage in habitat management and cooperative silviculture during the hunting season to ensure the refuge meets its other management objectives (see CCP). Impacts would be minimized by ensuring hunters, cooperators, and partners are aware of each other’s activities and timed to minimize conflict when possible. No impacts are anticipated under Alternative A or B to habitat, buildings, infrastructure, traffic or roadways. A negligible increase to traffic on local or adjacent roadways is anticipated under Alternative A, with no increased cost or impacts to infrastructure.

Alternative B: N/A

Administration The costs of administering and enforcing the refuge hunting program comes out of the refuge’s annual budget. Expenses include program management, staff resources, boundary posting, signage, brochures, parking lot construction, facility maintenance, gate installation, and other hunting specific activities.

Law enforcement of refuge, Tribal, and State hunting regulations, trespass and other violations associated with management of the refuge is the responsibility of a commissioned Refuge Law Enforcement Officer. Refuge Officers cooperate with, and are assisted by, state, tribal, and county officers as well as state and tribal conservation officers. The refuge regularly meets with various state, tribal, and county law enforcement agencies to review agreements and develop strategies to ensure law enforcement operations are performed as safely and efficiently as possible. Ongoing coordination and communication is conducted throughout the year. A law

Alternative A: A minor increase in annual Law Enforcement operation costs of approximately $2,500, approximately $1,500 for refuge management and administrations, approximately $1,500 for biological monitoring and research, and approximately $500 for annual maintenance and signs.In summary, an additional increase of $6,000 annually is anticipated under Alternative A.

Alternative B: No additional increase in costs for administration, law enforcement, biological monitoring and research, or annual maintenance is anticipated for Alternative B.

23

enforcement Memorandum of Understanding established in October 2014 between USFWS and White Earth NRD supports law enforcement operations on the refuge.

A hunting brochure that identifies refuge specific regulations is available at the refuge visitor center, the refuge’s website, and kiosks located at all entrances to the refuge.

The refuge also uses non-law enforcement staff to manage hunting activities. Some staff have alternate work schedules to be available during the hunting seasons to assist hunters and non-hunters and ensure that all refuge users understand where to locate areas that are open to hunting. Staff that operate the refuge’s education and visitor center routinely interact with and assist refuge users during the hunting season.

The most potential for conflict with management activities occurs in areas where habitat treatments are conducted. Occasionally, an area open to hunting is proposed to receive a prescribed fire treatment. Typically, a notice of the impending treatment is posted at the unit public access points to alert all users, including hunters. Prior to implementing the fire treatment, the treatment unit is scouted by refuge fire staff to ensure that no one is endangered by the treatment. Other habitat treatments such as timber harvesting or invasive species treatment may generate a temporary or long-term closure of an area. Aquatic invasive species detection could lead to closure of one or more water bodies to prevent further spread. Notice or information about any of these closures may be posted and available at the refuge visitor center.

24

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

SOCIOECONOMICS

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT  

 ANTICIPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT 

IMPACTS  

Local and regional economies The refuge averages about 74,000 visitors per year (2017 RAPP data). Visitors come to the refuge for a variety of outdoor recreational opportunities, for both consumptive (hunting, fishing, berry/nut/mushroom gathering) and non-consumptive (photography, hiking, special events and programming, wildlife observation, environmental education, and interpretation) uses.

Total expenditures from visitors in 2006 were $1,221,700 with non-residents accounting for $1,045,700 or 86 percent of total expenditures. Expenditures on hunting activities accounted for 18 percent of all expenditures, followed by non-consumptive activities and fishing at 75 and 7 percent respectively (Carver and Caudill 2006).

Social and Economic Context Tamarac Refuge is located in Becker County, Minnesota. The City of Detroit Lakes is the largest town, 22 miles south of the refuge headquarters with 8,961 people listed in the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau, an increase of 22% since 2000. The racial makeup of the counties 32,504 residents (2010 U.S. Census Bureau) is 88.4 percent white, 7.6 percent Native American, 0.4 percent African American with Asians, Hispanic and other races contributing 3.6 percent. Compared to the State of Minnesota as a whole, Becker County has a smaller population growth rate and is less racially and ethnically diverse. On average, the area’s population has a lower median income, and less high school and college education than the state’s population.

Employment In 2010, there were a total of 15,695 full- and part-time jobs in Becker County. Management, business, science, and arts occupations accounted for about 28.7 percent of the jobs across the area followed by sales and office occupations (24.7%) and service occupations (17.2%) (2010 U.S. Census Bureau).

Income and Education The median household income in Becker County is $52,038, more than $9,000 below the state average and approximately $1,800 below the national average (2015 U.S. Census Bureau). The percent of population below the Federal poverty line is an indicator of the economic distress

Alternative A: Migratory bird hunting visitation in 2006 result in 1,525 visits to the refuge with each visit representing approximately $50.29 in expenditures (Carver and Caudill 2007). Total expenditures associated with 1,525 visits associated with migratory bird hunting totaled approximately $76,700. According to Carver and Caudill, the economic area considered for their study was Becker and Hubbard counties. Visitor recreation expenditures occurring in Becker and Hubbard Counties in 2006 amounted to approximately $1.2 million. The increase in recreational opportunities proposed under Alternative A would increase these estimates. Turkey hunting visitation may result in 20 new visits, mourning dove hunting may generate 20 more visits, rail hunting may not generate any additional visits, as most are already coming to pursue already harvestable species, and finally, American crow and bobcat hunting may generate at most five additional visits to the refuge. The 2006 revenues alone represent a minor impact in the context of the Becker and Hubbard County local economies. We anticipate greater visitation and expenditure under Alternative A.

Alternative B: N/A

25

within a community. The percent below poverty in Becker County, 12.8%, is just below the national average of 14.7% but higher than the state average of 11.5%.

In Becker County, approximately 90% of residents over the age of twenty-five were high school graduates and 21.3% have earned a bachelor’s or advanced degree (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010).

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations and communities.

The Service has not identified any potential high and adverse environmental or human health impacts from this proposed action or any of the alternatives. The Service has identified no minority or low income communities within the impact area. Minority or low income communities will not be disproportionately affected by any impacts from this proposed action or any of the alternatives.

INDIAN TRUST RESOURCES

Close coordination and consultation takes place on an annual basis with the White Earth Natural Resources Department. The refuge does not hold any Trust Resources, as it pertains to only Indian trust assets (i.e. lands, natural resources, money, or other assets) with White Earth Nation. Sacred sites likely exist within the refuge but have not been identified.

Negligible or no impact to tribal trust resources or sacred sites is anticipated under Alternatives A & B.

Cumulative Impact Analysis

Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). For more information on the national cumulative impacts of the Service’s hunting and fishing program on the National Wildlife Refuge System, see the Service’s Cumulative Impact Report for 2018-2019. TABLE 6. ANTICIPATED CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activity Impacting Affected

Environment Descriptions of Anticipated Cumulative

Impacts Hunting/Fishing Hunting has been allowed on Tamarac Refuge since the 1950s. The first Hunting and Fishing Plan was approved and registered in the Code of Federal Regulations in 1987.

The proposed action would have minor impacts on the environment of other hunting opportunities locally, regionally, or at the flyway level. The anticipated take

26

If public use levels expand in the future, unanticipated conflicts between user groups may occur. Service experience has proven that time and space zoning can be an effective tool in eliminating conflicts between user groups. This tool is implemented at Tamarac, with delayed opening dates in high public use areas to limit conflicts.

Migratory Birds Waterfowl populations throughout the United States are managed through an administrative process known as flyways. The refuge is located in the Mississippi Flyway. In North America, the process for establishing waterfowl hunting regulations is conducted annually. In the United States, the process involves a number of scheduled meetings (Flyway Study Committees, Flyway Councils, Service Regulations Committee, etc.) in which information regarding the status of waterfowl populations and their habitats is presented to individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, public hearings are held and the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public comment.

Annual waterfowl assessments are based upon the distribution, abundance, and flight corridors of migratory birds. An Annual Waterfowl Population Status Report is produced each year and includes the most current breeding population and production information available for waterfowl in North America. The report is a cooperative effort by the Service, the Canadian Wildlife Service, various state and provincial conservation agencies, and private conservation organizations. An Annual Adaptive Harvest Management Report (AHM) provides the most current data, analyses, and decision making protocols. These reports are intended to aid the development of waterfowl harvest regulations in the United States for each hunting season.

Overall populations will continue to be monitored and future harvests will be adjusted as needed under the existing flyway and state regulatory processes. Several points support this conclusion: 1) the proportion of the national waterfowl harvest that occurs on national wildlife refuges open to waterfowl hunting is only 6 percent; 2) there are no waterfowl populations that exist wholly and exclusively on national wildlife refuges; 3) annual hunting regulations within the United States are established at levels consistent with the current population status; 4) Refuges cannot permit more liberal seasons than provided for in Federal frameworks; and 5) Refuges purchased with funds derived from the Federal Duck Stamp must limit hunting to 40 percent of the available area.

due to hunting of any of the species proposed is minimal especially when compared to overall harvest throughout the state and flyway.

Migratory Birds The Service believes that migratory bird hunting on the Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge will not add significantly to the cumulative impacts of migratory bird management on local, regional, or Mississippi Flyway waterfowl populations because the percentage likely to be taken on the refuge, though possibly additive to existing hunting takes, would be a tiny fraction of the estimated populations.

Waterfowl – The peak time for waterfowl use on the refuge is during the fall migration. Refuge waterfowl surveys have indicated that over 35,000 ducks and geese may be using the refuge during mid to late October. Typically, MNDNR and the White Earth Natural Resources Department (WE NRD) allow hunting at various dates between mid-September and mid-December. These dates provide hunting opportunities on the refuge when waterfowl use is near its height.

In the Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvest During the 2015-16 and 2016-17 Hunting Seasons report (August 2017), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) estimates that 396,700 hunters harvested 4,962,600 (±6%) ducks in the 14-state Mississippi Flyway during the 2016 hunting season. In addition, 260,400 hunters harvested 1,178,200 (±9%) geese of which 846,784 (~72%) were Canada geese during the same timeframe throughout the Mississippi Flyway.

The 2015 and 2016 MNDNR Small Game Hunting Survey reports estimate the seasonal duck harvest in Minnesota to be 699,620 (2014), 663,811 (2015), and 606,458 (2016). Duck harvest between 2005-2006 and 2015-2016 was stable with an estimated 572,220 ducks harvested in 2009-2010 (low) and 784,360 harvested in 2012-2013 (high). Hunter numbers have slightly decreased with 75,170 duck hunters in 2014, 76,243 in 2015, and 67,301 in 2016.

For the refuge’s 2016 RAPP (Refuge Annual Performance Plan), it was estimated that there were 1,800 waterfowl hunting visits on Tamarac Refuge. Of those 1,800 visits, approximately 80% were hunting specifically for ducks (1,440 visits). Using the number of hunter days or visits and the seasonal harvest per hunter, the refuge was able to calculate the estimated number of hunters and birds harvested on the refuge per year. As a result, it is estimated that

27

260 hunters harvested 2,232 ducks throughout the 2016 season on the refuge, which is approximately 0.4% of the duck harvest in Minnesota.

The 2016 MNDNR Small Game Hunting Survey report estimates the seasonal Canada goose harvest in Minnesota to be 204,825 in 2016. Canada goose harvest between 2005-2006 and 2015-2016 was relatively stable with an estimated 185,012 geese harvested in 2015-2016 (low) and 324,498 harvested in 2006-2007 (high). Hunter numbers have been slightly decreasing with 48,240 goose hunters in 2014, 45,938 in 2015 and 40,950 in 2016. According to the Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvest During the 2015-16 and 2016-17 Hunting Seasons report (August 2017), the Service estimates that 177,700 (±25%) geese are harvested in Minnesota specifically, by approximately 42,000 (±11%) goose hunters in 2016. When compared to duck hunting, it is estimated that about 15% of the waterfowl visits are specifically for geese. Using the 2016 RAPP data, it is estimated that the refuge hosted approximately 53 hunters that harvested 223 geese on the refuge in 2016, which is about 0.13% of the total estimated geese harvested in the state.

American Woodcock – In the Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvest During the 2015-16 and 2016-17 Hunting Seasons report (August 2017), the Service estimates the total active woodcock hunters was 95,600 in 2015 and 104,800 in 2016, and total woodcock harvest was 200,200 (±15%) in 2015 and 202,300 (±16%) in 2016 throughout the United States. For Minnesota specifically, the estimated seasonal woodcock harvest was 13,500 woodcock hunters in both 2015 and 2016, and an estimated woodcock harvest of 25,600 (±42%) in 2015, and 25,900 (±36%) in 2016. In the 2016 RAPP, it was estimated that approximately seven hunters harvested 13 birds from the refuge in 2016 or 0.05% of the total harvest for the State of Minnesota. According to Seamans and Rau (2017), harvest in 2016-17 was 26.0% less than the long-term (1999-2015) average (213,400 birds/year) and 8.4% more than last year (145,700 birds) in the Central Region.

Wilson’s (common) snipe – Population sizes, and trends in abundance, are essentially unknown for snipe and rails at the flyway and national levels. Very few hunters attempt to harvest this species. In Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvest During the 2015-16 and 2016-17 Hunting Seasons report (August 2017), the Service estimates about 17,200 people hunted snipe in 2015 and 17,300 in 2016, and they harvested 44,500 (±47%) and 118,400 (±55%) snipe in 2015 and 2016, respectively, throughout the

28

Resident Wildlife Refuges, including Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge, conduct hunting programs within the framework of State and Federal regulations. Population estimates of huntable species are developed at a regional, state, flyway, and continental scale. Hunting frameworks and take limits are set based upon these estimates. The proposed refuge hunting program rules will be the same as, or more restrictive than, hunting regulations throughout the State of Minnesota. By maintaining hunting regulations that are the same as or more restrictive than the state, individual refuges ensure that they are maintaining seasons which are supportive of management on a more local basis. Such an approach also provides consistency with large-scale population status and objectives. The refuge consistently coordinates with the state about the hunting program. Wildlife management of populations is important to ensure the health of the ecosystem, and the refuge’s hunt program provides minor, additional beneficial impacts to the cumulative impacts of wildlife management in the state.

US. In Minnesota specifically, it is estimated that there were 200 hunters in 2016 and 300 hunters in 2017, and an estimated snipe harvest of 500 (±195%) in 2015, and 700 (±113%) in 2016. Interpolating from the number previously presented and the 2016 RAPP data, it was estimated that less than two snipe were harvested from the Refuge in 2016 or 0.29% of the total harvest for the state of Minnesota. Local harvests of this species would still be an insignificant portion of the overall state harvest.

American coot – In the Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvest During the 2015-16 and 2016-17 Hunting Seasons report (August 2017), the Service estimates coot hunters (about 27,400 in 2015 and 21,800 in 2016) harvested 253,200 (±92%) coots in 2015 and 138,200 (±61%) in 2016 throughout the US. In Minnesota, there were approximately 1,500 active coot hunters in 2015 and 2,900 in 2016. These hunters harvested about 4,400 coot in 2015 and 18,700 coot in 2016. Using the 2016 RAPP data, the refuge estimated that approximately 30 hunters harvested 192 birds from the refuge in 2016 or 1.02% of the total harvest for the State of Minnesota.

Resident Wildlife The refuge will continue to support a substantial resident wildlife populations that will be at, or above, the habitat’s carrying capacity under both Alternatives. So, even at the local level, the refuge only adds slightly to cumulative impacts on the resident wildlife, and a negligible amount to regional and statewide populations.

Ruffed grouse – According to the 2016 Small Game Hunter Mail Survey, ruffed grouse harvest increased slightly from 267,997 grouse in 2015 to 308,955 in 2016. The MNDNR also estimates that there are approximately 82,348 grouse hunters in the state. Using the success rate of 3.8 ruffed grouse harvested per day per hunter per season (MNDNR), the total hunting days in the 2016 ruffed grouse season (119 days), and the 1,615 grouse hunting visits that took place on the refuge (2016 RAPP data); the refuge is able to estimate that 52 ruffed grouse were harvested on the refuge in 2016. The estimated number of harvested ruffed grouse taken from the refuge represents about 0.0001% of the total harvested ruffed grouse in the state.At most, we predict a local harvest not greater than 150 birds. However, local harvests of this species would still be an insignificant portion of the overall state harvest.

Gray, fox, and red squirrel – According to the 2016 Small Game Hunter Mail Survey, squirrel harvest decreased slightly from 96,400 (2015) to 95,374

29

(2016) for gray squirrel and 46,383 (2015) to 39,603 (2016) for fox squirrel. The MNDNR also estimates that there are approximately 23,806 gray squirrel hunters and 13,625 fox squirrel hunters in 2016 throughout the state. Using a combined (gray and fox squirrel) success rate of 6.9 squirrel harvested per day per hunter per season (MNDNR), the total hunting days in the 2016 squirrel season (171 days), and the estimated 95 squirrel hunting visits that took place on the refuge (2016 RAPP data); it was estimated that only 4 squirrel were harvested on the refuge in 2016. The estimated number of harvested gray and/or fox squirrel taken from the refuge represents about 0.00003% of the total harvested squirrels in Minnesota. Red squirrel harvest numbers were not reported by the MNDNR as they are an unprotected species and therefore have not been discussed here. It is estimated that red squirrel harvest trends are less than the harvest numbers reported for either fox or gray squirrel here on the refuge.

Eastern cottontail rabbit and snowshoe hare – The 2016 Small Game Hunter Mail Survey reports rabbit and hare harvest at 41,716 in 2015 and 49,187 in 2016 for eastern cottontail rabbit and 6,374 in 2015 and 5,990 in 2016 for snowshoe hare. The MNDNR also estimates that there are approximately 16,096 rabbit hunters and 3,369 hare hunters in 2016 throughout the state. Using a combined (eastern cottontail rabbit and snowshoe hare) success rate of 4.9 rabbits and/or hare harvested per day per hunter per season (MNDNR), the total huntable days in the 2016 rabbit and hare season (171 days), and the estimated 95 rabbit and/or hare hunting visits that took place on the refuge (2016 RAPP data); we were able to estimate that only three rabbit and/or hare were harvested on the Refuge in 2016. The estimated number of harvested rabbits and hare taken from the refuge represents about 0.00005% of the total harvested rabbits in Minnesota. Anecdotal data observed by refuge staff indicates that the harvest rates for this species may be locally higher for than what is extrapolated from the 2016 Small Game Hunter Mail survey. At most, we predict a local harvest not greater than 25 rabbits and hares. However, local harvests of this species would still be an insignificant portion of the overall state harvest.

White-tailed deer – Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) deer harvest summary information for 1995-2016 identified the state-wide harvest of deer ranged from 139,442 to a high of 290,525. Average harvest for this period is just over 205,000 deer annually. However, that average is closer to 170,000 deer harvested annually from 2011-2015. In 2016, the total deer harvest was 173,213 deer by 609,399 hunters across all seasons

30

and all license types throughout the state of Minnesota. Lower annual harvests typically coincide closely with severe winter events.

The refuge permits archery, firearm and muzzleloader deer hunting in accordance with Minnesota state seasons and White Earth Tribal archery, firearm and muzzleloader seasons on that portion of the refuge that lies within the extant boundary of the White Earth Reservation. Deer hunting, especially during the deer firearm seasons, has always been a popular activity on the refuge.

Minnesota Firearms Deer Permit Area 251 follows the boundary of the Refuge. Deer harvest data for 2011-2015 indicates a stable average harvest of about 130 deer annually, with 142 harvested in 2016 for all license types throughout the deer season in permit area 251. The Refuge estimates that 20 additional deer are harvested during the tribal and state archery and muzzleloader seasons combined. The total annual harvest in 2016 is estimated at 162 deer or approximately 0.09% of the state-wide total harvest.

The most significant use of hunting as a management tool involves regulating the deer population at levels compatible with the habitat management goals and objectives. This approach promotes habitat restoration and management goals to alleviate browse lines and impacts to habitat restoration efforts like pine reforestation and natural regeneration; reduce crop depredation on neighboring lands; reduce the chance for starvation and spread of disease, such as Chronic Wasting Disease, within the deer population; and reduces the vehicle/deer collisions on adjacent roads. The refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan identifies deer population management goals that correlate with the overall habitat management and restoration objectives of the refuge. The refuge’s goal of managing deer population at pre-fawning densities of 13-17 deer per square mile minimizes habitat degradation caused by over browsing especially in areas where pine regeneration is the primary habitat objective. The refuge works annually with the MNDNR to identify deer population management goals for the refuge that balances habitat management goals and hunter harvest opportunities. In addition, white-tailed deer may benefit from some of the habitat management practices and habitat restoration efforts undertaken on the Refuge for other species.

Raccoon, red fox, striped skunk – MNDNR show stable, huntable populations of these furbearers. The refuge does not perform any management practices specifically for raccoon, red fox or striped skunk populations, although they may benefit from some of the habitat management practices and habitat

31

restoration efforts undertaken on the refuge for other species. The vast majority of the Refuge provides suitable habitat for these furbearer species. The hunting pressure of these species is dependent on the price of pelts in any given year. Hunting seasons for these species on Tamarac Refuge are from September 1 through the end of February and during daylight hours only and in accordance to state and tribal seasons.

The 2016 Small Game Hunter Mail Survey reports that 22,312 raccoon were harvested by 5,840 hunters, 2,247 red fox were hunted by 3,594 hunters throughout the state. The striped skunk is classified as an unprotected species by the MNDNR and harvest estimates are not available for this species.

Other wildlife-dependent recreation (i.e. road and trail development and use) There are a network of roads and trails that are causing some cumulative impacts on the local area. However, some wildlife-dependent recreation is reliant upon those roads and trails for access. Outdoor recreation is an important component of the lives of most Minnesotans, nearly 60 percent indicate that outdoor recreation is “very important” to their life, while another 25 percent indicate that is “moderately important” (Kelly 2005). This same report states that nearly one in five adults believes that outdoor recreation is of “little importance”. Outdoor recreation is a socio-economic driver of the lakes area of central Minnesota. The local community thrives on opportunities to hunt, fish, hike, bike, and observe wildlife.

Infrastructure, trails, lake accesses, and roads used for wildlife-dependent recreation on the refuge and in the local area has negatively affected the environment, to a marginal degree, through invasive species spread, habitat fragmentation and loss, or overall disturbance. However, there are positive impacts of how wildlife-dependent recreation (that is reliant upon that infrastructure for access) is contributing to the local economy. Wildlife dependent recreation is an important economic driver in the local area.

Development and Population Increase From 2016 to 2050, Minnesota’s population is projected to increase by 15.2 percent, from 5.53 million to 6.36 million. Specifically in Becker County, a population growth of approximately 8 percent by 2050 is projected (Wychen 2017). This population growth is minimal, but still growth nonetheless, and will continue to place stress upon the ecosystems of the local area. Both through direct loss of remaining habitats, and indirectly through fragmentation and degradation of intact remaining parcels of wildlife habitat and demands on water. Refuge management can do nothing to stem this trend but refuges and other tracts of habitats will become even more important as repositories of biodiversity. Development and population growth are most likely to affect migratory birds and resident wildlife. The continuing loss and fragmentation of wetland habitat to development over time will result in smaller numbers of duck and swans in the lakes area.

Because the refuge uses an adaptive management approach for its hunt program, reviewing the hunt program annually and revising annually ( if necessary), the Service’s hunt program can be adjusted to ensure that it does not contribute further to the cumulative impacts of population growth and development on migratory birds and resident wildlife.

Use of lead ammunition

32

Non-toxic shot is required for waterfowl and coot hunting on all Federal Lands, including national wildlife refuges. Tamarac Refuge is encouraging hunters to switch to non-toxic ammunition use for big game hunting (white-tailed deer). Currently, the State of Minnesota requires non-lead shot for take of ducks, geese, mergansers, coots, sandhill cranes or gallinules. Lead shot may be used statewide for hunting of other upland game in accordance with firearms restrictions, except on federal lands (national wildlife refuges and waterfowl production areas).

Under this alternative, the refuge only represents only 0.001% of the hunt for white-tailed deer in the local area.

The Service encourages hunters to seek non-lead alternatives to avoid non-target wildlife impacts.

Monitoring

Continued annual biological monitoring of both resident and migratory wildlife and their habitats is done on the refuge in conjunction with our State and Tribal partners. In addition, the station will stay apprised on the status of threatened and endangered species on the refuge through consultation and local monitoring. Summary of Analysis

The purpose of this EA is to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). ALTERNATIVE A – PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE Proposed Action Alternative – As described in the 2018 Hunt Plan, in addition to current authorized hunting opportunities; allow expanded (new) hunting of migratory birds (sora, Virginia rail, and mourning dove), upland game (wild turkey, American crow), and furbearer (bobcat) in accordance with federal regulations, refuge-specific regulations, the White Earth Reservation Tribal Conservation Code, and the laws of the State of Minnesota. All other existing public uses will remain unchanged. It is anticipated that the proposed Alternative A has the potential to negligibly impact other recreational uses, other hunting opportunities, visitor services, the local economy, wilderness area, listed threatened and endangered species, biological populations of migratory or resident wildlife and Refuge administration. There are no anticipated impacts to area land use, Indian Trust Resources, cultural resources or environmental justice. This alternative satisfies the need to provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and allows the Service to meet priorities and mandates as outlined by the NWRSAA to “recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the NWRS” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses.” In addition to the Secretarial Order No. 3356 signed on September 15, 2017, with the purpose to increase outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans, including opportunities to hunt and fish.

33

ALTERNATIVE B – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE No Action Alternative – Maintain current hunting opportunities for upland game (ruffed grouse, red, gray and fox squirrel, rabbit and hare), big game (white-tailed deer), furbearer (red fox, raccoon and striped skunk) and migratory bird (duck, goose, coot, woodcock and snipe) on refuge lands as described in the 1987 Hunt Plan as amended (1990, 1992, and 1994). New hunting opportunities for species identified in the 2018 Hunt Plan would remain closed to hunting. All other existing public uses will remain unchanged. This alternative shares many of the same impacts as Alternative A, with the exception of a few. It is anticipated that the proposed Alternative B has the potential to negligibly impact other hunting opportunities, visitor services, and the local economy. There is no anticipated impacts to other recreational uses, refuge administration, area land use, Indian Trust Resources, cultural resources, environmental justice, wilderness areas, listed threatened and endangered species, or biological populations of migratory or resident wildlife and their habitats. Remaining status quo does not allow the refuge to satisfy the need to increase outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans, including opportunities to hunt and fish as directed by the Secretarial Order No. 3356 signed on September 15, 2017. However, our current Hunt Plan does provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and allows the Service to meet priorities and mandates as outlined by the NWRSAA to “recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the NWRS” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses.” List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted

White Earth Natural Resources Department Minnesota Department of Natural Resources USFWS Personnel: Tamarac Refuge Staff, Maggie O’Connell, Deb Beck, Phil Delphey, and Walt Ford List of Preparers

Neil Powers, Project Leader Alisha Haken, Deputy Project Leader State Coordination

The refuge hunting program has been developed in coordination with the MNDNR area managers. This coordination is accomplished through formal and informal meetings (on October 31, 2017 and April 26, 2018) as well as refuge solicitation of MNDNR comments on the written Hunt Plan and supporting documents. Annual updates were provided at coordination meetings. In addition, a formal presentation of proposed changes was delivered and a formal comment period followed.

34

Tribal Consultation

The refuge hunting program has been developed in coordination with the White Earth Natural Resources Department (WE NRD). This coordination is accomplished through formal and informal meetings (on October 31, 2017 and April 25, 2018) as well as refuge solicitation of WE NRD comments on the written Hunt Plan and supporting documents. Annual updates were provided at coordination meetings. In addition, a formal presentation of proposed changes was delivered and a formal comment period followed. Public Outreach

A public listening session was held during the scoping period at the refuge headquarters on February 5, 2017 to generate general questions and suggestions regarding the future of hunting on the Refuge. Those comments were reviewed by refuge staff and were used to help develop the proposed 2018 Hunt Plan. We completed two public outreach meetings to present the 2018 Hunt Plan Draft and the Draft Environmental Assessment on July 31, 2018 and on August 07, 2018 during the public review period. Both the 2018 Hunt Plan Draft and the Draft Environmental Assessment were posted to our website and available for review on July 31, 2018 (https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Tamarac/rules_and_regulations/draft_huntplan.aspx). References

Carver, E. and J. Caudill. 2007. Banking on Nature 2006: The economic benefits to local communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Economics, Washington, D.C. Clapp, R. B. and R. C. Banks. 1993. Nesting seasons, nest sites, and clutch sizes of crows in Virginia. Raven no. 64:90-98. Dexter, Margaret. 2015. 2015 Small game hunter mail survey. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Dexter, Margaret. 2016. 2016 Small game hunter mail survey. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Erb, John. 2016. Registered Furbearer Harvest Statistics 2015-16. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Kelly, T. 2005. 2004 Outdoor Recreation Participation Survey of Minnesotans: Report on Findings. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources homepage. <https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/orsurvey2004_report.pdf>. Accessed 27 July 2018. Messinger, Lindsey. 2017. Minnesota’s Wild Turkey Harvest – Fall 2016, Spring 2017. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.

35

MNDNR. 2017. 2016 Minnesota Deer Harvest Report. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Raftovich, R.V., S. C. Chandler, and K.K. Fleming. 2017. Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest during the 2015-16 and 2016-17 hunting seasons. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA. 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. 2017. Mourning dove population status, 2017. 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. 2017. American woodcock population status, 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Rochert, MN, USA. Verbeek, N. A. and C. Caffrey (2002). American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.647 Wychen, J. V. 2017. Minnesota Population Growth Through 2050. North Star Policy Institute homepage. <https://northstarpolicy.org/minnesota-population-growth-2050>. Accessed 27 July 2018.

36

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

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

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

Preparer Signature: __________________________________________ Date:________ Name/Title/Organization: __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Reviewer Signature: __________________________________________ Date:________ Name/Title: ______________________________________________________________

37

Appendix A. Other applicable Statutes, Executive Orders and Regulations

STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS

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

Cultural resources management in the Service is the responsibility of the Regional Director and is not delegated for the Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing archeological permits, and for Tribal involvement. The Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) advises the Regional Director about procedures, compliance, and implementation of cultural resources laws. The Refuge Manager assists the RHPO by informing the RHPO about Service undertakings, by protecting archeological sites and historic properties on Service managed and administered lands, by monitoring archeological investigations by contractors and permittees, and by reporting violations. Activities that might cause an effect to a historic property would be subject to a case-by-case Section 106 review.

Fish & Wildlife Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668-668c, 50 CFR 22 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 36 CFR Part 13; 50 CFR Parts 10, 17, 23, 81, 217, 222, 225, 402, and 450 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742 a-m Lacey Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 10, 11, 12, 14, 300, and 904

A Section 7 Endangered Species evaluation will be conducted in conjunction with this proposed action.

38

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

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

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

Impacts on refuge wilderness areas are addressed in Table 1.

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

n/a

39

Appendix B: Compatibility Determination See Separate Document

40

Appendix C: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Hunt Plan See Separate Document

41

Appendix D: Proposed Hunt Map

42

Appendix E. Current Tamarac Refuge Hunting Map (from CCP)

43

Appendix F: Species List See Separate Document

44