United States ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR BISON ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · the prairie ecosystem. Bison are proposed to be introduced and grazed on

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Eastern Region

Draft

March 2014

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR BISON

INTRODUCTION AND GRAZING

MIDEWIN NATIONAL TALLGRASS PRAIRIE

For more information contact: Renee Thakali, Restoration Team Leader [email protected] or phone (815) 423.2114 Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie 30239 S. State IL 53 Wilmington, IL 60408

i

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs,

sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper – March 2014

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................. 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ....................................................................... 1

1.2 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 2

1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT ........................................................ 5

1.3.1 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................ 6

1.3.2 Bison Ecology and Management........................................................................... 9

1.3.3 Decision Framework ............................................................................................. 9

1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................. 9

1.5 ISSUES ......................................................................................................................10

1.5.1 Resources Fully Analyzed in this Bison Introduction and Grazing Environmental Assessment ........................................................................................................................10

1.5.2 Resources Dismissed from Further Analysis ........................................................11

1.6 APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, REQUIRED COORDINATION, LICENSES, PERMITS ...........................................................................................................12

1.7 PRAIRIE PLAN AND OTHER RELATED PROJECTS AT MIDEWIN ..........................13

2.0 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................15

2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ....................................................................................15

2.1.1 Bison Facility........................................................................................................17

2.1.2 Public Perspective and Visitor Use ......................................................................18

2.1.3 Bison Management ..............................................................................................18

2.1.4 Develop Bison Habitat .........................................................................................20

2.1.5 Grassland Habitat Monitoring and Management ..................................................21

2.1.6 Trail and Overlook Construction ...........................................................................21

2.1.7 Design Features and Monitoring ..........................................................................22

2.1.8 Proposed Action Summary ..................................................................................22

2.2 Alternative 2: No-Action Alternative .............................................................................23

2.2.1 No-Action Summary .............................................................................................23

2.2.2 Other Alternatives Considered, but Not Fully Analyzed ........................................23

2.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ...........................................................................................27

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..................28

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................28

3.1.1 Analysis Methodology ..........................................................................................28

3.1.2 Cumulative Effects ...............................................................................................28

3.1.3 Mitigation .............................................................................................................29

3.2 Project Area Setting and Historical Context for Existing Conditions ............................30

iii

3.3 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................31

3.3.1 Existing Condition ................................................................................................31

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................32

3.4 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................34



3.5 Soils ............................................................................................................................38



3.6 Water ..........................................................................................................................40



3.7 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................41



3.8 Cultural Resources .....................................................................................................42



3.9 Scenery ......................................................................................................................45



3.10 Recreation ..................................................................................................................47


3.11 Neighboring Lands and Operations .............................................................................49



3.12 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .............................................50

4.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ......................................................................51

4.1 Tribes..........................................................................................................................51

4.1.1 Key Issues or Topics of Interest from Tribes ........................................................51

4.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .....................................................................................52

4.3 Illinois Historic Preservation Agency ...........................................................................52

4.4 Planning Team Participants and Document Preparers ................................................53

5.0 LITERATURE CITED .....................................................................................................54

iv

List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity and Project area map ..................................................................................... 4

Figure 2. Vicinity and Project area map ....................................................................................26

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Potential effects of the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternatives ......................... 27

Table 3.1 Vegetation management indicators and associated species of interest ..................... 33

Table 4.1 Record of Prairie Supervisor’s coordination and consultation with tribes on Midewin’s proposed bison introduction and grazing. ................................................. 51

v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APE Area of Potential Effect AU Animal Unit CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations EA Environmental Assessment EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act FSM Forest Service Manual IDNR Illinois Department of Natural Resources ILCA Illinois Land and Conservation Act ILCS Illinois Compiled Statutes JOAAP Joliet Army Ammunition Plant Midewin Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFF National Forest Foundation NFMA National Forest Management Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places PL Public Law Prairie Plan Land and Resource Management Plan RFSS Regional Forester Sensitive Species SCORP State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan SIO Scenic Integrity Objective TES Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species TNC The Nature Conservancy USC United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Visitor Use National Visitor Use Monitoring

Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie Bison Introduction and Grazing March 2014 DRAFT ENVIROMENTAL ASSESSMENT

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie (Midewin) proposes to introduce bison to graze on an experimental basis on part of the prairie that is currently grazed by cattle. This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the potential environmental effects of the introduction of the bison herd and associated facilities at Midewin. This EA complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations.

This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects and any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would result from the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative. An interdisciplinary team of resource specialists used a systematic approach for analyzing the Proposed Action, a set of Alternatives, and the No-Action Alternative, estimating the environmental effects, and preparing this EA. Based on this EA, the Prairie Supervisor will decide whether or not to introduce bison to graze on an experimental basis on a portion of land at Midewin.

The Proposed Action would not result in adverse impacts to potentially affected resources. The Proposed Action would result in beneficial impacts to several resources, specifically vegetation, wildlife, scenery, and recreation. The Proposed Action meets the purpose and need of the Project by meeting the goals specified in the Prairie Plan (USDA Forest Service 2002a) and Project objectives as described in Section 1.3.1. The introduction and grazing of bison would support goals for maintaining the biological diversity of the prairie and providing multiple-use outputs. Plus, implementing bison grazing has the potential to accelerate reaching the Prairie Plan’s desired condition for optimal grassland bird habitat.

The No-Action Alternative would largely result in neutral impacts to potentially affected resources. The No-Action Alternative does not meet the purpose and need of meeting the Prairie Plan’s goal for introducing bison to graze on an experimental basis on a portion of the land. The No-Action Alternative does not meet the Project’s objectives for monitoring the effects of bison grazing on prairie lands undergoing ecosystem restoration.


1

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

In February 1996, the U.S. President signed legislation establishing the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie (Midewin) in Wilmington, Illinois. The Illinois Land Conservation Act (ILCA) (1995) founded Midewin to be managed for National Forest System purposes. This act also included purposes for Midewin, including “…to manage the land and water resources of MNP in a manner that will conserve and enhance the native populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants”. At the time Midewin was established many people and supporters of Midewin were enthusiastic about the possibility of bringing bison back to the prairie ecosystem. During the planning process that followed Midewin’s establishment, it became clear that the land conditions were not ready to bring bison on immediately. The Midewin Prairie Plan of 2002 incorporated the ILCA purposes for Midewin and provided standards, guidelines, and objectives for land use and management, including habitat restoration, grazing, and land use research that included bison. Eighteen years later public interest in the possibility of bringing bison on Midewin is gaining renewed enthusiasm and support. With restoration and public recreational services now more established, the time has arrived to consider bringing bison to the prairie as part of the prairie ecosystem and to provide opportunities for public learning about interactions of bison and the prairie ecosystem. Bison are proposed to be introduced and grazed on an experimental basis on a portion of Midewin to meet this purpose.

This Bison Herd Introduction and Grazing Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the potential environmental effects of introducing bison to graze on an experimental basis on an approximate 1,200-acre parcel (the Project) within Midewin. The Land and Resources Management Plan (Prairie Plan) for Midewin was approved in February 2002 and sets the direction for all resource management activities. This EA complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts and any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would result from the proposed action and implementation of alternatives.

An Interdisciplinary Team of resource specialists used a systematic approach for analyzing the proposed Project and alternatives, estimating the environmental effects, and preparing this EA. This document was prepared in compliance with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508). An EA is “a concise public document…that serves to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of ‘no significant impact’ ” (40 CFR 1508.9). In March 27, 2013, the Forest Service issued a final rule for 36 CFR Part 218, Project-Level Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process. With this rule change, members of the public who engage in project decision making are able to seek review before a project decision is signed. This aligns with the Forest Service collaborative approach to public land management. This project decision is subject to 36 CFR 218 Subpart A. General Provisions applicable to all proposed projects subject to Part 218 and Subpart B. Provisions Specific to Project-Level Proposals Not Authorized Under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. This new rule is often referred to as the Objection Process, as individuals or entities who provide specific written comments during eligible comment periods may have standing to object under the new Part 218 regulations.


2

1.2 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION

Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie is located in northeastern Illinois, about 45 miles southwest of Chicago, and encompasses the largest parcel of protected open space in northeastern Illinois. It lies 15 miles south of Joliet and 3 miles north of Wilmington along Illinois Route 53 (Figure 1). It was established on February 10, 1996, under the ILCA (Public Law [PL] 104-106) from part of the former Joliet Army Ammunition Plant (JOAAP). On March 10, 1997, the U.S. Army transferred 15,080 acres to the Forest Service at Midewin; with subsequent land transfers and acquisitions, Midewin now covers 18,225 acres.

The proposed Project area, located in Will County, Illinois, in all or parts of Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 of Township 33 North and Range 10 East, includes approximately 1,200 acres of pastureland currently grazed by cattle. The Project area is located east of Illinois Route 53 bordered by the Iron Bridge Trailhead to the north and Prairie Creek to the south (Figure 1).

Public access is restricted on portions of Midewin due to the Army’s ongoing cleanup operations at the former ammunition plant in areas that are not safe for general public admittance. A small segment of the Project Area next to the Iron Bridge Trail Head is open to the public. The rest of the Project Area is under a Forest Service Closure Orders and has not been opened for recreational use because of its close proximity to lands held by the Army.

The Land and Resources Management Plan (Prairie Plan) for Midewin was approved in February 2002 and sets the direction for all resource management activities.

The majority Project area lies within Management Area 1- Prairie Ecosystem Restoration, where the long term goal is to restore lands designated in Management Area 1 to a prairie ecosystem.

A small segment of the Project area lies within Management Area 2- Administrative and Developed Recreation Sites, where recreation and administrative developments and uses are emphasized.

Land use on the Project site has been mostly agricultural since the late 1800’s. Even prior to Army occupation of the area, the land was farmed. When the land transferred from the Army to the USDA Forest Service, the Project site was cultivated for row crops or grazed by cattle under leases from the Army. Over the past 17 years the Forest Service has continued the same agriculture purposes pursuant to the ILCA section 2915(b), where agriculture uses are permitted in order to provide for improved wildlife habitat (grassland bird habitat in particular is maintained by large animals grazing) and to control erosion and control invasive weeds. The 2008 Prairie-wide Habitat Maintenance Project Decision Notice documented the continuation of these agricultural uses that meet the intent of the ILCA and direction of the Midewin Prairie Plan.

With the exception of the Illinois Route 53 roadway and Union Pacific railroad, lands immediately adjacent to the Project area are part of Midewin. Property immediately west of the Project area across Illinois Route 53 belongs to Midewin. Nearby lands belong to federal, state, county, city and private landowners. Northeast of the Project area is a new industrial complex that is still being developed. Further west from this site is Deer Run Industrial Park with warehouses and an intermodal complex with railroad yard, which includes mostly impermeable, developed land surfaces, several railroad spurs, large stormwater retention ponds, and some vegetative communities ranging from highly degraded to protected and managed (USDA Forest Service 2008a).

Agriculture is the principle land use east and south of Midewin. Some of the agricultural operations include crop growing and cattle grazing. There are farms with crops and livestock within 5 miles of Midewin.


3

Other neighboring operations proximal to the Project area include the Prairie View Recycling and Disposal Facility and Abraham Lincoln National Veterans Cemetery. The village of Elwood is approximately 2 miles north of the area along Illinois Route 53.


4

Figure 1. Vicinity and Project area map


5

1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT

At the time Midewin was established many people and supporters of Midewin were enthusiastic about the possibility of bringing bison back to the prairie ecosystem. During the planning process that followed Midewin’s establishment, it became clear that the land conditions were not ready to bring bison on immediately. The Midewin Prairie Plan of 2002 incorporated the ILCA purposes for Midewin and provided standards, guidelines and objectives for land use and management, including habitat restoration, grazing, and land use research that included bison. Eighteen years later public interest in the possibility of bringing bison on Midewin is gaining renewed enthusiasm and support. With restoration and public recreational services more established the time is more “ripe” to consider bringing bison to the prairie as part of the prairie ecosystem and provide opportunities for the public to learn about interactions of bison in a prairie ecosystem.

The purpose of the Project is to introduce bison to Midewin on an experimental basis and to determine how bison grazing improves the diversity of native vegetation during prairie restoration. The purpose includes determining whether bison grazing on restored prairie grasslands provides suitable habitat for a suite of grassland birds. Grassland bird monitoring at Midewin has shown that grazing is needed to maintain short stature grass habitat, but also medium stature grass habitat. With the use of bison for grazing it may be possible to provide the necessary continuum of grass heights from short to tall and a diverse mixture of native forbs (flowering plants) for grassland birds. Bison graze quite differently from cattle and they may aid in restoration by providing a diversity of native prairie vegetation. Bison are highly selective to grass (99% of diet) compared to cattle (85% of diet). Cattle eat more forbs (flowering plants), which can be deleterious to prairie restorations and remnants. There is a need to restore these pastures to a mix of native prairie grass and forbs (flowering plants).

The Project is needed to support goals and objectives in the Prairie Plan related to prairie restoration; enhancement of habitat for grassland bird species; conservation and enhancement of native populations; the provision of various recreation opportunities, and to the provision of opportunities for scientific, environmental, and land use education and research.

A desired condition outlined in the Prairie Plan speaks of needing a more naturally appearing landscape, where watersheds on Midewin “sustain healthy ecosystems and provide conditions for the viability of native riparian and aquatic species”. A Prairie Plan goal also identifies a need to “Conduct research leading to more effective restoration strategies and practices for both terrestrial (prairie, savanna) and aquatic (stream, wetland) ecosystems” (USDA Forest Service 2002a).

The desired future condition for restored upland prairie is a mosaic that may also include wet prairie/sedge meadows depending on soil types and lay of the land. Areas planned for a mix of restored prairie plant communities include upland prairie/wet prairie/sedge meadow in the Midewin Prairie Plan of 2002. “Upland typic prairie” and “tallgrass prairie” refer to the same plant communities within the prairie ecosystem. Typic Prairie in the Prairie Plan is defined as “native prairie occurring on fine textured soils such as silt, clay, and sandy loams derived primarily from loess or glacial till. Soils are relatively deep (18 inches to bedrock) and Upland is defined as “not immediately adjacent to a stream; not a wetland”. The Prairie Plan uses both terms interchangeably. Direct quotes from the Prairie Plan in this document will refer to either upland typic prairie or tallgrass prairie. The term “upland prairie” is used throughout this document or simply “prairie”. The Management Prescription from the Prairie Plan prescribes site preparation for restoration and includes the removal of structures, roads, and railbeds; some re-contouring of the soil; removal of drain tiles; and removing trees and hedges of non-native trees. Restoring the vegetative communities depends on the soil type and landscape condition and


6

could consist of a mix of forbs and grasses. During and after restoration, grazing and mowing may be used to maintain a variety of grass heights (from short to tall grass heights) for sensitive bird species. The Prairie Plan has an objective that identifies a need to restore 4,020 acres of upland prairie, where the land is more rolling and has much deeper black prairie soil. Restoring the acres in the Project site would contribute towards this Prairie Plan objective.

The Project site should provide an opportunity to study and gather data how bison can improve restoration of grassland bird habitat. The Project site needs to have existing baseline data on grassland bird populations for the experiment. There is a need to monitor grassland bird populations as they adapt to restored prairie with bison and compare to existing bird populations using cool season pastures planted to non-native grasses and grazed by cattle. There is a need to compare grassland bird communities before and after grazing by bison and with no grazing by bison or cattle.

The Project site needs to be easily divided into several pastures or fields to conduct the experiment; with at least some pastureland with fodder year-round ready to meet the grazing needs of the first few bison within less than one year from now; and with other large tracts that could be planted with a mix of cool season and warm season grasses in the next few years. If the Project site selected is predominately established as a grassland pasture now, the bison could be grazed sooner without waiting for large pastures to be planted or converted from row crops to prairie grass. If the selected site does not have established grassland pastures, it could take another three to five years to develop pasture grasses or restored prairie grasses before bison could be brought on.

There is a need to compare bison versus cattle grazing on cool season pastures and determine if bison grazing can assist in the prairie restoration process. There is a need to monitor the changes over time in the restored native prairie plant communities associated with bison grazing and compare the diversity of native plants to a restored prairie plant communities that has not been grazed by bison.

The Project site needs to have rolling topography and soil types that are conducive to native tallgrass or upland typic prairie which are found on mostly drier soils, because bison prefer the drier soils compared to wetland or wet prairie habitat.

The Project site needs to provide public access for viewing of bison. This would provide many visitors an opportunity to use the trail system, to see the bison, to look at a prairie undergoing restoration, and to experience the vast prairie landscape. The Project site should be close to the Forest Service Headquarters for directing visitors to the site as well as efficient management and operation of the experiment.

The Project site should be mostly cleared of former Army infrastructure such as old buildings not be encumbered by inholdings of Army land, to support the experiment and operational needs. Many tracts of Forest Service land on Midewin have yet to be cleared of old Army infrastructure which would need to be demolished and removed before bison grazing could begin.

Private land uses in the area near Midewin include crop production, cattle grazing; industrial parks that operate 24 hour a day and 7 days a week; and cemeteries where frequent services are conducted. The Project site should not be located too close to cattle pastures or adjacent to crop fields or too close to neighboring industrial or other facilities.

In keeping with the intent and guidance of the Midewin Prairie Plan where it refers to bison and research, a long-term experiment is proposed. Hypotheses for the long-term bison experiment include but are not limited to the following:


7

1. Bison improve the diversity of native vegetation on restored prairies compared to similar prairie restoration sites without bison.

2. Bison grazing on restored prairie provides suitable habitat for a suite of grassland birds.

Restoring the prairie ecosystem is a long-term undertaking. It may take 7 to 10 years to restore the pastures to prairie and another 5 to 10 years to monitor the vegetation changes and grassland bird habitat use to produce meaningful data. This data would then be evaluated and a determination made whether to continue with the bison grazing. Restoration success with bison grazing would see a trend towards increasing the Floristic Quality Index, with increased plant species diversity, decreased invasive plant infestations, and maintenance of 90% of native species planted over a 10-year period. Success would also show stable or increasing populations of grassland birds and a greater diversity of grassland bird species within the project area, with at least seven different grassland birds present during the breeding period. Success would also be measured by the diversity of grass heights necessary for grassland birds, ranging from 6 – 12 inches at the short end, to 16 - 32 inches at the taller end (USDA Forest Service 2014).

1.3.1 Goals and Objectives

Midewin’s Land and Resource Plan, (the Prairie Plan), signed in 2002 and amended in 2007, describes the desired condition for the Management Areas and provides guidelines and standards to follow as projects are implemented to meet the goals and objectives.

The majority of the proposed bison introduction Project site is within Management Area 1- Prairie Ecosystem Restoration. The Desired Future Condition for Management Area 1 states that, “Land, resources and vegetation conditions contribute to restoration of tallgrass prairie ecosystem, habitat for grassland birds, recovery of federally listed , proposed, and sensitive species, restoration and maintenance of healthy watersheds and scenic integrity, also providing for recreational opportunities and other uses”.

A small segment of the Project area lies within Management Area 2- Administrative and Developed Recreation Sites. The Desired Future Condition for Management Area 2 states that “Land, resources, vegetation, and facilities contribute to safe, attractive, efficient, and user friendly settings for administration and visitor uses. Recreation and administrative developments and uses are emphasized, but prairie restoration and natural resources management also occur.

The introduction and grazing of bison would be in alignment with the following ecological sustainability goal specified in the Prairie Plan (USDA Forest Service 2002a):

Goal 1: Ecosystem management sustains habitats and processes necessary to maintain the biological diversity of the tallgrass prairie and provide for multiple-use outputs.

Under this goal, the Prairie Plan (USDA Forest Service 2002a) includes this objective:

Objective d) [I]mplement a grazing management program consistent with desired condition for grassland bird habitat.

The Prairie Plan’s Appendix E (USDA Forest Service 2002a, Appendix E), under Goals and Objectives of Research, also includes this goal:

Goal 2: Conduct research leading to more effective restoration strategies and practices for both terrestrial (prairie, savanna) and aquatic (stream, wetland) ecosystems.

Under this goal, Appendix E includes this objective:


8

Objective 2e: Gather data and information on the effects of bison on prairie natural resources and human activities and safety. Long-term need

Midewin has implemented cattle grazing to manage grassland habitat in the Project area since 1997. The introduction and grazing of bison is expected to further enhance habitat conditions for grassland birds in the Project area. The guideline in the Prairie Plan follows (page 4-28):

Guideline 4.3.1.6.2.6: Domestic bison may be considered as livestock and may be grazed only on an experimental basis on a portion of Midewin, under permitted authority following NEPA compliance and adequate fencing.

The introduction and grazing of bison would be in alignment with the following Recreation, Interpretation, and Scenic Integrity goal specified in the Prairie Plan (USDA Forest Service 2002a):

Goal 1: Plan and manage the recreation program and recreation resources to provide for health and cleanliness, safety and security, facility conditions, permit administration, responsiveness to customers, environmental settings, aesthetics and recreational experiences, and restoration of natural appearing landscapes.

Goal 2 – Improve or maintain the quality of scenic resources to meet the Scenic Integrity Objectives.

Under these 2 goals, the Prairie Plan (USDA Forest Service 2002a) includes this objective:

Objective d) …provide a network or system of approximately 48 miles of trails.

Objective f) …provide opportunities to easily view and experience the prairie landscape.

Objective j) Expand recreational and environmental education programs to a diverse audience, including people from urban areas, people with disabilities, and different age groups.

Objective 2. …implement practices that will meet or move the landscape toward scenic integrity objectives.

Midewin has implemented trail construction for recreational use in the north eastern part of the Project area since 1997. The standards and guidelines in the Prairie Plan for trails includes the following: (Prairie Plan pages 4-9 through 4-11):

Standards 4.2.2.1-2. Trails shall be designed, constructed and maintained to the Forest Service Design, Construction, and Maintenance standards appropriate for the type and amount of use on soils and topography of the area of concern. Trails will be designed and constructed to protect the natural resources of the area and to adequately and safely accommodate the most demanding type of designated use. Trails will be designed and constructed to meet accessibility standards.

Guidelines 4.2.2.1 -1. Trails should be designed to meet Recreation Opportunity Spectrum guidelines and Scenic Integrity Objectives.

Midewin has implemented scenery management involving resource management in and around in the Project area since 1997. The guidelines in the Prairie Plan follows (page 4-11 and 4-12):

Guidelines 4.2.2.4-1. Resource management activities should not reduce scenic integrity levels below the prescribed objective for a given area, except in the case of specific resource rehabilitation projects to meet management area objectives.


9

Guidelines 4.2.2.4-2. Manage activities to be consistent with the proposed scenic integrity objectives.

1.3.2 Bison Ecology and Management

Bison would provide a missing ecological component to native prairie restoration on Midewin. In the Prairie Plan, the desired condition for Midewin is a more naturally appearing landscape than what currently exists (USDA Forest Service 2002a). Prairie restoration is accomplished by removing roads, structures, drainage tiles, trees, and hedges and restoring vegetation to resemble native vegetation with a mix of prairie forbs and grasses (USDA Forest Service 2002a). Grazing and mowing may be used to facilitate restoration, and grazing may be used to maintain a variety of grass heights to further enhance grassland bird habitat (USDA Forest Service 2002a).

Bison are considered a keystone species in tallgrass prairie ecosystems, and they are a grazing resource in grassland ecosystems (Knapp et al. 1999). With their presence, more natural conditions and processes in grassland ecosystems are sustained and biological diversity promoted.

1.3.3 Decision Framework

Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action and any other alternatives to make the following decisions:

1) Will the proposed project meet the needs as defined in the purpose and need?

2) Are there any significant impacts to the affected environment as a result of the proposed action?

1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

On March 27, 2013, the Forest Service issued a final rule for 36 CFR Part 218, Project-Level Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process. With this rule change, members of the public who engage in project decision making will be able to seek review before a project decision is signed. This aligns with the Forest Service collaborative approach to public land management. This project decision is subject to 36 CFR 218 Subpart A. General Provisions applicable to all proposed projects subject to Part 218 and Subpart B. Provisions Specific to Project-Level Proposals Not Authorized Under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. This new rule is often referred to as the Objection Process, as individuals or entities who provide specific written comments during eligible comment periods may have standing to object under the new Part 218 regulations.

Public scoping and request for comments was initiated for the Project on March 20, 2013. The Forest Service distributed 119 scoping letters to agencies, stakeholders, and private citizens on Midewin’s mailing list. The public comment period extended through April 22, 2013. Recipients of the letter and the public were invited to attend a Project open house at Midewin Supervisor’s Office on April 3, 2013. The open house gave interested parties the opportunity to ask questions and provide comments related to the proposed Project. Forest Service staff provided agencies and the public with Project-related information and answered their questions.

Approximately 157 individuals attended the open house. Ninety-eight written responses were received in support of the Project; 12 letters were petition-style forms bearing multiple signatures. In addition, a local media outlet requested additional information on the Project that was provided via email in response to the request.

Tribal, federal, state, and local agencies plus non-governmental organizations that provided comments in support of the Project included the: Forest County Potawatomi Community, Lac du


10

Flambeau Chippewa, Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas, Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi, Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, Sac and Fox Nation, Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Hannahville Indian Community, Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, Litter River Band of Ottawa Indians, Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians, Prairie Band Potawatomi, Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska, Shawnee Tribe, Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, Intertribal Bison Cooperative Council, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), The Nature Conservancy (TNC) of Illinois, the Will County Chapter of the Illinois Audubon Society, and the Midewin Heritage Association.

The tribes contacted have expressed an interest in bison introduction and grazing at Midewin. Some of the tribes have a distant connection to land that is now Midewin, and others have closer historic connections. Some tribes are particularly interested in school-aged children learning more about bison and native prairie ecology. Some tribal members indicated that they believe adult bison have a fierce longing to return to their native ranges, and that it takes time for the bison to get used to new land where they have been introduced.

The Illinois Department of Natural Resources expressed support of the Project and provided some recommendations for coordinating grassland bird research projects with the IDNR, especially as it would relate to threatened and endangered bird species. IDNR commented on the distribution of the state-threatened Franklin’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus franklinii) and effects the Project may have on this species. IDNR also commented on the potential for tree clearing at the site.

The Midewin Heritage Association expressed support of the Project and indicated that historic farmsteads (i.e., foundations and other remnants) are present on site that may provide a unique interpretive opportunity to learn about early farm life. However, their letter indicated their concern that periodic presence of bison may degrade the area for these types of interpretive opportunities, and that tree clearing solely for the purposes of improving grassland habitat would be unfortunate, as the old remnants tell a story of early farm life.

1.5 ISSUES

We identified issues of concern based on: compatibility with the Prairie Plan; input from federal, state, Tribal, and local agencies; public comments raised during the Project; and natural resource information specific to Midewin.

1.5.1 Resources Fully Analyzed in this Bison Introduction and Grazing Environmental Assessment

The issues addressed in this document include:

Vegetation (includes threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants)

Wildlife (includes threatened, endangered, and sensitive animals)

Soils

Water Quality

Air Quality

Cultural Resources

Scenery


11

Recreation

Neighboring Lands and Operations

1.5.2 Resources Dismissed from Further Analysis

We dismissed from further analysis the possibility of adverse impacts to those resources described below. Concerns for these resources were not identified during agency and public scoping. Implementation of the Project (described in Section 2.1) is not expected to substantially affect these resources.

Noise: There is likely to be some short-term and intermittent noise associated with installing the fence, constructing the storage building, driveway, trails and overlooks, and periodic maintenance of the facility. Fenced pastures and maintenance are already part of the noise landscape and the bison introduction and grazing would not be an added effect.

Ecologically Sensitive Areas or Unique Natural Resources: Implementation of the proposed Project would have no effect on any designated ecologically sensitive areas.

Environmental Justice: Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, states that “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” It also requires that representatives of any low-income or minority populations that could be affected by the project be given the opportunity to be included in the impact assessment and public involvement process. Disproportionate effects to minority populations are not expected from this project (USDA Forest Service 2002b).

Indian Trust Resources: Indian trust assets are those that are owned by Native Americans, but are held in trust by the United States. Requirements for management of these resources are described in the Secretary of the Interior’s Secretarial Order 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities and Secretarial Order 3175, Departmental Responsibilities for Indian Trust Resources. Tribes Treaty would not be affected by the implementation of this Project.

Prime and Unique Farmland: The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA, 7 United States Code [USC] 4201 et seq.) purpose is “to minimize the extent to which Federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses, and to assure that Federal programs are…compatible with…policies to protect farmland”. The lands proposed for bison introduction and grazing are predominately in pasture and currently grazed by cattle or used for crops. Implementation of the Project would not alter current land use.

There is a small tract, approximately 40 acres, in the Project area that is currently in row crops and is planned to be restored to native prairie, following the Prairie Plan. Midewin has a goal for achieving over 6,000 acres of grassland pastures for grazing, and the crop land is eventually to be converted to either grassland or prairie to meet the intent of the ILCA and Prairie Plan. The conversion of this 40 acres of cropland to native prairie vegetation would not result in a loss of prime and unique farmland.

Socioeconomics: The Prairie Plan was developed in accordance with several laws, including NEPA. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was prepared that analyzed the impacts of six potential management strategies when developing the Prairie Plan. The Prairie Plan FEIS and Record of Decision (published on February 8, 2002) did not find that activities planned for


12

implementing the Prairie Plan would have disproportionately high or adverse human health and environmental effects on minority or low income populations. In addition, the six grazing permit holders that currently have grazing permits on Midewin were contacted. The grazing permit holders raised concerns related to the health of their cattle and other livestock, but did not raise socioeconomic concerns.

Wilderness: Midewin is not part of the National Wilderness Preservation System nor does it contain any designated or proposed wilderness areas as defined in the 1964 Wilderness Act.

Hazardous Materials: Lands at Midewin include those that were previously part of the JOAAP. Prior to the land transfer, areas within specific tracts were identified in the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) cleanup program at JOAAP. Prescribed remediation efforts have been completed on most of the National Forest Systems lands on Midewin, and the Army continues to remediate sites and transfer ownership to Midewin. However, some sites affected by hazardous materials still remain at Midewin and on adjoining Army property.

Climate Change: This project is not expected to have any direct, indirect or cumulative effects on climate change. Due to the nature of the project as an experiment and small area affected, climate change is not expected to have any direct effect on the project area.

1.6 APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, REQUIRED COORDINATION, LICENSES, PERMITS

The Project would comply with the following regulations:

National Forest Management Act (NFMA, 36 CFR 219)

Consistent with NFMA guidelines.

Provide and maintain for diversity of plant communities.

Prevent the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for threatened and endangered species.

Protect soil and water conservation measures.

Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.)

Require concurrence from the USFWS.

Protect federally listed threatened and endangered species.

Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq.), as amended. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (42 CFR 26961), and Sections 401 and 403 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

Protect all navigable waters, including all tributaries and wetlands connected to navigable waters.

Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act of 1966 (USC sec 470), as amended.

Requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of any federal undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).


13

Illinois Land and Conservation Act (ILCA 1995)

“To manage the land and water resources of the MNP in a manner that will conserve and enhance the native populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants.”

“To provide opportunity for scientific environmental, and land use education and research.”

“To allow the continuation of agricultural uses of lands within the MNP consistent with section 2915(b)”.

“No agricultural special use authorization shall be issued for agricultural purposes which has a term extending beyond the date 20 years from the date of the enactment of this title, except that nothing in this title shall preclude the Secretary of Agriculture from issuing agricultural special use authorizations or grazing permits which are effective after twenty years from the date of enactment of this title for purposes primarily related to erosion control, provision for food and habitat for fish and wildlife, or other resource management activities consistent with the purposes of the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie”.

The bison introduction and grazing Project would require coordination with the following agencies for licenses, permits, and/or consultation:

US Fish and Wildlife Service

US Army Corps of Engineers

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Illinois Historic Preservation Agency

Illinois Department of Agriculture

1.7 PRAIRIE PLAN AND OTHER RELATED PROJECTS AT MIDEWIN

In 2002, the Prairie Plan was prepared to meet the requirements of the National Forest Management Act, as amended. The potential effects of restoration and management activities at Midewin were analyzed in the Final EIS for the Prairie Plan (USDA Forest Service 2002a), which provides direction and guidance for activities at the project level. The bison introduction and grazing and related facilities proposed in this Environmental Assessment are consistent with and tiered to the Prairie Plan, which specifies grazing as a management practice, and that “bison may be considered as livestock and may be grazed only on an experimental basis on a portion of Midewin, under permitted authority following NEPA compliance and adequate fencing” (US Forest Service 2002a).

Other Forest Service projects and activities likely to occur proximal to and simultaneously with the Project are mowing, herbicide use, mechanical and hand removal of invasive plant species, tree removal, prescribed burning, demolition of JOAAP facilities, and improvements to water structures, and outdoor recreational and environmental educational uses. The effects of these actions were analyzed in previous NEPA documents (USDA Forest Service 2002b, c, 2008a, b). Previous decisions covering the activities likely to occur in or near the Project area include:

Land and Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 2002b)


14

Prairie-wide Habitat Maintenance Environmental Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2008a)

Environmental Assessment Phase II Demolition of Unneeded and Unsafe Facilities and Infrastructure (USDA Forest Service 2008b)

Herbicide Use for Invasive Plant and Noxious Weeds Control Environmental Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2002c)

Environmental Assessment for Water Improvement Structures (USDA Forest Service 2013h).

An EA addressing the proposed Prairie Learning Center was recently prepared and that decision was made on September 26, 2013.

These previous documents and their associated Decision Notices contain detailed analyses of these activities.


15

2.0 ALTERNATIVES

This section describes the alternatives considered for the Project, including the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative. A part of this section beginning on page 23 also describes five other alternatives that were initially considered, but were not fully analyzed. This section includes information describing how the alternatives were developed and a description of each alternative. This section also compares the alternatives in terms of their environmental effects and their achievement of the purpose and need for the Project.

The Project site lies in an area designated in the Midewin Prairie Plan of 2002 for a mix of restored prairie plant communities including upland prairie/wet prairie/sedge meadow.

The Prairie Plan Goal involving ecosystem management sustains habitats and processes necessary to maintain the biological diversity of the tallgrass prairie, and provides for multiple-use outputs which result in a desired future condition for restored upland prairie as a mosaic that may also include wet prairie/sedge meadows, depending on soil types and lay of the land.

The intent of this Environmental Assessment is to determine the effects of the proposed bison introduction and grazing on the human and natural environments at Midewin. Based on public comments received during the public scoping period and staff review of feasible alternatives for this Project, two alternatives are fully evaluated in this EA: the Proposed Alternative and the No-Action Alternative. These alternatives are described in the following sections.

Alternative Development

Over the past few years Forest Service staff at Midewin studied and visited bison grazing on other public lands, Forest Service lands, and private lands in Illinois and nearby states. The staff talked with managers to learn about bison management and handling and how they managed public interactions with bison. The entire 18,225 acres of Midewin land was considered by the staff. The Prairie Plan’s standards, guidelines, goals and objective; the purpose and need of the project; and public involvement helped the staff and ID Team determine the appropriate site alternatives for the project. See page 23 for more discussion on alternatives considered but not fully analyzed.

2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: PROPOSED ACTION

This Project proposes to introduce bison and construct related facilities on an approximately 1,200-acre non-native grassland/pasture within Midewin to graze on an experimental basis. See Figure 1 for the map of the proposed site location. The proposed Project area best meets the purpose and need, plus meets many goals and objectives of the Prairie Plan for restoration and recreation.

The experiment is planned for up to 20 years unless administrative actions or the findings based on the experiment indicate a need to extend, reduce, or terminate the experiment.

The pastures would be restored to a more desirable native grassland community through the planting of native prairie species. The pastures are currently grazed by cattle in all but the winter months. Unlike cattle, the bison would be on the pasture year-round. A discussion of bison management is found below in Sections 2.1.3 through 2.1.4.

Under Illinois State law (510 Illinois Compiled Statutes [ILCS] 55), bison are considered livestock and not wild animals and need to be managed, fenced in, and given appropriate vaccinations and care.


16

Herd Ownership

The Project needs to provide flexibility regarding the ownership of the bison herd; one option is that the bison would be owned and managed by the Forest Service and another option is for the bison to be owned and operated by another entity under an authorized permit for the experiment, and all such actions would be subject to administrative decisions and the discretion of the Forest Service Prairie Supervisor.

Under the Illinois Land and Conservation Act, “No agricultural special use authorization shall be issued for agricultural purposes which has a term extending beyond the date 20 years from the date of the enactment of this title…”

A bison herd owned by the Forest Service for this experiment would not need an agriculture special use authorization or a grazing permit to operate on Forest service land, and there would be no ILCA concerns for the experiment.

A bison herd owned by another entity would need an authorized agricultural special use permit or grazing permit. However, there is an exception as identified in the Illinois Land and Conservation Act, “…except that nothing in this title shall preclude the Secretary of Agriculture from issuing agricultural special use authorizations or grazing permits which are effective after twenty years from the date of enactment of this title for purposes primarily related to erosion control, provision for food and habitat for fish and wildlife, or other resource management activities consistent with the purposes of the Midewin National Tallgrass”. Bison grazing and introduction as proposed here may meet this exception, and authorizing permits to operate the bison herd for the experiment are expected to meet this requirement.

Army survey and munitions debris cleanup

The Project area was surveyed by the Army in 2010 for munition debris and munition explosive of concern. No munitions debris (fragments, penetrators, projectiles, shell casings, links, fins, etc.) were located along the survey transects lines in the Project area. No munitions and explosives of concern (unexploded munitions, explosive compounds, etc.) were located along the survey transects lines in the Project area. Outside the area and immediately southeast of the Project area munitions debris and munition explosives of concern remaining after munitions use, demilitarization, or disposal were found along the survey transect lines. Because of these findings adjacent to the Project area, in 2014 the Army is planning to expand the survey transect lines to include a portion of the east part of the pastures along the wooded area. The Army has responsibility for finding and removing munitions and explosives of concern, if found. There is little concern since the Project area was not developed or previously used for munitions manufacturing, storage, assembling, testing, or packaging, and was not identified as part of the cleanup program. The Project area persisted as abandoned cropland or pastureland during the time of JOAAP until the land transfer when it eventually became Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. Additionally, public use and occupancy of the bison pastures will be restricted as discussed below.

The Proposed Action could be conducted in stages:

Bison facility construction. The bison pastures would first be fenced. The handling facility would be constructed to include corrals, handling chutes, an all-weather water source (well and tank), storage structures, a shelter and an administrative access road/parking area. To keep the handling area dry, drain tiles may be installed and swales created and the land graded to direct rainwater runoff and drainage from the site


17

to keep it dry. Electric power would be installed to run hydraulic gates and pump water from wells. An underground water transmission line would run from the well to the water holding tanks. An underground utility corridor areas are needed for water transmission and electricity. Underground electric lines would run from the electric service line at Illinois Route 53 along the existing roadways to the handling facility. If that is not possible, and then generators would be used to supply the electrical power where and when needed.

Public concern and visitor use. The proposed location for the bison grazing area would be fairly close to existing and planned trails to and from the Iron Bridge Trailhead and within view of the location for the future Prairie Learning Center. The bison would be visible from Illinois Route 53 and the Iron Bridge Trailhead. A system of multi-use trails would surround the bison pasture. Some elevated overlooks could be constructed along these trails. Within the proposed bison area (see Figure 1), public occupancy and use would be restricted under a Forest Closure order as necessary to protect public health and safety and to protect National Forest property.

Bison introduction and operation. The experiment would start with introducing a mix of younger and mature animals to begin the herd.

Develop bison habitat. Habitat in the Project area would be developed by seeding and planting native prairie plants and removing selected trees to improve grassland bird habitat.

Grassland habitat monitoring and management. Adaptive management techniques would be used to monitor bison grazing, bird species composition and habitat use, and grassland habitat structure. The land management regime would be adjusted if needed. Data would be collected and evaluated before making land management changes. Possible scenarios could include changing the number of bison, changing the pasture rotation periods, changing the prescribed fire regime, or changing the mechanical and/or herbicide treatment of invasive plant species, and re-seeding with a different mix of native plants, depending on the results of monitoring.

Restoration success with bison grazing would show a trend toward increasing the Floristic Quality Index, while increasing plant species diversity, decreasing invasive plant infestations, and maintaining 90% of native species planted, over a 10 year period. If the Floristic Quality Index shows a downward trend toward lower plant diversity, increasing invasive plant infestations and less than 90% native species survival, then changes would be needed.

Success would also result in stable or increasing populations of grassland birds and a greater diversity of grassland bird species within the project area, with at least seven different grassland birds present during the breeding period. Success would also be measured by the diversity of grass heights necessary for grassland birds, ranging from 6 - 12 inches at the short end and 16 - 32 inches at the taller end (USDA Forest Service 2014).

2.1.1 Bison Facility

Pastures, Fencing, and Corrals

The 1,200 acre parcel is already divided into four primary pastures. This could facilitate rotational grazing with two secondary pastures for short-term grazing. The bison pastures would be fenced.


18

Corrals for roundup, receiving, shipping, and processing would be located in an area where the four pastures meet (Figure 1) to allow for movement of the animals during pasture rotations.

The handling area would also accommodate the necessary alleys, chutes, separate holding pens, hay storage, equipment storage, utility corridors, generators and work areas.

2.1.2 Public Perspective and Visitor Use

The introduction and grazing of bison to Midewin offers an opportunity to inspire, attract, and cultivate the interests of children and adults to the natural world. To facilitate the learning experience, several interpretive devices about bison would be installed in the Project area to educate visitors on the importance and benefits of bison and their habitat, both regionally and globally.

The bison pastures would be fenced. A system of multi-use trails would surround the bison pasture enclosure, and some elevated overlooks could be provided along these trails. Any hiking trails located within bison pastures would be available to the public only when bison are not present. A pasture is planned at the Iron Bridge prairie planting near the proposed Prairie Learning Center. Using the pasture would allow bison to be brought in for a closer look from the Prairie Learning Center during special events.

2.1.3 Bison Management

Stocking Rate and Size

Under the Proposed Action, the bison herd may start with a small herd of approximately 26 animals at the time the herd is released on Midewin. The availability of genetically ideal bison along with the number of bison necessary to provide desired bison characteristics would be factors in the initial introduction.

Key considerations for bison selection and timing of release include:

Site facilities completed and checked (e.g., perimeter fencing, corrals)

Genetics of bison stock (DNA background) and value to bison conservation

Biosecurity, including a detailed bison health history and proper disease testing before arrival

Visitor enjoyment, including opportunities for public education and viewing

Following Bison Conservation Management guidelines (Gates et al. 2010), the Project area could eventually sustain a bison herd of approximately 108 animals or the equivalent of 150 Animal Units (AUs). AUs were figured based on the table below.

Animal Type Animal Units (AUs) 1

Mature bull 1.25

Cows w/calf 1.0

2 year old mixed sex 1.0

1 year old mixed sex 0.7

Calves rated with cows 0 1 AUs are usually based on the concept that a 1000-pound cow, with or

without an unweaned calf, is 1 AU. An unweaned calf is rated with a cow and is 0 AUs.

The bison numbers would be allowed to increase up to, but not more than 108 animals. The long-term number may be adjusted based on the results of the ecological monitoring. Adjustments involve maintaining fewer breeding-age males and removing older animals before


19

their natural life expectancy. The table below provides a hypothetical structure of ages and sex classes for the bison herd on Midewin.

Age of Animal Total Animal Unit (AU)

Equivalents Number of Bison

3- to 12-year-old cow w/calf 1.0 43

3- to-12-year-old breeding bull 1.5 5

2-year-old heifer 1.0 15

2-year-old bull 1.0 15

Yearling heifer 0.7 15

Yearling bull 0.7 15

TOTAL 108

For the long-term, the bison would be managed for animal structure (age and sex classes). With experience and monitoring, the structure and numbers would be adjusted as needed (USDA Forest Service 2014).

Bison Size and Genetic Diversity

The proposed action includes actions needed to manage the bison herd. The bison pastures would be fenced. Correspondingly, no native predators are present to reduce or regulate the size of the bison population. Therefore, the bison population could require management so that the numbers do not outgrow the available capacity and exceed the desired population size.

The experimental population at Midewin could eventually have surplus animals. There would also likely be semi-annual culling of yearlings, breeding bulls and cows. While some surplus animals may go to Tribal partners, government agencies and other partners at Midewin, a program to properly sell calves or yearlings annually could be developed according to Illinois State laws (225 ILCS 645 and 225 ILCS 655). A scale for weighing livestock would be part of the corral system at Midewin to weigh individual bison.

Similarly, bison herds founded on a few individuals and maintained at low numbers require periodic introduction of new breeding stock to increase genetic variation (Hedrick 2009). A metapopulation management strategy would be implemented whereby periodic exchanges of animals are made between spatially separated populations to simulate dispersal and immigration, as Dratch and Gogan (2010) recommend. At Midewin, each bison would be implanted with a microchip to facilitate the tracking of each individual animal’s genetic stock, and health, vaccination records, and genetic information (including lineage relationships) for individual bison would be maintained to facilitate metapopulation management.

Water Management and Supplemental Feeding

Well water would be made available to bison, including an all-weather storage tank that is earthen-covered and insulated to prevent freezing. A well near the handling facility or corral needs to be drilled. Three other wells already exist and could be used as needed. Generally speaking, bison do not require supplemental feeding like cattle. However, nutritional supplementation may be necessary in managed bison herds in winter and when on isolated islands of grass. This is because the animals would not be free roam to areas far away having less snow or other varied forage as they would in the wild. Additionally, hay would be available should some animals be held in the corral system for a few days or during times of extended severe weather.

Disease Management

As with all wildlife and domestic livestock, bison are susceptible to a range of diseases, including brucellosis. In the State of Illinois (as per 510 ILCS 30/6.7), bison (except calves under


20

six months of age, steers, and spayed heifers) entering the state (not for slaughter) may do so if accompanied by an entry permit issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection indicating the bison either:

1) originated from a certified brucellosis-free herd (the certified herd number and date of the test should be shown on the certificate);

2) are official female brucellosis vaccinates under 24 months of age; or

3) tested negative for brucellosis within 30 days prior to importation.

The bison would be vaccinated for brucellosis to alleviate concerns of transmission to local cattle populations and to maintain good community relations. In addition, the bison would be vaccinated and treated as needed for other diseases and as recommended by veterinary practice to maintain healthy bison.

Bison Outside of Pastures and Carcass Disposal

Similar to cattle, bison may leave the pasture enclosures or get outside the fence due to acts of nature or humans. Comparable to situations when cattle get outside the pasture fences, appropriate arrangements would be applied to address the bison being out of the pasture area.

Bison carcasses found on the prairie may be buried on the Project area and/or removed. Similar to when cattle carcasses are found, appropriate arrangements would be applied to address any bison carcass.

2.1.4 Develop Bison Habitat

Bison habitat in the Project area would be developed and phased in over a few years. Early in the pasture development, bison would use one of the existing cattle pastures now dominated by non-native pasture grasses also known as cool season grasses. As pastures are established with native vegetation, bison would be moved over to the restored prairie pastures. The initial pasture would be improved following development of the other pastures. The pasture would receive some initial native grass seeding (Indian grass [Sorghastrum nutans], big bluestem [Andropogon gerardii] and switch grass [Panicum virgatum] for example) to provide better temporary forage for the bison prior to restoration to native prairie.

The pastures would be restored to native prairie to develop into bison habitat. Some existing trees and shrubs would be removed to improve the grassland habitat. Several groves of trees and scattered individual shrubs around the borders would be kept. Non-native plant species would be controlled through the use of herbicides or the tract would temporarily be put into a soybean row crop. Experience at Midewin over the past 15 years has shown improved restoration success when native prairie seeds are spread over bare ground following harvest of soybeans as compared to over-seeding or drilling in native seed on weedy old fields. Growing glyphosate resistant soybeans for a season or two effectively removes the pervasive and persistent weeds, preparing the site for native prairie seed planting.

Following non-native plant species control, the bison pastures would be seeded with a mix of prairie grasses, sedges, and flowering plants. Portions of the pastures would also be planted with native plant plugs. Additional seeding and planting would take place over the following years of the initial planting to supplement the pastures. Both native cool season (early growing) and warm season (late growing) prairie grasses would be planted to provide good forage throughout the year for the bison. The plant species mix would cover the range from wetland to dry prairie plant species, depending upon the location within the pasture. The goal would be to establish 100+ native prairie plant species.


21

2.1.5 Grassland Habitat Monitoring and Management

An adaptive management approach would be used for managing the bison to achieve the goal for restoring native prairie. The Project would facilitate the contrast and comparison across restored prairies exposed to bison grazing and those that have only been exposed to other grassland management techniques, i.e., fire, cattle grazing, herbicide application, and plantings. Partner institutions and universities may also be interested in researching the dynamic changes in soils, water, plants, insects, birds, and other resources before and during bison grazing.

Currently, grassland bird populations and habitat have been monitored for a number of years on the lands managed as cattle pastures at Midewin. These data would provide the baseline for observing changes in bird species composition and habitat use and grassland habitat structure. Data would be collected and evaluated before making land management changes. Possible scenarios could include, but not be limited to: changing the number of bison, pasture rotation periods, the prescribed fire regime, or the mechanical and/or herbicide treatment of invasive plant species, and re-seeding with a different mix of native prairie plants.

Successful restoration with bison grazing would show a trend toward increasing the Floristic Quality Index, while increasing plant species diversity, decreasing invasive plant infestations, and maintenance of 90% of native species planted over a 10 year period. If the Floristic Quality Index shows a downward trend toward lower plant species diversity, increasing invasive plant infestations, and less than 90% survival of native species, then changes would be needed.

Success would also result in stable or increasing populations of grassland birds and a greater diversity of grassland bird species within the project area, with at least seven different grassland birds present during the breeding period. Success would also be measured by the diversity of grass heights necessary for grassland birds, ranging from 6 – 12 inches at the short end, to 16 – 32 inches at the taller end (USDA Forest Service 2014).

2.1.6 Trail and Overlook Construction

Approximately 2.1 miles of new trail would be constructed as part of this Project. Approximately 0.75 miles of that trail would be constructed on former road-beds on the outside western perimeter of the proposed bison Project area. Approximately 1.35 miles of trail could be new construction. The proposed trail could be gravel surfaced and 10 feet wide, with 3 feet of mowed grass on both sides of the trail. The trails could be used for non-motorized public use including hiking, biking, and horseback riding. The trail could also be used for administrative purposes that would include firelines and by Forest Service vehicles, utility task vehicles, and tractors. The trails and existing roads could be used as part of a motorized or non-motorized tram route that would take visitors on tours to view bison and the prairie.

Overlooks could be constructed at two separate locations adjacent to proposed and existing trails. The overlooks could be elevated, open air structures and may have roofs. Ramps could be constructed to ensure the overlooks meet accessibility guidelines. Bike racks and zip-lines could also be provided to allow for bicycle parking and horse tie-up adjacent to the overlook. The overlooks and associated amenities could be constructed on roughly 0.25 acres of land, but construction may impact up to 1 acre of land.


22

2.1.7 Design Features and Monitoring

Design Features

Vegetation

If state-listed species or Regional Forester sensitive species (RFSS) are re-introduced into the Project area through seed dispersal or plug planting, the areas would be mapped using Global Positioning Systems.

Wildlife

1) Retain potential loggerhead shrike nesting trees around the edges of the Project area where shrikes are common. If bison damage the shrike nesting trees, additional shrike habitat in new pastures on the east side of Midewin would be developed.

2) Construction related work that would disturb the soil would not take place during the bird breeding season, April 15 to August 1, without approval from Midewin’s Ecologist or Wildlife Biologist.

3) Removal of trees within the project area should only be done between August 15 and March 15.

Soils

1) Avoid or reduce use of heavy ground-pressure vehicles off of roads or railbeds during periods of high soil moisture to reduce rutting.

2) If a bison carcass is buried, retain the top 2 feet of the soil and replace it in the same sequence it was removed.

Water

1) If possible, build parking areas and buildings for the corral area away from the existing drainage.

2) Use a licensed well driller to install new wells.

Monitoring

Vegetation

The restored prairie grasslands in the Project area could be monitored periodically to determine if bison grazing is contributing to prairie restoration objectives, such as increasing forb diversity and reducing dominance of rank native grasses and invasive plants. Data could be collected and evaluated before making land management changes. Possible scenarios could include, but not be limited to: changing the number of bison, the pasture rotation periods, or the prescribed fire regime, changing the mechanical and/or herbicide treatment of invasive plant species, and re-seeding with a different mix of native plants (USDA Forest Service 2014).

Successful prairie restoration with bison grazing would show a trend toward increasing the Floristic Quality Index, increasing plant species diversity, decreasing invasive plant infestations, and maintenance of 90% of native species planted over a 10 year period. If the Floristic Quality Index shows a downward trend toward lower plant species diversity, increasing invasive plant infestations, and less than 90% survival of the native species, then changes could be needed.

2.1.8 Proposed Action Summary

The Proposed Action meets the purpose and need of the Project by meeting the goals specified in the Prairie Plan (USDA Forest Service 2002a) and Project objectives as described in Section 1.3.1. The introduction of bison would support goals for maintaining the biological diversity of


23

the prairie and providing multiple-use outputs. Plus, implementing bison grazing has the potential to meet the Prairie Plan’s desired condition for optimal grassland bird habitat.

2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No-Action Alternative, bison would not be introduced at Midewin and cattle would continue to graze the Project area under authorized grazing permits. Current perimeter fencing and handling facilities would remain. Current visitor amenities would remain in place and interpretive opportunities related to the bison would not be implemented. Restoration and vegetation management measures currently employed in the Project area would continue. This includes herbicide application, mowing, and seeding to enhance forage for domestic cattle.

2.2.1 No-Action Summary

The No-Action Alternative does not meet the purpose and need for attaining overarching goals for prairie restoration specified in the Prairie Plan (USDA Forest Service 2002a). The No-Action Alternative does not meet the Project objectives as described in Section 1.3.1 for introducing bison and monitoring the effects of bison grazing on grassland communities, specifically that of grassland birds.

2.2.2 Other Alternatives Considered, but Not Fully Analyzed

Midewin staff reviewed five other alternatives for Bison Herd Introduction and Grazing. This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the potential environmental effects of introducing bison to graze on an experimental basis. See Figure 2 for locations of Alternatives 3 - 7.

The following alternatives were considered, evaluated, and field reviewed. None of these alternatives met the all of the purpose and needs described in EA Section 1.3 and therefore were not fully analyzed in this EA.

Alternative 3 – South Patrol location is identified on Figure 2 -Other Bison Areas Considered. This alternative was considered and evaluated but not full analyzed because:

This alternative is the same as Alternative 1 the Proposed Action, for facilities, fencing, wells, trails, overlook, etc. with a different location.

This alternative is located on a newly restored wetland and we would not have the opportunity to study how bison can improve restoration of grassland bird habitat.

This alternative was determined to be too wet for bison, since bison prefer to graze on dry uplands.

This alternative location would be too wet for bison and not appropriate for grazing bison year round.

This alternative has many existing Army structures still on the land and would need expensive and extensive demolition before restoration could begin.

This alternative was considered to be too far from the future Prairie Learning Center and Midewin visitors.

Since this alternative is in an area open to the public, this alternative would have closed the bison areas to the public and would have re-routed all the existing trails to minimize potential conflicts between bison and people.

This alternative is in an area that is fairly flat and it would be difficult for the public to view the bison in this area.


24

Alternative 4 - North Henslow location on Figure 2 -Other Bison Areas Considered. This alternative was considered and evaluated but not full analyzed because:

This alternative is the same as Alternative 1 the Proposed Action, for facilities, fencing, wells, trails, overlook, etc. except in a different location.

This alternative is directly adjacent to the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery to and we would need to minimize the chances of bison getting onto this property.

This alternative is directly adjacent to the busy Deer Run Industrial Park where rail, truck and freight move in and out 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and the chances of bison getting onto the Industrial Park would need to be closely monitored and barriers created.

Since this alternative is in an area open to the public, this alternative would have closed the bison areas to the public and would have re-routed all the existing trails to minimize potential conflicts between bison and people.

Alternative 5 – North Coldwater Hedge Apple location is identified on Figure 2 Map of Other Bison Areas Considered. This alternative was considered and evaluated but not full analyzed because:

This alternative is the same as Alternative 1 the Proposed Action, for facilities, fencing, wells, trails, overlook, etc., just the location is different.

This alternative is still primarily in row crops and would impact current permit holders and would take another three to five years to develop pasture grasses or restored prairie grasses before bison could be brought on.


This alternative has many existing Army inholding property in the area and would need to be fenced and access provided to the land owners year round that cross through the bison pasture areas.

This alternative is in the area identified in the Prairie Plan for agriculture use. This is the place where cattle currently graze to provide grassland bird habitat. Placing bison in this area would limit cattle grazing operations in this area.


Since this alternative is in an open to the public area, this area would have to be closed to the public and all the trails re-routed to minimize conflicts.

This alterative area lies very close to the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery.

This alternative is adjacent to the busy Deer Run Industrial Park where truck and freight move in and out 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

Alternative 6 – Northeast Hoff Bunker Field location is identified on the map called Other Bison Areas Considered (Figure 2). This alternative was considered and evaluated but not full analyzed because:

This alternative is the same as Alternative 1 the Proposed Action, for facilities, fencing, wells, trails, overlook, etc. except with a different location.

This alternative has many existing Army structures still on the land and would need expensive and extensive demolition before restoration could begin.


25

This alternative is considered too far from the Forest Service Headquarters and would potentially be harder to manage the experiment.


This alternative is in the area identified in the Prairie Plan for agriculture use. This is the place where cattle currently graze to provide grassland bird habitat. Placing bison in this area would limit cattle grazing operations in this area.

This alternative has major investments and is currently under row crop or grazing permits and we considered the termination dates and the potential for disturbance to the operations by current permit holders, if a large bison pasture was established nearby.

This alternative is adjacent to the Island City Industrial Park where truck and freight move in and out 24 hours a day 7 days a week.


Since this alternative is in an open to the public area, this alternative would have to close the bison areas to the public and re-route all the trails to minimize conflicts.

Alternative 7 – Southeast Jordon location is identified on the map called Other Bison Areas Considered (Figure 2). This alternative was considered and evaluated but not full analyzed because:

This alternative is the same as Alternative 1 the Proposed Action, for facilities, fencing, wells, trails, overlook, etc. with a different location.

This alternative has many existing Army structures still on the land and would need expensive and extensive demolition before the Bison were introduced or restoration could begin.

This alternative is considered too far from the Forest Service Headquarters and would potentially be harder to manage the experiment.

This alternative is located in a part of Midewin which is still not open to public access, due to the need to not provide access to Army property.


This alternative was determined to be too wet for bison, since bison prefer to graze on dry uplands.

This alternative location would be too wet for bison grazing year round and not appropriate.

This alternative is in the area identified in the Prairie Plan for agriculture use. This is the place where cattle currently graze to provide grassland bird habitat. Placing bison in this area would limit cattle grazing operations in this area

This alternative has major investments and is currently under row crop or grazing permits and we considered the termination dates and potential for disturbance to the operations by current permit holders, if a large bison pasture was established nearby.

This alternative is adjacent to the Island City Industrial Park where truck and freight move in and out 24 hours a day 7 days a week.


26



27

2.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 2.1 provides a summary of potential effects associated with the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative. Information in the table focuses on those effects or outputs that can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

. Table 2.1 Potential Effects of the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternatives

Resource Alternative 1: Proposed Action Alternative 2: No-Action

Vegetation

Potential for faster rate of improving native vegetation diversity due to an added beneficial measure for restoring native grassland conditions.

Slower rate of change to desirable plant species due to less efficient grassland restoration through the use of cattle.

Wildlife Long-term positive impacts to grassland bird species.

Long-term negative impacts to grassland species due to less efficient grassland restoration through the use of cattle.

Soils

Minor soil impacts at sites for handling area, parking, storage facility, and overlook construction. Bison may have less soil compression as they spread out. Minor soil disturbance associated with bison burial.

Continued minor effects associated with cattle hoof compressing the soil where cattle congregate.

Water

Long-term positive effects to intermittent drainages and swales due to removal of cattle and bison’s tendency to avoid congregating in surface waters. Bison use less water than cattle.

No change to effects on water resources. No change in demand on water supply.

Air Quality

Short-term minor effects to air quality during construction of facilities. Minor increase in local vehicle air emissions from additional visitors by car.

No change in effects to air quality.

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to cultural resources.

No adverse effects to cultural resources.

Scenery

Improved scenic character with addition of bison. Short-term minor disturbance to scenery during construction of facilities.

No effects to scenery.

Recreation Positive effects to recreation with new bison viewing opportunities.

No change to recreational opportunities.

Neighboring Lands and Operations

No effect. No effect.


28

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This section describes the existing condition of potentially affected resources and discloses the effects of each alternative. Information provided in this section allows readers to measure or evaluate the alternatives. The relevant components of each resource in its existing condition are provided to give a baseline from which to compare both the proposed action and no-action alternative.

This introduction contains information that applies to all resources and facilitates understanding the rationale for effects determinations made for each resource.

3.1.1 Analysis Methodology

The Forest Service prepared the effects analyses and disclosures in Section 3 based on the requirements of NEPA and the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500 et seq.) and Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 220) for implementing NEPA. In Section 3 we disclose the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, mitigation measures, provisions for monitoring, and appropriate consideration of sensitive species, soil and water resources, recreational resources and opportunities, and other important resources.

Effects include:

a) direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place;

b) indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable; and

c) cumulative effects, which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively important actions taking place over a period of time.

The effects analysis area for each resource varies depending to what extent a resource experiences impacts associated with an action. For example, the effects analysis area tends to be relatively large for water resources and highly mobile wildlife.

3.1.2 Cumulative Effects

Since the early 1800s, past activities in the area on private and government lands include, but are not limited to the following:

a) conversion of native vegetation to agricultural uses;

b) conversion of pastures and hayfields to row crops;

c) alteration of hydrology;

d) drainage of wetlands and conversion to agricultural and industrial uses;

e) fragmentation of extensive natural habitats;

f) extirpation of native fauna (including ungulates and predators);

g) suppression of the natural fire regime;

h) introduction of invasive plant and animal species; and


29

i) development of structures, roads, railroads, utilities, and communications systems.

Present and potential future activities at Midewin include, but are not limited to, the following:

a) prescribed burning;

b) invasive species control;

c) hydrologic restoration;

d) natural community restoration;

e) grassland bird management (includes livestock grazing);

f) row-crop production;

g) stream rehabilitation;

h) building demolition;

i) hazardous materials cleanup;

j) scientific research;

k) topography restoration (e.g., removing soil piles, filling excavated sites)

l) environmental education; and

m) recreational facilities construction and maintenance.

Present and future activities on the former JOAAP that may affect resources and activities at Midewin include, but are not limited to, the following:

a) development of industrial parks in the nearby vicinity;

b) expansion and operation of the Will County Landfill;

c) development and management of the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery;

d) Army remediation operations;

e) Proposed Illiana Corridor project immediately to the south of Midewin;

f) Proposed High Speed Rail on Union Pacific Railroad line that bisects Midewin;

g) Potential for airport installation near Peotone, Illinois; and

h) general conversion of rural landscapes to development (urbanization).

Residential and commercial development in the region has slowed in recent years, but such activities are expected to continue to grow and would have increasing incremental effects on resources at Midewin and surrounding areas.

3.1.3 Mitigation

An agency can often predict when an action is going to result in some potentially adverse effects based on observations made from previous similar types of actions. An agency can then plan to manage activities to avoid, minimize, or compensate for these potential effects. At Midewin, Project activities would comply with key laws, regulations, policies, and the Standards identified in the Prairie Plan to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential adverse effects. As planned, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in adverse effects to resources. Should mitigation be identified, these mitigation measures could be implemented on a site-specific, individual activity basis.


30

3.2 PROJECT AREA SETTING AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS

Available information indicates that prior to agriculture and arsenal development, most of Midewin’s natural landscape was dominated by tallgrass prairie, wetlands, savanna, and woodlands (USDA Forest Service 2008a). The tallgrass prairies in the central U.S. were maintained through drought, bison grazing, and fires started by lightning down-strikes and set by Native Americans. From the time of the onset of agricultural uses and before 1940, much of the Midewin area was drained and converted to pasture grasses and crops through plowing and the installation of tile drains. Only portions along streams, woodland groves, some scattered wetlands, and rocky areas were left in a somewhat natural state. Although these areas were not converted to cropland or hay, most were exposed to livestock grazing. The conversion of prairie to agriculture was accompanied by the extirpation of bison, elk, and predatory mammals and the introduction of non-native plants and animals, some of which are extremely noxious.

Farming continued to be the dominant land use until 1940 when the federal government authorized the JOAAP to produce ammunition and explosives for the U.S. military. To build JOAAP, 45% of the landscape was modified to contain thousands of buildings and utility sites, over 200 miles of roads, and 118 miles of railroad. The project channelized miles of meandering creeks and streams and constructed numerous large drainage ditches.

The decommissioning of JOAAP became the basis for the Illinois Land Conservation Act of 1995, the legislation that established Midewin and other uses for the former arsenal. Of the lands transferred to the Forest Service in 1997, less than 3% contained remnant native vegetation. Over 10,000 acres of the land was in leases to area farmers for the cultivation of corn and soybeans, hay production, and grazing. All Army agricultural leases were converted to Forest Service Special Use permits in 1997 as directed in the ILCA. In accordance with the Illinois Land Conservation Act:

“To allow the continuation of agricultural uses of lands within the MNP consistent with section 2915(b)”.

“The term `agricultural purposes' means the use of land for row crops, pasture, hay, and grazing”.

“No agricultural special use authorization shall be issued for agricultural purposes which has a term extending beyond the date 20 years from the date of the enactment of this title, except that nothing in this title shall preclude the Secretary of Agriculture from issuing agricultural special use authorizations or grazing permits which are effective after twenty years from the date of enactment of this title for purposes primarily related to erosion control, provision for food and habitat for fish and wildlife, or other resource management activities consistent with the purposes of the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie”.

Since 1997, Midewin has implemented numerous projects to restore native communities. Projects have included:

a) seed production beds and fields for native prairie species;

b) wetland and prairie restoration;

c) removal of leftover JOAAP facilities and structures;

d) prescribed fire;

e) removing drainage systems; and


31

f) eradication of non-native vegetation.

The Project area is approximately 1,200 acres located roughly in the middle of Midewin. With the exception of Illinois Route 53, lands adjoining the Project area are within the Midewin property boundary. The site is non-native agricultural pastureland with a few patches or rows of trees and shrubs. The pasture is currently being managed for grazing and grassland wildlife habitat. Part of the Project area, the pasture near the Iron Bridge Trailhead, is being managed to restore upland prairie, wet prairie/sedge meadow, and savannah communities.

3.3 VEGETATION

3.3.1 Existing Condition

Past land uses at Midewin converted the once extensive prairie to agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial development. Decades of cattle grazing has affected Midewin’s grasslands, most of which are planted in non-native cool-season grasses. In some locations previous overgrazing of the grasslands has diminished the diversity of native flora. Most of the vegetation on Midewin consists of early-successional communities dominated by a combination of non-native and disturbance-tolerant native species (USDA Forest Service 2010). When the Army land was transferred to the Forest Service in 1997, less than 3% of the existing vegetation cover was comprised of small remnants of native and less-tolerant vegetation (USDA Forest Service 2010).

The proposed Project area covers 1,200 acres and is largely non-native upland grassland. In the southeast portion of the Project area, one small tract of 38 acres had been cultivated for growing soybeans and winter wheat and was recently seeded with native prairie plants when the special use permit for agriculture expired. Another small 40 acre tract that lies to the north, near the proposed Prairie Learning Center site, was restored to prairie five years ago. Over 100 different species were planted, but many still occur in small numbers. These include rosinweed (Silphium integrifolium), rattlesnake master (Eryngium yuccifolium), wild bergamot (Monarda fistulosa), golden alexanders (Zizia aurea), tall tickseed (Coreopsis tripteris), black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta), and stiff goldenrod (Solidago rigida).

Dominant cool-season grasses include smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Kentucky blue-grass (Poa pratensis), tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crusgallii), and redtop (Agrostis alba). The grassland contains several common forbs, including Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), common teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris), clover (Trifolium spp.), sweet clover (Melilotus spp.), hairy aster (Aster pilosus [Symphyotrichum pilosum]), common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), whorled milkweed (A. verticillata), ox-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), nodding thistle (Carduus nutans), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa), and Queen Anne‘s lace (Daucus carota) (USDA Forest Service 2013a, b). A few native prairie plants persist in these grasslands, including prairie cord grass (Spartina pectinata) and broad-leaved wooly sedge (Carex pellita), but these species are not frequent nor do they occur as intact natural communities (USDA Forest Service 2010).

The few patches of trees and shrubs are dominated by autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), Osage orange (Maclura pomifera), white mulberry (Morus alba), northern hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii).

Management practices to restore grassland bird habitat at Midewin include native vegetation planting, herbicide application, and cattle grazing. Conversion of approximately 3,100 acres


32

from former crop lands, pastures, and old abandoned fields to native vegetation has been completed or is currently ongoing.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Species

Federally listed species are afforded protection under the Endangered Species Act. State-listed species are afforded protection under the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act (520 ILCS 10). Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) are those for which the Regional Forester has acknowledged concern for population viability.

There are no threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant species in the Project area (USDA Forest Service 2013c). The site is non-native upland grassland that is currently exposed to cattle grazing. Grazing is currently restricted to agricultural grasslands that do not have TES plant populations.

Management Indicators

The Forest Service Manual (FSM) defines management indicators as “Plant and animal species, communities, or special habitats selected for emphasis in planning, and which are monitored during forest plan implementation in order to assess the effects of management activities on their populations and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs which they may represent” (FSM 2620.5). Management indicators are those selected, “…that best represent the issues, concerns, and opportunities to support recovery of federally listed species, provide continued viability of sensitive species, and enhance management of wildlife and fish for commercial, recreational, scientific, subsistence, or aesthetic values or uses” (FSM 2621.1).

Vegetation management indicators found in the Project area include primarily short-stature grassland habitat and medium-stature grassland habitat. An approximately 40-acre restored area lies in the northeast corner of the Project area and represents upland typic prairie and wetland typic prairie, management indicators as listed in the Midewin Prairie Plan. Associated plant species of interest for upland and wet typic prairie are listed in Table 3.1. These species were planted, but they occur in very low numbers in the restored tract (USDA Forest Service 2013b).

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action

The Proposed Action includes introducing bison to graze and establishing related facilities in the Project area. The Proposed Action includes active development of bison habitat where native prairie and wetland plants could be seeded and planted, and some trees could be removed. In the long-term, the pasture would be restored to a more desirable native grassland community through the re-introduction of native, desirable plants and bison grazing. Unlike cattle, bison tend to graze in patches, revisiting areas throughout the season and selectively graze on dominant grasses avoiding forbs and woody species. The result is a patchy distribution of vegetation that encourages plant species diversity by allowing forbs to flourish (Knapp et al. 1999). Compared to cattle, bison do not linger in water courses and degrade riparian vegetation. Bison frequently form wallows that are shallow depressions in the soil where they roll. Wallows could alter the patch structure of prairie and create more plant diversity. Because of the soil compaction, wallows often retain rainwater in the spring, creating localized habitats that are suitable for ephemeral wetland species, similar to vernal pools in California (Holland and Jain 1981, Uno 1989).

The Proposed Action would not have adverse effects to TES plants as none occur in the Project area. Because bison selectively avoid grazing on forbs, this creates an opportunity to promote


33

TES forbs. The presence of bison and the absence of cattle would provide opportunities for reintroduction of TES plant species and possibly an eventual increase in both population numbers and distribution of those TES plants.

In the Prairie Plan, Midewin selected common conditions that could be applied across many management indicators that could be easily sampled by following established transects or using spatial information. These types of management indicators help to make effective use of the related efforts. For species (or groups of species) we rely on population estimates or, for benthic macroinvertebrates, an index of diversity (USDA Forest Service 2002a, Appendix C).

The Proposed Action includes monitoring the vegetation management indicators listed in Table 3.1 and the associated species of interest.

Table 3.1 Vegetation management indicators and associated species of interest

Prairie Plan Management Indicator

Associated species of interest

Upland typic prairie

prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis)

shooting-star (Dodecatheon meadia)

rattlesnake master (Eryngium yuccifolium)

Eryngium stem-borer moth (Papaipema eryngii) 1, 2

compass-plant (Silphium laciniatum)

prairie gentian (Gentiana puberulenta)

pale purple coneflower (Echinacea pallida)

Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii)

red-veined prairie leafhopper (Aflexia rubranura) 1, 2

Wet typic prairie

prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata)

eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) 2, 4

chimney crayfish (Fallicambarus fodiens)

common snipe (Gallinago gallinago)

marsh phlox (Phlox glaberrima var. interior)

prairie sundrops (Oenothera pilosella)

Short-stature grassland habitat

upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) 1, 2

loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 1, 3

grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)

thirteen-lined ground squirrel (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus)

Medium-stature grassland habitat

bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) 1

eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna)

savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis)

smooth green snake (Opheodrys vernalis)

Tall-stature grassland habitat

Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii)

northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) 1, 2

sedge wren (Cistothorus platensis) 1 Regional Forester’s sensitive species

2 Illinois endangered species

3 Illinois threatened species

4 Federal threatened species

The Proposed Action would not have adverse effects to management indicators. The impacts associated with bison grazing would likely benefit species of interest associated with upland typic prairie (Table 3.1), such as shooting star and rattlesnake master. Bison grazing may result in decreases in short-stature grassland habitat, yet may result in increases in medium-stature grassland habitat.


34

In summary, the dynamic spatial and temporal nature of bison grazing allows grasses to recover, while enhancing forb cover, aboveground biomass, density of plant cover, and species diversity (Towne et al. 2005). Under the Proposed Action, direct and indirect effects of bison grazing and wallowing on vegetation would be long-term and beneficial due to increased plant species diversity, forbs, structural diversity, and local heterogeneity.

The Proposed Action includes constructing two elevated overlooks to enable visitors to view the bison. Installing these overlooks would necessitate a small area of ground disturbance and vegetation removal directly at the site of each overlook. These overlooks would have minor and localized impacts to vegetation in the Project area. There would also be a handling area with an all-weather watering system (earth-covered, insulated water-storage tank) that would have localized impacts to vegetation.

Alternative 2: No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, bison at Midewin would not be introduced or grazed in the Project area. The condition of the plant community would continue to improve, albeit more slowly, through the restoration measures currently used, including native plant seeding. Cattle grazing in the Project area would continue.

Cumulative Effects

Past and present actions that have affected vegetation resources in the Project area include conversion of prairie to agriculture and development, alteration of hydrologic regimes, cattle grazing, and seeding and planting of prairie vegetation. Future actions on Illinois Route 53 and near the Project area could include highway construction and maintenance. Prairie restoration activities on Midewin lands would continue, including vegetation seeding and planting, herbicide application, tile drain removal, and prescribed burning.

The implementation of a bison grazing program in the Project is likely to have beneficial effects to vegetation resources in terms of botanical diversity, habitat structural heterogeneity, and biomass productivity (Knapp et al. 1999, Hamilton 2007). Such a pattern better represents natural prairie conditions and meets management objectives (USDA Forest Service 2002a). Therefore, cumulative effects of bison grazing along with seeding, planting, herbicide application, and prescribed burning would have beneficial, moderate, and long-term effects to vegetation resources at Midewin.

Midewin has a goal for achieving over 6,000 acres of grassland pastures for grazing (can be cattle and/or bison) to meet objectives for grassland bird habitat, and the remaining crop land is to be planted to either grassland or restored to prairie to meet the intent of the Illinois Land Conservation Act and the Prairie Plan.

3.4 WILDLIFE


In Illinois, wildlife species are afforded protection under the Wildlife Code (520 ILCS 5). Wildlife likely to occur in the Project area would be those that use non-native upland grassland that is regularly exposed to cattle grazing. Mammals include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), coyote (Canis latrans), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) red fox (Vulpes vulpes), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), and meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius). Bats that may fly through or forage over the Project area include little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus).


35

During the breeding season, birds that use the Project area include those that use upland grasslands for nesting and feeding. Grassland species include American kestrel (Falco sparverius), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), eastern meadowlark, dickcissel (Spiza americana), grasshopper sparrow, savannah sparrow, and vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus). Red-headed woodpeckers (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) have been detected along Prairie Creek (US Forest Service 2009), which borders the Project area to the south.

Barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) use the airspace above grasslands for aerial foraging. Non-native birds likely to use the Project area include ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). The Project area also provides loafing and feeding habitat for migrants and winter residents, such as Le Conte’s sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii).

Reptiles likely to occur in the Project area include western fox snake (Pantherophis vulpinus) smooth green snake (Opheodrys vernalis), brown snake (Storeria dekayi), plains garter snake (Thamnophis radix), and eastern garter snake (T. sirtalis).

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Animals

Federally listed species are afforded protection under the Endangered Species Act. In Illinois, state-listed species are afforded protection under the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act (520 ILCS 10). Regional Forester Sensitive Species are those for which the Regional Forester has acknowledged concern for population viability.

There are no federally listed animals known to occur in the Project area. There are five state-listed species that have potential to occur in the Project area. Upland sandpiper and loggerhead shrike may either feed or nest in the Project area. The Project area also provides resting and feeding habitat for northern harrier and short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), both of which may occur as migrants or winter residents. The Franklin’s ground squirrel is addressed below.

Franklin’s Ground Squirrel

The Franklin’s ground squirrel, a state-listed threatened mammal, is largely an inhabitant of the Great Plains, but its range extends to northwestern Indiana (Hall 1981 as cited in Martin et al. 2001). Suitable habitat in southeastern part of their range, in Illinois and Indiana, would consist of remnant tallgrass prairie, woodland edges and openings, and anywhere there are stands of tall, dense grasses, forbs, and shrubs. They avoid short grass associated with grazed or mowed areas (Haberman and Flaherty 1971 as cited in Martin et al. 2001). In agricultural landscapes suitable habitat can be found among fencerows, old fields, infrequently mowed roadsides and waste places, and the banks of ditches and railroad rights-of-way (Martin et al. 2001).

The status of the Franklin’s ground squirrel at Midewin is uncertain. No live animals have been found, but a carcass was found on the far, east side of Midewin near an abandoned railroad that the Will County Forest Preserve District developed into a trail (USDA Forest Service 2009). There is little suitable habitat in the Project area capable of supporting this species as grazing tends to keep the grass height and density too low. It is possible that bison grazing may result in a greater diversity of grass heights and densities, which may make the Project area more suitable for Franklin’s ground squirrel.

Regional Forester Sensitive Species

There are 25 RFSS animals designated for Midewin. The bobolink and red-headed woodpecker have been documented in the Project area and are confirmed breeders. Ten insects have been designated RFSS at Midewin, but their current status on the prairie is unknown. Monitoring


36

insect populations, let alone rare ones, is difficult. Food plants for these RFSS insect species have been and are continuing to be re-introduced. The current status of these species is only believed to be stable or expanding relative to the presence of suitable habitat (US Forest Service 2009). Regarding the Project area, there is little to no habitat for these insect species. The restored area contains seeded native grasses and sedges, an important food for some of these insect species, but occurrences are in the form of rare individuals rather than fully developed stands. The RFSS insects are not expected to occur in the Project area (USDA Forest Service 2013b).

Red-Headed Woodpecker

RFSS at Midewin include the red-headed woodpecker because of its rareness and regional decline. At Midewin, red-headed woodpeckers have been seen and are known to nest in discrete areas where trees are common, usually somewhat open areas with scattered trees. In the past, red-headed woodpeckers were sometimes seen on old power poles, and they have been known to nest in cavities excavated in power poles (USDA Forest Service 2013g). In June 2013, red-headed woodpeckers were detected in and near the Project area during the loggerhead shrike survey. Birds were seen carrying food items in three locations (USDA Forest Service 2013g). Nests have not been located, but the sightings suggest nesting is taking place within or close to these areas. Nests are most likely located in large cottonwood, ash (Fraxinus spp.), or silver maple trees. The emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), a non-native beetle that is killing ash trees, has reached Midewin, and trees are expected to die. This anticipated ash die-off benefits red-headed woodpeckers just as Dutch elm disease and chestnut blight did in the past. As trees die they become potential nest locations for red-headed woodpeckers and provide additional food as the dying trees are invaded by various insects.

Management Indicators

Wildlife management indicators found in the Project area include white-tailed deer and Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii). The deer population appears to be either stable or increasing (US Forest Service 2009), and deer could potentially occur anywhere at Midewin including the Project area. Deer affect reproduction and survivorship of desired native plants, so their presence tends to have negative effects as grazers and browsers. The Project area is not open to deer hunting, and there are no plans to change this. Henslow’s sparrows are indicators of prairie management and are species associated with the tall-stature grass management indicator. The Project area provides some suitable habitat for Henslow’s sparrow, and, as stated previously, they are known to occur in the Project area.



Under the Proposed Action, bison introduction and grazing and related facilities would be established in the Project area. In the long-term, the pasture would be restored to a more desirable native grassland community through the combination of previous work re-introducing native, desirable plants and the addition of bison grazing.

The Proposed Action would have mostly positive effects on wildlife that depend on grasslands, the dominant habitat type in the Project area. The desired grassland habitat condition over the long term is expected to improve in quality with the addition of bison and removal of cattle. Bison frequently form wallows or shallow depressions in the soil where they roll. Wallows could alter the patch structure of prairie adding to structural diversity and plant diversity. Because of


37

the soil compaction, wallows often retain rainwater in the spring, creating localized habitats that are suitable for ephemeral wetland species, similar to vernal pools in California (Holland and

Jain 1981, Uno 1989). The Proposed Action includes monitoring grassland bird composition and use, and botanical composition in the bison pastures. Birds are ideal indicators of changes in habitat conditions caused by grazing (Fuhlendorf et al. 2006, Sliwinski 2011). For example, bird species diversity may increase where grasslands have been modified, usually through grazing or prescribed fire, from a more uniform character to a more patchy distribution of vegetation (Fuhlendorf et al. 2006).

Once portions of the project area which are closed to public use now become open to public use, there is likely to be an increase in human activity. Some wildlife species are sensitive to human intrusion. However, the Project area already experiences a moderate level of human visitation. Wildlife known to occur at Midewin are likely to acclimate to an increased level of human activity, based on observations made by Forest Service ecologists over the past decade.

The Proposed Action would not have adverse effects to the three state-listed birds and one RFSS bird that are all grassland dependent. On the contrary, these species are likely to benefit from the addition of bison to the Project area. The Proposed Action is likely to include removing some trees to enhance grassland conditions, which may affect loggerhead shrikes and red-headed woodpeckers. Tree removal would primarily target Osage orange and autumn olive, but other species may include, hawthorn, ash, willow (Salix spp.), silver maple, hackberry, and cottonwood. The tree removal is not expected to have adverse effects to loggerhead shrikes. The availability of trees for nesting substrate is not limited in the nearby landscape.

Removing ash, silver maple, hackberry, and cottonwood trees suitable for nesting would have a direct negative impact on red-headed woodpeckers during the nesting season. Removal of nest trees during the non-nesting season would not directly impact red-headed woodpecker individuals. Red-headed woodpeckers could use other trees within Midewin for nesting. Removal of trees within the bison pastures is unlikely to impact the red-headed woodpecker in the long-term. There are still large amounts of potential habitat and the predicted die-off of ash trees from emerald ash-borer could provide additional habitat. Also, additional habitat could be created as restoration of savannas proceeds at Midewin.

Increased human activity could have a minor negative impact on some sensitive wildlife. Red-headed woodpeckers are generally fairly tolerant of humans and have historically nested in cities and urban areas. They can become agitated by human activities near nest trees. Nests within the pasture would be minimally exposed to human disturbance.

Similarly, the Proposed Action would not have adverse effects to management indicators. The impacts associated with bison grazing would likely benefit species of interest associated with upland prairie, like the Henslow’s sparrow. It is also expected that the Proposed Action would benefit habitat-specialist insects that depend on grasslands with native forbs, such as Eryngium stem-borer and blazing star stem-borer (Papaipema beeriana), should they occur. The character of bison grazing also would allow grasses and sedges to recover, which would benefit those insects that rely on native grasses and sedges, such as the red-veined prairie leafhopper and white-streaked looper moth (Plusia venusta), should they occur. The character of bison grazing may improve habitat conditions for the Franklin’s ground squirrel. The tendency for bison to graze selectively on grasses and forage in patches is likely to create dense stands of forbs, which are preferred habitat for Franklin’s ground squirrel in this part of their range.

The Proposed Action would not result in adverse effects to white-tailed deer. It is possible that white-tailed deer may avoid the Project area once bison have been added. The tall fencing may eliminate some deer from entering the new enclosure, but white-tailed deer often clear 6-foot


38

fencing. Given the stable or increasing number of deer at Midewin, the displacement of deer from the Project area would not be an adverse effect.

In summary, the dynamic spatial and temporal nature of bison grazing allows for an increase in desired native prairie habitat which would have long-term and beneficial effects to grassland dependent wildlife.


Under the No-Action Alternative bison at Midewin would not be introduced or grazed in the Project area. The grazing program currently in place would continue to result in the habitat conditions that can be found in the Project area. Wildlife would continue to benefit from the prairie management measures that are currently implemented at Midewin. Wildlife species that currently occur in Project area would continue to persist. However, the benefits to grassland birds would not be as pronounced or accelerated with the continued presence of cattle as opposed to bison, a native mammal with which many grassland animals evolved. Under the No-Action Alternative, habitat conditions in the Project area would be unchanged; therefore, the No-Action Alternative would not adversely affect the current habitat conditions for wildlife resources.

Cumulative Effects

Past and present actions that have affected wildlife resources in the Project area include conversion of prairie to agriculture and development, alteration of hydrologic regimes, cattle grazing, and seeding and planting of prairie vegetation. Future actions on Illinois Route 53 and near the Project area could include highway construction and maintenance. Prairie restoration activities would continue on Midewin lands, including seeding and planting vegetation, applying herbicide, removing tile drains, and conducting prescribed burning.

The potential ash tree die-off is likely to increase habitat for red-headed woodpeckers at Midewin and the surrounding area. The red-headed woodpecker population could rebound as they did during past tree disease outbreaks.

The implementation of a bison grazing program in the Project is likely to have beneficial effects to grassland birds. The manner in which bison graze tends to create varied grass heights and vegetation patchiness, which in turn would create suitable habitat for a variety of grassland birds that have different habitat requirements. The resulting habitat conditions from bison grazing would better represent the character of natural tallgrass prairie conditions. The enhancement of habitat for grassland birds meets Midewin’s management objectives (USDA Forest Service 2002a). Therefore, cumulative effects of bison grazing along with seeding, planting, herbicide application, and patch-burning fire regime would have beneficial, moderate, and long-term effects to wildlife resources at Midewin.

3.5 SOILS


Midewin soils in the Project area are fine-grained, retain water, and lay on relatively flat terrain. Prominent soil series include Elliot silt loam, Ashkum silty clay loam, Markham silt loam, Varna silt loam, and Beecher silt loam (Hanson 2004). Project area soils have been subjected to excavation, manipulation, and chemical treatments by the Army and farmers for decades prior to Forest Service management. The Project area has been managed and maintained for cattle grazing. Practices have included herbicide application, tree and shrub removal, and seeding to enhance forage for domestic cattle.


39



Under the Proposed Action, bison introduction and grazing and related facilities would be established in the Project area. Under the Proposed Action, soils would be exposed to the effects of bison grazing. Grazing may contribute to soil compaction due to hoof pressure. However, bison do not concentrate along travel routes and around watering areas like cattle tend to do. Pastures with cattle tend to have “draws,” places where cattle are drawn and congregate. Bison tend to remain in areas that have actively growing grasses, typically areas that have been burned. Bison would benefit soil by providing nutrients and organic matter from their waste as they graze throughout the area. Eventually permits may be obtained to allow bison carcasses to remain on site. Carrion is an important natural process that results in benefits to soil and soil organisms.

The bison act of wallowing creates localized denuded patches with pan-like conditions that either gradually revegetate or remain as bare soil, depending on the frequency of bison use. Soil compaction increases the site’s capacity for holding moisture resulting in the growth of plants different from that surrounding the wallow (Polley and Collins 1984). This in turn changes soil conditions within the wallow site. Wallowing could have a minor negative effect on soils in the Project area if wallows are not able to revegetate due to repeated bison use, which may be the case with pastured bison that are unable to roam over large, expansive grasslands where wallowing opportunities may be far more numerous.

The Proposed Action may include the burial of bison carcasses in the Project area. Bison burial could disturb the soil at the location of the burial for an extended period of time until the animal fully decomposes and the soil profile is rebuilt. The amount of soil disturbed during burial is proportional to the number of bison that are buried.

The Proposed Action includes active development of bison habitat including seeding and planting native prairie and wetland plants and removing some trees. Soils could be temporarily disturbed during these activities.

The Proposed Action includes constructing two elevated overlooks to enable visitors to view the bison. Installing these overlooks would necessitate a small area of ground disturbance directly at the site of each overlook. These overlooks would have minor and localized impacts to soils in the Project area. The Project includes installation of all-weather watering wells that would necessitate disturbing soils to drill the wells and cover the tanks with earth. The Proposed Action includes installation of a handling area where bison would have concentrated use resulting in compacted soils. It may be necessary to lay gravel in places around the handling area for vehicle parking. The Proposed Action also includes construction of a storage building and installation of drainage tiles, grading, underground utility corridor lines, and generators that would result in ground disturbance. The well, gravel pad, and building would remove soil from plant production for as long as they are in place. These would be relatively small areas, and losses in plant production would be minor.

Project impacts include the building of the recreational trail along Illinois Route 53 (Figure 1), which could make the soil unproductive from a vegetation standpoint. This would be a minor effect in relationship the rest of the Project area, with more than 1,000 acres that would continue to be maintained as restored prairie grassland.


40


Under the No-Action Alternative, soils would continue to be exposed to cattle grazing. In contrast to bison, cattle tend to create more areas of soil compaction. Under the No-Action Alternative, the pastures would continue to be exposed to the nutrients from cattle waste.

Cumulative Effects

The Project area was farmed and grazed in the past for many decades. Farmers installed field tiles to increase the drainage of water from the land and assist with planting and crop survival. Recent past, present, and future actions with potential effects to soils include prairie and aquatic restoration activities in an attempt to return areas to more natural vegetation. Prescribed fire could continue to be used to maintain prairie vegetation and control invasive species, and, when properly conducted, could benefit soil conditions. However, fire can result in soil erosion if the fire is followed by a heavy rainstorm before vegetation becomes re-established. Due to the patchiness of bison grazing and prescribed fire, heavier burned areas would tend to be interspersed with unburned or lightly burned areas in a mosaic pattern. This mosaic would effectively impede widespread erosion. Applied when necessary, herbicides could continue to affect soils in the Project area. The effects of herbicides used at Midewin were analyzed in the Herbicide Use for Invasive Plant and Noxious Weeds Control Environmental Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2002c).

3.6 WATER


The affected environment for water resources includes both Grant Creek and Prairie Creek watersheds. Only a small portion of the Project Area (78 acres) is within the Grant Creek watershed, while the majority of the area (1,125 acres) is within the Prairie Creek watershed (USDA Forest Service 2013e). Illinois EPA lists Grant Creek as an impaired waterbody for unknown reason(s) (Illinois EPA 2012).

There are approximately 7 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands that are temporarily flooded, the largest of which are associated with drainages at the west and southeast edges of the Project area. The Project area also has 10 miles of drainages (USDA Forest Service 2013e) that include a small pond and several intermittent streams, swales and ditches. Broken field tiles most likely supply water to some of these drainages (USDA Forest Service 2013e).

The main branch of Prairie Creek flows roughly along the southeast boundary of the Project area then continues southwest to eventually empty into the Kankakee River. Prairie Creek’s 100-year floodplain extends into about 14 acres of the Project area, mainly in the southeast portion (USDA Forest Service 2013e). Cattle do not have access to the main branch of Prairie Creek, but cattle graze across the intermittent streams, ditches, and swales in the Project area.



Under the Proposed Action, bison introduction and grazing and related facilities would be established in the Project area. Under the Proposed Action bison would have access to the intermittent streams, swales, and ditches and the small dug pond, areas that are already affected by cattle. Unlike cattle, bison do not tend to congregate at surface water sites. Conditions at these water sources are likely to improve with the removal of cattle and the addition of bison. Bison grazing is not expected to add negative impacts to water resources in the Project area or result in impacts to downstream conditions in Prairie Creek. Bison require less water than cattle to survive, hence putting less demand on water supply at wells used to


41

provide essential water to bison. Bison wallows may fill with water and act as temporary wetlands, thus providing more wetlands in the area. Trail building would be designed to avoid impacts to drainages and wetlands and current Forest Service Handbooks and Best Management Practices for trail construction would be followed. The trail projects would not affect the water quality in the Project area (USDA Forest Service 2013e).


Under the No-Action Alternative, typical cattle grazing would continue to have minimal periodic effects on water resources. No change from current conditions is expected.

Cumulative Effects

The Project area was farmed and grazed in the past. Farmers installed field tiles to increase the drainage of water from the land and assist with planting and crop survival. Past, present, and future actions with potential to affect water resources include prairie and aquatic resource restoration activities in an attempt to return areas to a more natural state, both botanically and hydrologically. Prescribed fire could continue to be used to maintain prairie vegetation and control invasive species.

Outside of the Project area and beyond Forest Service property, urban development continues at a rapid pace along with the associated impacts to water resources. Effects to water resources from urbanization include alteration of quantities and timing of stream flow conditions and decreased water quality from non-point source pollution.

Due to anticipated bison grazing patterns, the introduction and grazing of bison to the Project area would have an added beneficial effect to surface water conditions. Negative cumulative effects to water resources related to the Proposed Action are not anticipated.

3.7 AIR QUALITY


According to the U.S. EPA, Will County, as part of the greater Chicago area, is considered a non-attainment area for particulate matter 2.5 (PM-2.5) and ozone according to the U.S. EPA (USEPA 2012). PM-2.5 is created by particulate matter introduced into the air from industrial plants, factories, and vehicle emissions. Ozone is created by combining nitrous oxides with volatile organic compounds introduced into the air by industry, factories, and vehicle emissions. Will County stationary sources of pollution (e.g., industrial plants and factories) produce enough pollution to be among the worst five counties in all of Illinois for the pollutants that are tracked (USEPA 2012).


Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

A direct minor effect to air quality is petroleum powered equipment and vehicles that would produce emissions when implementing this Project, but emissions could be sporadic and temporary. The effect of these emissions is negligible when compared to the existing air pollutant sources of industries and vehicle emissions in Will County.

An indirect effect to air quality may be due to a slight increase in visitor vehicle traffic. Additional vehicle traffic may produce minor air pollution to the area, compared to the major increases from commercial and industrial heavy traffic from nearby industries and highways. The expected increased visitors traffic to Midewin would be small when compared to the far greater sources of semi-truck traffic generated from the industrial parks and intermodal sites being developed in the surrounding area.


42

Alternative 2 – No Action

Alternative 2 would have no effect on air quality because no new activity would occur.

Cumulative effects to air quality include the construction of a new intermodal center north of Midewin and the construction of the Illiana Corridor directly south of Midewin. This new construction, in conjunction with existing intermodal centers, is expected to greatly increase the volume of truck traffic on Illinois Route 53 and on the Illiana Corridor. The increased truck traffic in addition to normal vehicle traffic could generate substantial emissions to the area (USDOT FHWA et al. 2013) The additional vehicle pollution generated by increased visitor use to Midewin would be negligible when compared to these far greater sources of air pollution.

3.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES

In their comment letter sent during the public scoping period, the Midewin Heritage Association indicated that historic farmsteads (foundations and other remnants) are present in the Project area and may have historic interpretative value. Historic farmsteads were evaluated as part of the cultural resource inventory.


Since the 1830s, Midewin has been continuously managed and modified by agricultural cultivation, cattle grazing, and vegetation removal. Ground disturbance from plowing, disking, and planting may have reached a depth that exceeded 12 inches. The Project area was also the site of extensive drain tile installation, perhaps 25 to 30 miles of drain tiles that have an average depth of 12 inches. The Project area has been used for grazing cattle historically and in recent years.

Homesteads and agricultural use continued to dominate the area until the establishment of two plants to produce TNT ammunition in 1940. Construction of ammunition facilities resulted in farmsteads replaced by thousands of buildings and utility sites. The plants required hundreds of miles of transportation systems, including roads and railroads, and the installation of utility networks for water, electricity, and telephone lines. Streams and creeks that once meandered through the area were rerouted into straight channels with large ditches constructed for drainage (USDA Forest Service 2013f).

In 1964, the two plants were merged to become JOAAP, and the lands were owned and managed by the U.S. Army. During the Army’s ownership, these lands consisted of these highly developed areas of Army infrastructure, pasture lands, crop lands, abandoned former crop fields, scattered shrublands, young woodlands, and remnants of native vegetation.

The east side of Midewin contained the load-assemble-package area of JOAAP. The Project area is located more than a mile from the load-assemble-package structures. The Project area was largely left as pasture or cropland prior to Forest Service ownership.

Previous Surveys

Three archaeological surveys have been conducted within or adjacent to the Bison Project area of potential effect (APE). Surveys discovered and recorded several sites that have features within the Project area (USDA Forest Service 2013f).

Site 11-WI-3643 is the remnants of an historic farmstead that has been recommended ineligible to the NRHP. The site consists of seven features including a historic corn crib, concrete foundations, field stones, modern enclosures and equipment, and an artifact scatter. Cultural material recovered at the site includes a variety of glass, whiteware (ceramic), square nails, concrete, slag, a bolt, and a fence staple. Two features associated with this site are located within the Project area.


43

Site 11-WI-2900 is a prehistoric site within the Project area consisting of two tertiary flakes, two primary flakes, and one Steuben projectile point. All flakes are of Burlington chert material. Despite surface inspection and subsurface testing, the site is sparse in artifacts and yielded little information. The site was recommended for further “Phase II” investigation to determine its eligibility. That Phase II was conducted in 2006. In 2012 the Forest Service entered consultation with the Illinois State Historic Preservation Officer of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. The Forest Service recommended that the site was ineligible based on the findings provided in the Phase II report (GLARC 2012), and the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency found that no historic properties eligible to the NRHP would be affected due to the unlikelihood of further subsurface deposits (USDA Forest Service 2013f).

Site 11-WI-3648 is a single isolated lithic flake recovered during shovel testing for the Group 63 Bunker Field. Because it is of unknown cultural affiliation and lacks diagnostic characteristics, it was determined to be ineligible for the NRHP.

Project Surveys

Additional project surveys were conducted in October and November 2012 and May 2013. These surveys discovered six sites within the APE (USDA Forest Service 2013f).

Site 11-Wi-3901 consists of structural foundations and scattered remains from two occupation periods. Literature search conducted prior to field work identified that structures were on the site as early as 1862 and structures are still visible on the site as late as 1939. The site consists of 16 historic features and over 100 artifacts. The features include flagstone, concrete, and brick foundation remnants; debris and rubble piles of concrete, asphalt, rock, milled lumber, and railroad ties; artifact concentrations; pipes protruding from the ground; possible privy depressions; a possible pond depression; and utility poles. Artifacts include bricks, asphalt and concrete fragments, milled lumber with wire nails, railroad ties, sheet metal fragments, metal posts, metal pipe fragments, galvanized pipes, steel fencepost fragments, metal wire, a steel bracket with copper wire, a rusted rake fragment, and an aluminum pan. Modifications associated with modern grazing include a fence line, corral, and water tank at the site. Some modern trash is also scattered around the site. The site was recommended not eligible to the NRHP due to a lack of integrity and a lack of archaeological information potential (USDA Forest Service 2013f), and the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency concurred (USDA Forest Service’s letter to IHPA dated March 23, 2012 and IHPA’s concurrence on April 2, 2012).

Site 11-Wi-3902 consists of structural foundations and scattered remains from occupation periods as early as 1862 and as late as the 1930s. The 1930s portion of the site consists of several concrete foundations, a culvert, a depression, a pit, and artifact scatters. The site consists of 18 historic features. The features include concrete foundation remnants; debris and rubble piles of concrete, rock, and railroad ties; artifact concentrations; a culvert; a possible privy depression; and other depressions. There has been recent use of the area for grazing. The site is recommended not eligible to the NRHP due to a lack of integrity and a lack of archaeological information potential (USDA 2013f).

Site 11-Wi-3903 consists of a single feature of three vertical pipes protruding from the ground, all within a 1-meter square area. This feature is probably associated with the nearby 1930s homestead at 11-Wi-3902 (USDA Forest Service 2013f).

Site 11-Wi-3906 is a small subsurface lithic scatter located approximately 300 meters west of Prairie Creek. It consists of several primary, secondary, and tertiary flakes. The materials on site exhibit at least three different source types. One square nail was also discovered. The prehistoric artifacts located at this site lack distinctive and diagnostic characteristics. This site is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP (USDA 2013f).


44

Site 11-Wi-3901 represents a former structure associated with arsenal operations and consists of three features. Feature 1 is a platform or ramp constructed of re-purposed railroad ties accompanied by water pipes of varying size and concrete bases. Feature 2 is a large concrete pad with cinder block footings around the outside with evidence of one internal wall. Feature 3 is a small concrete pad near the existing fence line. It has been determined as not eligible for the NRHP (USDA Forest Service 2013f).

Site 11-Wi-3904 consists of structural foundations and scattered remains from occupation periods, as early as 1862 and as late as the 1930s. Ten historic features comprise this site. The features include concrete foundation remnants, depressions, earthen mounds, wood posts, and structural supports. Currently the site is in poor condition. Houses and other structures from all periods of occupation have been torn down and only remnants of foundations remain. There has been recent use of the area for grazing and there are signs of possible dozer pushes and military use-related items such as fence lines and power poles. The site is recommended not eligible to the NRHP due to a lack of integrity and a lack of archaeological information potential (USDA Forest Service 2013f).

Site 11-Wi-3905 represents a 19th and likely early 20th century farmstead similar to others in the area. The site consists of several concrete foundations, earthen mounds, depressions, historically planted vegetation, pipes, and an artifact scatter. The historic well is still used today to water cattle that gather at the site. Dense vegetation and active cattle grazing and watering, and deep mud prohibited adequate mapping and feature identification. Initial study suggests that this site is severely disturbed. Natural decomposition, and Arsenal Era demolition activities have also likely compromised the integrity of this site. Given the site’s current state of disturbance, it is unlikely that it could sustain any worse effects. It is recommended that the bison introduction Project proceed with the planning process and that the surface components of the site be recorded prior to project implementation (USDA Forest Service 2013f).



Under the Proposed Action, bison introduction and grazing and related facilities would be established in the Project area. The Project area has been subject to ground disturbance related to Arsenal activities from 1940 to 1976. Agricultural practices including row-cropping, road construction, tile line installation, and livestock grazing have taken place on the land for over 170 years. The proposed action is not expected to result in additional adverse effects to cultural resources.

It is possible that introduction of bison may alter interpretive opportunities associated with the remnants of historic farmsteads in the Project area where trees were planted prior to Army occupation. The planting and maintenance of non-native trees for purposes of wind breaks, the harvesting of fruits and nuts, and as living hedge fences are part of the constructed environment associated with Euro-American agricultural life-ways. In accordance with prairie restoration practices, trees have not been removed from unevaluated farmsteads. Previously conducted project surveys evaluated four farmsteads (11-WI-3643, 11-Wi-3901, 11Wi-3902, and 11-Wi-3904), none of which is recommended for eligibility to the NRHP. These sites lack integrity and possess low potential for providing valuable cultural information. Nonetheless, it is likely that these sites would be affected by enhancing the desired prairie community and habitat for bison and grassland birds.

It is recommended that site 11-Wi-3905 be avoided until it can be recorded and evaluated. If both of these actions are met (not removing trees from unevaluated sites and recording site 11-Wi-3905), the proposed project would have no adverse effects to cultural resources.


45

Additionally, should previously undiscovered cultural resources be located during the course of the project, work in the vicinity must be temporarily halted, and the prairie archaeologist informed.


Under the No-Action Alternative current management measures would continue to be implemented in the Project area. These would include cattle grazing, herbicide application, and native grass seeding. The No-Action Alternative would not have adverse effects on cultural resources. As in the Proposed Action, the No-Action includes prairie restoration practices, such as tree-removal. In either event, trees would not be removed from unevaluated farmstead sites.

Cumulative Effects

Past activities that have affected cultural resources in the project area include agricultural operations and domestic practices associated with habitation. During construction of the Arsenal, all pre-Arsenal houses and other structures within the area of potential effect (APE) were moved or torn down. Army ground disturbing activities included both vertical construction and infrastructure installation. Reasonably foreseeable activities include removal of some remaining Army land modifications including buildings, roads, rail beds, fencing, and power poles. The Proposed Action has the potential to affect cultural resources visually, primarily through tree-removal at sites of abandoned farmsteads not recommended for eligibility to the NHRP. The Proposed Action would have a minor cumulative effect on historic farmstead sites or subsurface prehistoric sites.

3.9 SCENERY


The Project area is roughly a triangular area with the western side of the triangle along Illinois Route 53, the northern boundary along the southern edge of Group 63 bunker field, and the southern edge running diagonally along Prairie Creek and Group 5A Road. The topography of the area is gently rolling, while sloping downward toward Prairie Creek. The area is divided by Road 2 West, running north and south, and by Central Road, running east and west. The southwest, northwest, and northeast quadrants of the area are mostly open pasture land vegetated by Eurasian grasses with occasional groupings of tree lines of overstory trees and shrubs. The southeast quadrant was recently in row crop. The area has overhead powerlines to the west and north along the roadways.

The Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) are the result of the compilation of analysis and survey to classify the desired scenic quality of the land. The objectives are used to guide management practices to ensure the scenic and ecological integrity of the land is maintained or improved. The relative visibility of the landscape, the level of concern with the landscape and the scenic attractiveness of the land are combined to form the Proposed Scenic Integrity. (SIO; USDA Forest Service 2013d).

The majority of the Project is identified as “High” proposed Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO; USDA Forest Service 2013d). For areas identified as “High” SIO, the Prairie Plan (page 4-11) states that the landscape “Appears unaltered. Valued landscape character appears intact. Deviations may be present, but are not evident because they so completely repeat the lines, forms, colors, textures, and patterns, at the appropriate scale, of the characteristic landscape (USDA Forest Service 2002a).” Land that is mapped as “High” SIO is typically close to or in the foreground of the viewshed from one or more existing or planned facilities where scenery is an important part of their purpose (such as trails, visitor centers, and major transportation corridors).


46

The Prairie Plan (page 4-11) states that the landscape designated as “High” SIO “appears unaltered. “Valued landscape character appears intact. Deviations may be present, but are not evident because they so completely repeat the lines, forms, colors, textures and patterns, at the appropriate scale, of the characteristic landscape”.

A small portion of the Project area is mapped as “Moderate” SIO (USDA Forest Service 2013d). The Prairie Plan (page 4-11) states that the landscape designated as “Moderate” SIO “Appears slightly altered. Noticeable deviations to the valued landscape character should remain visually subordinate to the landscape being viewed”.



Under the Proposed Action, bison introduction and grazing and related facilities would be established in the Project area. Effects to scenery include the addition of bison and construction of the various facilities, including the handling facilities, fence, underground utility corridors, generators, overlook facilities, and a trail. The effect of adding bison to Midewin would be beneficial with regard to achieving scenery objectives. The handling facility would be visible and could have a potentially negative effect on the landscape character. If the facility is painted to blend into the background it could minimize the effects of the facility on the scenic integrity of the area. The proposed fence could blend into the background from a short distance. The overlook areas should be designed in adherence with the Midewin Thematic guidelines, making them consistent with the Proposed Scenic Integrity Objectives. Trails at Midewin typically recede into the landscape with vegetative growth adjacent to the trail.

The indirect effects of bison introduction and grazing Project and associated would be positive. The Project allows visitors to Midewin and those traveling Illinois Route 53 to view bison in the pastoral setting of Midewin. Visitors have the opportunity to view bison from new trails and overlooks. The Proposed Action would allow visitors to experience bison, a unique animal and iconic symbol of the natural American landscape.


Under the No-Action Alternative, bison would not be introduced or grazed. The construction of handling facilities, fences, underground utility corridors, and visitor facilities, including trails and overlooks, would not occur and neither would the potential effects to scenery associated with these facilities. There would be no temporary disturbance to scenic viewsheds during construction of these facilities. Land management in the Project area would continue under the current practices of prairie restoration, which include cattle grazing. The No-Action Alternative would neither improve nor diminish the current scenic quality of the Midewin landscape following the Midewin Thematic guidelines or the Scenic Integrity Objectives.

The indirect impacts of the No-Action alternative are that no opportunities would be available for the public to view bison in the pastoral environment on Midewin.

Cumulative Effects

Habitat maintenance and the existing grassland within the Project area are the result of past and present actions as part of the effort to accomplish the goals in the Prairie Plan to “provide opportunities to easily view and experience the prairie landscape” and to “Continue to improve and maintain naturally appearing landscapes especially when viewed from trails, roadways, and visitor or administrative facilities” (USDA Forest Service 2002a). Trees, shrubs, and old fence rows were removed and the pastures maintained to eventually achieve the desired future condition of native prairie and expansive vistas.


47

Future projects relative to the Project area include the proposed Prairie Learning Center to be located proximal to the Iron Bridge Trailhead. Also, there are plans to provide a pasture at the Iron Bridge prairie planting area near the proposed Prairie Learning Center so that bison can be observed closely from the Prairie Learning Center during special events. The Prairie Learning Center project will have a positive impact on scenic integrity. The project will provide enhanced opportunities to view, contemplate, appreciate, and learn about the surrounding tallgrass prairie landscapes, thus improving the scenic experience at Midewin. (USDA Forest Service. 2013i)

This portion of Will County is under heavy stress from development. Residential development continues to move in on all sides of Midewin. CenterPoint Intermodal Center is constantly expanding with large warehouses being constructed on Midewin’s northwest corner. Several chemical plants already exist to the north and west of Midewin. The Prairie View Landfill, Local 150 training facility, and a new industrial park are being developed on Midewin’s southeast side. All of these activities would have cumulative effects on the scenic environment. Implementation of the Proposed Action would improve the scenic integrity and context of the area. The cumulative impacts of the No-Action Alternative are neutral.

3.10 RECREATION

In 2002 the Forest Service hired a contractor to explore the future recreation projections at Midewin. The report called the Project Report, Market Analysis Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie (January 2002, Vogt, Andereck and Klenosky) established projected visitation at three stages of development as follows: During the stage of development called the initial years, person visits were estimated at 471,927. During the stage of development called middle years, person visits were estimated at 1,415,780. During the stage of development called fully developed years, visits were estimated at 3,964,184. The report did not identify a baseline of person visits stage. In surveys conducted by the contractor, 93% of the General Population that were interested in Midewin and 99% of the people surveyed that are interested in outdoors and in Midewin stated that they intended to use viewing stations to observe buffalo.

In 2008 The Visitor Use Report for Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, states that 38% of visitors to Midewin participate in viewing wildlife and that 12 percent of visitors consider wildlife viewing as their primary activity in their visit to Midewin.

In 2010 a transportation study was developed by AECOM (Alternative Transportation Study for Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, December 2010, AECOM). Attendance estimates were developed based on development scenarios which included: (1) Focus on natural elements and more historic interpretation. Historic interpretation equals dedicated permanent exhibit space (5,000+ Square Feet) in a physical facility plus a well-organized and regularly offered interpretation at sites around Midewin (including a tour, led or self-guided, of key points on the site); (2) Focus on natural elements, but a significant focus on overnight amenities (aka bunkers or camping and significant effort on expanding marketing and awareness to attract visitors from the Secondary Resident Market and begin to penetrate the Tourist Market and; (3) Focus on natural elements and historic interpretation as well as overnight amenities and significant marketing expansion to attract visitors. Baseline development scenario has a range of 50,000 to 225,000 visitors per year. Alternative 1 development scenario has a range of 110,000 to 410,000 visitors per year. Alternative 2 development scenario has a range of 150,000 to 590,000 visitors per year. Alternative 3 development scenario has a range of 180,000 to 650,000 visitors per year.


48

The more conservative of the projections of the two studies mentioned previously projected 50,000 to 225,000 people visits per year. Approximately 12% of those people were visiting Midewin to view wildlife as their primary activity, then approximately 6,000 to 27,000 people would visit Midewin to view wildlife. Viewing bison could be considered one aspect of this activity and could increase visitation at Midewin.


Recreational opportunities in the Project area are limited to hiking trails along the northwest boundaries. The Group 63 Trail runs along the northern boundary on the eastern side of the Project area. The Iron Bridge Trailhead is at the northern edge on the western side of the Project area. Most of the Project area is closed to the public, as shown on Midewin’s trail maps.


Results of the National Visitor Use Monitoring (Visitor Use) survey conducted in fiscal year 2008 (USDA Forest Service 2009b) showed over 38% of visitors to Midewin in 2008 participated in wildlife viewing. For 12% of visitors, wildlife viewing was their primary reason for visiting Midewin. According to the Illinois State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), 84% of people in Illinois believe that “more wildlife habitat should be protected and restored” (IDNR 2009). These figures indicate that the opportunity to view bison, an iconic American wildlife symbol, and use bison viewing platforms would have a positive impact on the recreation opportunities at Midewin.

The Proposed Action includes constructing 2.1 miles of multiple-use trail. According to the Visitor Use survey, 62% of visitors to Midewin in 2008 participated in walking or hiking, 2% participated in horseback riding, and 16% participated in bicycling (USDA Forest Service 2009b). According to the Illinois SCORP, 85% of people in Illinois believe that “More trails/greenways should be developed” (IDNR 2009). These figures indicate that additional trails at Midewin would have a positive impact on the recreation of Midewin.

The Proposed Action is likely to result in an increase in the number of visitors to Midewin. The Desired Condition as defined on page 2-8 of the Prairie Plan includes, “The combination of restored prairie ecosystems, attractive recreational developments and educational and interpretive programs, provide recreational opportunities that enhance the visitor’s appreciation of restoring, maintaining, and enjoying the tallgrass prairie ecosystem.” The increase in visitors would help accomplish this goal by creating additional opportunities to teach people about Midewin, the prairie, and the natural history of the area.


Under the No-Action Alternative, no bison would be introduced or grazed at Midewin, and cattle grazing and other prairie management practices would continue in the Project area. There would be no direct or indirect impacts to recreation under implementation of the No-Action Alternative. This alternative would neither improve nor diminish recreation opportunities.

Cumulative Effects

Past and recent activities in the Project area have had little impact on recreational opportunities (USDA Forest Service 2013d). Some hiking opportunities are provided on the boundary of the Project area, and the site is managed for grazing and grassland birds. The improvement in grassland conditions has improved the bird watching experience.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions relative to the Project area include the proposed Prairie Learning Center to be located proximal to the Iron Bridge Trailhead. Future activities include a pasture at the Iron Bridge prairie planting area near the proposed Prairie Learning Center. This


49

way bison can be observed closely from the Prairie Learning Center during special events. The Prairie Learning Center project will have a positive impact on recreation in the areas. The project will provide enhanced opportunities to view, contemplate, appreciate, and learn about the surrounding tallgrass prairie landscapes at Midewin. (USDA Forest Service 2013i)

The expected increase in visitor vehicle traffic to Midewin would be small when compared to the far greater sources of semi-truck traffic generated from the industrial parks and intermodal sites being developed in the surrounding area.

The cumulatively effect of the Proposed Action would be beneficial to recreational opportunities in the Project area through the introduction and grazing of bison and construction of viewer facilities.

3.11 NEIGHBORING LANDS AND OPERATIONS


With the exception of the Illinois Route 53 roadway and Union Pacific railroad, lands immediately abutting the Project area are National Forest System lands and part of Midewin. Property immediately west of the Project area across Illinois Route 53 belongs to Midewin. Nearby lands belong to federal, state, city, and private landowners. Northeast of the Project area is a new industrial complex that is still being developed. Further west from this site is Deer Run Industrial Park with warehouses and an intermodal railroad yard, which includes mostly impermeable, developed land surfaces, several railroad spurs, large stormwater retention ponds, and some vegetative communities ranging from highly degraded to protected and managed (USDA Forest Service 2008a). The industrial park and intermodal complex are part of the Joliet Arsenal Development, a large-scale redevelopment project located on part of JOAAP manufacturing areas.

Agriculture is the principle land use east and south of Midewin. Some of the agricultural operations include growing crops and cattle grazing. There are farms with crops and livestock within 5 miles of Midewin.

Other neighboring operations proximal to the Project area include the Prairie View Recycling and Disposal Facility and Abraham Lincoln National Veterans Cemetery. The two sites are located on part of the former JOAAP. The village of Elwood lies 2 miles north along Illinois Route 53.



Under the Proposed Action, bison introduction and grazing and related facilities would be established in the Project area. Activities at Midewin have included prairie restoration measures that have not been in conflict with neighboring landowners and land uses. Neighboring landowners have not expressed concern for potential adverse effects associated with the Proposed Project. It is possible that some farmers may be concerned that bison may have adverse effects on cattle health in the area, especially in the case of disease transmission. As explained in Section 2.1.3, disease treatment measures would be followed as part of the bison operation and management and the threat of disease from bison.

We do not anticipate that the introduction and grazing of bison at Midewin would affect or be in conflict with the goals of neighboring landowners.


50


Under the No-Action Alternative, bison would not be introduced or grazed at Midewin, and cattle grazing and other prairie management practices would continue in the Project area. The No-Action Alternative is not expected to affect neighboring landowners or land uses.

Cumulative Effects

Implementation of either alternative is not expected to affect neighboring landowners. Hence, there would be no cumulative effects to adjoining lands under either alternative.

3.12 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

As the result of actions associated with bison introduction and grazing within the Project area, there would not be an irreversible commitment of, or damage to, resources which would cause the loss of future options (for instance, extinction of a species or use of nonrenewable resources such as minerals). There would also not be an irretrievable commitment of, or damage to, renewable resources (for instance, from the loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources over a period of time).


51

4.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

As indicated in Section 1.4, tribes, federal and state agencies, and local entities were contacted during the scoping process to ensure that issues and concerns are adequately addressed. This section provides a synopsis of the interactions with the consulting parties.

4.1 TRIBES

In 2012, the Midewin Prairie Supervisor began the consultation process with several Native American tribes who have a potential interest in the bison introduction and grazing. Table 4.1 describes each event.

Table 4.1 Record of Prairie Supervisor’s coordination and consultation with tribes on Midewin’s proposed bison introduction and grazing.

Date Tribe Tribe Personnel Description

8/7/2012 Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas

Tribal Council Member Adolf Cadue, representing Tribal Chairman, and grant writer Steve Corbett

Meeting

8/7/2013 Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation

Chris Decoteau, Lands Department Bison

Meeting

8/9/2013 Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma Chief Ethel Cook and Tribal Historian Rhonda Hayworth

Telephone conference.

8/30/2012 Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi

Tribal Chairman Homer Mandoka and 3 executive council members

Meeting

9/6/2012 Forest County Potawatomi Community

Tribal Executive Council members Telephone conference

9/6/2012 Great Lakes Intertribal Council Chairman and Great Lakes

Intertribal Council Chairman, Thomas Maulson

Meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin

9/12/2012 Sac and Fox Nation Principal Chief George Thurman and Sandra Massey Historic Preservation Officer

Telephone conference

10/18/2012 Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa

Chris Spencer, land manager, Frank Blackcloud Chairman, and 2 Tribal Council Members

Meeting in Tama, Iowa

4.1.1 Key Issues or Topics of Interest from Tribes

All of the tribes contacted expressed interest in bison introduction and grazing at Midewin. Some of the tribes have a distant connection to land that is now Midewin, and others have closer historic connections. We plan to invite tribal members to hold a ceremony prior to releasing the bison. The Kickapoo Tribe is particularly interested in school-aged children learning about bison and native prairie ecology. Some tribe members indicated that they believe adult bison have a fierce longing to return to their native ranges, and it takes time for the bison to get used to new land into which they have been moved.

Some of the tribes are interested in agreements with Midewin to share animals. During consultation with the tribes, we learned that many tribes that currently do not have bison are interested in and have plans to re-introduce bison on tribal lands. These tribes are keenly interested in learning more about land and bison management. Tribes already in possession of bison are ready to share knowledge of bison management. Most of the tribes consulted are interested in keeping bison genetics pure and unmixed with cattle genes. Tribes are interested in bison health and ecology of land management on prairies.


52

Two notification letters of the proposed Project were sent to the tribes listed below. The first letter was sent in fall of 2012 giving early notification of the upcoming proposal and inviting early consultation. The second letter, sent on March 20, 2013, was the official scoping or Proposed Action letter. Letters are on file in the Project record. Below is the list of tribes that were sent the two notification letters.

Forest County Potawatomi Community Lac du Flambeau Chippewa Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma Sac and Fox Nation Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation Citizen Potawatomi Nation Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Hannahville Indian Community Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Litter River Band of Ottawa Indians Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians Prairie Band Potawatomi Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska Shawnee Tribe Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe Intertribal Bison Cooperative Council

4.2 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Midewin performed the informal consultation process using USFWS’s website (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/illinois-cty.html). For the eight species listed for Will County, “species and critical habitat is not present” within the Project boundaries. A “No Effects” determination was reached. The USFWS responded to the scoping letter with a letter of support.

4.3 ILLINOIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION AGENCY

The Forest Service entered consultation with the Illinois Historic Preservation Office (IHPA)/State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on this project on September 3, 2013. On September 19, 2013, Illinois SHPO concurred that no historic properties would be affected by the undertaking and that there were no objections to the project proceeding as planned (IHPA Log # 005090513).


53

4.4 PLANNING TEAM PARTICIPANTS AND DOCUMENT PREPARERS

Name Title

U.S. Forest Service Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie

Nevia Brown Forester, NEPA Planner

Jennifer Durkin Botanist

William Glass Ecologist

Robert Hommes Civil Engineer

Jean Keenan Civil Engineer Technician

Dolores Kaitschuck Civil Engineering Technician

Ross McElvain Regional Range Program Manager

Rick Short Landscape Architect

Jeff Tepp Hydrologist

Renée Thakali Forester, Restoration Team Leader, Interdisciplinary Team Leader

Eric Ulaszek Horticulturist

Joseph Wheeler, III Archaeologist

U.S. Forest Service TEAMS Enterprise Unit

Amanda Campbell Archaeologist

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.

Terry VanDeWalle Senior Biologist/Project Manager

Stacey Parks NEPA and Resource Specialist

Elizabeth Annand NEPA and Resource Specialist

54

5.0 LITERATURE CITED

AECOM 2010. Alternative Transportation Study for Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie.

Attendance range estimates developed based on scenarios. December 2010 Dratch, P. A., and P. J. P. Gogan. 2010. Bison Conservation Initiative, bison conservation

genetics workshop: report and recommendations. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. October.

USDOT Federal Highway Administration, Illinois DOT and Indiana DOT. 2013. Tier one final

environmental impact statement Illiana Corridor Will and Kankakee counties, Illinois and Lake County, Indiana. January.

Fuhlendorf, S. D., W. C. Harrell, D. M. Engle, R. G. Hamilton, C. A. Davis, and D. M. Leslie, Jr.

2006. Should heterogeneity be the basis for conservation? Grassland bird response to fire and grazing. Ecological Applications, 16: 1706–1716.

Gates, C. C., C. H. Freese, P. J. P. Gogan, and M. Kotzman. 2010. American bison status

survey and conservation guidelines. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

Hamilton, R. G. 2007. Restoring heterogeneity on the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve: applying the

fire–grazing interaction model. Pages 163–169 in R. E. Masters and K. E. M. Galley (editors.). Proceedings of the 23rd Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference: Fire in Grassland and Shrubland Ecosystems. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.

Hanson, K. D. 2004. Soil survey of Will County, Illinois. USDA Natural Resources Conservation

Service, Champagne, Illinois, USA. <http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Manuscripts/IL197/0/will_IL.pdf> Accessed 28 May 2013.

Hedrick, P. W. 2009. Conservation genetics and North American bison (Bison bison). Journal of

Heredity 100: 411-420. IDNR (Illinois Department of Natural Resources). 2009. Illinois statewide comprehensive

outdoor recreation plan, 2009–2014. Office of Realty and Environmental Planning, Springfield, Illinois, USA. December.

ILCS (Illinois Compiled Statutes). 225 ILCS 645: Professions and Occupations, Illinois Livestock

Dealer Licensing Act. ILCS. 225 ILCS 655: Professions and Occupations, Slaughter Livestock Buyers Act. ILCS. 510 ILCS 30: Animals, Illinois Bovine Brucellosis Eradication Act. ILCS. 510 ILCS 55: Animals, Illinois Domestic Animals Running At Large Act. ILCS. 520 ILCS 5: Wildlife, Wildlife Code.

55

ILCS. 520 ILCS 10: Wildlife, Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act. Illinois EPA (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Illinois integrated water quality

report and section 303(d) list – 2012. Volume 1: surface water. Bureau of Water. Springfield, Illinois, USA.

Knapp, A. K., J. M. Blair, J. M. Briggs, S. L. Collins, D. C. Hartnett, L. C. Johnson, and E. G.

Towne. 1999. The keystone role of bison in the North American tallgrass prairie. BioScience 49: 39-50.

Martin, J. M., E. J. Heske, and J. E. Hoffman. 2001. A status survey of the Franklin’s ground

squirrel (Spermophilus franklinii) in Illinois. Center for Biodiversity technical report. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board, Springfield, Illinois, USA. 7 December.

Polley, H. W., and S. L. Collins. 1984. Relationships of vegetation and environment in buffalo

wallows. American Midland Naturalist 112: 178-186. Sliwinski, M. S. 2011. Changes in grassland songbird abundance and diversity in response to

grazing by bison and cattle in the northern mixed-grass prairie. M.S. Thesis. Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. August.

Towne, E. G., D. C. Hartnett, and R. C. Cochran. 2005. Vegetation trends in tallgrass prairie

from bison and cattle grazing. Ecological Applications 15: 1550-1559. Uno G.E. 1989. Dynamics of plants in buffalo wallows: Ephemeral pools in the Great Plains.

Pages 431-444 in Bock JH, Linhart YB, eds. The Evolutionary Ecology of Plants. Boulder (CO): Westview Press.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Forest Service. 2002a. Midewin land and resource

management plan. USDA Forest Service, Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Will County, Illinois, USA.

USDA Forest Service. 2002b. Final environmental impact statement of the land and resource

management plan. USDA Forest Service, Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Will County, Illinois, USA.

USDA Forest Service. 2002c. Environmental assessment of herbicide use for invasive plant and

noxious weeds control. Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Will County, Illinois, USA. April

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Environmental assessment, prairie-wide habitat maintenance,

Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Will County, Illinois. Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Wilmington, Illinois, USA. March.

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Environmental assessment, Phase II demolition of unsafe or

unneeded facilities and infrastructure. Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. Wilmington, Illinois, USA.

USDA Forest Service. 2008c. Visitor Use Report Midwein National Tallgrass Prairie,

Wilmington, Illinois, USA. 2008.

56

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Fiscal year 2009 monitoring and evaluation report. Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. Wilmington, Illinois, USA.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Environmental assessment, Grant Creek habitat restoration

project, Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Will County, Illinois. Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Wilmington, Illinois, USA. October.

USDA Forest Service. 2013a. Specialist report: vegetation for the bison introduction and grazing

project. Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Wilmington, Illinois, USA. July. USDA Forest Service. 2013b. Wildlife habitat and special status species report, bison

introduction and grazing project. Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Wilmington, Illinois, USA. 5 July.

USDA Forest Service. 2013c. Specialist report: threatened, endangered and sensitive plant

species for the bison introduction and grazing project. Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Wilmington, Illinois, USA. July.

USDA Forest Service. 2013d. Specialist report: scenery and recreation, bison introduction and

grazing project. Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Wilmington, Illinois, USA. 28 June. USDA Forest Service. 2013e. Specialist report: soil, water, air, bison introduction and grazing

project. Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Wilmington, Illinois, USA. 20 June. USDA Forest Service. 2013f. Phase I cultural resource survey for the bison introduction and

grazing project on the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Will County, Illinois. TEAMS Enterprise Unit, Wilmington, Illinois, USA.

USDA Forest Service. 2013g. Addendum to specialist report on wildlife species, red-headed

woodpecker, bison introduction and grazing project. Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Wilmington, Illinois, USA. 29 July.

USDA Forest Service. 2013h. Environmental assessment for water improvement structures.

Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Wilmington, Illinois, USA. March. USDA Forest Service. 2013i. Environmental assessment for Prairie Learning Center. Midewin

National Tallgrass Prairie, Wilmington, Illinois, USA. September. USDA Forest Service. 2014. Bison Introduction Monitoring. Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie,

Wilmington, Illinois, USA. January. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Currently designated nonattainment

areas for all criteria pollutants. <http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl3.html>. Accessed 26 July 2013.

Vogot, Andereck and Klenosky 2002. Project Report Market Analysis Midewin Tallgrass Prairie.

Established visitation at three development stages. 2002

Documents

United States ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR BISON ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · the prairie ecosystem. Bison are proposed to be introduced and grazed on