Draft Environmental Assessment for a Fire Management Plan Kankakee National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area

and Hackmatack National Wildlife Refuge March 2020

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

Photo Credits Black oak savanna, Kankakee NWRCA / FWS photo Mesic prairie / FWS photo Wetland area, Hackmatack NWR / FWS photo Prothonotary warbler / photo by Steve Gifford Regal fritillary butterfly / photo by Laura Hubers, FWS Whooping cranes, Hackmatack NWR / FWS photo Blanding’s turtle / photo by Emilie Schuler, Grassroots Wildlife Conservation

Fire management plans (FMPs) are dynamic working documents that provide refuge managers with a decision-making process and long-term vision for managing fire program resources on refuges and ensure continuity and consistency for managing prescribed and wildfires on refuge lands. The FMP includes goals and strategies that support each refuge's purposes and long-term vision. FMPs detail program levels that are sometimes above current budget and resource allocations. As such, FMPs are primarily for strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. FMPs do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases or operational and maintenance budget increases.

CONTENTS SECTION PAGE CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

Environmental Analysis Process ......................................................................................... 1 Fire and Fuels Management ............................................................................................... 1 Fire Management Program Goals ....................................................................................... 3 Purpose and Need .............................................................................................................. 3 Impact Topics ...................................................................................................................... 4

Impact Topics Analyzed in this EA ............................................................................... 4 Impact Topics Not Analyzed in this EA ........................................................................ 4

Types of Effects ................................................................................................................... 5 Direct and Indirect Effects ........................................................................................... 5 Analysis of Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 2. PLANNING, TREATMENTS, AND ALTERNATIVES ..................................................... 7 Resource Management Planning ........................................................................................ 7 Fire Management Planning ................................................................................................. 7 Treatment Methods and WIldfire Response ...................................................................... 7

Nonfire Treatments ..................................................................................................... 8 Prescribed Fire ............................................................................................................. 8 Wildfire Response Strategies ....................................................................................... 9

Alternatives Analyzed ......................................................................................................... 9 Alternative A. No Action .............................................................................................. 9 Alternative B. Proposed Action for Kankakee NWRCA and Hackmatack NWR ......... 10

Alternatives Considered but not Developed .................................................................... 10 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER 3. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................. 11 Collaborative Planning ...................................................................................................... 11 Consultation ...................................................................................................................... 11 Communication and Education ........................................................................................ 11 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................... 11

Scoping Process ......................................................................................................... 11 Notifications .............................................................................................................. 12 Comments Received during the Scoping Comment Period ....................................... 12

Planning Team and Reviewers .......................................................................................... 15

FIGURES Figure 1. Locations of the Two Refuges .............................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Press Release ..................................................................................................... 14

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Information Specific to Kankakee NWRCA Appendix B. Information Specific to Hackmatack NWR Appendix C. Mitigation and Conservation Measures Appendix D. Literature Cited and Glossary Appendix E. Legislation, Mandates, and Policies That Guide Management of FWS Lands

ABBREVIATIONS

APZ asset protection zone

CCP comprehensive conservation plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EA environmental assessment

FMP fire management plan

FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

HMP habitat management plan

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NWR national wildlife refuge

NWRCA national wildlife refuge and conservation area

NWS National Weather Service

PL Public Law

PM particulate matter

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System

Service United States Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. United States

USC United States Code

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

WUI wildland-urban interface

Please note: definitions for many terms used in this document can be found in the “Glossary” in appendix D.

HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS DOCUMENT

Thank you for showing interest in this environmental assessment (EA) for a fire management plan for Kankakee National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area and Hackmatack National Wildlife Refuge. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service encourages you to submit comments on information contained in this document.

Will All Comments Be Read? Yes, every comment will be read, but some comments are more helpful than others. It is important that your comments are properly considered, and that begins with being able to relate your comments to the analysis presented in this EA and to comments received from other readers with regard to the same fact, assumption, or conclusion. Here are some suggestions for making helpful comments:

• Please be as detailed as possible with your comments. If, for example, you are concerned about wildlife, please be more specific than a broad statement such as “this EA did not adequately study wildlife.” If you think impacts on wildlife species would be greater than what is described in this EA, back up that statement with a detailed explanation and facts. This applies to all impact topics covered in this EA.

• If you have a concern about a proposed treatment, please be specific in describing your concern. Comments that are solution oriented are more effective than those that simply state opposition to the project.

• Comments should be clear, concise, and relevant to the analysis of the proposed action. Commenting is not a form of voting on an alternative.

Finally, whether you have been participating in the environmental analysis process since public scoping or are just now becoming involved by reading this EA, you are part of the review team for this document.

Thank you for your participation.

Where to Send Comments 1. Email

Send comments for both Kankakee NWRCA and Hackmatack NWR to midwestrefugeinfo@fws.gov

Subject Line: Comments for Kankakee and Hackmatack Fire Management Plan EA

2. U.S. Postal Service Mail your comments via the U.S. Postal Service to:

Todd Boonstra, Refuge Manager Kankakee NWRCA and Hackmatack NWR 6316 Harts Rd. Ringwood, IL 60072

The comment period for this EA runs from March 21, 2020, to April 10, 2020. Comments must be postmarked by April 10, 2020, to be considered in the EA.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PROCESS The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or “Service”) will be preparing a fire management plan (FMP) for Kankakee National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area (NWRCA) and Hackmatack National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (figure 1). The planning and environmental analysis process, to prepare this environmental assessment (EA) for the FMP, began with a public scoping period that ran from October 21, 2019, to November 12, 2019. The environmental analysis process to prepare this EA is being conducted in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

This EA presents an analysis of various proposed management actions and treatment methods that will become part of the FMP for the two refuges. Treatments are management actions proposed to be implemented, and “treatment methods” refers to the use of mechanical equipment or manual/hand tools, prescribed fire, and chemical (herbicide) use (see chapter 2). The treatments would be designed to meet wildfire and fuels management objectives for the two refuges. The term “fuels,” in general, refers to any combustible material, but for purposes of fire management, the term “fuels” refers to vegetation that can sustain fire.

Each of the two refuges has its own appendix, and the information in each appendix is part of and integral to this EA.

Appendix A. Information Specific to Kankakee NWRCA Appendix B. Information Specific to Hackmatack NWR

The content of each appendix includes refuge-specific planning issues and problems, treatments and treatment methods, proposed alternatives, summary of the affected environment, and description of effects of current and proposed actions.

FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT The Service requires that every area with burnable vegetation have an approved FMP that describes actions to prepare for and respond to a wildfire, plan and conduct prescribed fire, and complete other fire and fuels management business. An FMP must comply with revised direction found in the Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (USDA/USDI 2009); Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations (Red Book) (USDA/USDI 2019); Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide (NWCG 2017); National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (Cohesive Strategy) (USDA/USDI 2014); and “Office of Wildland Management Policy Memorandum 2014-005 Subject: Fire Management Plans” (USDI 2014).

This document describes Alternative A. No Action (no treatments proposed) and Alternative B. Proposed Action, which proposes treatments to reduce fuel loads; improve wildlife habitat; protect refuge values, such as natural and cultural resources; and protect landowners, neighboring lands, and communities. Each refuge appendix describes the potential effects that could result from implementing either alternative A or alterative B. The analysis has been conducted in accordance with the

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 United States Code 4321 et seq.);

• NEPA implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508.9);

• Department of the Interior NEPA regulations (43 CFR Part 46); and

• National Historic Preservation Act and Archaeological Resources Protection Act.

2 Chapter 1. Introduction

FIGURE 1. LOCATIONS OF THE TWO REFUGES

Kankakee NWRCA

Hackmatack NWR

Draft EA for Kankakee NWRCA and Hackmatack NWR 3

FIRE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GOALS The fire management program goals are in harmony with the interagency National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (USDA/USDI 2014), which strives to engage collaborative work among all stakeholders and across all landscapes, using best science, to make meaningful progress towards its vision: “To safely and effectively extinguish fire when needed; use fire where allowable; manage our natural resources; and as a nation, to live with wildland fire.”

The following are the overall goals of the fire management program for Kankakee NWRCA and Hackmatack NWR:

1. Ensure that firefighter and public safety are the first priority in all fire management activities.

2. Facilitate the protection of private property, infrastructure and federal facilities, critical transportation corridors, recreational values, and other special values within and adjacent to the refuges.

3. Enhance the protection of natural and cultural resources with fire management activities. This includes taking actions related to the following:

a. Protecting and enhancing threatened and endangered species and their habitats, migratory birds, and other species of conservation concern;

b. Perpetuating, restoring, replacing, or replicating natural processes, when practical, to sustain a healthy ecosystem; and

c. Preventing the further invasion and spread of undesirable plants.

4. Use prescribed fire and vegetation management activities, where and when appropriate, to reduce hazardous fuels and meet the refuges’ natural resource objectives.

5. Encourage and support monitoring and research to advance the understanding of local fire behavior, effects, ecology, and fire management, and use adaptive management to update and improve fire management activities.

6. Promote public education and understanding of fire processes and management.

7. Conduct fire management activities in an efficient, cost-effective manner and ensure progress toward refuge management goals and objectives.

8. Promote an interagency ecosystem approach for fire management activities that includes federal, tribal, state, and local agencies.

PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the fire management program for national wildlife refuges derives from goals and provides the basis for determining actions or strategies (in this case, fire and other forms of vegetation management treatments) and then monitoring the effectiveness of treatments. Currently, a fire management program has not yet been established for the two refuges. However, in local natural areas near the refuges, burning is

4 Chapter 1. Introduction

commonly conducted during the dormant season, especially early spring and late fall. Growing season burns are seen on occasion.

The Service is proposing to develop and implement an FMP as a first step in developing a fire management program for the two refuges. An FMP is needed for Kankakee NWRCA and Hackmatack NWR to meet the Department of the Interior’s requirement that every area with vegetation that can sustain fire have an FMP. The FMP for the two refuges will detail fire management guidelines for operational procedures and values to be protected or enhanced and will provide guidance on preparedness, prescribed fire, wildland fire, and prevention.

IMPACT TOPICS Impact topics cover resources that could be affected, either beneficially or adversely, by the alternatives presented in this EA. Adverse and beneficial effects that could potentially result from proposed fire and fuels management actions are described in the refuge-specific appendices A and B.

Impact Topics Analyzed in this EA

• Vegetation and Wildlife

• Public Health and Safety and Visitor Experience

• Cultural Resources

Impact Topics Not Analyzed in this EA

Socioeconomic Setting

This topic was not analyzed because the actions proposed in this EA would have a negligible, if any, impact on the economy and demographics (characteristics and statistics of human population, especially its size, growth, density, and distribution) of the local areas surrounding each refuge or the counties within which each refuge lies. Some fire management activities may bring a short-term need for additional personnel, but this would not substantially affect the local economy or demographics. The two refuges likely provide nonmarket values (values for items not exchanged in established markets) such as maintaining endangered species, preserving wetlands, education and preservation for future generations, and adding stability to the ecosystem. However, the actions proposed in either of the alternatives in this EA would not have an appreciable impact on these types of nonmarket values.

Geology and Soils

This topic was not analyzed because, although treatments have the potential to impact soils, the level and type of treatments proposed in this EA would not lead to substantial changes in soil chemistry, soil compaction, or soil loss, removal, or contamination. In addition, prescribed fires are expected to be low-intensity ground fires, with little to no potential to produce high subsurface heating. Prescribed fire would not alter physical properties of soils, including loss or reduction of soil structure, reduction of porosity, and alteration of color (NWCG 2001) or lead to soil erosion. Prescribed fires would be used to remove litter and light fuels and prevent the effects of severe, hot wildfires on soil resources.

Surface Water and Groundwater

This topic was not analyzed because, specific to fuels management, which would be carried out using routine FWS-required best management practices in appendix C, there would be little to no degradation of water

Draft EA for Kankakee NWRCA and Hackmatack NWR 5

quality or quantity due to prescribed fire or mechanical treatments. There would be no effects from chemical treatments because they would be carried out using best management practices and application rates in accordance with manufacturer label instructions. When necessary, excessive disturbance caused by wildfire suppression actions or the wildfire itself would be mitigated through restoration efforts (refer to the mitigation measures in appendix C).

Fisheries

There would be no effects on inland fisheries (such as lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers) from treatments and prescribed fire because they are carried out using routine FWS-required best management practices. Wildfire response actions would follow specific mitigation measures (appendix C) to avoid impacting waterbodies and aquatic wildlife.

Environmental Justice The Department of the Interior requires its bureaus to specifically discuss and evaluate the impacts of their actions, programs, and policies on minority and low-income populations and communities, as well as the equity of the distribution of the benefits and risks of the decision (USDI 1995, 2016). Based on FWS knowledge of the local areas, low-income and minority residents would not be significantly or disproportionately impacted by activities associated with either alternative.

Indian Trust Resources The Department of the Interior requires its bureaus to explicitly consider the effects of its actions on Indian Trust resources in environmental documents (USDI 1997). The federal Indian Trust responsibility is a legally enforceable obligation on the part of the United States to protect tribal lands, assets, resources and treaty rights, and it represents a duty to carry out the mandates of federal laws with respect to Native American tribes. There are no known Indian Trust resources on either of the two refuges, and lands comprising each refuge are not held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior for the benefit of Indians due to their status as Indians.

Wildfire Response / Suppression Actions The refuges would suppress (extinguish) all wildfires. The potential for adverse effects from wildfire is low and based, in large part, on the fact that wildfire occurrence is low on the refuges and surrounding area. This EA does not analyze the potential effects of wildfire suppression actions. It is difficult to express the exact effects of those actions because there are so many variables, such as the size and location of a wildfire, weather conditions at the time of the fire, vegetation type and moisture content of vegetation, and fuel types where the fire is occurring. When necessary, excessive disturbance caused by wildfire suppression actions or the wildfire itself would be mitigated through restoration efforts (refer to appendix C).

TYPES OF EFFECTS

Direct and Indirect Effects

The geographic area for analysis of direct and indirect effects presented in this EA consists of lands within the boundary of each refuge. Appendix A (Kankakee NWRCA) and appendix B (Hackmatack NWR) present an effects analysis specific to the resources present and the alternatives proposed for that refuge.

6 Chapter 1. Introduction

Analysis of Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative effects are determined by combining the effects of the alternatives being analyzed with other present and reasonably foreseeable actions by refuge partners or neighbors. To be considered for cumulative effects, connected actions, when viewed with other actions, would have cumulatively significant impacts (40 CFR 1508.25). In addition, connected actions would have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together such as common timing or geography (40 CFR 1508.25).

Potential for Cumulative Effects

The Service would coordinate its treatments, particularly prescribed fire, with those conducted by refuge partners and neighbors. Pre-treatment planning and coordination among all partners are designed to create efficiency and effectiveness of the treatments. Mechanical and chemical treatments and prescribed burns could occur at the same times and locations (lands adjacent to the refuge). Because of this, the Service concluded there would be a potential for cumulative effects, thus an analysis of those effects is included in the refuge-specific appendices (appendix A and appendix B).

CHAPTER 2. PLANNING, TREATMENTS, AND ALTERNATIVES

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING Resource planning and management of all FWS lands is guided by legislation, mandates, and policies listed in appendix E. The two refuges have recently been established (2016 and 2012), thus a long-term management plan, called a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP), has not yet been completed for Kankakee NWRCA and Hackmatack NWR. However, it is well established in the ecological literature that the tallgrass prairies, savannas, and wetlands that dominate the refuges in the Midwest evolved with regular, frequent fire. In the absence of fire, vegetation types on the landscape will change through succession and the influence of exotic (nonnative) plant species. This change in habitat types would subsequently diminish its value to the grassland-dependent wildlife species the refuges were created to support.

The use of prescribed fire on the refuges will be guided by the best available science and local expert opinion. When a CCP and supporting habitat management plan (HMP) are developed for the two refuges, this EA and the FMP will be reviewed and revised, as needed, to ensure they continue to support the objectives of the two refuges. (Refer to the “Glossary” in appendix D for definitions of CCP and HMP.)

FIRE MANAGEMENT PLANNING The fire management program for the two refuges would implement a variety of treatment methods, which include prescribed fire and mechanical and chemical treatments, to meet the following refuge-wide fuels management objectives:

Implement hazardous fuel reduction treatments to reduce the threat of wildfire and manage 1.undesirable plant species. Significant increases of undesirable plant species can change fuel loads and thereby increase the risk of damaging wildfires. The removal of these fuels by mechanical, prescribed fire, and chemical treatments is instrumental in meeting this objective.

Prepare for potential wildfires and protect significant on- and off-refuge values at risk. Preparation 2.includes measures such as reducing or removing excessive ground and ladder fuels, providing access, creating and maintaining fuelbreaks, reducing potential for unplanned fires to start, and making sure that properly trained and equipped personnel are prepared to respond. (Note: a fuelbreak is a natural or constructed barrier used to stop or check fires that may occur, or to provide a control line from which to work.)

Reintroduce or apply fire to refuge lands as a significant component of fire-adapted ecosystems. 3.

TREATMENT METHODS AND WILDFIRE RESPONSE The FWS fuels management program has become increasingly important for reducing the risk of severe wildfire to human communities and for maintaining or improving the integrity of refuge ecosystems. Specific nonfire fuels treatments include any vegetation manipulation and fuels removal or modification undertaken to (1) reduce the likelihood of ignition, crowning potential, and fire intensity; (2) lessen the potential for damage to resources and other identified values at risk; (3) limit the spread and proliferation of undesirable plants if they are contributing to high fuel loads; and (4) improve habitat conditions for wildlife species of concern. Mechanical, manual, and chemical treatments may be used in conjunction with prescribed fire as part of the overall treatment process.

8 Chapter 2. Planning, Treatments, and Alternatives

Nonfire Treatments

Mechanical and chemical treatments (which are referred to as nonfire fuels treatments) are used to remove concentrations of fuels or undesirable plants that cannot be treated by prescribed fire due to the size, structure, and/or amount of material needing to be removed.

• Mechanical treatments use equipment (such as mowers, chippers, logging equipment, and mulchers) to mow fields or shrublands, thin forests and overgrown woodlands, create and maintain fuelbreaks by removing fuel concentrations, mow “green” fuelbreaks, and remove single or small groups of trees. Roads can be used as fuelbreaks so vegetation adjacent to roads may also be removed or reduced to lessen fire threat.

• Manual treatments use hand-held tools (such as an ax, Pulaski, cross-cut saw, pruner, and shovel) and hand-held power tools (chainsaws, weed eaters, hand-held brush cutters, leaf blowers, and other specialty equipment) to cut, clear, or prune herbaceous and woody species. (Note: for purposes of this EA, manual treatments are considered part of mechanical treatment discussions.)

• Chemical treatments. The Service currently uses chemicals on its lands to treat undesirable plant species, federally and state-listed noxious plant species, and to restore and maintain native habitats. All units of the Service that implement chemical treatments prepare annual pesticide use proposals that describe the herbicides proposed for use. All products used are approved by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and labeled for the appropriate use. They are applied following label instructions and best management practices. Chemical application would most likely be by backpack sprayers to obtain optimal target specificity from the close range of application. FWS choice of herbicide is based on the most effective herbicide available with the least potential risk to treat undesirable plant species present.

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire is a planned, intentionally ignited fire that is conducted according to site-specific goals, prescriptions, and mitigation measures identified in individual prescribed burn plans — a burn plan will be written prior to implementation of each prescribed fire project on the refuges. The Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (USDA/USDI 2009) directs federal fire managers to use planned ignitions as one of the tools to help achieve land and resource management goals.

Prescribed fire is used to reduce fuel loads and to restore the role of fire in certain vegetation communities that are adapted to and benefit from fire. Fire-adapted vegetation communities (such as xeric [dry] oak) are more fire tolerant; that is, they are sustainable and resilient to effects of wildfire. This resilience allows disturbed areas to return to their ecosystem function faster (Millar et al. 2007).

Prescribed fires can be ignited using numerous methods (NWCG 2011). For example, a fire could be ignited by hand with a drip torch (a hand-carried device that pours out a small stream of burning fuel mix); by a plastic sphere dispenser machine that drops or dispenses a sphere filled with a chemical mixture to the surface to ignite the surface fuels and vegetation; or with a flare gun or flare pen. The firing technique (method of ignition) for each prescribed burn depends on personnel safety, current and predicted weather, topography, fuels, and the intensity of the fire needed to meet the resource goals of the burn (TDA 2002). The Service will ensure that atmospheric conditions are favorable for smoke to be carried away from smoke-sensitive areas such as highways, airports, and urban areas (TDA 2002) (refer to the mitigation measures in appendix C).

Draft EA for Kankakee NWRCA and Hackmatack NWR 9

Fire managers plan prescribed fires for the season that would best meet operational and ecological objectives. Different burning seasons feature varying meteorological conditions (ventilation, sunlight, and humidity) and thus corresponding emissions and air quality impacts, depending on fuel types (vegetation) and loads in each area to be burned (Tian et al. 2008). For example, fuel moisture contents are high during summer — the growing season in the refuges. Higher fuel moisture contents are usually associated with less fuel consumption and more incomplete combustion, which would equate to higher emission factors. Fire managers review the Smoke Dispersion Index for a local area to determine if conditions are right for ignition. The Smoke Dispersion Index indicates how well smoke will disperse into the atmosphere.

Wildfire Response Strategies

Wildfire response includes one or more strategies that may be employed on any given wildfire and that may vary temporally or spatially. When evaluating appropriate wildfire response strategies, the Service considers risks to public and firefighter safety, threats to the values to protect, and the cost of the various mitigation strategies and tactics. The only wildfire response strategy the Service would use for the two refuges is full suppression of a wildfire. As a standard practice, firefighters assume that all parcels adjacent to FWS lands have homes, farms, or other private property that would be at risk from fire. Accordingly, if a wildfire was to occur on either refuge, fire managers would strive to keep suppression resources within refuge boundaries. Mapping of adjacent properties to identify values at risk will be an ongoing process as the refuges grow.

Due to the small size of refuge parcels, their concurrent boundaries with private lands, and the potential for fire to cross boundaries, there is little opportunity to safely use wildfire to benefit natural resources. Therefore, a prescribed fire, not wildfire, will be the fire management strategy employed for natural resource management. All refuge lands will be considered asset protection zones (APZs) with regard to wildfire response, and all wildfires will be actively suppressed. Refer to the “Glossary” in appendix D for a definition of APZ.

The primary objective for wildfire response will be to protect life/property or other high-value resources, including critical habitat, which requires protection from fire. The primary strategy for wildfire response will be to reduce fire hazard through proactive fuels treatment for point protection and institute full suppression of wildfire. Treatments to reduce wildfire threats also provide benefit to refuge lands. The APZs established for the refuges were created predominantly based on ownership boundaries. Due to the fragmented nature and small size of refuge lands, most parcels will be treated as independent, singular units. However, as new parcels are added, there may be important operational reasons for dividing units to maximize public and firefighter safety and to most effectively meet refuge objectives or protect values at risk (on or off refuge). Wildfires would be staffed, as needed, to ensure that appropriate mitigation actions can be made to protect threatened values.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED

Alternative A. No Action

The no-action alternative for each refuge means the Service would maintain the status quo; that is, full wildfire suppression if a wildfire was to occur. No fuel-reduction or natural resource enhancement treatments are proposed under alternative A.

10 Chapter 2. Planning, Treatments, and Alternatives

Alternative B. Proposed Action for Kankakee NWRCA and Hackmatack NWR (Preferred Alternative)

The proposed action for each refuge was developed based on the unique planning issues, current conditions, and treatment strategies for the refuges. The two refuge-specific appendices (appendix A and appendix B) provide more information about this alternative for each refuge.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT DEVELOPED It would not be feasible to develop an alternative that excluded prescribed fire or mechanical and chemical treatments because such a proposal would not address the purpose of fuel reduction in the two refuges; that is, to prepare for and respond to a wildfire, manage fuel loads, protect refuge values, and protect human life and property. It also would not address natural resource enhancement objectives for the refuges which contain fire-dependent habitats.

MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures are designed to avoid or substantially reduce adverse effects of treatments, prescribed fire, and wildfire suppression efforts. The mitigation measures in appendix C would be applied, as needed, to reduce the potential for adverse effects during wildfire response actions and current and proposed treatments. The measures are incorporated as part of the alternatives for each refuge.

CHAPTER 3. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

COLLABORATIVE PLANNING The establishment of Kankakee NWRCA and Hackmatack NWR formally recognized decades of work with conservation partners. The Service will continue to work with the state of Illinois, state of Wisconsin, conservation organizations, local communities, and other stakeholders to restore wetland, oak savanna, and prairie habitats on public and private lands.

Continuing in this spirit of collaboration, the refuges will work closely with all of their partners, which include the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, McHenry County Conservation District, Illinois Nature Preserves Commission, The Nature Conservancy, and local emergency managers to ensure the safe and effective management of wildland fire (that is, wildfire and prescribed fire) on FWS lands in support of the National Cohesive Strategy (USDA/USDI 2014). There are also local authorities that the Service will coordinate with when prescribed burn plans are developed and implemented or if a wildfire was to occur on either refuge.

Each of the agencies and authorities identified above, along with members of the public and other interested agencies and organizations, will have an opportunity to review and comment on this draft EA.

CONSULTATION The Service will be consulting with FWS endangered species staff and preparing appropriate paperwork / consultation under 16 U.S. Code Section 1531 et seq., the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) 4D rule or Section 7 (of the ESA) on each annual prescribed burn plan. The Service will also consult with Illinois State and Wisconsin State threatened and endangered species specialists to avoid adversely affecting state-listed species.

COMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION Informing the public is an important part of fire suppression, fire prevention, prescribed fire, and the FWS mission. Information and education are critical to gaining public support for the refuges’ fire management program. FWS fire personnel and refuge staff are responsible for dispersal of information to the press, the public, and FWS stakeholders during all phases of fire management. This includes planning, prescribed fire, fire prevention, and wildfire suppression.

Public engagement is a vital component of the fire and fuels management program. Areas where prescribed fire and mechanical and chemical treatments would be used as a habitat manipulation tool will present opportunities for the public to actually see the beneficial effects of prescribed fire and other treatments and offer FWS staff an opportunity to explain to the public the purpose of the burns and treatments. The following are ways to promote the fire and fuels management program to the public: school presentations, attending fire department meetings, and interpretive publications and materials.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Scoping Process

The scoping process was an opportunity for people to read about the proposed alternatives to be analyzed in this EA and to provide feedback about any concerns or suggestions for this EA. The scoping process helped

12 Chapter 3. Consultation and Coordination

identify relevant issues that could influence the scope of the environmental analysis process, including refinement of alternatives.

The public scoping process for this EA began with a public comment period that ran from October 21, 2019, and ended on November 12, 2019 (23 days). Information about this EA and its proposed management actions, need for action, and planning objectives was distributed to the public in the form of a scoping brochure. The Service notified people about the scoping process and availability of the scoping brochure using press releases and email. All notifications included links to the websites for Kankakee NWRCA and Hackmatack NWR from which people could download the scoping brochure. Those links are

• https://www.fws.gov/refuge/kankakee/

• https://www.fws.gov/refuge/hackmatack/

Notifications

The Service contacted the following directly to inform them of the scoping period: Farm Bureaus of Ford-Iroquois County, Kankakee County, and McHenry County, with an email sent to the Pembroke Public Library in Hopkins Park.

The Service distributed a press release (figure 2) on October 21, 2019, to the following media outlets:

Kankakee Area The Kankakee Daily Journal Iroquois County's Times-Republic

Hackmatack Area Chicago Sun-Times Beloit Daily News Cook County Chronicle Rockford Register Star Daily Herald Lake Geneva Regional News Kendall Chronicle Daily Chronicle Northwest Herald

Comments Received during the Scoping Comment Period

The following are summaries of concerns or suggestions contained in the comment documents received by the Service during the scoping period:

• Advises a one- to two-year fire return, especially for habitats that are being restored.

• Suggests teaming between nearby agencies and FWS staff during prescribed burns. Consider using private contractors to do the burns. Cooperate with neighbors who like to burn at the same time as agencies. Coordinate with nearby landowners, who manage their lands with fire, to ensure enough unburned habitat remains to act as refugia for wildlife, especially for the state threatened regal fritillary butterfly.

• Recommends the Service adopt alternative B to allow the full range of fire management tools and strategies to manage land in the two refuges.

Draft EA for Kankakee NWRCA and Hackmatack NWR 13

• Suggests a greater burning frequency to maintain the composition and structure of high-quality prairies.

• Suggests extensive fire use along with herbicide applications to control and eradicate invasive plant species. Some areas have significant problems with invasive species such as buckthorn, honeysuckles, Phragmites, and many others. Fire is a valuable tool in helping maintain healthy plant communities.

• Recommends a program that burns at least one-third of a site annually to reduce the potential impact of controlled burning on eastern prairie fringed orchid, which depends on fire to prevent encroachment of woody species.

• Requests altering the burn “window” to prevent burns from affecting species, such as Blanding’s turtle or rusty-patched bumble bee, during the species’ active period; that is, burn before the species become active. Locate and move ornate box turtles to appropriate habitat prior to a burn. End burning season when turtles are out and about.

• Recommends patch burning for state and federally listed species to ensure an unburned habitat reservoir on most sites for species sensitive to small habitat patch size and lacking mobility. Those species include many reptiles, amphibians, and some ground-nesting birds.

• Requests not using heavy equipment to create fire lanes where state-listed endangered plants, such as orange-fringed orchid, are established.

• Requests that safety and smoke management protocols be rigorously followed during prescribed burns. Do not burn if the weather has been unseasonably hot or dry.

14 Chapter 3. Consultation and Coordination

FIGURE 2. PRESS RELEASE

Draft EA for Kankakee NWRCA and Hackmatack NWR 15

PLANNING TEAM AND REVIEWERS

Name, Title Responsibility FWS Refuge-Level Planning

Todd Boonstra, Refuge Manager Kankakee NWRCA and Hackmatack NWR

Develop alternatives Review and comment on the EA Prepare the FMP

FWS Region 3 Planning Jason Riggins, Regional Fire Management Coordinator

Review and comment on the EA Ensure NEPA compliance

Paul Charland, Fire Management Specialist East Lansing Field Office

Develop alternatives Review and comment on the EA Prepare the FMP

Jeanne Holler, Chief, Conservation Planning Division of Natural Resources and Conservation Planning

Review and comment on the EA Ensure NEPA compliance

Cathy Nigg, Refuge Supervisor — Area 2 (IL, IN, WI, MI, OH)

Review and comment on the EA

Chris Mursu, Regional Fire Management Specialist Review and comment on the EA Prepare maps and FMP maps/mapsheets

Jamie Farmer, South Zone Fire Management Officer for Iowa, Missouri, and Illinois

Review and comment on the EA

James Myster, Regional Archeologist and Historic Preservation Officer

Review and comment on the EA

National Fire Planning

Becky Brooks, National Fire Planner for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Review and comment on the EA

Contractor

Susan Hale NEPA compliance; write and edit EA; support public involvement efforts

Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs and activities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is available to all individuals regardless of physical or mental ability. Dial 711 for a free connection to the state transfer relay service for the hearing impaired. For more information or to address accessibility needs, please contact the refuge staff or the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Equal Opportunity, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Contact

Todd Boonstra, Refuge Manager Kankakee NWRCA and Hackmatack NWR 6316 Harts Rd. Ringwood, IL 60072

Email: midwestrefugeinfo@fws.gov

Phone: 815-678-4532, ext. 8206

Fax: 815-678-4795

Illinois Relay Service: 1 800/439 2370 Kankakee NWRCA Hackmatack NWR

March 2020