U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Hamden Slough

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive

Conservation Plan
Cover Photograph: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with others 

to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife 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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for 

management decisions; set forth goals, objectives and strategies needed 

to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Fish and Wildlife 

Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program 

planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget 

allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and 

program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a 

commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance 

increases, or funding for future land acquisition.

(This page intentionally left blank)
Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

i

Hamden Slough

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background ....................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose and Need for Plan .............................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Refuge Establishment and Purposes ............................................................................................... 2

1.4 Refuge Vision and Goals.................................................................................................................. 3

1.5 Legal and Policy Framework ............................................................................................................ 4

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.......................................................................................................... 4

The National Wildlife Refuge System .............................................................................................. 4

Wilderness Review........................................................................................................................... 6

1.6 Other Conservation Initiatives .......................................................................................................... 6

Buffalo-Red River Watershed District .............................................................................................. 6

Revised Watershed Management Plan..................................................................................... 6

Cooperative Agreement............................................................................................................. 7

Red River Basin Commission – Natural Resources Framework Plan.............................................7

Minnesota Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) ..............................................7

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ............................................................................................ 7

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ............................................................................................ 8

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives ........................................................................................... 9

Climate Change Strategic Plan......................................................................................................10

Recent Refuge Biological Initiatives...............................................................................................10

Contaminants Assessment Process (CAP).............................................................................10

Water Resources Inventory and Assessment (WRIA) ............................................................11

Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Evaluation ......................................................................................11

Chapter 2: The Planning Process ...............................................................................................................12

2.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................12

2.2 Scoping and Public Involvement ....................................................................................................12

2.3 Summary of Issues.........................................................................................................................13

Habitat and Wildlife ........................................................................................................................13

People ............................................................................................................................................15

2.4 Preparation, Finalization, and Implementation of the CCP ............................................................16

2.5 Public Comments on the Draft CCP...............................................................................................17

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management ....................................................................................19

3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ......................................................................................................19

Prairie-Wetland Complexes ...........................................................................................................21

The Mississippi Flyway ..................................................................................................................22

Other Conservation Lands .............................................................................................................23

3.2 Physical Environment .....................................................................................................................26

Geology..........................................................................................................................................26

Topography ....................................................................................................................................26

Soils................................................................................................................................................27

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................................29
Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii

Climate ...........................................................................................................................................34

3.3 Biological Environment ...................................................................................................................36

Prairie Habitat ................................................................................................................................40

Wetland Habitat..............................................................................................................................42

Wildlife and Fish Communities of the Prairie-Wetlands.................................................................44

3.4 Socioeconomic Environment..........................................................................................................48

Demographics ................................................................................................................................48

Income, Employment, and Local Economy....................................................................................48

3.5 Historical and Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................49

3.6 Current Refuge Programs ..............................................................................................................51

Biological........................................................................................................................................51

Wetland Restoration and Management...................................................................................53

Upland Restoration and Management.....................................................................................58

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ...................................................................................62

Research and Monitoring ........................................................................................................62

Visitor Services ..............................................................................................................................64

Hunting ....................................................................................................................................64

Wildlife Observation and Photography ....................................................................................65

Environmental Education and Interpretation ...........................................................................67

Friends Group and Volunteers ................................................................................................67

Outreach and Partnerships......................................................................................................68

Administration ................................................................................................................................68

Law Enforcement.....................................................................................................................68

Easements...............................................................................................................................68

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction...................................................................................................69

4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................69

4.2 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationales ...............................................................................69

Wildlife and Habitat ........................................................................................................................69

Wetlands..................................................................................................................................69

Uplands....................................................................................................................................73

Watershed ...............................................................................................................................77

Migratory Bird Populations ......................................................................................................78

People ............................................................................................................................................80

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation .................................................................................................................87

5.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................87

5.2 Funding...........................................................................................................................................87

5.3 Staffing............................................................................................................................................87

5.4 Partnership Opportunities...............................................................................................................88

5.5 Step-Down Management Plans......................................................................................................88

5.6 Monitoring and Evaluation..............................................................................................................88

5.7 Plan Review and Revision..............................................................................................................89

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment....................................................................................................90

Appendix B: Species of Concern ..............................................................................................................109

Appendix C: Species Lists ........................................................................................................................115

Appendix D: Glossary ...............................................................................................................................125

Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance...................................................................................................133

Appendix F: Literature Cited .....................................................................................................................144

Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations ...............................................................................................149

Appendix H: Appropriate Use Determinations ..........................................................................................176

Appendix I: List of Preparers.....................................................................................................................183
Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Location of Hamden Slough NWR.............................................................................................. 1

Figure 1-2: Landscape Conservation Cooperatives ..................................................................................... 9

Figure 3-1: Prairie Pothole Region..............................................................................................................19

Figure 3-2: Prairie Forest Transition ...........................................................................................................20

Figure 3-3: Migratory Flyways.....................................................................................................................22

Figure 3-4: Other Conservation Lands........................................................................................................24

Figure 3-5: Two-Mile Buffer.........................................................................................................................25

Figure 3-6: Elevation ...................................................................................................................................26

Figure 3-7: Soils ..........................................................................................................................................28

Figure 3-8: Buffalo River Watershed...........................................................................................................29

Figure 3-9: Groundwater.............................................................................................................................30

Figure 3-10: Watershed Drainage...............................................................................................................31

Figure 3-11: Distribution of Wetlands..........................................................................................................32

Figure 3-12: Ditch 15 System......................................................................................................................33

Figure 3-13: Annual Precipitation, 1940-2009, Detroit Lakes, MN .............................................................34

Figure 3-14: Spring Precipitation (Mar-May), Detroit Lakes, MN................................................................34

Figure 3-15: Buffalo River Discharge (near Hawley, MN)...........................................................................35

Figure 3-16: General Land Office Survey Map, circa 1870 ........................................................................38

Figure 3-17: Historic Vegetation .................................................................................................................39

Figure 3-18: Tallgrass Prairie Region .........................................................................................................40

Figure 3-19: Wetland Phases......................................................................................................................43

Figure 3-20: Current Vegetation .................................................................................................................52

Figure 3-21: Big 6 Wetland Restoration......................................................................................................55

Figure 3-22: North Star 2000 Wetland Restoration ....................................................................................55

Figure 3-23: Managed Wetlands.................................................................................................................56

Figure 3-24: Fathead Minnow Fecundity Rates ..........................................................................................58

Figure 3-25: Management Units .................................................................................................................60

Figure 3-26: Visitor Services Facilities........................................................................................................66

Figure 4-1: Future Visitor Facilities .............................................................................................................83

List of Tables

Table 3-1: Historic Vegetation.....................................................................................................................37

Table 3-2: Pothole Restorations .................................................................................................................53

Table 3-3: Managed Wetlands....................................................................................................................54

Table 3-4: Grassland Restoration ...............................................................................................................59

Table 5-1: Current Detroit Lakes WMD staffing..........................................................................................87

Table 5-2: Step-down Management Plans..................................................................................................88

Table A-1: Summary of Actions by Alternative ...........................................................................................98

Table A-2: Summary of Impacts by Alternative.........................................................................................108
Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iv

(This page intentionally left blank)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

In this chapter:

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Purpose of and Need for Plan

1.3 Refuge Establishment and Purposes

1.4 Refuge Vision and Goals

1.5 Legal and Policy Framework

1.6 Other Conservation Initiatives

1.1 Introduction

Located about seven miles northwest of Detroit Lakes, MN (figure 1-1), Hamden Slough National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR, Refuge) was established in 1989 by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) is authorized to acquire 5,944 acres of land within the 

Buffalo River watershed to restore a piece of the prairie-wetland ecosystem that historically existed there. 

About 3,200 acres of Hamden Slough NWR have been acquired and restored so far, and the location is 

recognized once again as an outstanding place to see migratory birds. 

Figure 1-1: Location of Hamden Slough NWR

The Refuge lies on the eastern edge of the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR), within the Northern Tallgrass 

Prairie (NTGP) ecosystem, which once covered 18 million acres of Minnesota. Pothole wetlands dotted 

the landscape and were surrounded by vast expanses of prairie grasses and wildflowers. Vegetation and 

wildlife communities evolved and thrived with periodic disturbances from fire, flood, drought, and large 

ungulate grazing. European settlers in the late 19th century soon discovered the richness of the prairie 

soils, which led to conversion of prairie to cropland and drainage of many wetlands in western Becker 

County, including the area of Hamden Slough NWR. Today, there are only 170,000 acres remaining of 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2

the Minnesota NTGP, a decline of roughly 99 percent. Many prairie and wetland-dependent wildlife 

species are declining range-wide.

1.2 Purpose and Need for Plan

The purpose of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) is to guide management and administration 

of the Refuge for the next 15 years and to help ensure that the Refuge meets the purposes for which it 

was established, contributes to the overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, 

Refuge System), and adheres to Service policies and other mandates. The CCP describes the desired 

future condition of the Refuge and provides guidance for management actions and decisions. It 

addresses identified issues of significance, sets goals and measurable objectives, and outlines strategies 

for reaching those objectives. The planning process informs and involves the general public, state and 

federal agencies, and non-government groups who have an interest, responsibility, or authority related to 

the Refuge.

In addition, the landscape has undergone changes that affect habitat and wildlife, new threats to the 

Refuge are emerging, new laws and policies have been put in place, and new scientific information is 

available. Updated management guidance is needed that reflects these changes to help achieve Refuge 

goals for wildlife, habitat, and people. 

1.3 Refuge Establishment and Purposes

The Migratory Bird Conservation Commission established Hamden Slough NWR on September 19, 1989 

to restore and protect prairie pothole habitat for waterfowl production near the town of Audubon in Becker 

County, MN. The area had long been recognized as an outstanding waterfowl production area, but 

dramatic loss of nesting cover and small prairie wetlands had raised awareness of the need for 

conservation of these natural resources. As early as the 1940s, the Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR) had proposed the Hamden Slough area for public acquisition. The Service presented 

its first proposal for a refuge in 1976. Although a new refuge did not result from that effort, a continued 

interest led to a second study in 1985, which was ultimately successful. 

Hamden Slough NWR was one of the first refuges designed using a computerized Mallard Management 

Model to predict duck production. Eight land use models were evaluated. The approved design included a 

5,944-acre Refuge buffered by an additional 2,600 acres of land protected via a combination of 

easements, leases, and conservation farming agreements. (The Service already had authority under the 

Small Wetlands Program for easements, leases, and agreements throughout Becker County, not just 

adjacent to the Refuge. The buffer area boundary, therefore, caused some confusion. As a result, it is not 

shown on more-recent maps of Hamden Slough NWR.) The Service and the Buffalo-Red River 

Watershed District signed a cooperative agreement to ensure continued maintenance of the agricultural 

drainage system on Refuge lands.

Each unit of the Refuge System has one or more purposes specified in or derived from the legal 

instruments that established, authorized, or expanded it. Chapter 601 FW 1 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual provides guidance for determining refuge purposes and using them in administration and 

management of the Refuge System. The purposes of Hamden Slough NWR derive from three authorities: 

" . . . conservation, management, and . . . restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats . . . for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) 

(National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

“ . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

U.S.C. ¤ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3

. . . as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to “ . . . all the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] . . . except the inviolate sanctuary provisions . . . ” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) (Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Tax)

A Concept Plan for the management of Hamden Slough NWR was developed in the early 1990s. The

Concept Plan clearly established the initial management priorities for the Refuge and has been useful in 

informing the goals and objectives of this CCP. Goals established at that time were:

• Provide migratory bird production, resting, and feeding habitat with emphasis on duck production.

• Preserve, restore, and enhance a diversity of indigenous plants and animals of the northern 

Minnesota prairie wetland ecosystem.

• Promote a wise and lasting land use ethic in the Red River Valley by becoming an educational 

model for land and water stewardship.

• Provide opportunities for compatible wildlife-related recreation.

The primary management focus was to protect and enhance wetland habitat for the benefit of waterfowl, 

using ditch plugs, dikes, and water control structures to restore drained wetlands and facilitate water level 

management. Additional techniques included establishing and managing a mixture of grasses on 

uplands, providing nesting islands and structures, and implementing a predator control program—all 

designed to provide optimum nesting habitat. 

About 3,200 acres of Hamden Slough NWR have been acquired to date. Before being secured, almost all 

of the land was used for agricultural purposes. Much of the privately owned land located within the 

authorized boundary, but not yet purchased, is being grazed, hayed, or left idle. 

Refuge staff was located onsite until 2006, headquartered in a farmhouse at the south end of the Refuge. 

At that time, due to budget cuts and reorganization, responsibility for Hamden Slough NWR was 

transferred to the Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District.

1.4 Refuge Vision and Goals

The vision is a descriptive picture of how the Refuge will look in the future and provides a sense of 

direction and purpose. From the vision flow broad goal statements, which in turn provide the framework to 

craft more detailed and measurable objectives that are the heart of the CCP. The vision and goals are 

important as reference points for keeping objectives and strategies meaningful, focused, and attainable. 

Refuge Vision

“In the morning if it was still and a little foggy, my grandfather said you could hear the 

prairie chickens drumming, also the trumpet swans, whooping cranes, geese, loons and 

many species of ducks. He said it sounded like a symphony.”

—Donald P. Larson

Hamden Slough NWR has a rich history defined by its remarkable abundance of wildlife and deep 

connection with the people who visited the area and called Hamden their home. The Refuge was 

established to provide habitat for a diversity of migratory birds and native wildlife. The vision for Hamden 

Slough NWR is a fulfillment of this purpose; a lasting legacy bestowed upon future generations. 

Hamden Slough NWR is located on the eastern edge of the Prairie Pothole Region in the NTGP

ecosystem. Wetlands and shallow lakes surrounded by tallgrass prairie are nestled within a working 

landscape rich in agriculture, industry, conservation and tight-knit communities. We will continue to 

restore, protect, and manage habitats for wildlife, resulting in shared benefits that are relevant in the daily 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4

lives of our Refuge neighbors and local communities. This collaboration will foster an appreciation for a 

landscape in balance and deepen their personal connection with nature. 

Refuge Goals

Wildlife/Habitat Goal

Habitats on Hamden Slough NWR will be restored, protected, and actively managed to provide a diversity 

of native wetland and grassland habitats. These efforts will be further leveraged by partnerships and 

conservation actions outside the Refuge, resulting in a resilient and balanced landscape, meeting the 

needs of migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife in an uncertain future.

People Goal

The Service will engage the public, build relationships, and encourage awareness of a landscape in 

balance. The Refuge will provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreation that connects people to the 

land and demonstrates the societal benefits of a restored prairie-wetland system.

1.5 Legal and Policy Framework

Hamden Slough NWR is managed and administered as part of the Refuge System within a framework of 

organizational setting, laws, and policy. Key aspects of the framework are outlined below. A list of other 

laws and executive orders that have guided preparation of the CCP and that guide future implementation 

are provided in Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Refuge is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior (DOI). The 

Service is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving and enhancing the nation’s fish and 

wildlife populations and their habitats. Although the Service shares this responsibility with other federal, 

state, tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific responsibilities for migratory birds, 

threatened and endangered species, certain interjurisdictional fish and marine mammals, and the Refuge 

System. The mission of the Service is:

“Working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats 

for the continuing benefit of the American people.”

The National Wildlife Refuge System

The National Wildlife Refuge System had its beginning in 1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt used 

an Executive Order to set aside tiny Pelican Island in Florida as a refuge and breeding ground for birds. 

From that small beginning, the Refuge System has become the world’s largest collection of lands 

specifically set aside for wildlife conservation, including more than 550 refuges covering more than 150 

million acres, plus 38 wetland management districts. The administration, management, and growth of the 

Refuge System are guided by the following goals:

• Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are 

endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.

• Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and 

interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and 

carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges.

• Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international 

significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented 

in existing protection efforts.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5

• Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation).

• Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 and Related Policy

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) amended the National

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 and became a true organic act for the Refuge System 

by providing a mission, policy direction, and management standards. The Improvement Act’s main 

components include:

• A strong and singular wildlife conservation mission for the Refuge System,

• A requirement that the Secretary of the Interior maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System,

• A new process for determining compatible uses on refuges,

• A recognition that wildlife-dependent public uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, and environmental education and interpretation, when determined to be 

compatible, are legitimate and appropriate public uses of the Refuge System, 

• That these compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of 

the Refuge System, and

• A requirement to prepare a CCP for each refuge.

Compatibility Policy

No use that the Service has authority to regulate may be allowed on a unit of the Refuge System unless it 

is determined to be compatible (Service Manual, 603 FW 2). A compatible use is a use that, in the sound 

professional judgment of the Refuge Manager, will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the Refuge System mission or the purposes of the refuge. Managers must complete a written 

Compatibility Determination for each use, or collection of like-uses, that is signed by the manager and the 

Regional Chief of Refuges in the respective Service region.

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy

The Service is directed by the Improvement Act to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans . . . ” The biological integrity policy (Service Manual, 601 FW 3) helps define 

and clarify this directive by providing guidance on what conditions constitute biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health; guidelines for maintaining existing levels, guidelines for determining how and 

when it is appropriate to restore lost elements, and guidelines in dealing with external threats to biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Policy (Service Manual, 605 FW 1)

The Improvement Act identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Congress directed the 

Service to grant these six wildlife-dependent public uses special consideration in the planning, 

management, establishment, and expansion of refuges. In addition, if determined compatible on a 

refuge, these six uses assume priority status over any other uses proposed or occurring on a refuge. The 

Service is to facilitate priority wildlife-dependent public use opportunities when they do not interfere with 

the ability to fulfill refuge purposes or the mission of the Refuge System.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

6

Wilderness Review

Refuge planning policy mandates that wilderness reviews be conducted through the comprehensive

conservation planning process. The criteria are size, naturalness, opportunities for solitude or primitive 

recreation, and supplemental values. No lands within Hamden Slough NWR met the criteria for 

wilderness established by Congress and described in Service policy (FWS, 2008). Hamden Slough NWR 

does not contain 5,000 contiguous acres of roadless, natural lands, nor does the Refuge possess any 

units of sufficient size to make their preservation practicable as wilderness. Refuge lands and waters 

have been substantially altered by humans, especially by agriculture, drainage, and road building.

1.6 Other Conservation Initiatives

The Service works closely with other government agencies and conservation organizations in developing 

a variety of regional, national, and international conservation plans and initiatives. Several of these efforts 

relevant to Hamden Slough NWR are described below; their recommendations and priorities were 

reviewed and integrated where appropriate into this CCP.

Buffalo-Red River Watershed District

Revised Watershed Management Plan

The Buffalo-Red River Watershed District (BRRWD) is a local unit of government responsible for water 

and resource management within a 1,379-square mile watershed that includes portions of Clay, Becker, 

Wilkin, and Otter Tail Counties; the Red River is the western boundary. The mission of the BRRWD is to 

“alleviate flooding and to manage the water resources of the District in a manner that best protects this 

valuable resource.” Operation of the 1,379-square mile BRRWD is guided by a Watershed Management 

Plan (WMP). Per Minnesota statute, the BRRWD is required to update and revise its WMP every ten

years. The most recent revision was completed in June 2010.

During the 1990s there were frequent disagreements between watershed districts and resource 

management agencies in northwestern Minnesota over the most effective and environmentally preferable 

methods to reduce flood damage. After the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota DNR 

completed a joint environmental impact statement on cumulative effects of flood control projects in the 

Red River Basin in 1996, the controversy reached its peak. Consequently, in May 1997, the Minnesota 

Legislature authorized a mediation process to resolve the disputes regarding environmental effects of 

flood control and to break the gridlock blocking many new flood damage reduction projects. 

In December 1998, a mediation agreement to reduce flood damages and improve natural resources in 

the Minnesota portion of the Red River Basin was reached by representatives of the watershed districts, 

state and federal agencies, environmental organizations, and private landowner representatives. Key 

elements of the agreement are clearly identified goals both for flood reduction and natural resources,

comprehensive watershed planning, early consultation and collaboration among stakeholders, and a 

cooperative approach to permitting projects. 

Development of the 2010 revised WMP provided an effective means of incorporating the goals of the 

mediation agreement into the BRRWD. The BRRWD was divided into seven planning regions based on 

hydrologic boundaries. Hamden Slough NWR lies in the Mainstem Region where issues identified include 

floodplain management, flood damage reduction, agricultural drainage systems, water quality, wetlands, 

natural resources and recreation, groundwater, erosion and sediment control, education, long-range work 

planning and financing, and data collection and management. Becker County Ditch No. 15 and Hamden 

Slough NWR are located within the boundaries of a Wetland/Grassland Restoration Priority Area. One of 

the potential solutions listed for flood damage reduction is restoration of Pierce and Hamden Lakes on the 

Refuge.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

7

Cooperative Agreement

A cooperative agreement between the Service and the BRRWD was signed in July 1989 to identify rights 

and responsibilities relating to Becker County Judicial Ditch 15 System (Ditch 15 system). Upon execution 

of the agreement, BRRWD withdrew any objection to the establishment of Hamden Slough NWR. A 

complete survey profile of the Ditch 15 system was completed by the Service in 1991 as required by the 

agreement. The Service is responsible for repair and maintenance of the Ditch 15 system on Refuge 

lands (subject to availability of appropriated funds) to ensure that pre-establishment ditch profile, grade, 

width, or depth are not changed unless such change is mutually agreed upon. The Service further agreed 

to periodically review its plan for management of wetland habitat in order to optimize the impact on the 

secondary objective of flood water retention. The cooperative agreement is in effect for an initial 40-year 

period.

Red River Basin Commission – Natural Resources Framework Plan

The Red River Basin Commission (RRBC) works across the political boundaries of Manitoba, Minnesota, 

North Dakota, and South Dakota in the United States and Canada to create a shared vision for action 

with regard to land and water issues. The mission of the RRBC is to develop a Red River Basin 

integrated natural resources framework plan, to achieve commitment to implement the framework plan,

and to work toward a unified voice for the Red River Basin. 

In 2005, the RRBC released the draft Natural Resources Framework Plan (NRFP). The purpose is to 

provide decision makers, managers, and the public in the Red River Basin with a clear vision for the 

future and a process to achieve this vision of comprehensive, integrated watershed stewardship and 

management. It is a guide to be used by any or all entities in their decision-making processes. The NRFP 

contains 13 goals. The first four focus on encouraging communication, research, and coordination across 

political jurisdictional boundaries. The remaining nine focus on improvements in water quality, water 

supply, flood damage reduction, drainage, conservation; and fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreation.

Minnesota Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS)

Congress created the State Wildlife Grants Program in 2001 to address the unmet needs of wildlife 

species in greatest conservation need and mandated that all state fish and wildlife agencies develop a 

comprehensive wildlife conservation plan by October 1, 2005 as a condition of receiving federal funds 

through the program. These plans address the needs of a wide array of wildlife but focus primarily on 

Species in Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) and their habitats. SGCN are defined as animals whose 

populations are rare, declining, or vulnerable to decline and are below levels desirable to ensure their 

long-term health and stability.” There are 292 species in Minnesota that meet this definition. The 

Minnesota CWCS identifies habitat loss and degradation as the primary problem facing SGCN in 

Minnesota and recommends conserving key habitats used by SGCN in order to conserve the majority of 

Minnesota’s wildlife. 

The heart of the Minnesota plan is the 25 ecological subsection profiles. Each profile identifies SGCN 

presence and patterns of occurrence, key habitats, and priority conservation actions. Hamden Slough 

NWR lies in the Red River Prairie subsection, which includes 83 SGCN. Featured wildlife species include 

greater prairie-chicken, marbled godwit, loggerhead shrike, Poweshiek skipperling, northern pocket 

gopher, and northern grasshopper mouse. Red River Prairie native habitats found on the Refuge are 

prairie and non-forested wetland. Priority habitat conservation actions include: manage invasive species, 

manage habitats adjacent to native prairie and wetlands to enhance SGCN values, use prescribed fire 

and other practices to maintain prairie, enforce the Wetlands Conservation Act, and provide technical 

assistance to interested individuals and organizations.

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) began in 1986 as a partnership effort to 

restore waterfowl populations to historic levels through habitat conservation. The 2004 plan update states 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8

that its purpose is to “sustain abundant waterfowl populations by conserving landscapes, through 

partnerships, that are guided by sound science.” NAWMP is international in scope but is implemented 

through regional partnerships called "joint ventures." Hamden Slough NWR lies within the Prairie Pothole 

Joint Venture (PPJV), which includes 100,000 square miles in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Minnesota, and Iowa.

The 2001 U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan provides a framework to determine species, sites, and 

habitats that most urgently need conservation action. The national assessment was stepped down into 11 

regional conservation plans. Hamden Slough NWR lies within the Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes 

Region, which is especially critical to long-distance migrants that need suitable stopover sites along their 

migratory routes, such as American golden-plover, Hudsonian godwit, white-rumped sandpiper, pectoral 

sandpiper, and stilt sandpiper.

The 2002 North American Waterbird Conservation Plan is a framework for the conservation and 

management of 210 species of wading birds, marsh birds, gulls, terns, pelicans, and seabirds and their 

habitats. The continental area is organized into several planning regions. Species of high concern in the 

Northern Prairie and Parkland Region, where Hamden Slough NWR is located, include western grebe, 

Franklin’s gull, black tern, horned grebe, American bittern, yellow rail, and king rail.

Partners in Flight (PIF) was launched in 1990 and began to develop regional bird conservation plans in 

response to growing concerns about population declines of many landbird species. Hamden Slough NWR 

lies within the Northern Tallgrass Prairie physiographic region, which occupies parts of Iowa, Minnesota, 

North Dakota, and Manitoba, Canada. Priority bird species in the 1998 Northern Tallgrass Prairie Plan

include greater prairie-chicken, Nelson’s (sharp-tailed) sparrow, sedge wren, bobolink, and yellow rail. In 

2004, PIF published a North American landbird conservation plan that established population objectives 

and recommended actions for Species of Continental Importance. 

The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a continental effort to integrate all migratory 

bird conservation programs under one umbrella. The goal is to facilitate bird conservation through 

regionally-based, biologically-driven, landscape-oriented partnerships. NABCI has defined Bird 

Conservation Regions (BCR) as its planning units. Hamden Slough NWR lies within BCR 11, the Prairie 

Potholes. In 2000, the U.S. NABCI Committee agreed to promote conservation delivery via existing and 

new Joint Ventures nationwide, thus eliminating redundant partnership structures and separate biological 

planning processes. The Service is a member of the U.S. NABCI Committee.

Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (FWS, 2008a) was developed by the Service to identify migratory 

and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) 

that represent the Service’s highest conservation priorities. The list encompasses three distinct 

geographic scales—NABCI Bird Conservation Regions, FWS Regions, and National—and uses 

assessment scores from three bird conservation plans: the North American Landbird Conservation Plan, 

the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. The 

assessment scores are based on several parameters including population trend, threats, distribution, 

abundance, and the importance of an area to a species. 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program

The Service established the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFW, Partners Program) in 1987 to 

work beyond the boundaries of refuges with landowners and other partners to improve habitat on private 

lands for fish and wildlife. The program is voluntary, relies heavily on a partnership approach, and 

leverages both ideas and funding from a variety of sources. Cost sharing agreements and technical 

assistance are important components. 

The overall goal of Partners Program projects is to return a site to the ecological condition that likely 

existed prior to loss or degradation. Priority ranking is given to proposed projects that meet these 

conditions:
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

9

• Improve habitat for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, inter-jurisdictional fish, 

marine mammals, and other declining species. 

• Complement activities on Refuge System lands, or contribute to the resolution of problems on 

refuges that are caused by off-refuge practices. 

• Address species and habitat priorities that have been identified through Service planning teams 

(with our partners), or in collaboration with state fish and wildlife agencies. 

• Reduce habitat fragmentation or serve as buffers for federal or state conservation lands. 

• Result in self-sustaining systems that are not dependent on artificial structures. 

Service biologists work one-on-one with landowners to plan, implement, and monitor their projects. This 

level of personal attention and follow-through is a significant strength of the Program. Through the 

Partners Program, the Service restored nearly 70,000 acres of wetland and 49,000 acres of upland on 

private lands in Minnesota between 1987 and 2008.

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

The Service and the DOI have begun developing a national network of Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives (LCCs). LCCs are management-science partnerships between the Service and other 

federal agencies, states, tribes, non-governmental organizations, universities, and other stakeholders. 

LCCs will inform management decisions to address landscape-scale stressors such as habitat 

fragmentation, genetic isolation, spread of invasive species, and water scarcity, all of which are magnified 

by accelerating climate change. LCCs will connect site-specific protection, restoration, and management 

effort to larger goals supporting fish and wildlife populations and the natural systems that sustain them. 

They are intended to provide a strong link between science and conservation delivery without duplicating 

existing partnerships. By functioning as a network of interdependent units, LCC partnerships can 

accomplish a conservation mission no single agency can accomplish alone. Each LCC will focus on a 

defined geographic area. Although Hamden Slough NWR lies within the boundary of the Upper 

Mississippi and Great Lakes LCC (figure 1-2), it is better suited as belonging to the Plains and Prairie 

Pothole LLC due to its location within the PPR and NTGP ecoregion.

Figure 1-2: Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

10

Climate Change Strategic Plan

The Service’s strategic plan for responding to climate change (FWS, 2010) establishes a basic framework 

for efforts to ensure the sustainability of fish, wildlife, and habitats and includes three key elements: 

Adaptation: Minimizing the impact of climate change on fish and wildlife through the application of

cutting-edge science in managing species and habitats. 

Mitigation: Reducing levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Engagement: Joining forces with others to seek solutions to the challenges and threats to fish and 

wildlife conservation posed by climate change. 

The plan recognizes the role of healthy ecosystems in helping fish and wildlife populations adapt to a 

changing climate. It also allows resource managers to be responsive as science, technology, and 

experience evolve over time:

“We will increase our adaptation efforts significantly in the near term as we respond to increasing 

climate change impacts. Our initial emphasis will be on reactive adaptation, as we work to build 

resilience in ecosystems through our management efforts and, in some cases, to buy additional 

time to increase our certainty regarding future landscape conditions...Over the long-term, 

however, we will work with partners to assemble the technical and institutional capability to 

increase anticipatory adaptation efforts, particularly as the impacts of climate change become 

more certain.”

Recent Refuge Biological Initiatives

Starting in 2010, the completion of three biological initiatives was the focus of Refuge staff in preparation 

for the CCP: Contaminants Assessment Process (CAP), Water Resources Inventory and Assessment 

(WRIA), and Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Evaluation. These initiatives have been instrumental in developing 

the CCP and will be critical in the formation of step-down plans to inform future restoration, management, 

and monitoring of Refuge resources.

Contaminants Assessment Process (CAP)

The CAP is a two-part process to evaluate whether environmental contaminants pose threats to lands or 

biota managed by the Service. Part 1 compiles and organizes existing information from a multitude of 

sources. Part 2 defines targeted contaminant investigations given information collected during Part 1. 

The CAP was completed in winter 2010. Significant findings include:

• The primary potential contaminant issues are associated with non-point sources including 

mercury in surface waters, and fertilizer/nutrient/turbidity issues associated with runoff onto 

Refuge lands. 

• The drainage ditch system is a significant factor in the transportation and fate of contaminants 

existing and captured within the watershed; it is both a potential source and pathway of 

contaminants. 

• A potential source for soil and groundwater contamination is concentrated animal feeding 

operations and manure storage within the watershed.

The primary recommendation of the CAP is to develop and implement a water quality monitoring program 

in close coordination with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Buffalo-Red River Watershed 

District (BRRWD) to provide the Refuge with sufficient data for critical watershed land use decisions.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

11

Water Resources Inventory and Assessment (WRIA)

The WRIA is a reconnaissance-level inventory of existing hydrologic data and assessment of threats to 

water resources on and adjacent to a refuge. It also provides forward-looking recommendations and a 

suggested monitoring plan. The Hamden WRIA was developed in conjunction with the CAP and was 

completed in spring 2011. Significant findings include:

• Climate change (higher frequency/magnitude of flood events) coupled with land-use practices, 

could result in increased runoff, threatening water quantity and quality, and wetland hydroperiods.

• Invasive species, such as hybrid cattail and fathead minnows, threaten the quality of wetlands on 

and off the Refuge due to increased sedimentation/eutrophication and flooding/connectivity.

• Periodic excavation of Ditch 15 disturbs sediments and increases erosion along stream banks,

potentially increasing turbidity and sedimentation downstream.

Recommendations of the WRIA include: 

• Pursue a three-year intensive water quality and quantity monitoring effort on ditches and 

wetlands.

• Develop a long-term management plan for Refuge wetland water cycles.

• Acquire additional information to aid in wetland restoration and water level management efforts.

• Identify areas of highest concern for excessive water quantity and contaminant inputs using 

newly-acquired runoff analyses.

Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Evaluation

The HGM evaluates management strategies, as well as restoration potential and options based on 

historical information and GIS layers on vegetation, land use, hydrology, soils, geology, topography, and 

climate. It is a three-part process: 

1. Identify the pre-European settlement ecosystem condition and ecological processes in the 

Hamden Slough region.

2. Evaluate changes in the Hamden Slough NWR ecosystem from the pre-settlement period with 

specific reference to alterations in hydrology, vegetation community structure and distribution, 

and resource availability to key fish and wildlife species. 

3. Identify restoration and management options and ecological attributes needed to successfully 

restore specific habitats and conditions within the Hamden Slough NWR region.

The Hamden Slough HGM, completed in winter 2012, outlined multiple goals and subgoals focused on 

the restoration of the physical and biological character of tallgrass prairies and wetlands within the 

subwatershed, including on the Refuge. It also recommends emulating ecological processes to maintain 

Refuge habitats. The need for long-term monitoring was also highlighted. 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

12

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

In this chapter:

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Scoping and Public Involvement

2.3 Summary of Issues

2.4 Preparation, Finalization, and Implementation of the CCP

2.5 Public Comments on the Draft CCP

2.1 Introduction

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) process for Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR, Refuge) meets the dual requirements of compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), both of 

which require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) to actively seek public involvement in the 

preparation of environmental documents. NEPA also requires the Service to seriously consider all 

reasonable alternatives to its Preferred Alternative including the “No Action” alternative, which represents 

continuation of current conditions and management practices. 

Key steps in the CCP process include:

1. Form the planning team and conduct pre-planning.

2. Initiate scoping and public involvement.

3. Identify issues and develop vision and goal statements.

4. Develop alternatives and assess their environmental effects.

5. Identify the preferred alternative.

6. Publish the draft CCP and NEPA document for public comment.

7. Revise and publish the final plan.

8. Implement the CCP.

2.2 Scoping and Public Involvement

The Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP and Environmental Assessment (EA) for Hamden Slough NWR 

was published in the Federal Register dated February 18, 2010 (Vol. 75, No.32, page 7289–7290). 

Internal scoping began in August 2010 when Service planning staff and Hamden Slough NWR staff 

developed a preliminary list of issues, concerns, and opportunities associated with management of the 

Refuge. A second internal scoping session was held with the Service’s Midwest Regional Office staff at 

Fort Snelling, MN in March 2011 to get input on issues from regional supervisors, biologists, planners, 

and other program specialists.

Public scoping began in October 2010 when Refuge staff hosted an open house event in Detroit Lakes, 

MN to inform the public of the planning process and to solicit their input on issues of concern. About 12 

people attended. In addition, a news release was distributed to area media, informational posters were 

displayed in local communities, and postcards soliciting comments were sent to several hundred names 

on the Refuge mailing list. Written comments were received from 59 stakeholders.

In December 2010, the Refuge convened a team of resource professionals to share their perspectives on 

the biological and visitor services programs at Hamden Slough NWR. Participants outside the Service 

included partner agencies, researchers, educators, and Refuge volunteers. Purposes of the workshop 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

13

were to define significant issues and opportunities facing the Refuge and identify potential options for 

addressing them: share knowledge, ideas, and perspectives to ensure that best available information is 

considered, and begin to develop a shared vision for the future of the Refuge and the ecosystem.

In June 2011, the Refuge Manager met with both the Red River Basin Commission and the Buffalo-Red 

River Watershed District to provide information and solicit input on the Hamden Slough NWR CCP. 

In July 2011, the Refuge Manager mailed letters to all landowners within the approved boundary inviting 

them to meet one-on-one to discuss their thoughts on the future direction of the Refuge. Meetings were 

completed by early August.

2.3 Summary of Issues

The following section summarizes the significant issues that were identified and analyzed as part of the 

CCP process. These issues represent input from the public, other agencies and organizations, and 

Service staff, as well as the requirements of the Improvement Act, NEPA, and other mandates and 

guidance. The issues were critical in framing the objectives and strategies for the various alternatives 

considered and formed the basis for evaluating environmental consequences.

Habitat and Wildlife

How will we sustainably restore Refuge wetlands and provide high-quality habitat for 

migratory waterfowl and other wetland wildlife?

Prairie Pothole Wetlands

Approximately 85 percent of Minnesota’s prairie pothole wetlands have been drained, and the trend 

continues today as subsurface tile drainage systems improve. Temporary and seasonally flooded small 

pothole wetlands provide important habitat for migrating and pre-breeding waterfowl. The exact number of 

historical pothole wetland depressions on the Refuge is not known, although more than 200 have 

undergone at least partial restoration by plugging of ditches and removal of accumulated sediment. 

Individual basins have not been inventoried as to size, watershed, or hydrologic regime. Ongoing 

monitoring of the physical and biological condition of restored pothole wetlands and wildlife response has 

been minimal. 

Managed Wetlands

The natural annual and long-term water level cycles that historically maintained wetland and wildlife 

productivity were heavily altered by drainage ditches and subsurface tiles in the early 20th century, 

primarily to improve agricultural production. Low-lying pothole wetlands and relict glacial lakes that 

historically captured and held water were converted to a flow-through system when the Ditch 15 system 

was constructed.

Several of these larger drained wetlands on the Refuge have been at least partially restored and some 

water level control is possible, although management capability is limited by the physical setting and lack 

of onsite staff. Additional restoration of Bisson Lake and the Big Six wetland complex may be possible 

through modifications to roads, weirs, stoplogs, spillway elevations, and/or topography. 

Bisson Lake and the Big Six wetlands primarily are drawn down to provide mudflats during the spring 

shorebird migration and flooded to provide waterfowl breeding and brood habitat. Annual water levels 

also may be manipulated specifically for fall migrating shorebirds, overwintering resident wildlife, 

protection of roads from the freeze/thaw cycle, control of invasive plants and fish, or to alleviate 

downstream flooding. Hybrid cattails are an aggressive invasive plant in Refuge wetlands and invasive 

fish, especially fathead minnows, compete with ducklings and other wetland wildlife for food. The Refuge 

currently does not have an integrated wetland management plan.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

14

Relict Glacial Lake Restoration

Although Bisson Lake and the Big Six wetlands have been partially restored, two of the largest relict 

glacial lakes—Pierce Lake and Hamden Lake—are still drained. The historic Hamden Lake/Slough 

appears to have covered as much as 25 percent of the current Refuge acquisition boundary. All of Pierce 

Lake and some of Hamden Lake remain as private inholdings within the approved Refuge boundary. 

Therefore, acquisition of these private lands must occur prior to lake restoration. Pierce Lake must be 

restored first in order to restore Hamden Lake. 

Public Scoping 

Comments generally supported continued wetland restoration and management on the Refuge, including 

restoration of Hamden and Pierce lakes. Commenters also wanted to see more ducks and fewer cattails. 

Water level drawdowns in the fall were recommended to minimize cattail germination on managed 

wetlands. The Matter Waterfowl Production Area was mentioned as a good model for pothole restoration 

on the Refuge. 

How will we sustainably restore tallgrass prairie and provide high-quality habitat for 

migratory grassland birds and other prairie wildlife?

Tallgrass Prairie Restoration

Much progress has been made in converting former agricultural fields to native tallgrass prairie, although 

much work still remains. Many restored prairies on the Refuge have fairly low diversity of native plant 

species. A mix of warm and cool season grasses was used on initial restorations in the 1990s, and some 

later seedings were fairly conservative on forbs. Some sites are dominated by non-native cool season 

grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome. Non-native parsnip, spurge, knapweed, crown 

vetch, and tansy have been found on the Refuge; all are aggressive invaders. Fire and grazing regimes 

that historically sustained prairie diversity have been disrupted. Data on current condition of Refuge 

prairie restorations is limited.

Grassland-dependent bird populations have declined from historic levels far more than any other group of 

birds due to habitat loss and fragmentation. Many have begun to return to the Refuge as agricultural 

fields are converted back to prairie vegetation. Individual species of grassland birds show a variety of 

habitat preferences based on vegetation height, cover density, grass/forb ratio, soil moisture, litter depth, 

degree of woody vegetation, and plant species composition. It is important to maintain a mosaic of 

grassland habitats to meet the varying needs of grassland bird species of concern. 

Tallgrass Prairie Remnants

About 22 acres of unbroken tallgrass prairie exists on the Refuge in small fragmented remnants. The 

location, size, and current status of most remnants are not well-documented, but most are thought to be 

in a degraded condition as evidenced by low native species diversity, and some could be lost to invasive 

and/or woody vegetation if not given management attention soon. These tallgrass prairie remnants are 

irreplaceable. Some may contain rare plant species and could provide a local seed source for upland 

restoration and diversification projects.

Management Tools

About 50 acres are farmed as wildlife food plots to mitigate crop depredation on neighboring lands, but 

little information is available on depredation levels or use of the food plots by target species. Cropped 

areas near Homstad, Hesby, and Eagle wetlands are increasing the fragmentation of restored prairie 

habitat. Habitat fragmentation has been associated with declines in locally breeding grassland birds. The 

crop fields do not provide critical habitat for Refuge resources of concern. One field is especially 

vulnerable to erosion, which may be increasing sedimentation in the shallow lakes and marshes below. 

Farming on the Refuge also is used as a short-term management tool to prepare fields for conversion to 

tallgrass prairie. All Refuge farming programs must be compliant with new regional policy that limits use of 

genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant corn and soybeans.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

15

Grazing by bison and elk helped maintain the historic tallgrass ecosystem prior to European settlement, 

but that historic disturbance regime has been lost. Rotational grazing by cattle was used as a 

management tool in the early years of the Refuge to emulate the effects of bison and elk but was phased 

out as other management techniques became available. Reinstating a grazing program on the Refuge 

could increase prairie diversity and heterogeneity, improve wildlife habitat, provide economic benefit to 

local landowners, and generate additional support for the Refuge in the local community. Service policy 

(601 FW 3) allows for livestock grazing on national wildlife refuges to meet wildlife and habitat objectives 

only when more natural methods, such as fire or grazing by native herbivores, cannot meet refuge goals 

and objectives.

Haying was a traditional economic use when the Refuge was established, and about 100 acres are still 

hayed in late summer to provide lek habitat for greater prairie-chickens on the Refuge. The shorter 

vegetation is also attractive to birds such as marbled godwits and common snipe. Varying the haying 

regime and integrating it with other management tools, including prescribed fire and grazing, could 

increase the diversity of native plants and provide the habitat structure needed by breeding grassland 

birds throughout the Refuge. 

Public Scoping

Public comments supported food plots on the Refuge as a way to provide food for wildlife and/or to 

reduce depredation of crops on private land by Canada geese. Grazing was recommended as a benefit 

both to wildlife habitat management and the local economy. Predator control was recommended. The 

importance of weed control was mentioned. A few commenters would like to see Refuge land sold back 

to farmers. 

How will we stabilize soils, increase water retention, and improve water quality in the 

Hamden watershed? 

Historically, the matrix of prairie vegetation interspersed with wetlands in the Hamden Slough watershed 

slowed surface water runoff, allowing soil infiltration and recharge of groundwater aquifers. This prairie 

wetland ecosystem provided habitat for wildlife, maintained water quality, and helped to mediate 

downstream flooding in the Buffalo River. Now, however, the watershed is dominated by row crop 

production. Prairie vegetation has been removed. Ditches and subsurface tile lines have accelerated 

water drainage and dried up wetlands. It is likely that elevated concentrations of nutrients, bacteria, and 

sediment are being transported downstream onto the Refuge during storm runoff events (Newman and 

Eash, 2011), which can affect recruitment, growth, productivity, and viability of wetland plants and 

animals (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002). Ongoing warmer and wetter climate conditions 

could further exacerbate these issues. Restoration of sustainable plant communities, wildlife habitat, and 

ecological processes (such as flood storage and groundwater recharge) on the Refuge will require 

restoration of more natural patterns of waterflow into, through, and out of the area (Heitmeyer, 2012).

Public Scoping

Public comments supported the capture and storage of water in Refuge wetlands to reduce downstream 

flood damage. The need to address issues related to climate change in the CCP was recognized. 

People

How will we encourage people to connect with the Refuge while ensuring visitor safety 

and minimizing disturbance to wildlife and habitat?

Hunting 

A late-winter deer muzzleloader season was initiated in 2008 on all Hamden Slough NWR lands. A oneday youth waterfowl hunt was opened in 2009 in the Audubon and Riceville township portions of the 

Refuge. 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

16

Public Scoping

Most comments received during the public scoping period addressed the Refuge hunt program. Some 

requested elimination of all hunting on Hamden Slough NWR to provide a sanctuary for wildlife. Some 

wanted elimination of the muzzleloader hunt only; some wanted a more controlled muzzleloader hunt 

including limits on the number of hunters allowed. The two primary reasons given were concerns about 

public safety and too much hunting pressure on area deer. Comments on the youth waterfowl hunt were 

generally supportive. Some comments suggested initiating a goose hunt to reduce crop depredation on 

nearby lands.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Wildlife observation and photography are popular Refuge uses. Current opportunities include roadside 

viewing, one wetland overlook, one short hiking trail, and a seasonal prairie-chicken observation blind. 

Demand for additional Refuge access outside these areas is low, but disturbance could become an issue 

if opportunities and/or demand increase. Clear definition is needed of where these uses should be 

allowed and with what stipulations. We want to encourage visitor connections to the Refuge while also 

minimizing wildlife and habitat disturbance. The entire Refuge is sensitive to disturbance due to its small 

size; the prairie-chicken lek is especially sensitive.

Public Scoping 

Comments described the enjoyment of exploring restored Refuge wetlands, especially with grandchildren. 

Bird-watching, hiking, and cross-country skiing were mentioned specifically as wildlife observation 

activities that should continue. One comment expressed support for a multi-use Refuge while also 

acknowledging the value of sometimes closing areas for management purposes. Traffic resulting from 

roadside wildlife observation was mentioned as sometimes hindering movement of farm machinery and 

causing additional road maintenance costs to local townships.

Environmental Education and Interpretation

The Refuge does not have a formal environmental education program due to lack of visitor services staff, 

although a prairie-chicken webcam and curriculum materials are available for educators, and a shelter for 

use by school groups recently was constructed. Interpretive programs for the public also are limited due 

to lack of staff, and more brochures and kiosks are needed.

Public Scoping

Local schools would appreciate more opportunities for hands-on environmental education and would like 

qualified staff and programs to be a part of Hamden Slough NWR. One rural school principal commented 

that, “Educational outreach is a wonderful way to plan for the future.”

Outreach and Community Partnerships

Communication and partnerships with area residents and local communities are crucial to the success of 

Hamden Slough NWR. It is important that people, organizations, and agencies in the area know about the 

Refuge and support it as a valuable part of the community. Methods currently used include news 

releases, appearances on local television and radio stations, and presentations to community groups. 

The volunteer group “Friends of the Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District” participates in the 

annual Detroit Lakes Festive of Birds, which increases awareness of both the Wetland Management 

District and the Refuge. The Refuge has limited resources, so expansion of these programs must be 

carefully considered to generate the most positive impact for the Refuge and the local area. 

2.4 Preparation, Finalization, and Implementation of the CCP 

The Hamden Slough NWR CCP was prepared by a team of staff from the Detroit Lakes WMD and the 

USFWS Regional Office. The CCP was published in two phases and in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Environmental Assessment, published as appendix A in the Draft 

CCP, presented three alternatives for future management and identified a preferred alternative. A 30-day 

public review period, including a public open house, followed release of the draft plan. 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

17

The alternative that was selected has become the basis of the Final CCP, which will guide management 

over the next 15 years. It will guide the development of more detailed step-down plans for specific 

resource areas and it will underpin the annual budgeting process through Service-wide allocation 

databases. Most importantly, the CCP lays out the general approach to managing habitat, wildlife, and 

people at Hamden Slough NWR that will direct day-to-day decision making and actions.

2.5 Public Comments on the Draft CCP

The Draft CCP was officially released for public review and comment on August 29, 2012; the comment 

period ended on September 28, 2012. A news release was sent to local media outlets and a summary of 

the document was mailed to more than 150 individuals and organizations. The complete Draft CCP was 

posted on the Service website and hard copies were available on request. Four people attended the open 

house event on September 6th in the city of Detroit Lakes. By the end of the comment period, four written 

responses had been received. Below is a summary of comments and the Service response. 

Wildlife and Habitat

Respondents who commented on habitat restoration all supported the overall goal of wetland and prairie 

restoration. Concern was expressed that restoration of Pierce Lake within the next 15 years might be 

overly ambitious. The Buffalo Red River Watershed District (BRRWD) and Ducks Unlimited (DU) both 

indicated strong support for restoration of Pierce Lake and Hamden Lake and want to work in partnership 

with the Refuge to accomplish that objective. Several comments emphasized the importance of restored 

wetlands and prairies outside the Refuge boundary, especially on those lands that drain directly into 

Hamden Slough NWR. 

Additional herbicide spraying to control invasive hybrid cattails was recommended. Concern was 

expressed about converting cropland to native prairie due to economic loss to the local community and 

potential crop depredation on nearby private lands. The local economic benefit of using haying and 

grazing as tools for habitat management was appreciated. The bobolink population estimate was thought 

to be too low, and several additions to the mammal list in Appendix C were proposed. Additional 

background information on several topics was provided to help document Refuge history and clarify 

current issues for future staff, Service partners, and the public. 

Service Response:

It’s true that restoration of Pierce Lake within the next 15 years is an ambitious objective and success is 

not guaranteed, but working with landowners, the BRRWD, DU, and other partners to make it happen is a 

high priority for Refuge staff. We also remain committed to working with willing partners to increase the 

conservation value of lands throughout the Hamden Slough watershed. 

Invasive cattails usually can be adequately controlled with techniques other than herbicide application, 

including mowing, burning, and grazing. When feasible, these alternative tools are preferred in order to 

increase environmental benefits, reduce chemical use in wetlands, and reduce costs. 

When Hamden Slough NWR was established in 1989, the Service agreed to maintain approximately 500 

acres of cropland to address wildlife depredation and loss of income as the Refuge was restored. 

However, several changes that occurred since then have prompted a reexamination of the Refuge 

farming program: the Minnesota DNR began issuing landowner permits for Canada goose control to 

protect crops from depredation; there has been no evidence that waterfowl are using Refuge crops as an 

alternative food source; Refuge cropland is giving predators access to nearby waterfowl and songbird 

nests; and Service policy now limits use of GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) crops to no more than 

five years as part of the procedure for restoring lands to native vegetation. Through the process of 

developing this CCP, the Service determined that conversion of Refuge food plots to native vegetation is 

now the best option. This conversion will create a contiguous piece of wetland and prairie habitat totaling 

more than 800 acres. 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

18

Current survey data on Hamden Slough NWR bird populations is limited, so the bobolink objective was 

based on the best available science using population models developed by the Service’s Habitat and 

Population Evaluation Team (HAPET). As additional monitoring data is collected, the population target 

can be revised if appropriate. The mammal list includes most of the species mentioned by the 

commenter. 

A short description of the wildlife impact of overhead power lines on the Refuge has been added to 

chapter 3. Burial or removal of those lines is desirable over the long term, but is not a priority for the 15-

year timeframe of this CCP. Additional detailed information on topics such as remnant prairies, historic 

fire shadows, and early habitat restoration efforts will be included as appropriate in the step-down Habitat 

Management Plan to be developed for Hamden Slough over the next few years. 

People

The Service received comments both in support of and against continuing the muzzleloader deer hunt on 

the Refuge. Continuation of the youth waterfowl hunt was appreciated. The Minnesota DNR 

recommended implementation of a Canada goose hunt and increased deer hunting opportunities on the 

Refuge. The need to build more trust with local landowners on issues of mutual interest including weed 

control, ditch/drainage maintenance, and hunting was discussed.

Service Response:

The Refuge is one of the few wetland locations without goose hunting pressure so Refuge lands provide 

an important sanctuary for other migratory waterfowl species. The muzzleloader deer season occurs in 

late winter after the waterfowl migration, which also limits disturbance. The State already has an effective 

goose population reduction program and allowing goose hunting on the Refuge would do little to reduce 

population numbers. Goose and deer hunting opportunities are available to the public on all Waterfowl 

Production Areas adjacent to Hamden Slough NWR.

Public support for the muzzleloader deer hunt was strong when the program was initiated in 2008. 

However, the Service received numerous negative public comments during the initial public scoping 

period for this CCP in 2010, so the pros and cons of eliminating the deer hunt were carefully considered. 

Ultimately, the Service decided to continue the muzzleloader hunt and to explore opportunities to improve 

its quality. Refuge staff will work to improve communication with adjacent landowners and to keep them 

well-informed on relevant Refuge management activities. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

19

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

In this chapter:

3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

3.2 Physical Environment

3.3 Biological Environment

3.4 Socioeconomic Environment

3.5 Historical and Cultural Resources

3.6 Current Refuge Programs

3.7 Administration

3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge) is located on the eastern edge of the Prairie 

Pothole Region (PPR), within the Northern Tallgrass Prairie (NTGP) ecosystem of northwest Minnesota 

(figure 3-1). The Refuge is in west-central Becker County, just northeast of the town of Audubon, MN. The 

landscape of west-central Becker County is dominated by row crop agriculture. Immediately east of the 

Refuge is the Prairie-Forest transition zone, which gives way to the Eastern Broadleaf Forest and 

Northern Coniferous Forest (figure 3-2). The 3,210-acre Refuge contains a diverse landscape of mesic 

and wet mesic tallgrass prairie, small prairie potholes, and larger wetlands and shallow lakes (Heitmeyer 

et al., 2012). 

Figure 3-1: Prairie Pothole Region
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

20

Figure 3-2: Prairie Forest Transition
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

21

Prairie-Wetland Complexes

The NTGP of Minnesota once covered 18 million acres (Sampson and Knopf, 1994). Numerous pothole 

wetlands dotted the landscape and were surrounded by prairie grasses and wildflowers. The original 

density of wetlands in the region averaged 83 per square mile. These prairie-wetland complexes provided 

habitat for a multitude of wildlife, especially birds. This is evident by the numerous historical accounts that 

remark on the abundance of birds using wetlands and prairies of the Hamden Slough area. For example, 

one account reads, “Hamden was worse than Cuba [Township] for sloughs and ponds; they were all alive 

with ducks and geese, and sand-hill cranes were seen stalking about over the prairies or flying overhead 

every day, and sharp-tailed grouse or native prairie hens were abundant, especially in the vicinity of the 

few small groves and patches of hazelbrush.” (Wilcox,1907). 

This vast system of prairies and wetlands, a relic of the Wisconsin glacier, is only a memory along with 

many of the wildlife species that inhabited the region. Roughly 85 percent of Minnesota’s wetlands have 

been drained (Johnson et al., 2008), and only 170,000 acres of remnant tallgrass prairie remain in 

Minnesota (Minnesota County Biological Survey, 2008); a decline of roughly 99 percent. 

Density of Wetlands
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

22

The Mississippi Flyway

Hamden Slough NWR is situated at the confluence of the Mississippi and Central flyways, a transition 

area between prairie wetlands and hardwood forest ecoregions (figure 3-3). The Mississippi flyway 

contains the longest migration route of any North American flyway, more than 3,000 miles (Lincoln et al.,

1998). There are no mountain ranges or ridges to impede bird migration through this thoroughfare. In fact, 

the north to south orientation of the Mississippi River, one of two major river systems in the flyway, makes 

travel conditions even better for the large numbers of ducks, geese, shorebirds, and songbirds (Lincoln et 

al., 1998) that use this flyway.

Figure 3-3: Migratory Flyways

Historically, the area now known as Hamden Slough NWR also was important for migratory birds. Its 

location within the long, north-south corridor between glacial Lake Agassiz to the west and outwash 

slopes extending from the Great Lakes to the east made the region a natural “funnel” for migratory birds 

(Heitmeyer et al., 2012). The importance of the area is still evident today. Birds using the waters of 

Hamden Slough NWR include more than 20 shorebird species, all major waterfowl species, rail species, 

and Forster’s terns (Robert Russell, personal communication) among others. Under optimal conditions, 

Refuge wetlands can hold more than 10,000 waterfowl and other waterbirds during spring and fall 

migrations 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

23

Other Conservation Lands

Despite the large amount of cropland in the area, additional conservation lands in the vicinity of the 

Refuge do exist. Most are managed for prairie and wetland habitat that supports the foundation of 

Hamden Slough NWR (figure 3-4). The Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District (WMD, District) 

manages more than 45,000 acres of Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) in five counties of northwest 

Minnesota, including Becker County. Due to the base acres that Hamden Slough provides, the District 

has declared the area surrounding the Refuge a high priority for land acquisition. Within two miles of the 

Refuge boundary, ten WPAs containing approximately 2,865 acres of prairie-wetland habitat are 

managed for waterfowl and other migratory birds. In essence, Hamden Slough NWR acts as an anchor 

for these smaller Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) tracts. Together, the Refuge and nearby WPAs are 

managed as a corridor, providing habitat for waterfowl and other wetland-dependent birds as well as 

prairie-obligate species. Numerous other WPAs are located near the Refuge but do not fall within the twomile boundary. 

Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) managed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 

also may contribute to the purposes of the Refuge. These are public lands managed primarily for resident 

wildlife, but migratory birds also benefit. Although there is only one WMA near the Hamden Slough 

watershed boundary, there are additional WMAs north and west of the Refuge that complement the 

nearby WPAs. 

Private lands near the Refuge also can play an important role in conservation. Originally, the Refuge was 

buffered by an easement zone allowing an additional 2,600 acres of land to be protected via a 

combination of easements, leases, and conservation farming agreements. Today, under management of 

the Detroit Lakes WMD, the Service already has authority under the Small Wetlands Program for 

easements, leases, and agreements throughout Becker County, including adjacent to the Refuge. 

The Service has purchased wetland easements from some landowners within the watershed to benefit 

waterfowl and other wetland-dependent wildlife. 

The Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFW, Partners Program) shares the cost and 

provides technical assistance to restore and manage wetland and prairie habitat on private land. A few 

PFW projects have occurred within the Hamden Slough watershed but most, if not all, are expired due to 

a minimum ten-year agreement requirement. Some landowners have enrolled land into U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program and Wetland Reserve 

Program. These lands support the purposes of the Refuge by providing upland and wetland habitat for 

migratory birds and other wildlife. Private lands used for cattle production generally provide suitable 

habitat for some grassland birds during certain times of the year and are more beneficial than row crops 

to most wildlife.

The northernmost portion of Hamden Slough NWR, approximately 600 acres in Sections 27 and 34 of 

Riceville Township, lies within the boundary of the White Earth Reservation. The reservation was 

established in 1867 by a treaty signed between the United States and the Mississippi Band of the 

Chippewa (Ojibwe) Indians. It encompasses all of Mahnomen and parts of Becker and Clearwater 

Counties, roughly 1,300 square miles. The White Earth Band of the Ojibwe is a sovereign nation. The 

Tribal government ensures broad powers (self-governing) and is immune from state interference. It is also 

afforded certain immunities similar to other federal entities. The lands of the White Earth Reservation 

include vast prairies and wetlands, as well as broadleaf and pine forests, and are managed to allow 

maximum usage by Tribal members while maintaining wildlife populations capable of regeneration. 

Within two miles of the Refuge boundary, more than 60 percent of the land base (approximately 24,000 

acres) is farmed annually (figure 3-5). This acreage includes land used for hay, and although it may 

provide some cover, it is equally detrimental in that those fields typically are cut multiple times per 

growing season. It is clear that there is a lack of permanent cover for grassland birds within two miles of 

Hamden Slough NWR. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

24

Figure 3-4: Other Conservation Lands
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

25

Figure 3-5: Two-Mile Buffer
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

26

3.2 Physical Environment

The landscape that encompasses Hamden Slough NWR is a direct result of the most recent glaciation, 

the Wisconsin, approximately 12,000 years ago. The recession of the glacier left a range of topographies 

from steep slopes to nearly level drainages. Uneven deposits of glacial till and loess (the foundation of the 

rich organic soils sought after for agricultural production), the scouring action of the glaciers, and the 

melting of large ice blocks created high densities of pothole wetlands (Euliss et al.,1999), the namesake 

of the PPR.

Figure 3-6: Elevation

Geology

The bottommost layer beneath 

Hamden Slough NWR is comprised of 

undifferentiated Precambrian 

crystalline rock. Cretaceous 

sedimentary rock overlies the 

Precambrian layer, followed by a top 

layer of unconsolidated glacial till 300

to 600 feet thick. This till layer is from 

the Wisconsin Glacier and is among 

the thickest in Minnesota

(Christensen, 1998). Two lobes of the 

Wisconsin glacier helped form the 

surficial geomorphology of the Refuge. 

The Des Moines lobe, the more recent 

of the two, left most of the deposits in 

this portion of Becker County, 

including the northern and central 

parts of the Refuge. These areas are 

dominated by flat, wet ground 

moraine. The Wadena Lobe formed 

the Alexandria Moraine, a large glacial 

outwash slope that lies along the 

extreme eastern boundary of the 

Refuge. The south unit of the Refuge

lies near the boundary of this advance. 

It is dominated by terminal moraine, 

which gives the area a distinct hill and 

lake appearance. 

Topography

The topography of Hamden Slough NWR is heterogeneous due to the extensive glacial movements and 

scouring of moraine material (Heitmeyer et al., 2012). Recently completed digital elevation models for the 

Refuge indicate a range of elevations from 1,218 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 1,500 feet amsl 

(figure 3-6, Heitmeyer et al., 2012). The northern portion of the Refuge, dominated by ground moraine 

and flatter northern till plain surfaces, contains the historic Hamden Lake. A higher density of larger 

pothole wetlands and shallow lakes are found in the southern portion of the Refuge due to the terminal 

moraine surfaces that exhibit greater changes in topography. The Refuge is the lowest elevation within 

the 48 square mile Hamden watershed, which provides excellent wetland conditions even in drier periods. 

The most prominent feature is the glacial outwash slope, the Alexandria Moraine, rising 200 feet on the 

east side of the Refuge. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

27

Soils

Over 30 major soil types can be found on Hamden Slough NWR (figure 3-7). Generally, the northern 

portion of the Refuge has nearly level, loamy and silty soils on ground moraines and contains the 

Hamerly-Winger-Vallers Association. These soils were formed in glacial till (Hamerly and Vallers) and in 

20 to 40 inches of glacial lacustrine sediments overlying glacial till sediments (Winger). Slopes are nearly 

level, ranging from zero to three percent in most areas, and are poorly drained. 

The central and southern portions of the Refuge contain nearly level to moderately steep, loamy, silty, 

and organic soils on lateral moraines and include the Formdale-Langhei-Flom Association (central 

portion) and the Birchlake-Audubon-Foxlake Association (southern portion). Both associations formed in 

glacial till sediments and slopes are nearly level to hilly (0 to 30 percent). These areas are moderately-towell drained.

The prominent hydric feature of the Refuge, the relict Hamden Lake, is comprised of Cathro and Haslie 

muck soils. This is true for the other glacio-lacustrine depressions (Bisson, Pierce, and Homstad Lakes). 

Numerous depressional (or ponded) soils found in the pothole wetlands include Colvin, Dovray, Winger, 

Nidaros, Quam, Seeleyville, Urnerss and Vallers soils. Drainages between hills and slopes have Flom, 

Forada, Foxlake, and Lamoure silt clay loam soils. 

Upland soils, forming slopes and hills of the Refuge, are mostly loam-dominant including Arvilla, Barnes, 

Formdale, Langhei, and Sverdrup-Abbeylake types and minor components of Bootlake, Eagleview, and 

Corliss sandy loams. One unique “seep” type soil, Seelyville, is present along a moraine side hill 

(Heitmeyer et al., 2012). Other seeps may be present on the Refuge, although none have been 

documented.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

28

Figure 3-7: Soils
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

29

Hydrology

Hamden Slough NWR is located within the greater Red River Basin of the Buffalo River watershed. Water 

flows primarily northward through the Refuge and then west into the Buffalo River. The Buffalo River

empties into the Red River, which flows north into Hudson Bay, Canada. The smaller Hamden Slough 

watershed is approximately 48.7mi2 (31,200 acres) and 4.5 percent of the Buffalo River watershed (figure 

3-8) (Newman and Eash, 2011). The Refuge lies over a fairly shallow aquifer and, thus, has an 

accessible water table supplying the area with relatively high yields of water at times. There is 

considerable surface-groundwater interaction (discharge-recharge), a key component of the water supply 

and function of Refuge wetlands. Groundwater movement tends to be of east-west flow, given the 

topography and soils (figure 3-9). Therefore, it is likely that additional seeps and fens exist along the base 

of the steeper slopes on the eastern edge of the Refuge (Newman and Eash, 2011).

Figure 3-8: Buffalo River Watershed
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

30

Figure 3-9: Groundwater

Historically, several small local streams drained from the east and south into and through the Hamden 

Slough area (figure 3-10). Water draining into the area was captured and held in several larger wetland 

basins that apparently were interconnected during high flow, wet years, and subsequently drained from 

the area into the Buffalo River. Local surface and groundwater runoff drained into several hundred small 

isolated wetland depressions or potholes on the Refuge (figure 3-11), but because of the topography, 

there was limited output into the larger system, except during wet years (Heitmeyer et al., 2012). 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

31

Figure 3-10: Watershed Drainage
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

Figure 3-11: Distribution of Wetlands
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

33

The greater Red River Basin, including the 

Hamden Slough watershed, has been 

heavily altered by drainage ditches and tiles 

for the production of commodity crops such 

as sugar beets, corn, and soybeans. 

Extensive drainage of the Hamden Slough 

area began in the early 1900s with the 

construction of the Ditch 15 system, initially 

for mosquito control. This system drained 

the small, shallow temporary and seasonal 

wetlands effectively; however, some of the 

larger, dynamic wetlands and lakes were 

more difficult to fully drain. Today, this 

linear, interconnected system is the main 

transport of surface water through the 

Hamden watershed, including the Refuge, 

for agricultural purposes (figure 3-12). The 

Ditch 15 system is managed by the Buffalo-Red River Watershed District (BRRWD). On Refuge property, 

maintenance of the main ditch and its laterals is jointly conducted under a cooperative agreement 

between the BRRWD and the Service. The cooperative agreement designates the Service as responsible 

for some ditch cleaning and maintenance to ensure the pre-established grade and depth are maintained

unless changes are mutually agreed upon. Periodic excavations of the ditch involve disturbing sediments, 

which causes increased turbidity and sedimentation downstream (Heitmeyer et al., 2012). The ditch 

system also is highly susceptible to flash flooding during high precipitation events (Newman and Eash,

2011), which further impacts downstream lands within the greater Red River Basin. 

Figure 3-12: Ditch 15 System

Current land use practices (pesticide and fertilizer applications, 

pasturing) and the alteration of hydrology (ditching and tiling) 

within the Hamden Slough watershed are primary sources of 

contaminants that could potentially impact the Refuge 

(Brozowski, 2010). Water chemistry and quality in the isolated 

depressional wetlands can be attributed to land use and runoff 

characteristics within the wetland basin, as well as the 

groundwater quality constituents discharged into the wetland. 

The ditch systems are potential primary source water for many of 

the larger flow-through wetlands and therefore, transport waterborne contaminants such as sediments, nutrients, animal waste 

(E. coli), pesticides, and fertilizers onto the Refuge (Brozowski,

2010). Based on current data from Minnesota Pollution Control 

Agency, the waters within the Hamden NWR boundary are not 

listed as “impaired,” although the lower reaches of the Buffalo 

River downstream of the Refuge do have “impaired status” for 

turbidity and E. coli. The evaluation for the full extent of the 

Buffalo River watershed is still under development.

Ditch 15 System
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34

Climate

The climate of Hamden Slough NWR can be described as dynamic, attaining temperature and 

precipitation extremes at various times of the year and between years. Two topographically-influenced 

weather patterns dictate the climate of the Hamden Slough area at any given time. First, there is a steep 

precipitation gradient as weather moves east and lifts over the Red River Valley. For every ten miles of 

eastern movement, rainfall increases by one inch. In the 50 miles between the Red River and Hamden 

Slough NWR, annual precipitation increases from 19 to 24 inches, and the climate changes from semiarid to subhumid. Second, Lake Superior’s deep, cold waters during spring, summer, and fall influence 

the Refuge’s weather when the airflow from the west is weak. This influence usually results in cooler than 

normal temperatures.

Figure 3-13: Annual Precipitation, 1940-2009, Detroit Lakes, MN

In general, summers are warm and 

moderately humid while winters are 

cold and dry. The warmest months 

of the year are July and August, with 

average temperatures in the 70s 

(degrees Fahrenheit), although 

temperatures often may be as high 

as 90 to 100 °F. January and 

February are typically the coldest 

months of the year, with average 

temperatures in the single digits to 

around 10 °F. However, it is not 

uncommon to experience 

temperatures in -20s °F and even 

lower wind chills. Average 

precipitation is 25 inches per year, 

most of it falling from April through 

September. Heaviest rainfall occurs during June, July, and August. Average annual snowfall is more than 

60 inches. Snowfall events in winter can range from light snow with little or no accumulation to heavy 

snow events of eight inches or more. 

Figure 3-14: Spring Precipitation (Mar-May), Detroit Lakes, MN

Since 1940, dry years with more or 

less than 60 percent average annual 

precipitation occurred seven different 

times, about 10 to 14 years apart (i.e., 

1955–59, 1967–68, 1977, 1991) 

(figure 3-13, Annual Precipitation;

Heitmeyer et al., 2012). In contrast, 

wet years with greater than 120

percent average annual precipitation 

occurred in the mid-1940s, early1950s, mid-1970s, mid-1980s, late1990s, and mid-2000s (Heitmeyer et 

al., 2012). Analyses of spring only 

(March through May) precipitation 

also suggest regularly alternating wet 

versus dry conditions in the region 

(figure 3-14) with highly dynamic 

seasonal inputs of water to Refuge wetlands and streams, including the Buffalo River. The four-year 

running average annual peak discharge in the Buffalo River near Hawley, MN (where water from the 

Hamden Slough region drains) indicates alternating high (greater than 1,000 cfs) and low (less than 500 

cfs) discharge at about 10 to 12 year intervals (figure 3-15, Buffalo River Discharge; Heitmeyer et al.,
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

35

2012). Depending on amount and moisture content of winter snowfall, and precipitation amounts and 

snowmelt duration in spring, large runoff events can occur in the Hamden Slough watershed and may add 

to flooding problems downstream in the Red River Valley. 

Figure 3-15: Buffalo River Discharge (near Hawley, MN)

 

Climate Change and the PPR

Climate, as defined in Climate Literacy: The Essential Principles of Climate Science by the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program (USGCRP, 2009), is “the long term average of conditions in the atmosphere, 

ocean, and ice sheets and sea ice described by statistics, such as means and extremes.” Climate change 

is a “significant and persistent change to the mean state of the climate or its variability” (USGCRP, 2009) 

and is likely caused by both natural and anthropogenic effects. The subject of climate change has been 

discussed, argued, and tested time and time again on whether or not it exists or has been exacerbated by 

human activities. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated, in its Fourth 

Assessment (2007) that it had “very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities 

since 1750 has been one of warming.” This warming is mainly attributed to the trapping of three gases in 

the atmosphere: carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, average surface temperature has risen 2.4 °F. Between 1996 and 

2005, the earth experienced 11 of the warmest years on record since 1850 (IPCC, 2007), and 2009 and 

2010 were reported as record-breaking years by NASA. Scientists predict that global climate change will 

accelerate in the 21st century. Potential consequences of increasing global temperatures include rising 

sea level and increasing frequency and intensity of heat waves, droughts, and floods (IPCC, 2007). In 

addition to the numerous direct and indirect impacts to humans, the world’s wildlife also will be affected. 

The IPCC (2007) predicts that 30 percent of assessed species will have a greater risk of extinction with 

only a 3.6 to 5.4 °F increase in temperature. 

Although wetlands are dynamic systems that fluctuate with changing weather, they also are very 

susceptible to climate change because of their shallow depths and high evapotranspiration rates 

(Johnson et al., 2010). Even slight temperature or precipitation changes could cause degradation or loss 

(North American Bird Conservation Initiative [NABCI], 2010). In nearly all climate simulation models, 

mean temperatures in the Northern Great Plains could increase between 6.5 °F and 11.0 °F over the next 

100 years (Ojima and Lackett, 2002). Without a substantial increase in precipitation to counteract the 

increased temperature, severe impacts such as decreased water inputs (precipitation and groundwater 

sources), decreased storage capacity, timing of recharge (change in hydroperiod), and frequency of 

drought are expected to occur (NABCI, 2010), resulting in more frequent drought conditions in the PPR, 

especially in the Dakotas and Saskatchewan (Johnson et al., 2005). Climate simulations show that a

temperature increase of 3.6 °F could cause nearly two-thirds of the highly productive wetlands in the 

Dakotas and Saskatchewan to go dry (NABCI, 2010), likely causing shifts once more in the breeding 

range of waterfowl (Johnson et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2005). However, the majority of wetlands in the 

eastern PPR that historically supported waterfowl have been drained for agriculture, so pothole wetlands 

and the birds that depend on them are acutely threatened in the north central states of the PPR (NABCI,

2010). 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36

Today, the continental population of breeding grassland birds continues to decline at a very high rate 

compared to other bird guilds of North America. Fifty-four percent of species showed a significant 

negative trend between 1966 and 2010 (Sauer et al., 2011). Fifty-seven percent of grassland bird species 

also show a medium-to-high vulnerability to climate change (NABCI, 2010). This added pressure could 

result in more birds listed as Species of Conservation Concern. Higher temperatures predicted for the 

Great Plains (Ojima and Lackett, 2002) would decrease productivity in many grasslands (NABCI, 2010) 

due to changes in vegetation community and structure, loss of water sources, and decreased prey, 

among others. Native game birds such as the sharp-tailed grouse and greater prairie-chicken already are 

declining due to habitat fragmentation and native prairie loss. Because these birds are non-migratory and 

lack the ability to travel long distances, they may be unable to shift their distribution in the wake of climate 

change (NABCI, 2010). Finally, long distance migrants such as the bobolink and dickcissel may not be 

able to adapt quickly enough in response to effects of climate change (NABCI, 2010).

Wetlands and grasslands not only provide functional habitats for a wide variety of wildlife and plants, they 

also provide many ecosystem services for humans. Benefits of grasslands and wetlands include 

improving water quality, retaining floodwater, sequestering carbon, anchoring soil, capturing sediment 

and other contaminants, recharging groundwater, producing livestock, controlling exotic species and 

diseases, providing recreational opportunities, and more. Many of these benefits are lost every time 

grassland is plowed or a wetland is drained. This loss will only be accentuated as climate change 

progresses.

3.3 Biological Environment

Historical accounts from the settlement of Hamden Township in the 1870s describe “the grass in some 

places was two and a half feet high, the rolling prairie was dotted with lakes and groves here and there”;

(Wilcox, 1907). More specifically, the area encompassed by the Hamden Slough NWR boundary, as 

depicted on the original General Land Office survey map, was an open prairie with abundant wetlands 

and lakes, including a large “impassable marsh” named Hamden Lake (figure 3-16). Historic vegetation 

communities were further described and mapped in 2012 by Heitmeyer et al. based on these historic 

documents, as well as information on geomorphology, soils, topography, and hydrology (table 3-1; figure 

3-17).

The tallgrass prairie evolved under three ecological pressures (Anderson, 2006): grazing by herds of 

bison (Knapp et al., 1999), fire (Collins and Wallace, 1990), and a highly variable climate (Knapp and 

Smith, 2001). Specific to the Hamden Slough area, precipitation both as winter snows and summer rains 

varied annually as well as over decades, such as the Dust Bowl droughts of the 1930s or floods of recent 

years. This created a high level of variability in the number and persistence of wetlands. In drought years 

or periods, even the largest wetlands would dry out. However, dry periods actually allow wetlands to 

rejuvenate themselves. The prairie was and is a harsh place to live, with winter winds, summer sun and 

heat, herds of grazers, and fires. The wildlife and plants were adapted to these conditions. It wasn’t until 

European settlement that the prairie and its inhabitants would face the greatest threat to their existence.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

37

Table 3-1: Historic Vegetation

Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) matrix of historic distribution of vegetation communities/habitat types on 

Hamden Slough NWR. Relationships were determined from old aerial photographs, plat and GLO maps, 

geomorphology maps, soil maps and survey publications, LIDAR topographic maps, various historical 

accounts of the region, botanical relationships, and land cover maps (Heitmeyer et al., 2012).

Habitat

type

Geomorphic

surface*

Soil

type

Flood

frequency

Mesic prairie Moraine hill tops and high 

slopes loam and sandy loam* On-site precipitation

Wet mesic prairie Lower moraine slopes, 

higher drainage edges loam

On-site precipitation and 

surface/ground water 

discharge

Hill seeps Seeps on moraine side 

slopes Seeleville seep Groundwater seeps

Wet meadow

Moraine drainages and 

high edges of wetlands 

and lakes

silt loam Seasonal

Seasonal herbaceous 

marsh

Type I, II potholes and 

bands in deeper wetlands silt clay loam Seasonal

Persistent emergent marsh 

Type III and IV potholes 

and deeper parts of glacial 

lakes

silt clay loam Semi-permanent

Open water- aquatic

Deep zones in Type III and 

IV potholes and glacial 

lakes

silt clay loam Semi-permanent to 

permanent

*Mesic prairie separated into sandy and non-sandy types based on soil type.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38

Figure 3-16: General Land Office Survey Map, circa 1870
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

39

Figure 3-17: Historic Vegetation
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

40

Prairie Habitat 

Hamden Slough NWR is at the northern end of the tallgrass prairie region, which forms a rough triangle 

from central Indiana to eastern Kansas to northwest Minnesota (figure 3-18, Transeau,1934). Tallgrass 

prairie is the easternmost and most productive of the three American grassland ecosystems because it 

receives much more rain than the short-grass steppe and mixed grass regions to the west. Tallgrass 

prairie is dominated by grasses and forbs (wildflowers), many of which are known for their extensive root 

systems (Weaver 1954). Approximately 90 percent of the biomass of the prairie is underground in the root 

systems. It is these roots that largely created the productive soils of the Midwestern cornbelt.

Figure 3-18: Tallgrass Prairie Region

Prairie plants can be divided into two groups: grasses and forbs. While grasses make up 90 percent or 

more of the biomass of the prairie, there are relatively few species. Forbs account for 90 percent or more 

of the diversity. Prairie grasses and forbs separate along moisture gradients. Given the topography and 

soils, most Hamden Slough NWR prairies probably were typical of the pre-settlement tallgrass prairies 

described as Northern Mesic Prairie (Minnesota DNR, 2005). Along the margins of wetlands and in wetmesic prairies, prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) is the dominant species. 

Moving to more mesic soils, big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), Indiangrass (Sorgastrum nutans), and 

switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), the characteristic species of the prairie, are dominant. On hilltops or in 

sandier soils, prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepsis), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), 

porcupine grass (Stipa spartea) and side oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) are the most abundant 

grasses. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

41

The diverse set of prairie forbs is dominated 

by two families: asters and legumes. These 

include asters (Symphyotrichum spp), 

blazingstars (Liatris spp), sunflowers

(Helianthus spp), coneflowers (Ratibida 

spp), and goldenrods (Solidago spp). 

Legumes include prairie clovers (Dalea spp) 

and vetches (Astragulus spp and Vicia spp).

Common woody shrubs include western 

snowberry (Symphoricarpus occidentalis),

red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), and 

wild plum (Prunus spp). Specific prairie 

assemblages representative of the area can 

be found in Refuge and District inventories 

(Pemble, 1995), scientific literature, and 

local knowledge. 

Tallgrass prairie is a fire-dependent ecosystem (Collins and Wallace, 1990). The climate is actually wet 

enough to support trees (Briggs, 2005), but fire kept the trees in check and favored grasses (Leopold,

1949). Fire removes residual vegetation and litter layers, allowing seeds to germinate and new plants to 

become established. It also revitalizes the soil, building up nutrients important for flower and seed 

production. When fire is removed from the system, prairie is quickly converted to trees and forests 

(Heisler et al., 2003). The three questions surrounding historic fire regimes are: 1) what time of year were 

most fires, 2) how frequent were the fires, and 3) were the ignition sources lightning or human? 

Most accounts from the historic literature show that fires in the tallgrass prairie region were most common 

in the fall (Wilcox, 1907; Higgins, 1986; McClain and Elzinga, 1994; Pyne, 1997), primarily the month of 

October. These same sources show that fires were quite frequent, with fires often referred to as “annual,”

but not necessarily in the same location. Given the topography of the tallgrass prairie, Wright and Bailey 

(1980) suggest a fire frequency of five to ten years is reasonable. However, a more recent literature 

review suggests fire frequencies in the tallgrass region of Minnesota and Wisconsin were between two 

and three years but were highly dependent on the climate (Dickmann and Cleland, 2002).

While lightning is the primary source of ignition in western forests, lightning in the Midwest is usually 

accompanied by heavy rains. Lightning does cause fires in tallgrass prairie, but rarely. The vast majority 

of historic fires were set by indigenous people. The frequent records of October fires are during a time of 

the year when lightning storms are rare, lending more evidence that most fires were started by people. 

As Europeans settled the tallgrass prairie region, most fires were caused by locomotives and equipment 

used to clear the land, and fire frequencies remained high. By the 1920s, fire frequency and intensity 

waned as settlement increased and effective fire suppression programs began.

Grazing also is important to the maintenance of tallgrass prairie (Biondini et al., 1998). Bison were the 

primary grazers in western Minnesota, with deer and elk browsing on shrubs and young woody 

vegetation. Over 95 percent of the bison diet is grasses (Plumb and Dodd, 1993). Removal of these 

grasses releases the forb community from competition, dramatically increasing plant species diversity in 

grazed prairie (Hartnett et al., 1996; Towne et al., 2005). The increased plant diversity increases the 

diversity and abundance of invertebrates (Joern, 2005). Grazing creates a patchwork of vegetation 

structure from ungrazed to lightly grazed to heavily grazed areas. Patterns of standing vegetation affect 

fire pattern and behavior. 

Fire and grazing interactions were important in the distribution of prairie vegetation communities across 

the landscape. Based on historical fire and grazing patterns, animals preferentially selected burned areas 

because of the young, green shoots and grazed them heavily. When another area burned, they moved to 

the newly burned patch. The interaction between fire and grazing created a shifting mosaic of 

microhabitats for grassland birds, prairie invertebrates, other wildlife, and vegetation. 

Aster and legume species
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

42

As white settlers arrived in Becker County, they discovered a precious resource in the prairie—its soils. 

Soils were described for their richness, especially in the western portion of the county, “with no superior 

on the face of the globe” (Wilcox, 1907). This discovery ultimately led to the conversion of prairie to 

cropland in western Becker County, including the area of Hamden Slough NWR. Today, only about 22 

acres of remnant prairie remain on the Refuge, all in small, highly fragmented parcels. 

Wetland Habitat 

The retreat of the Wisconsin glacier left approximately 25 million depressional wetlands of all shapes and 

sizes in the PPR. A variety of typical wetland types are found on Hamden Slough NWR, defined by soil 

type, duration of standing water, and vegetation communities. Some are fed by groundwater, but most 

are fed by rain and snowmelt. Temporary and seasonal wetlands, those that hold water for a few days to 

a couple months after thaw, make up the greatest number but the least acreage of the all wetland types. 

Semi-permanent and permanent wetlands, which typically hold water for an entire growing season or 

longer, are found at lesser densities but have the most surface acres of water (Stewart and Kantrud, 

1971; Kantrud and Stewart, 1977). Each of the four types is described below (based on Cowardin et 

al.,1979). 

Temporary wetlands only hold water for days or weeks, usually drying out by the start of the growing 

season. Most of the vegetation consists of annual plants that have adapted to the continually fluctuating 

and ultimately receding water levels. These plants begin to grow when the soils have little or no standing 

water. Some of the more common annuals found in temporary wetlands include beggarsticks (Bidens 

spp), smartweeds (Polygonum spp), barnyardgrass or wild millet (Echinochloa muricata), and weedy 

species such as common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and common cocklebur (Xanthium 

strumarium). Because of the high density of these wetlands during normal and wet years (Kantrud and 

Stewart, 1977), and the abundance of early aquatic invertebrates (Swanson, 1989), temporary wetlands 

provide important habitat for breeding waterfowl pairs (Kantrud and Stewart, 1977) and laying females 

(Swanson, 1989). Temporary (and seasonal) wetlands often are called “pair ponds.”

Intact or restored seasonal wetlands, which typically hold water throughout much of the growing season, 

provide the highest quality habitat for breeding waterfowl during years of average or above-average water 

conditions (Kantrud and Stewart, 1977). Seasonal wetlands also supply rich invertebrate food sources for 

laying hen waterfowl (Swanson and Duebbert, 1989), especially early in the spring when most of the 

larger wetlands are still ice-covered or warming up. Common vegetation includes some grasses: bulrush 

(Scirpus spp), sedges (Carex spp), spikerushes (Eleocharis spp), arrowhead (Sagittaria spp), and even 

cattail (Typha spp). In areas where water levels have receded, vegetation found in temporary wetlands 

may also be present.

Semi-permanent wetlands hold up to three feet of water or more throughout the entire growing season. 

Because semi-permanent wetlands are productive season-long, they include some of the best 

breeding/brood marshes in the PPR, especially in dry years when temporary and seasonal wetlands go 

dry. Semi-permanent wetlands usually have a combination of robust, emergent vegetation such as 

cattails and bulrushes, and submerged vegetation important for invertebrate establishment. Examples of 

submerged vegetation include coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), watermilfoil (Myriophyllum 

verticillatum), and pondweeds (Potamogeton spp). Hesby, Eagle, Hass, Office, South, and the Frog Pond 

are semi-permanent wetlands (Heitmeyer et al., 2012). 

Permanent wetlands hold up to ten feet of water throughout the entire year. Usually they are dominated 

by open water and fringed by a border of emergent plants similar to those found in semi-permanent

wetlands. Permanent wetlands are used as waterfowl brood marshes late in the breeding season when 

other wetland types have begun to dry out. During molt and fall migration, they provide important staging, 

resting, and feeding habitat for waterfowl. The relict glacial lakes of Hamden Slough NWR (Bisson, 

Homstad, Pierce, and Hamden) are classified as permanent wetlands (Heitmeyer et al., 2012) and also 

could be called “shallow lakes.” 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

43

Under natural conditions, wetlands of the PPR go through short- and long-term wet/dry cycles that vary 

with climate and drive nutrient cycling, vegetation growth, sediment oxidation, and invertebrate 

populations (Murkin, 1989). These cycles result in four distinct wetland distinct phases which are 

described below for prairie pothole wetlands (van der Valk and Davis, 1978) (figure 3-19).

During drought, the bottom of the wetland basin is exposed and conditions become suitable for annuals 

and perennials. This is referred to as the “dry marsh stage” when most use by wildlife is for cover or 

consumption of annual seeds. The regenerating marsh stage occurs when water returns to the basin. 

Annual plants are drowned out, returning nutrients to the wetland and providing food and habitat for 

invertebrates. Emergent plants continue to expand, water remains stable, and the wetland eventually 

enters the degenerative marsh stage. This typically is when “hemi-marsh” is reached—the equal 

interspersion or 50:50 ratio of open water and emergent vegetation (Weller and Spatcher, 1965). The 

wetland is at peak productivity and is used by the greatest diversity of wildlife due to abundant food and 

cover. Finally, as the wetland enters the lake marsh stage, only a ring of emergent vegetation, typically 

cattail, remains around the outside of the basin. Cover availability and invertebrate abundance and 

availability typically decrease except around basin edges. Wetlands stay in this stage until a drought 

begins the cycle once again (Van der Valk and Davis, 1978).

Figure 3-19: Wetland Phases

Wetlands of the PPR are extremely important to North American waterfowl populations. The availability of 

wetlands (Kantrud and Stewart, 1977) and distribution of emergent cover (Weller and Spatcher, 1965;

Murkin et al., 1982) drive the numbers of breeding waterfowl in the PPR. Hemi-marsh (equal interspersion 

of open water and emergent vegetation) has been shown to support the greatest waterfowl breeding pair 

density and species diversity (Kaminski and Prince, 1981; Murkin et al., 1982) and can be present in 

seasonal and semi-permanent wetlands. While only 10 percent of the available waterfowl breeding 

habitat is found in the PPR, nearly 50 percent of waterfowl production occurs there. Historically, when the 

Dakotas and Saskatchewan experienced drought conditions, waterfowl shifted to the eastern and 

northern fringes of the PPR to breed, including the area of Hamden Slough NWR. 

Many wetlands were drained for farming as settlers began making their livelihood in the PPR. 

Rudimentary drainage ditches were dug to release water from small temporary or seasonal basins. As 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

technology advanced, larger networks of surface ditches were created or subsurface tile installed to more 

efficiently drain all types of wetlands. Today, interconnected temporary, seasonal, and semi-permanent 

wetlands are drained into basins at lower elevations, which increases their water level and permanence; a 

process known as consolidation drainage (Krapu et al., 2004). 

Consolidation drainage changes the 

hydrology and chemistry of wetlands,

favoring the establishment and proliferation 

of cattail (Kantrud, 1986c), sustaining 

introduced fish communities (Anteau 2011),

and ultimately diminishing wetland quality 

for waterfowl breeding and brood rearing 

(Krapu et al., 2004, Anteau 2011) and 

shorebird foraging (Anteau 2011). This 

practice continues in force today. It is 

estimated that over 85 percent of wetlands 

in Minnesota’s PPR have been lost to 

drainage (Johnson et al., 2008). However, 

more than 200 wetlands of all types have 

been restored on Hamden Slough NWR, 

adding to the important conservation role of 

the Refuge. 

Wildlife and Fish Communities of the Prairie-Wetlands 

Before European Settlement

One can only imagine what it was like living on the prairies of western Becker County in the early 1800s 

prior to the arrival of white settlers. Just like historical accounts from other areas of the Northern Great 

Plains, western Becker County was alive with large and small mammals, hundreds of species of birds, 

reptiles, amphibians, fish, and insects galore. But as prairies and wetlands were destroyed with the 

advancement of settlers, many wildlife and fish that depended on that habitat began to disappear, too. 

The western part of Becker County, including the area of Hamden Slough NWR, was a favorite summer 

range of the buffalo (Bison bison), though their visits were not only confined to that season. While on his 

travels through western Becker County, Alvin H. Wilcox, an early surveyor, stumbled across many bison 

bones scattered in Hamden and Cuba townships. The last of the buffalo were seen in this area in the late 

1860s. Elk (Cervus elaphus) was the other major mammal of the Hamden Slough area prior to settlement, 

likely browsing on shrubs in the prairie or tension zone between the prairies and woods. Elk left suddenly

as Becker County was settled. Other mammals that likely roamed the prairies and wetlands of the Refuge 

were the prairie wolf or coyote (Canis latrans), moose (Alces alces), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus), jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii), badger (Taxidea taxus), pocket gopher (Geomyidae), muskrat 

(Ondatra zibethicus), jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius), and the occasional antelope (Antilocarpa 

americana) among others (Wilcox, 1907). 

However, it wasn’t the mammals that defined Hamden Slough, it was the abundance birds. W.A. Wilkin, 

one of the first settlers of Hamden Township states, “Game was very plentiful, especially ducks, geese 

and prairie-chickens. It was no trouble to keep our families in meat, as all we had to do was to look out on 

the lake in the morning and see where the ducks were . . . and with a double-barreled shotgun, we could 

usually kill enough to last the whole day” (Wilcox, 1907). Waterfowl was probably the most plentiful of all 

the game due to the complex of wetlands and shallow lakes, including Hamden Lake. Other birds of 

interest recorded include whooping cranes (Grus americana), common moorhens (Gallinula chloropus),

Eskimo curlews (Numenius borealis), and passenger pigeons (Ectopistes migratorius) near the town of 

Detroit in 1883 (Wilcox, 1907). Today, the passenger pigeon is extinct and it is likely the Eskimo curlew is 

too. Whooping cranes are a federally endangered species, and common moorhens rarely visit the area, 

with the last recorded sighting in 2003. 

Consolidation drainage
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

45

Donald P. Larson, a descendant of some of the early inhabitants of Hamden Lake wrote a historical 

account titled The Hamden Slough and Lake Looked Like this 100 Years Ago. His descriptions give a 

poignant perspective of life on Hamden Lake prior to major alterations of the land and resulting impacts to 

the area’s wildlife. 

The Hamden Slough and Lake Looked Like this 100 Years Ago

My grandfather (Sivert Larson) lived 6 miles north of Audubon. He built a log house where he and my 

grandma lived after they got married. He had seven sons and two daughters. My father’s name was Peter. 

All the boys loved to hunt and fish. Hunting at that time was terrific! My father shot whooping cranes, swans 

and blue cranes. My uncle Max had an old 10 gauge shot gun and he sneaked down in the weeds and got 13 

mallards with one shot!

My grandfather would go to Audubon and meet the train and pick up hunters from the cities and other towns 

around. He had two lumber wagons to haul the hunters out to the farm. If they had too much baggage they 

had to walk behind the wagon which was six miles. He had as many as 15 tents that they would set up on the 

east side of the grove. There was one problem though, he was very religious and would not let them hunt or 

fish on Sundays!

My other grandparents (Mr. and Mrs. Thorvald Erickson) lived on the east side of the lake. They had four girls 

and one boy. My mother’s name was Clara. There was a spring fed creek that ran behind the barn and ran out 

to the lake. It had a very strong current. My mother used to take an old spool and tie a hook on to it and bait it 

and the current would take it down the creek. She used to catch Northerns that weighed 11 pounds! My uncle 

Elmer would trap all winter and sometimes my mother would go on skates to look at his trap lines if it wasn’t 

too cold. In the spring he would have a whole triple wagon box of hides to sell. He would go and sell the hides 

in Lake Park. 

My grandfather Sivert was against draining the lake. A government agency came around and said the water 

level was too low and they also said it was not healthy so he finally gave in. After the government agency got 

the ditch dug the government than turned around and charged him $4,000.00 ditch tax! My grandfather 

thought when God created lakes they should be left alone!

In the morning if it was still and a little foggy, my grandfather said you could hear the prairie chickens 

drumming, also the trumpet swans, whooping cranes, geese, loons and many species of ducks. He said it 

sounded like a symphony. In the fall if it was snowing you had to practically lay down so you wouldn’t get hit 

by ducks coming in!

The log cabin Sivert built stood about 90 years. He built around it and on top so he had a big home when he 

got done. The house was tore down in 1972 which was the end of an era for the Larson family.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

46

Hamden Slough Today

In 2004, Hamden Slough NWR was named an Important Bird 

Area (IBA) by Audubon Minnesota (National Audubon Society), 

one of the original IBAs in the state. Since the Refuge was 

established, over 200 species of birds have been recorded (see 

appendix C for species lists), including more than 20 species of 

shorebirds, nearly every major waterfowl species, and many 

grassland-dependent birds. This extraordinary result is likely due 

to the restoration of the prairie-wetland complexes located on 

Hamden Slough proper. 

The greatest number of shorebird species is observed during 

spring and fall migration. Over 17 species, including but not 

limited to, Hudsonian godwits (Limosa haemastica); white-rumped

(Calidris fuscicollis), western (Calidris mauri), and pectoral 

(Calidris melanotos) sandpipers; short-billed dowitchers (Limnodromus griseus), and semi-palmated 

plovers (Charadrius semipalmatus), have been recorded. Only the marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa), 

greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), and killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) are known shorebird 

breeders of Hamden Slough NWR. Marbled godwits are unique 

shorebirds attracted to wet prairies during the breeding season.

Waterfowl species, like shorebirds, are seen in large numbers 

during the spring and fall migrations. Snow goose (Chen 

caerulescens), American wigeon (Anas americana), northern

pintail (Anas acuta), ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris), and 

common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) are some of the 

migrants. Regular breeders include Canada geese (Branta 

canadensis), trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator), mallard (Anas 

platyrhychos), blue-winged teal (Anas discors), wood duck (Aix 

sponsa), and canvasback (Aythya valisineria), among others.

Additional species of interest drawn to the complex of wetland 

types on Hamden Slough NWR include American White Pelican 

(Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola), 

Franklin’s Gull (Larus pipixcan), Black Tern (Chlidonias niger), and American Bittern (Botaurus 

lentiginosus). Just about every niche of every wetland, from dense cattail to mudflats to open water, is 

utilized by waterbirds. 

Similar to wetland birds, grassland birds responded to the addition 

of upland habitat when Hamden Slough NWR was established. 

Grassland birds of Hamden Slough NWR include, but are not 

limited to, bobolinks (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), clay-colored 

(Spizella pallida), grasshopper (Ammodramus savannarum), and 

field sparrows (Spizella pusilla); western meadowlarks (Sturnella 

neglecta), and northern harriers (Circus cyaneus).

Birds that frequent the wet margins between grasslands and 

wetlands are common yellowthroats (Geothlypis trichas), 

LeConte’s sparrows (Ammodramus leconteii), sedge wrens 

(Cistothorus patensis) and savanna sparrows (Passerculus 

sandwichensis), among others. 

Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa)

Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus)

Canvasback (Aythya valisineria)
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

47

Portions of the Hamden Lake bottom are annually mowed,

which attracts upland sandpipers (Batramia longicauda) and 

greater prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus cupido) for breeding 

and foraging activities. Short-eared owls (Asio flammeus) 

have also been observed in the Hamden lakebed.

While bison, elk, and antelope no longer exist naturally in this 

portion of Minnesota, many of the mammals common to 

western Minnesota grasslands and woodlots historically are 

still found on the Refuge today. These include white-tailed 

deer, coyote, badger, northern raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped 

skunk (Mephitis mephitis), mink (Mustela vison), muskrat, and 

a variety of small mammals. Mammals rarely seen that 

potentially use the Refuge are gray wolves and moose.

Amphibians and reptiles use Refuge wetlands for part or all of 

their life cycle, including the common eastern garter 

(Thamnophis sirtalis) and less common smooth green 

(Liochlorophis vernalis) snake; tiger (Ambystoma tigrinum) 

salamander; plains leopard (Rana blari), wood (R. sylvatica), 

and tree (Hyla arborea) frogs; northern spring peeper 

(Pseudacris crucifer); common snapping (Chelydra serpentine) 

and western painted (Chrysemys picta) turtles; and the 12-

lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus). Historically, wetlands at 

Hamden Slough NWR did not contain sustainable fish 

populations because of winter freezing and interannual drying. 

Although they are critical components of grassland and wetland habitats, information on invertebrate 

communities is lacking for Hamden Slough NWR. Aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates serve as an 

important food source for waterfowl, shorebirds, grassland birds, small mammals, reptiles, and 

amphibians. Invertebrates also consume plant and animal matter necessary for these systems to 

continue functioning. Finally, some prairie wildflowers are dependent on butterflies and other insects for 

pollination. Samples of aquatic invertebrates have been collected from Refuge wetlands although no 

complete inventories have been conducted. Some of the more common aquatic invertebrate collected 

during sampling were predaceous diving beetles, dragonfly and damselfly larvae, caddisfly larvae, 

backswimmers, and freshwater shrimp. Shrimp are important components of waterfowl diets, while 

dragonfly and damselfly larvae are consumed to a lesser extent. There are no known inventories of 

terrestrial insects on Hamden Slough NWR. 

Priority Resources of Concern

The management direction of each refuge is driven first and foremost by a refuge’s purpose(s) and 

statutory mandates, coupled with species and habitat priorities. The priorities that will guide wildlife and 

habitat management on Hamden Slough NWR can be found in appendix B. These priorities meet the 

migratory bird purposes of the Refuge and all Service mandates and policies including the Refuge 

Improvement Act. They were selected from a larger comprehensive list of Species of Concern (also found 

in appendix B) using the process detailed in Identifying Refuge Resources of Concern and Management 

Priorities: A Handbook (FWS, 2010).

Federal T&E Species

The Poweshiek skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek) was added as a candidate species in Minnesota, 

including Becker County, in October 2011. This moth-like butterfly is closely tied to high quality remnant 

prairie and therefore, is unlikely to inhabit Refuge remnants due to their small size and isolation. In 

addition, the Refuge’s restored uplands contain few, if any, grasses and wildflowers critical to the larval 

and adult butterflies (e.g., little bluestem, side-oats grama, purple coneflower, and prairie lily). Larger, 

remnant prairie tracts do occur near the Refuge; however, it is unknown whether Poweshiek skipperlings 

occur in those locations.

Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus)
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

48

In January 2012, the Service concluded that the gray wolf (Canis lupus) population was sufficient to no 

longer warrant protection under the federal Endangered Species Act and was delisted. The gray wolf is 

likely an uncommon visitor of Hamden Slough NWR. In 2009, a pack was observed on Buchl WPA, and 

again on Donley Tilman WPA in 2010; both WPAs are located four miles north of the northernmost 

portion of the Refuge. 

State Species of Concern

One of the most prolific species of the NTGP, the greater prairie-chicken, is a species of concern in the 

state of Minnesota and a popular bird of Hamden Slough NWR. On the north end of the Refuge, there is a 

known lek located in a portion of the Hamden Lake bottom. The marbled godwit, a wet-prairie dependent 

bird of Hamden Slough NWR, is also a species of concern. Both birds use shorter grasses for foraging 

and breeding activities and nest in tallgrass sites on and off the Refuge. There are also many other statelisted species that have or could be found using the Refuge (see 

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html).

3.4 Socioeconomic Environment

Demographics

Hamden Slough NWR is located in Becker County in west central Minnesota, about forty miles east of the 

North Dakota border. The population of Becker County was 32,504 in the 2010 census, which is an 8.3

percent increase over 2000 numbers (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). The Refuge lies seven miles 

northwest of the city of Detroit Lakes (county seat, population 8,570) and one mile from Audubon 

(population 520). Becker County has a total area of 1,315 square miles (841,600 acres); about 91 percent 

is terrestrial (primarily farm land and forests) and 9 percent is water (more than 400 lakes). 

Nearly 90 percent of county residents are of European descent, primarily German and Norwegian; about 

7.5 percent are Native American. About 31 percent of residents are under the age of 18, and 17 percent 

are over 65 years of age. The county has four school districts associated with the communities of Detroit 

Lakes, Lake Park-Audubon, Frazee-Vergas, and Pine Point. Ninety percent of the population 25 years or 

older has attained at least a high school level of education; 21 percent has a Bachelor’s degree or higher 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

Becker County has more than 18,000 housing units, with nearly 25 percent used only seasonally, 

occasionally, or for recreational uses. Median value of owner-occupied housing units is $166,800 (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2012).

Income, Employment, and Local Economy

Median household income in Becker County is just over $46,000; about 11 percent of the population has 

income below the poverty line. The five-year estimate (2006–2010) of unemployment is 5.3 percent. 

Private non-farm employment decreased between 2000 and 2009 by 28 percent (U.S. Census Bureau,

2012).

About 75 percent of workers are private wage and salary earners, another 14 percent work for the 

government, and 11 percent are self-employed. Employment sectors and percentages in the county 

include:

• 29 percent – management, business, science, and arts

• 25 percent – sales and office 

• 17 percent – service

• 13 percent – natural resources, construction, and maintenance 

• 16 percent – production, transportation, and material moving 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

49

Agriculture

In 2007, Becker County had 1,202 farms totaling nearly 400,000 acres. Total market value of products 

sold was $150 million, about evenly divided between crops and livestock/poultry. Crops included about 

70,000 acres of soybeans, 46,000 acres of wheat, 38,000 acres of corn, and 8,300 acres of sugar beets. 

Another 37,000 acres were classified as forage (land used for hay and haylage, grass silage, and green

chop). Net income averaged $40,137 per farm. Sixty percent of operators had a primary occupation other 

than farming (USDA, 2007). 

Tourism

In 2009, the leisure and hospitality industry generated about $62.6 million in gross sales in Becker County 

and supported 1,310 jobs, contributing $4 million in sales tax to the state economy (Explore Minnesota 

Tourism, 2011). The region offers visitors water-based recreation, cultural attractions, and multiple 

festivals and special events. 

In 2007, the University of Minnesota’s Tourism Center published the results of a survey of visitors to the 

Detroit Lakes-Mahnomen area (Salk and Schneider, 2007). The study was designed to inform tourism 

planning and development and subsequently enhance visitor experiences and destination revenue. 

Nearly 90 percent of respondents identified their primary destination as Detroit Lakes, 36 percent were 

traveling for pleasure or recreation, over half had traveled less than 100 miles, and 85 percent were 

repeat visitors. Visitors indicated that nature-based opportunities were important to their destination 

choices. Among the top ten most important features, six were nature-based, although approximately onethird or fewer of visitors experienced or participated in nature-based activities during their trip. Reasons 

for this could include a lack of awareness or a lack of time. The report noted that additional attention to 

nature-based opportunities could benefit the local economy.

3.5 Historical and Cultural Resources

Area History

Prehistoric

The Refuge landscape is the product of a long and complex series of climatic changes and glaciations. 

The final retreat of the Red River Lobe of the Laurentide Ice Sheet occurred during the late Pleistocene 

Epoch approximately 12,000 years ago, forming the large glacial Lake Agassiz. The Red River Drainage 

was not accessible to human settlement until the recession of Lake Agassiz started around 11,500 before 

the present (BP) and was not fully accessible until at least 9,500 BP. The Hamden Slough NWR area 

conceivably could have been used by Paleo-Indian hunter/gatherers during this period (Ward et al., 

1997). 

The Archaic Tradition (8,000 to 4,000 BP) generally is characterized by the development of efficient 

hunting and gathering cultures and greater exploitation of local environments for food and tools. The large 

mammals of the Pleistocene Epoch (mammoth, horse, camel, etc.) were by then extinct and 

environmental conditions had largely stabilized. Increasing regionalization occurred throughout the 

Archaic that appears to be linked in part to major biomes (e.g., prairie, deciduous forest, lake-forest). 

Native populations apparently increased dramatically from 4,000 to 1,500 BP during the Woodland 

period. Increases were related to rapid diffusion of techniques for obtaining, storing, and processing food. 

This late-Prehistoric period was a time of lake-focused subsistence settlement in the Hamden Slough and 

receding Lake Agassiz region and included semi-permanent villages, many of which were fortified, and 

gardens used for active plant production (Heitmeyer, 2012). 

Historic

The Cheyenne were the first known historic Native American group to live in the upper reaches of the 

Red River Valley. The Cheyenne were decimated by smallpox during the early 1780’s, leaving the upper 

Red River Valley open for the Ojibwe who became the dominant people in the region until the mid-1800s. 

The Eastern Dakota, Teton, and/or Yankton people were present in the lower reaches of the Red River 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

50

Drainage when the first Euro-American explorers arrived. Available evidence indicates that Eastern 

Dakota people occupied most of the lake-forest biome of central and northern Minnesota. 

Pierre Gaultier de Varnennes Sieur de LaVerendrye, a fur trader and explorer for the French government, 

was the first European in the Hamden Slough NWR region in 1731. At the end of the French and Indian 

War in 1763, the French abandoned fur trading activities in the Red River Valley to British- and Americanborn traders. The British regime ended with the purchase of the Louisiana Territory by the United States 

in 1803. The period between 1803 and 1837 was characterized by the exploration and mapping of the 

region. The first land cession by the southern Ojibwe was made in 1837. Multiple treaties with the Ojibwe, 

Dakota, and Winnebago tribes soon opened up central Minnesota to logging and settlement. 

The first permanent white settlers arrived in the Hamden Slough region in 1871 in association with 

construction of the Northern Pacific Railway. This line stimulated tremendous population growth as well 

as the founding of four towns in southwestern Becker County: Detroit Lakes, Frazee, Audubon, and Lake 

Park. The Soo Railroad was constructed on a north-south line through Detroit Lakes in 1903; it lies just 

east of Hamden Slough NWR. Detroit Lakes developed into an important agricultural market center. The 

railroads also brought tourists to the area, attracted by prime hunting, fishing, and recreational 

opportunities. By 1923 Becker County had a population of nearly 23,000 people. 

Refuge Cultural Resources

The presence of prehistoric cultural artifacts in this region of Minnesota is light and can only be expected 

in areas with specific defining characteristics such as high relative elevation, the banks of waterways and 

large lakes, and the beach ridges of glacial Lake Agassiz. The Indian Springs Site is the only known 

prehistoric site within the authorized Refuge boundary. It was discovered during the 1997 cultural 

resources survey (Ward et al., 1997). Three working basalt tools were found, but a period of occupation 

could not be pinpointed. Avoidance of the area was recommended to prevent disturbance.

Ward et al. (1997) also determined that a total of 12 historic farmsteads or other historic sites could be 

located within the authorized Refuge boundary. These rural residential/agricultural complexes date back 

as far as 1875. Only one standing structure—a farm outbuilding—was identified. Due to absence of the 

farm house and significant structural instability, the structure was thought to be ineligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places. Sheet midden deposits associated with the structural complexes are relatively 

light, but the presence of shaft features (wells and privy pits) is nearly certain. 

The north end of Hamden Slough NWR encompasses a portion of the White Earth Reservation. Through 

consultation with the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, no known traditional cultural properties have been 

identified on the Refuge. Other tribes associated with the region such as the Red Lake, Upper and Lower 

Sioux, and Cheyenne have not indicated any knowledge or expectation of traditional cultural areas on the 

Refuge.

Cultural Resources Management

Cultural resources (archaeological sites, historic structures, and Native American traditional cultural 

properties) are important parts of the nation’s heritage. The Service strives to preserve evidence of these 

human occupations, which can provide valuable information regarding interactions between individuals, 

as well as between early peoples and the natural environment. Protection of cultural resources is 

accomplished in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources.

The Service is charged with the responsibility, under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966, of identifying historic properties (cultural resources that are potentially eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places) that may be affected by Service actions. The Service is also required 

to coordinate these actions with the State Historic Preservation Office, Native American tribal 

governments, local governments, and other interested parties. Cultural resource management in the 

Service is the responsibility of the Regional Director and is not delegated for the Section 106 process 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

51

when historic properties could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing archaeological permits, 

and for tribal involvement. 

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) Section 14 requires plans to survey lands 

and a schedule for surveying lands with “the most scientifically valuable archaeological resources.” This 

Act also affords protection to all archeological and historic sites more than 100 years old (not just sites 

meeting the criteria for the National Register) on federal land and requires archeological investigations on 

federal land be performed in the public interest by qualified persons. 

The Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) advises the Regional Director about procedures, 

compliance, and implementation of these and other cultural resource laws. The actual determinations 

relating to cultural resources are to be made by the RHPO for undertakings on Service fee title lands and 

for undertakings funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of the Service, including 

those carried out by or on behalf of the Service; those carried out with federal financial assistance; and 

those requiring a federal permit, license, or approval.

The responsibility of the Refuge Manager is to identify undertakings that could affect cultural resources 

and coordinate the subsequent review process as early as possible with the RHPO and state, tribal, and 

local officials. Also, the Refuge Manager assists the RHPO by protecting archeological sites and historic 

properties on Service managed and administered lands, by monitoring archaeological investigations by 

contractors and permittees and by reporting ARPA violations.

3.6 Current Refuge Programs

Hamden Slough NWR is a relatively new refuge and many of the programs are still evolving and 

expanding. The Refuge never has had a large staff. In the beginning, three dedicated staff built the 

Refuge from the ground up and managed all programs. Currently, with decreased budgets, no Refuge 

staff, and an incomplete boundary limiting further restoration and management options, the programs 

have endured change. But regardless of change, the goal is to maintain a balanced and functioning 

prairie-wetland landscape that meets the collective needs of both wildlife and people in a sustainable 

way.

Biological

Currently, most of the Refuge is composed of planted grasslands, drained lakebed, and restored 

wetlands; while trees, remnant prairie, and food plots make up a small percentage of fee land (figure 3-

20). The biological programs of Hamden Slough NWR have a rich and varied history. 

A Concept Plan was developed for Hamden Slough NWR in the early 1990s to provide initial restoration 

and management guidance for the newly established Refuge. The biological program emphasized 

management for migratory waterfowl (especially breeding ducks) and resident wildlife (especially 

furbearers, ground-nesting birds, and white-tailed deer).

As land was acquired, a primary focus was providing wetland habitat by using ditch plugs, dikes, and 

water control structures to restore drained wetlands and facilitate water level management. Uplands were 

planted to a mixture of grasses to provide nesting habitat for migratory waterfowl and resident prairiechicken, pheasant, and grey partridge. Some fields were kept as cropland to provide food for Canada 

geese, migrating ducks, deer, prairie-chickens, and pheasants. Numerous waterfowl nesting islands and 

structures were planned, as well as a predator management program. 

During the past 20 years, some aspects of the Refuge biological programs have been modified in 

response to changing conditions. The landscape has undergone changes that affect wildlife and habitat, 

new threats to the Refuge are emerging, new laws and policies have been put in place, and new scientific 

data are available. This CCP redefines future management direction and priorities based on updated 

information. It is the first comprehensive planning effort undertaken for Hamden Slough NWR since the 

Concept Plan was developed.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

52

Figure 3-20: Current Vegetation
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

53

Because of extensive wetland and upland restorations, evolving management and monitoring techniques, 

and guidance provided by recent assessments of Refuge resources (CAP, WRIA, and HGM), Hamden 

Slough NWR will continue to be capable of supporting a diversity of migratory birds, and other native 

wildlife and plants for future generations.

Wetland Restoration and Management

The landscape of Hamden Slough NWR has been highly altered for agricultural production. Many ditches 

have been constructed to aid in wetland drainage. The Ditch 15 system was constructed in the early 

1900s and is still maintained today. Approximately ten miles of the Ditch 15 system lie within the 

approved Refuge boundary; six miles of which are located on acquired Refuge property (Newman and 

Eash, 2011). Additional unnamed intermittent streams and smaller surface ditches are also located within 

the approved boundary, including Refuge fee land. When large ditch systems were built, the spoil 

probably was placed outside and along the ditch, sloughing off into the waterway. When small surface 

ditches were dug or scraped, the spoil often was placed in the wetland bottom, filling it with sediment. A 

large number of wetlands were restored during the first 20 years of Hamden Slough NWR’s existence. 

Between 1991 and 2002, more than 200 temporary and seasonal wetlands, the most “at-risk” wetlands of 

the PPR, were restored (table 3-2). Most were restored by scraping sediment deposits from the basin 

bottom and using it to construct ditch plugs to hold back water. The remaining fill was spread on adjacent 

uplands. Some of the small surface ditches were never filled, so natural hydrology of the wetland was not 

fully restored and water movement is likely impeded today. As techniques evolved, wetlands were 

restored by scraping the sediments and completely filling in the surface ditches that drained them,

restoring not only the wetland but also the hydrology. 

Table 3-2: Pothole Restorations

Year Tract Name/# Pothole Wetlands Wetland Acres

1991 Spring Marshes 29 16.3

1991 Hass #32 4 8.2

1992 Elleson/S Unit 5 8.5

1996-1997 Hass #32 11 4.2

1996 S Unit #10,11,12 21 7.5

1997 Amundson #43 15 10.2

1997 near Hamden Lake 1 37

1998 Scherzer W #45 2 4.8

1998 Scherzer E #45 14 6.1

1998 Amundson N #43 23 9

1998 Flottemesch #44 14 7.2

1998 Matter #41 22 8.1

1998 Unknown 6 3.3

1999 Unknown 22 8.1

1999 Zurn #42 2 13.6

2000 Zurn #42 18 4.2

2002 Matter #37 19 5.4

Total 228 161.7

Two major wetland restoration projects, the “Big 6” and the “North Star 2000,” added significant semipermanent and permanent wetland habitat back to the Refuge (table 3-3). These larger, managed 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

54

wetlands were restored with surface water inlets and outlets, receiving and discharging most of their 

source water from and back into the ditch system or its tributaries.

Table 3-3: Managed Wetlands

Water 

Feature 

Name

Type of 

Surface 

Water

Extent (Full 

Pool/River 

miles)

Elevation 

(Full Pool) Volume (FP) Remarks

Ditch 15 Ditch/Canal 6 mi NA NA

County ditch system. 

Ten miles total within 

acquisition boundary

Unnamed 

Tributaries/

Ditches Stream/river

Ditch/canal 4.5 mi NA NA

Multiple unnamed 

intermittent tributaries 

are located on the 

Refuge; approximately 

12 tributaries spanning 

8 mi within total 

acquisition boundary.

Office 

Wetland

Wetland, 

Managed 10.3 ac. 1263.0 ft. 29.4 ac. ft. Emergent Wetland

Hass 

Wetland

Wetland, 

Managed 12.0 ac. 1260.0 ft. 26.0 ac. ft. Emergent Wetland

Homstad 

Lake

Wetland, 

Managed 71.3 ac. 1260.0 ft. 238 ac. ft. Open Water Wetland

Hesby 

Wetland

Wetland, 

Managed 60.9 ac. 1258.0 ft. 233 ac. ft. Open Water Wetland

Eagle Pond Wetland, 

Managed 43.5 ac. 1252.0 ft. 124 ac. ft. Open Water Wetland

South 

Wetland

Wetland, 

Managed 20.1 ac. 1262.0 ft. 49.0 ac. ft. Emergent Wetland

Bisson Lake Wetland, 

Managed 112 acre 1231.5 ft. 110 ac. ft. Emergent Wetland 

East Frog 

Pond

Wetland, 

Managed 13.7 ac. Unknown Unknown Emergent Wetland

West Frog 

Pond

Wetland, 

Managed 9.9 ac. Unknown Unknown Emergent Wetland

Restoration of the Big 6 wetlands was completed in 1995 after years of gathering data, cost-estimates, 

permits, and agreements. Ducks Unlimited (DU), the Izaak Walton League, Safari Club International, and 

the BRRWD were key partners. The Big 6 wetlands (Haas, Homstad, Office, South, Hesby, and Eagle),

neighboring wetlands on Anderson WPA, and private land form a large, interconnected complex in 

Sections 1 and 2 of Audubon Township. Water enters the complex from the south, east, and west and 

flows north, exiting Eagle pond onto private land via Ditch 15. Water control structures with stoplogs were 

installed to facilitate water level manipulation.

There are limitations, however, to water management capabilities, and it is not always possible to achieve 

intended levels given certain situations upstream. Large rain events or structure deficiencies can cause 

water to flow in places it wasn’t originally intended. Therefore, due to the interconnectivity of the Big 6, it 

is critical to consider all pool levels when planning, as well as conditions within the greater watershed.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

55

In the end, Hamden Slough NWR regained 218 surface acres of water on the south end, all with 

management capabilities to attract and support a variety of wetland wildlife throughout the year (figure 3-

21).

Figure 3-21: Big 6 Wetland Restoration Figure 3-22: North Star 2000 Wetland Restoration 

The goal of North Star 2000, the flagship project of DU at the time, was to restore 220 wetlands and 965 

upland acres on the Refuge and surrounding state and federal lands by the close of the millennium. The 

project centerpiece was restoration of Bisson Lake, a 112-acre permanent wetland on the northern end of 

the Refuge (figure 3-22), along with two semi-permanent wetlands known as Frog Pond East and West 

(approximately six acres each). All three had been drained by construction of Ditch 15 and its laterals. 

However, prior to restoration, during spring melt when ice blocked the ditches, water pooled in the 

drained basin and attracted thousands of migrating waterfowl, which illustrated Bisson Lake’s importance. 

The partial restoration of Bisson Lake was completed in 2000. Historically, the water backed farther 

northwest and southeast into marsh, pothole wetlands, and edge habitats. If the complex was restored 

fully, the water would not only impact the adjacent private land, but would also overtop Becker County 

Highway 14. Currently, the Service has agreed to hold the water at a reduced “full” pool, with water only

partially covering the historic lake-portion of the wetland complex to avoid impacts to the county road 

base. A flood easement was acquired from the landowner east of Bisson to allow saturation when 

managed at full service level or full pool. In addition to DU, other Partners that contributed to the 

restoration of Bisson Lake and associated habitat were the BRRWD, the Red River Water Management 

Board, the Minnesota DNR, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

56

Figure 3-23: Managed Wetlands
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

57

Two significant water bodies within the approved Refuge boundary remain drained today: Hamden Lake 

and Pierce Lake (figure 3-23). The original land survey maps describe the area as being open prairie with 

abundant wetlands and lakes, including a large “impassable marsh” named Hamden Lake. The size of 

Hamden Lake, which included both open water and marsh habitat, is estimated to be more than 1,500 

acres or one-quarter of the entire Refuge after complete acquisition. Hamden Lake was known for an 

abundance of waterbirds during pre-settlement and early settlement times (see Donald P. Larson’s 

account, earlier in this chapter under “Before European Settlement”). The Service owns the majority of 

the lake; however, key portions needed for complete restoration are still in private ownership. Pierce Lake 

currently is under private ownership and when restored, is estimated to be nearly 200 acres. Pierce Lake 

lies southeast of Hamden Lake and must be restored first due to the connection between the two water 

bodies. If Hamden Lake were restored first, water would back into Pierce Lake preventing restoration. 

With the restoration of both these lakes, Hamden Slough NWR could once again serve as a major 

breeding and stopover area for thousands of waterbirds, rivaling its pre-settlement state. 

An annual water level management plan is 

developed based on the previous year’s 

climate, emergent vegetation cover, extent 

of hybrid cattail or other invasive species, 

and wildlife needs. However, because 

water levels can fluctuate depending on 

precipitation and other unforeseen events 

(i.e., beaver dam, structure damage, etc.), 

the management plan is flexible. Currently, 

most management is conducted to benefit 

migrating and breeding waterfowl and 

shorebirds, but human benefits are also 

considered. In late winter/early spring 

when ice conditions allow, most wetlands 

are drawn down to collect spring runoff. 

Water levels may be held high for a period 

of time to help alleviate downstream 

flooding. Water levels are typically drawn down again to provide mudflats for shorebirds during spring 

migration. Levels are brought back up again at the end of shorebird migration for quality waterfowl 

breeding and brood habitat. Some levels may be dropped again in late summer for shorebirds on their 

way back south. Some wetlands are kept fairly high overwinter to benefit species that depend on 

substantial water levels to survive through the winter, while others are kept at a lower level to protect 

roadsides through the frost-thaw cycle in early spring. Although water level management occurs annually, 

different wetlands receive different treatments depending on desired outcomes. 

Emergent vegetation is important to wetland productivity, providing cover for many wetland-dependent 

birds, habitat for invertebrates, and a critical food source for many bird species. Many Refuge wetlands 

have either too much or too little emergent vegetation. Water levels are sometimes dropped to expose 

soil and promote seed germination of emergent plants such as sedges, cattail, and rushes. The highest 

waterfowl breeding pair density and species diversity is found in wetlands under the hemi-marsh 

conditions (Kaminski and Prince, 1981; Murkin et al., 1982). Hybrid cattail, an aggressive invasive 

emergent, forms dense stands when conditions are right and can become established during drawdowns. 

In addition, when wetlands are in the “lake marsh phase” for prolonged periods of time, cattail will also 

form around the wetland edge. 

Most vegetation management on the Refuge is to reduce stands of hybrid cattail. Water level 

management to control cattails usually is done in conjunction with mechanical treatment. When cattail 

stands become too widespread and dense, water typically is drawn down in fall after migration and the 

cattail is cut over the ice. Water is held at full service level the following year to drown out the cut cattail 

and new shoots. Where water level management is limited (e.g., Bisson Lake), aquatic application of 

glyphosate has been used to control cattail advances. 

Cattail ring around Hesby Wetland
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

58

Invasive fish species, such as fathead minnows (Pimephales 

promelas), brook sticklebacks (Culaea inconstans) and 

roughfish, are another potential problem in Refuge wetlands. 

Fathead minnows seem to be of most concern because they 

have a very high fecundity (reproduction) rate (Payer and Scalet, 

1979) (figure 3-24) and compete with ducklings and other 

wetland-dependent wildlife for invertebrate foods. Often, due to 

high rain events, minnows actually can travel overland from 

wetland to wetland in water sheetflow. As a means of getting rid 

of baitfish, minnows also are dumped into wetlands that are 

easily accessible from roads. In addition, with consolidated 

drainage via surface ditches or tile, minnows have the ability to 

move from smaller to larger water bodies with little problem. 

Water level management is used quite often to rid a basin of 

invasive fish by drying out the wetland in summer or creating 

anoxic (no oxygen) conditions in the winter. Complete drawdown 

of wetlands has occurred on Hamden Slough NWR in the past 

for invasive species control and to mimic the wet-dry cycle. 

However, this strategy is currently not considered in the annual water management plans. 

Refuge pothole wetlands receive little, if any, direct management because they lack water control 

structures. Instead, pothole wetlands rely on nature to determine the wetland phase and thus, the amount 

of water and wetland vegetation species and distribution. Many wetlands on the Refuge currently contain 

open water surrounded by a ring of cattail (lake phase), possibly due to a combination of factors including 

consolidated drainage and the recent 15-year wet cycle. One way to indirectly manage pothole wetland 

vegetation is through management of the adjacent uplands using grazing, haying, or prescribed fire. 

Whether the wetlands receive that disturbance or not depends on factors such as soil moisture, amount 

of standing water, and time of year.

Upland Restoration and Management

Restoration

Only 20 acres of remnant tallgrass 

prairie exist on the Refuge in small, 

fragmented pieces; most locations are 

unknown to current staff. The majority of 

the land acquired had been previously 

farmed and was in need of restoration. 

The cooperative farming program was 

initiated to involve area farmers in the 

restoration process while also raising a 

cash crop; it is still used today to prepare 

the seedbed for planting. Beginning in 

1991, Refuge uplands were restored to a 

mix of warm and cool season grasses, 

including non-native species, often using 

seed from an area other than northwest 

Minnesota. Seed typically was drilled 

into soybean stubble in the spring. But 

as restoration knowledge advanced, so 

did the restoration methods. Diversity of the seed mixes increased, with a stronger emphasis on using 

forbs (wildflowers) and obtaining local ecotype seed.

Local ecotype, or local origin of the seed, is critical for upland restorations to withstand natural conditions, 

ward off disease or other threats, and provide food sources for wildlife. Wildflower starter sites, where forb 

seed was hand-broadcast over a grass-dominated stand, were planted to increase diversity of select 

areas and use as harvest sites. In 2000, a new technique called “snow seeding” was tested. 

Figure 3-24: Fathead Minnow 

Fecundity Rates 

From Payer and Scalet, 1978

May Jun Jul

Aug

Sept

0

50000

100000

150000

Adults Y-O-Y

Numbers

(194)

(126,505)

Snow seeding
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

59

The mix of native grasses and forbs was broadcast over the snow in late winter, taking advantage of the 

freeze-thaw cycle. Nearly 1,500 acres of grasslands have been restored on Hamden Slough NWR (table 

3-4).

Table 3-4: Grassland Restoration

Year Grassland Restoration

1992 39 acres drill-seeded with grass (native and non-native); 2 acres broadcast seeded over the snow

1993 35 acres drill-seeded with grass (native and non-native)

1996 153 acres drill-seeded with grass (native and non-native)

1997 76 acres drill-seeded with grass (native and non-native)

1998 362.5 acres drill-seeded with grass (native and non-native); 31- 1⁄4 acre wildflower sites were over 

seeded with forbs

1999 188 acres drill-seeded with grass (native and non-native); 15 of those acres over seeded with forbs

2000 106.7 acres broadcast-seeded with diverse mix (in collaboration w/DLWMD)

2001 145.6 acres broadcast-seeded with diverse mix (in collaboration w/DLWMD); 15-1⁄4 acre wildflower 

sites were over seeded with forbs

2002 147.5 acres seeded with diverse mix (in collaboration w/DLWMD)

2005 45 acres seeded with native grass; 9 of those acres over seeded with forbs

2008 45 acres broadcast-seeded with diverse mix (under mgmt. of DLWMD)

2010 36 acres broadcast-seeded with diverse mix (under mgmt. of DLWMD)

2011 33 acres broadcast-seeded with diverse mix (under mgmt. of DLWMD)

2012 50 acres broadcast-seeded with diverse mix (under mgmt. of DLWMD)

DLWMD = Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District

Invasive plants are probably the biggest threat to the uplands of Hamden Slough NWR. Currently, a host 

of invasive plants can be found at varying levels across the entire Refuge. Canada thistle (Cirsium 

arvense) and plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides) typically are present only in young restorations and 

rarely pose a threat to the long-term quality of the uplands, although they are visible, easy to identify, and 

culturally the most-hated group of weeds to the agricultural community. Crown vetch (Securigera varia), 

wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa), and common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) are of greatest concern to 

District staff. Three qualities make them a real threat: they are prolific seeders, have a long-lasting 

seedbank, and are easily moved around by mowing or other means. 

Usually, these are the only invasive plants that are controlled with herbicides. Other invasive species 

found on the Refuge to a lesser extent include purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and leafy spurge 

(Euphorbia esula). Both are monitored and treated either by hand-pulling or with biological controls as 

needed. Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) is found primarily in the Hamden Lake bottom. It is 

aggressive and forms monocultures, offering little habitat to wildlife seeking structural diversity. Smooth 

brome (Bromus inermis) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) are common in Refuge uplands but are 

not seen as an immediate threat. Proper upland (and lake) restoration and management should keep 

reed canarygrass, smooth brome, and Kentucky bluegrass in check. 

Management Tools

Prescribed Fire

Fire is probably the most widely used and critical tool for tallgrass prairie management. As with herbivore 

grazing, tallgrass prairie evolved and adapted with fire. The Refuge is divided into different management 

units (figure 3-25), and those management units may be broken down further depending on specific 

management needs such as burning. In general, burn units are on a five-year rotation (used by Detroit 

Lakes WMD staff), although depending on the specific state of the vegetation (i.e., encroachment of 

trees, etc.), the rotation may be hastened. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

Figure 3-25: Management Units
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

61

Traditionally, prescribed burning in the tallgrass 

prairie by managers occurs in mid-spring when 

resources (people, funds) are more available. 

However, it is suspected continual early spring 

burning may favor warm season grasses and 

forbs, while edging out cool-season grasses and 

early-emerging forbs. This is not a factor on 

Hamden Slough NWR due to the lack of native 

cool season grasses and forbs. As areas on 

Hamden are diversified with a wider range of 

native vegetation, burning at times other than 

the spring should be considered. The Detroit 

Lakes WMD staff is beginning to experiment 

with more late summer and fall burns, along with 

related monitoring. 

Grazing

Grazing with cattle was used during the early years of the Refuge to emulate historical grazing by bison 

and elk prior to European settlement. Grazing not only gave Refuge staff another upland management 

option, it also demonstrated the willingness of the Refuge to work with local landowners. Usually, these 

landowners owned land within or next to the designated Refuge boundary and wanted to work with 

Refuge staff. The grazed uplands usually were of lower quality, dominated by invasive cool season 

grasses such as reed canarygrass, Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome; and were primarily located in 

that portion of the Refuge within the drained Hamden lakebed. As time passed, producers stopped 

grazing, potentially due to the rising commodity crop market. Grazing on the Refuge diminished and other 

management tools took its place. The last grazing permit on Hamden Slough NWR was issued in 2000. 

The reintroduction of cattle grazing on Hamden Slough NWR will be explored with the implementation of 

this CCP. 

Haying

Haying was a traditional economic use when the 

Refuge was established. Today, about 100 

acres of the Hamden lakebed are still hayed in 

late summer to provide lek habitat for greater 

prairie-chickens and to simulate wet meadow 

habitat attractive to birds such as the marbled 

godwit and common snipe. Western 

meadowlarks and short-eared owls have also 

been observed in the hayed portion of Hamden 

Lake. Varying the haying regime and integrating 

it with other management tools, including 

prescribed fire and grazing, could increase the 

diversity of native plants and provide the habitat 

structure needed by a suite of breeding 

grassland birds throughout the Refuge. 

Farming

Many tracts purchased during the initial establishment of the Refuge were in agricultural production and in 

need of restoration. Most of the uplands were planted to permanent grass cover, while a small 

percentage remained in agricultural production. These farmed units were planted to “lure crops” by the 

Service in hopes of enticing waterfowl to feed in these areas as opposed to the private farmlands 

surrounding the Refuge. Over the years, these food plots have been farmed to either corn or soybeans. 

There has been no documentation as to whether or not these plots are being used by waterfowl or 

neighboring private crops are being depredated. Today, there is a permit available for private landowners 

with depredation complaints to “take” Canada geese. This permitted “take” coupled with the fragmentation 

of the south unit supersedes the necessity for maintaining the food plots. 

Prescribed fire for tallgrass prairie management

Lek habitat for Greater Prairie-Chickens
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

62

Today, acquired land is converted from row crops to a diverse mix of local ecotype tallgrass prairie 

vegetation using cooperative farming and following recent Regional guidance. This guidance states that

genetically modified organisms can be used for restoration purposes but for no more than five years. 

Typically, the seedbed is prepared by farming the area with Roundup Ready® corn and soybeans in 

alternate years; ensuring the final crop year prior to restoration is planted in soybeans. Using Roundup 

Ready® crops safeguards the fields from significant broadleaf weed infestation with minimal chemical 

carryover, resulting in successful prairie vegetation establishment. Fields are planted within five years of 

acquisition based on seed availability, resources, weather, and other factors. 

Mowing

Mowing as a prairie management tool is only used if there is a weed complaint on new prairie 

restorations. If a weed complaint is voiced and no resolution is made, the unsightly vegetation (usually 

thistle, Cirsium spp.) is removed by mowing (hand-clipping if the area is small). Otherwise, the native 

grasses and forbs are allowed to become established and out-compete the unsightly weeds, producing a 

healthier, more diverse native prairie. 

Tree Removal

Tree removal is a critical tool used today in grassland management. Since European settlement, the 

number of trees (native and non-native) on the landscape has increased dramatically due to factors such 

as fire suppression, wildlife plantings, and shelterbelt establishment. Trees out-compete prairie forbs and 

grasses for the necessary light, water, nutrients, and space needed to flourish. Tree encroachment 

fragments the grassland landscape, decreasing its suitability for area-sensitive grassland birds. Areas of 

trees also provide predator lanes for some mammals and perch sites for avian predators and parasites. 

Tree removal will be a continuing practice on the Refuge to ensure longevity of tallgrass prairie vegetation

and improve habitat for grassland nesting birds and other prairie-obligate wildlife. High voltage power 

lines on the Refuge also provide predator perches, so removal or burial of power lines, while costly, is 

desirable over the long term. 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program provides technical and financial assistance to willing 

landowners wanting to restore and/or manage prairie wetland habitats within the Hamden watershed and 

beyond. Currently, working with partners and landowners to improve watershed sustainability occurs 

mostly in an opportunistic manner. The number of projects since Refuge establishment is minimal. 

Potential benefits of private lands habitat improvements within the watershed include preserving wildlife 

species for future generations, helping recover endangered or threatened species, improving quality of 

life, enhancing recreational opportunities, providing flood reduction, and recharging local and regional 

groundwater (FWS, 2005).

Research and Monitoring

Monitoring and research has always been a focus at Hamden Slough NWR. Collaborations with local 

universities, other government agencies, conservation organizations, and others have provided important 

information to support and strengthen the case for conserving prairie-wetland habitat and the benefit it 

provides to both wildlife and people.

Research

Seepage Analysis of Bisson Lake

During the mid-1990s, many landowners voiced concerns about potential seepage and flooding of nearby 

private land as a consequence of the proposed Bisson Lake restoration. Because of potential impacts to 

local farming economy near the Refuge, the BRRWD was hesitant to approve permits for the North Star 

2000 project, which involved the restoration of 130 wetlands including Bisson Lake. The Service 

submitted a Challenge Cost Share Grant, partnered with BRRWD and the Red River Water Management 

Board, for the analysis. The grant was funded and the seepage analysis was conducted by North Dakota 

State University Soil Science Professor Jim Richardson from 1996–1999. A summary of findings included 

that groundwater moves into Bisson Lake, not out of it, and moves south to the Hamden Lake basin. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

63

Where the potential of water movement to private land existed (northeast side), easements were already 

in place.

Simulation of Runoff and Wetland Storage in the Hamden and Lonetree Watershed Sites within the Red 

River of the North Basin

After the 1997 flooding of the Red River Valley, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began investigating sites 

to explore the potential increase or decrease of flood effects due to wetland restoration. The seepage 

analysis conducted from 1996–1999 sparked the interest of USGS and the National Soils Lab in 

groundwater movement. Bisson Lake was selected as one of the study sites in 1998 to examine 

precipitation and storage capacity of wetlands. All factors affecting water movement into and out of 

Bisson Lake including light reflection, sublimation, and transpiration, were closely monitored. The fouryear study, published in 2004, concluded that: 1) peak streamflows during a flood can be reduced 1–6

percent with a restored wetland; 2) soils of the Hamden site stored as much water as the wetlands; and 3) 

soil management practices in combination with water storage practices may result in reduced waterflow

from wetlands during large precipitation and snowmelt events.

Soil and Water Phosphorous Interaction in Restored Wetland Landscapes of Western Minnesota

Soil sampling and mapping were conducted as part of a North Dakota State University Ph.D. research 

project to investigate changes in soils as related to wetland restoration. The research suggests that runoff 

containing fertilizers and sediments causes an increased collection of phosphorous in wetlands. As a 

result, normal aquatic vegetation establishment is disrupted and the consequence is a monotypic stand of 

hybrid cattail. The study was finalized and published in 2005.

Refuge Cooperative Research Program (RCRP) Impoundment Study

From 2005–2007, the Refuge participated in a joint FWS/USGS study to monitor the effects of 

drawdowns on waterbird and waterfowl use during spring and fall as part of the RCRP. Participants were 

provided with a drawdown prescription and monitoring protocol to follow during the three-year study. 

Field work involved weekly survey of waterbirds and waterfowl, weekly activity surveys of four waterbird 

guilds, waterbird flushing counts, water and invertebrate sampling, vegetation sampling, water level 

management, depth readings, and vegetation manipulation. A cooperative agreement with Concordia 

College (Moorhead, MN) was signed to help carry out all the field activities. Although preliminary results 

were shared, further data analysis was recommended. We are still awaiting the final results and 

recommendations. 

Fish, Invertebrate and Waterfowl Numbers on Hamden Slough NWR and Adjacent Anderson WPA

Fish, especially fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas), have become an increasing detriment to the 

health of northwestern Minnesota wetlands, and in turn, may impact waterfowl use. Students from 

Concordia College (Moorhead, MN) conducted waterfowl surveys on Hamden Slough NWR (2007–08) 

and Anderson WPA (2008) from spring to fall migration. On those same study wetlands, both invertebrate 

and fish were sampled and analyses run. Preliminary conclusions support that wetlands with less or no 

fish had higher numbers of invertebrates and duck use, although future research may be prompted. 

Avian Influenza Monitoring

During July and August of 2006, Bisson Lake was one of many sites sampled for a USDA nationwide 

study exploring avian influenza (AI) in shorebirds. The goal was to collect cloacal samples from 200 

shorebirds in every state; a total of 193 shorebirds from nine species were sampled at Bisson Lake. The 

project was coordinated by Pete Sahr, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-Wildlife 

Services. Mist-netting was conducted by Dr. Greg Hoch and student volunteers from Concordia College, 

Moorhead, MN. All samples were sent to Vet Med Diagnostics Laboratory in St. Paul, MN. None of the 

shorebirds collected from Bisson Lake tested positive for AI. 

Secretive Marshbird Surveys

From 2003–2005, the Refuge was the site for marshbird survey protocol trials developed by Dr. Courtney 

Conway, USGS-Biological Resources Division, University of Arizona. Dr. Conway believes that 

marshbirds are considered indicator species, because they consume a wide variety of invertebrates, 

another indicator of wetland health. Their presence could, therefore, be a measure for wetland quality and 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

64

restoration success. Contractor Sherri Norland conducted the marshbird surveys during the trial on 

Hamden Slough NWR.

Monitoring

Over the years, although not strongly linked with 

research, regular monitoring of bird populations existed 

on Hamden Slough NWR. From spring to fall migration 

and beyond, wetland birds especially were monitored 

for time of arrival, departure, and breeding, if possible. 

This was due to their obvious visibility on Refuge 

wetlands. The regular monitoring of Refuge wetlands 

led to the discovery of nesting American avocets and 

visits by common moorhens and a piping plover. 

A more structured approach was used for grassland 

bird monitoring, because they are more difficult to 

detect. Point counts, a common way to estimate 

breeding grassland bird pairs, were conducted from 

1994–1996. During the three years of point counts, 45 

species (including incidentals) were detected at 34 

points. Again in 2009, point counts were conducted in 

three different grassland habitat types: mowed reed 

canarygrass, standing reed canarygrass, and restored tallgrass prairie. During the season, 561 birds of 

31 species were detected. Although species richness among habitat types was generally the same, the 

greatest abundance of birds was found using the tallgrass prairie. However, a more unique guild of birds

associated with shorter vegetation was observed in the mowed area including upland sandpipers, field 

sparrows, greater prairie-chickens and marbled godwits. These birds were not found in the other two 

habitat types due to the taller, dense vegetation. 

Today, monitoring daily bird use of the Refuge is more difficult because no staff is located onsite. 

Fortunately, two Refuge volunteers conduct weekly roadside bird surveys from ice-out to freeze-up every 

year. Although Refuge-managed wetlands are the focus of the surveys, all incidental birds are recorded, 

which gives staff valuable information on arrival of species and areas of use. In addition, staff maintains 

and checks eight nest baskets on or near the Refuge annually. A duck banding program in conjunction 

with Tamarac NWR began in 1998. Since the onset of the program, 1,599 ducks have been banded; 

1,444 were mallards (Anas platyrychos). The majority of banded ducks have been recovered along the 

Mississippi flyway in states such as Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. 

Information is lacking as to the extent of vegetation monitoring of Refuge habitat while the Refuge was 

staffed. Monitoring of Refuge habitat will be a focus when this CCP is implemented. 

Visitor Services

Offering programs for visitors is a way to connect people with nature at Hamden Slough NWR. By 

participating in these programs, people will learn how the integrity of the prairie-wetland landscape is 

relevant in their daily lives, enjoy the abundance of wild places and things around them, and deepen their 

personal connections to the natural world. 

Hunting

Hunting programs on the Refuge are relatively new. Muzzleloader deer hunting began during the winter of 

2008 on all Refuge fee lands. This option allows for a quality deer hunt while helping maintain the whitetailed deer population on and adjacent to the Refuge (FWS, 2007). The muzzleloader season occurs in 

late winter after the waterfowl migration, thus limiting any disturbance. 

Nesting American Avocets
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

65

The sport of waterfowl hunting is declining 

in not only Minnesota but throughout the 

United States. To encourage youth interest 

in hunting, the Minnesota DNR selects one 

day each year during which any Minnesota

youth, age 15 or younger, can participate in 

a quality hunt when accompanied by a nonhunting adult. The youth waterfowl hunt on 

Hamden Slough NWR was established 

under the same hunting plan as the deer 

hunt (FWS, 2007) but opened a year later 

in 2009. The Refuge youth hunt is open 

only in Audubon and Riceville Townships, 

which is approximately 60 percent of the 

Refuge, to reduce wildlife disturbance and 

maintain 40 percent of the land and water 

as sanctuary. The Service partners with DU 

and the Minnesota DNR to sponsor a mentored youth hunt on the Refuge, a more formalized program to 

introduce youth to the sport of waterfowl hunting. 

On Refuge lands within the White Earth Reservation (Sections 27 & 35 of Riceville Township), legal 

hunting (and other uses) is not bound by Refuge seasons or state or federal regulations. Hunting is 

allowed by tribe members in accordance with Tribal regulations.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Wildlife observation and photography are favorite pastimes at Hamden Slough NWR. Although roadways 

fragment habitat and create dangerous places for wildlife, they also allow for easy viewing of the area’s 

natural resources. Many roads intersect the Refuge. On the south end, Becker County Road 104/144 

runs alongside most of the Big 6 wetlands, allowing for great views of wildlife on the water. On the north 

end of the Refuge, staff worked with Becker County to widen and slope Becker County Highway 14 to 

allow easy pullover access for viewing Bisson Lake during spring and fall migrations. This is also a 

favorite stop on the annual Hamden Slough NWR field trip as part of the Detroit Lakes Festival of Birds

(figure 3-26). 

In addition to roadsides, there are two 

locations that provide great viewing and 

photography opportunities. On the south 

end of the Refuge, the Hesby Memorial 

Trail and overlook offers a short, accessible 

walk through a restored prairie ending with 

a breathtaking view of Hesby wetland and 

beyond. To the north, a prairie-chicken lek 

is located in the hayed portion of the 

drained Hamden lakebed, off County Road 

113 and County Highway 13. Each spring, 

male prairie-chickens dance on the lek, 

booming to attract females for breeding. 

Observation from the road is possible, but 

the Service places a viewing blind on the 

lek for people to reserve and observe the 

spectacle up close. Although there are no 

established photography blinds on Hamden Slough NWR, great opportunities for wildlife photography are 

possible along roadsides and above-mentioned structures.

Mentored youth hunt on the Refuge

Great views of wildlife on the water
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

66

Figure 3-26: Visitor Services Facilities
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

67

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Currently, the Refuge does not have a formal environmental education program due to lack of trained, 

available staff. On request, District staff or volunteers may work with educators and other leaders to 

present programs at local schools and organizations. Expansion of environmental education opportunities 

at Hamden Slough NWR is a high priority in the coming years. 

Recently, the “Prairie-Chicken Cam” project was initiated to help connect 

children to the natural world of Hamden Slough NWR. First, a live 

webcam was mounted on the blind at the prairie-chicken lek to record 

and display breeding behavior on an updated version of the Hamden 

website. Although technical issues still require resolution, the goal is to 

“stream” the video to the website for live viewing. Second, a spring prairie 

curriculum, centered on the prairie-chicken, was developed for 4th grade 

students. This curriculum can be used in conjunction with the webcam. 

Finally, an updated Prairie Trunk, funded by the Minnesota Prairie 

Chicken Society, was developed for educators to use with the prairie 

curriculum or as a stand-alone aid in teaching about prairie ecology.

To further environmental education opportunities at Hamden Slough

NWR, the Service staff worked with multiple partners to construct and 

furnish an environmental education building at the headquarters area. 

This shelter will expose local school children to the prairie-wetland setting 

by incorporating the ecology of the area into the STEM (Science, 

Technology, 

Engineering, and 

Mathematics) curriculum. 

District staff, partners, and volunteers will work with area 

educators to expand the current curriculum to meet the 

needs of the local school districts. 

Interpretation at the Refuge is minimal due to lack of 

staff. Currently, no formal Refuge brochure exists; only a 

bird list and informational leaflet are available. One kiosk 

and one interpretive panel are at the old headquarters 

area, and one interpretive panel is near the prairiechicken lek. Prairie Fun Day, an annual public event 

celebrating prairie-wetland habitats, was held at Hamden 

Slough NWR in 2010 and 2011. Finally, an interpretive program is held in conjunction with the mentored 

youth waterfowl hunt at the Refuge. 

Friends Group and Volunteers

The Refuge always has relied on volunteers to help sustain the biological and visitor services programs. 

In the past, volunteers helped clean up building sites, greet visitors, and assist with management and 

maintenance activities. Today, volunteers continue to assist with weekly roadside bird surveys, habitat 

restoration and management activities, maintenance of equipment, cleaning of duck nest baskets, and 

more. Finally, volunteers are integral to the continuation of the Prairie-Chicken Cam and related projects. 

In all, volunteers contribute approximately 75 hours annually. 

Hamden Slough NWR is served by Friends of the Detroit Lakes WMD. The Friends 

group was organized in 2003 and only just began to expand their activities to include the 

Refuge. Currently, the Friends group sponsors and assists with two events on the 

Refuge: Prairie Fun Day and the mentored youth waterfowl hunt. In addition, the Friends 

group participates in the Detroit Lakes Festival of Birds to help increase awareness of 

Hamden Slough NWR and the Detroit Lakes WMD. 

Learning at the Refuge

Environmental education building
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

68

Outreach and Partnerships

The current level of outreach for Hamden Slough NWR is limited and dictated by available staff time. The 

primary method of outreach is submission of new releases to local and regional papers to promote 

special events or to provide Refuge-specific information. In addition, District staff, volunteers, or Friends 

group members may appear on the local-access TV channel or present information for local radio 

stations, but that is dependent on staff time as well. Refuge volunteers participate each year in a variety 

of events such as parades, fairs, and more in order to bring awareness of the Refuge and District to local 

communities. 

Partners continue to play a critical role in the function of Hamden Slough NWR. These partnerships allow 

opportunities to accomplish goals that any one organization could not achieve alone. The Service works 

with a wide variety of partners including but not limited to: Red River Basin Commission, Buffalo-Red 

River Watershed District, Minnesota DNR, White Earth Band, Ducks Unlimited, Isaac Walton League, 

Safari Club International, Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society, Lakes Area Birding Club, and more. Many of 

these partners were instrumental in the initial establishment and restoration of the Refuge. 

Administration

In late 2006, the decision was made to combine the staff and management of Hamden Slough NWR with 

the Detroit Lakes WMD. Although Refuge staff was moved to the WMD office, some buildings such as the 

old Refuge office, garage, and equipment shed still exist. Plans are to demolish the old office building and 

garage in the very near future. Because the

staff was moved, there are no Refuge 

points of contact for visitors to Hamden 

Slough NWR. All staff is located roughly 

ten miles from the Refuge, which can be an 

inconvenience to visitors who have 

questions or need information. Therefore, 

an environmental education classroom was 

constructed onsite at the Refuge 

headquarters area with the help from many 

partners. This will serve, in part, as a 

contact station for visitors, as well as an 

educational classroom for students, 

groups, and other organizations. Ultimately, 

the goal is for volunteers to serve the role 

as contact for Refuge visitors and 

education building users. 

Law Enforcement

Law enforcement officers at Hamden Slough NWR help the public understand and obey the laws that 

protect our natural resources. They work closely with state, tribal, and local government offices to enforce 

federal and state hunting regulations that protect numerous wildlife and plant species from unlawful take 

or destruction. 

Easements

There is currently one private easement totaling 24 acres that borders the east side of the North Bisson 

Unit. It is a flowage and wetland easement that allows for manipulation of water levels on the north end of 

the Refuge without objection or retaliatory action by the owner. The flowage and wetland easement is 

perpetual. 

Old headquarters
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

69

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

In this chapter:

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationales

4.1 Introduction

The Environmental Assessment in appendix A describes and analyzes three management alternatives for 

Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge). The U.S. Wildlife Service (FWS, Service)

identifies one as its preferred alternative, and it is described in this chapter as the proposed management 

direction defined by a series of goals, objectives, and strategies. 

Goals are broad descriptive statements of desired future conditions. There are two goals for Hamden 

Slough NWR. Each goal is followed by a series of objectives, which are specific statements describing 

management intent. Beneath each objective is a list of strategies—the specific actions, tools, and 

techniques needed to meet the objective. Finally, rationale statements describe background, history, 

assumptions, and/or technical details of the objectives and strategies. Unless otherwise noted, the 

Service intends to meet these objectives within the next 15 years.

4.2 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationales

Wildlife and Habitat

Goal: Habitats on Hamden Slough NWR will be restored, protected, and actively managed to provide a 

diversity of native wetland and grassland habitats. These efforts will be further leveraged by partnerships 

and conservation actions outside the Refuge, resulting in a resilient and balanced landscape, meeting the 

needs of migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife in an uncertain future.

Wetlands

Objective 1-1: Prairie Pothole Wetlands Inventory

Within three years, conduct a baseline inventory of all prairie pothole wetlands within the Refuge 

acquisition boundary to guide future restoration.

Strategies

• Locate and mark boundaries of all prairie pothole wetlands using aerial photos, maps, soils data, 

wetland inventories, and field reconnaissance. 

• Evaluate the physical and biological condition of each previously restored pothole. Record if 

drainage ditches need fill or other maintenance is necessary to maintain hydrologic functionality. 

Inventory vegetation communities. Note wildlife use. Create a GIS layer with associated attributes 

of all restored pothole wetlands in the Refuge Lands Geographic Information System (RLGIS) 

database.

• Develop a long-term monitoring plan for all Refuge wetlands to continue evaluation beyond the 

life of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP).

Rationale

Approximately 85 percent of Minnesota’s prairie pothole wetlands have been drained (Johnson et al., 

2008) and the trend continues today as subsurface tile drainage systems improve. The result has been 

loss of native plant communities, wildlife habitat, and other benefits such as water storage and 

groundwater recharge. Wetland restoration is a high priority on Hamden Slough NWR.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

The exact number of historical pothole wetlands on the Refuge is not known, although more than 200 

have undergone at least partial restoration by plugging of ditches or removal of accumulated sediment. 

Approximately 40 pothole wetlands remain to be restored on acquired Refuge lands. Their general 

location is known, but more specific information is needed on wetland boundaries, basin size, soil types, 

historic hydrologic regime, etc. in order to restore the appropriate physical and hydrological character of 

each wetland. Onsite reconnaissance will be used on acquired Refuge lands. Private lands within the 

Refuge acquisition boundary will not be visited without landowner permission.

Post-restoration observations initially indicated high use of prairie pothole wetlands by waterfowl and 

other wetland-dependent wildlife, as well as healthy vegetation communities. Very little information has 

been collected in recent years. With fast-paced agricultural practices on surrounding private lands, such 

as consolidated drainage and the use of highly evolved pesticides for crop production, it is imperative to 

inventory the current state of these wetlands. Impacts could include alterations in wetland hydrology (e.g.,

increased water depth/lack of drying), domination by invasive species such as hybrid cattail or fathead 

minnows, and increased sediment loads from runoff, to name a few. All of these impacts could have 

drastic effects on the quality of wetland habitat, reducing overall suitability for Refuge resources of 

concern. Long-term monitoring is crucial in tracking wetland condition in response to management, 

outside threats, and climate change. 

Objective 1-2: Prairie Pothole Wetlands Restoration

Within 15 years, restore all prairie pothole wetlands on acquired Refuge lands to their natural hydrology 

and historical type. 

Strategies

• On drained wetlands, determine watershed size and note hydrologic connections to other 

wetlands. Estimate sediment accumulation in each basin. Classify each wetland according to 

type. Restore inflow, outflow, and topography using ditch fills and sediment removal (when 

appropriate). If found, break/remove drainage tile. 

• On existing wetlands, fully restore topography using ditch fills.

• Seed ditch fills to appropriate native prairie vegetation.

Rationale

Wetlands on Hamden Slough NWR were driven primarily by seasonal and annual water inputs from the 

surrounding watershed and some discharge from groundwater (Heitmeyer et al., 2012). They ranged from 

small, temporary, and seasonal types to larger semi-permanent or permanent types. Concentric bands of 

vegetation were present in each wetland depending on depth and degree of water permanence. Small 

shallow potholes often have only wet meadow and some seasonal herbaceous plant species, while larger 

and deeper potholes (and relict lakes) typically have the full range of vegetation communities including 

open water, persistent emergent, seasonal herbaceous, and wet meadow associations. Given dynamic 

seasonal and interannual precipitation, it is likely that wetland types and extent of vegetation varied 

among years (Heitmeyer et al., 2012). Detailed descriptions of vegetation associations, vegetation cycles, 

and hydrologic regimes characteristic of each prairie pothole wetland type are included in chapter 3. 

Most, if not all, pothole wetlands needing restoration on the Refuge are temporary or seasonal. Both 

wetland types are critical for breeding waterfowl, migratory shorebirds, locally breeding amphibians, and 

other wetland wildlife (Heitmeyer, et al., 2012). They are found in high densities across the landscape and 

warm up early, providing an abundance of protein-rich invertebrates. Because of these characteristics, 

temporary and seasonal wetlands are very attractive to breeding waterfowl such as blue-winged teal and 

mallards, and they are often referred to as “pair ponds.” Temporary wetlands, however, are very shortlived and highly dependent on localized precipitation. Typically, they last a few days to a few weeks. 

Seasonal wetlands, on the other hand, provide the highest quality habitat for breeding waterfowl during 

years of average to above-average water conditions (Kantrud and Stewart, 1977) due to water retention 

throughout much of the growing season. Once temporary and seasonal wetlands go dry, birds and 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

71

mammals consume seed from annual plants, while residual vegetation affords great cover for a multitude 

of species. 

Emulating natural water regimes and topography in pothole wetlands will improve waterflow patterns and 

establishment of diverse wetland vegetation, resulting in long-term sustainability of habitats that meet the 

varied life-cycle needs of waterfowl and other wetland-dependent wildlife. In addition to providing 

essential habitat for wildlife, fully restored wetlands will provide ecosystem benefits by storing water and 

reducing runoff, filtering sediment and pollutants from waters upstream, and permitting groundwater 

recharge. 

Objective 1-3: Managed Wetlands

Develop and implement a new approach to wetland management that emphasizes sustainability by 

restoring the physical and hydrological character of all managed wetlands (Big 6, Bisson Lake, and Frog 

Ponds). 

Strategies

• Ensure that all water control structures are up-to-date, functioning, and installed at optimum 

elevations. Install staff gauges at all outlets to allow wetland hydroperiod monitoring.

• Manage water levels for more natural seasonal and interannual water regimes and dynamics to 

maintain composition and distribution of native vegetation communities. Heitmeyer et al. (2012) 

identifies an average 10 to 12-year climate pattern of wet and dry cycles.

• Work with Becker County and FWS Regional Hydrologist to develop realistic options for fully 

restoring Bisson Lake, given the current constraints of Becker County Highway 14.

• Control invasive plants and fish. 

• Develop a long-term monitoring plan.

Rationale

Initially, water level management at Hamden Slough NWR was active, drawing down and re-flooding the 

wetlands when needed for wildlife benefits. Active water level management declined due to lack of onsite 

staff when the Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District (WMD, District) assumed responsibility for

Refuge management in the mid-2000s. Other than short-term drawdowns for shorebird migration, water 

levels in managed wetlands have been held high to decrease hybrid cattail. This management routine has 

resulted in areas of open water with little to no emergent vegetation. 

Wetlands are dynamic systems. Implementing an active water level management regimen that more 

closely emulates historic seasonal and long-term patterns will restore natural wetland vegetation zones

and provide all stages of wetland conditions for the benefit of wetland-dependent wildlife year round. 

Mudflats and exposed shorelines attract foraging shorebirds and loafing waterfowl. Shallow water zones 

with submersed vegetation provide quality foraging conditions for dabbling ducks, waterfowl broods, and 

wading birds alike. Overwater nesting waterfowl and other wetland-dependent birds will take advantage of 

emergent vegetation interspersed throughout the wetland. Deeper water affords water column foraging 

for diving ducks, as well as space for molting and staging waterfowl. A variety of wildlife including the 

sora, American bittern, sedge wren, and black tern benefit from vegetation along the wetland edges 

during the warmer months. Over winter, white-tailed deer, greater prairie-chickens, and other wildlife find 

reprieve from the cold, harsh temperatures and wind. 

The Big 6 wetlands (Haas, Homstad, Office, South, Hesby, and Eagle) were restored in 1995–96; 

whereas, Bisson Lake and Frog Ponds were restored in 2000. All outlet elevations were agreed upon by 

the Refuge and the Buffalo-Red River Watershed District (BRRWD) resulting from a Cooperative 

Agreement signed in 1989. Currently, there is speculation that Homstad Lake could be deeper. In 

addition, due to impacts to Becker County Highway 14, Bisson Lake was never fully restored. Bisson and 

Homstad “have been partly restored with water-control and levee structures, modifying outlet and inlet 

drainage structures, and with some re-contouring of natural topography in Bisson Lake. Additional 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

72

restoration of Bisson and Homstad Lakes may be possible by modifying roads that impact water 

movement into and from the lakes, evaluating changes in weir and stoplog structures and by changes in 

the management of spillway elevations on Bisson Lake. These changes obviously must be carefully 

engineered to make sure adjacent non-Service lands are not adversely affected but with the objective of 

effectively managing natural water and vegetation dynamics in the relict lake basin and to reduce 

downstream runoff and discharge into the Ditch 15 system (Heitmeyer et al., 2012). The new elevations 

also must be agreed upon by the BRRWD. 

Restoring the natural topography and hydrology of these managed wetlands will improve patterns of 

waterflow and native vegetation, resulting in a more sustainable shallow-lake/wetland system.

Objective 1-4: Relict Glacial Lakes

Restore the physical and hydrological character of Pierce Lake while continuing to work toward full 

restoration of Hamden Lake.

Strategies 

• Acquire land from willing sellers within the Refuge boundary. Pierce Lake is the number one 

priority over the next 15 years; Hamden Lake is a close second.

• Strengthen partnership with BRRWD to accomplish mutual goals for restoration of Pierce and 

Hamden Lakes.

• Continue to coordinate conservation and restoration programs with Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, and other partners. Encourage use of conservation options such as 

easements, Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFW, Partners Program) agreements, and 

Wetland Reserve Program on non-Service lands. 

• Develop outreach plan in conjunction with partners to include project plan, information packet,

and stakeholder meetings.

• Restore former lake hydrology and topography where possible without compromising drainage of 

the Ditch 15 system. 

Rationale

Historic documents describe the area encompassed by the Hamden Slough NWR acquisition boundary 

as covered by numerous prairie potholes and large, impassable marshes. The location in the landscape 

coupled with the restored wetland complexes on Hamden Slough NWR result in attracting thousands of 

migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds to the area every spring and fall. The drainage of 

Pierce and Hamden Lakes occurred with the construction of the Ditch 15 and its laterals. The extent of 

that drainage system changed the functionality of these lakes from water storage to a flow-through 

system. As drainage of larger wetlands and shallow lakes continues today, along with the deteriorating 

quality of those still intact, the restoration of Pierce Lake is even more critical. Restoring the physical and 

hydrological integrity of the relict lakes on Hamden Slough NWR will meet Refuge purposes by providing 

critical breeding and nesting habitat for waterfowl such as canvasbacks and ring-necked ducks, as well as 

foraging, loafing and staging habitat for a variety of additional waterfowl species. Other wetlanddependent birds including migratory shorebirds, foraging waterbirds, and breeding secretive marshbirds 

will take full advantage of the varied habitats afforded by these large, glacial lakes. In addition to meeting 

Refuge purposes, full lake restoration will also help restore waterflow patterns, regional water runoff and 

discharge regimes, and contribute to reduced flooding problems downstream in the Buffalo and Red River 

basins. 

Currently, all of Pierce Lake and a portion of Hamden Lake are in private ownership. It is imperative, 

because of topography, that Pierce Lake be restored prior to Hamden Lake. The restoration of the relict 

lakes is dependent on the willingness of private landowners. Securing the necessary funding and 

partnering with organizations with similar goals will be crucial to achieving restoration. The BRRWD is one 

of those key partners. The mission of the BRRWD is to “alleviate flooding and to manage the water 

resources of the District [BRRWD] in a manner that best protects this valuable resource.” Hamden Slough
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

73

NWR lies within the Mainstem Planning Region of the BRRWD. Flood damage reduction is one of many 

issues identified in the Draft BRRWD Management Plan, Mainstem Region Planning Summary (Houston 

Engineering, Inc., 2010). There is an overall reduction goal of 33,000–34,000 acre-feet. Within the Becker 

County Ditch 15 subbasin, a reduction goal of 11,000–12,000 acre-feet has been set. Action items of the 

Mainstem Planning Region include investigating locations and developing and implementing plans for 

natural resource enhancement/flood damage reduction in the Hamden Lake watershed. Addressing these 

action items will produce multiple benefits. The BRRWD recognizes the important existing natural 

resources of the Hamden Slough area and takes those into consideration when selecting potential 

projects. Restoring these water bodies within the landscape increases habitat for wetland-dependent 

birds and provides ecosystem benefits due to a more hydrologically-sound wetland system. 

Uplands

Objective 1-5: Uplands Inventory

Within three years, conduct a baseline vegetation inventory of all Refuge uplands (approximately 2,630 

acres including Hamden lakebed) to guide future tallgrass prairie restoration and management decisions. 

Strategies

• Locate and GPS specific Refuge fields using aerial photos, maps, Resource Inventory Plan (RIP)

cards, and restoration plans. 

• Record vegetation types. Assign prairie type (mesic or wet-mesic) according to the historic 

distribution of vegetation communities (table 3-1). Note wildlife use. 

• Develop habitat layer in Refuge Lands Geographic Information System. 

• Evaluate information to determine restoration or management needs. Combine with District 

restoration and management needs; prioritize within the District’s Annual Work Plan (AWP).

• Develop a long-term monitoring plan for all Refuge uplands to continue evaluation beyond the life 

of this CCP.

• Acquire lands suitable for upland restoration from willing sellers.

Rationale

The 3,210-acre Hamden Slough NWR acts as an anchor for other conservation lands surrounding the 

Refuge, which are primarily Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs). Ten WPAs totaling 2,865 acres are 

located within two miles of the Refuge boundary. Together, the Refuge and WPAs of the greater Hamden 

Slough area total just over 6,000 acres. In contrast, approximately 25,000 acres of land within two miles 

of the Refuge boundary are cropped, making up 60 percent or more of the land base. With fast-paced 

agricultural practices and high commodity crop prices, more and more acres within and surrounding the 

acquisition boundary are being farmed. This results in a decrease in the number of acres available for 

grassland-dependent wildlife, many of which are experiencing steep population declines. 

Nearly 1,500 acres of uplands were planted to permanent cover on Hamden Slough NWR in the past 20 

years. There are also 20 acres of remnant prairie on the Refuge. However, other than old restoration 

plans and maps, little if any vegetation information exists, especially from recent years. The same can be 

said for the surrounding WPAs. Therefore, the District will aim to start managing the Refuge and adjacent 

WPAs as one “system” or “complex,” and this upland inventory is that start. Dominant plant communities 

recorded will tell whether restoration or focused management is needed. This information will be 

incorporated into District upland restoration and management planning. By assessing the state of the 

complex uplands, we will be able to accomplish a more holistic approach to providing quality nesting 

habitat for waterfowl and grassland-nesting birds. Long-term monitoring will be crucial in following upland 

conditions and use by Refuge grassland focal species and other wildlife in response to restoration and 

management activities, outside threats, and climate change. 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

74

Objective 1-6: Tallgrass Prairie Remnants

In conjunction with the Refuge uplands inventory (see Objective 2-1), verify and map the remaining 20 

acres of remnant tallgrass prairie on the Refuge. Inventory all plant species possible in each remnant. 

Strategies

• Locate, verify, and GPS remnant prairie parcels using RIP cards, maps, other historical 

information, and local knowledge.

• Visit the parcels at least three times during the course of one growing season to inventory all 

plant species taking note of non-native/invasive species and cover approximations.

• Create and maintain a GIS layer with associated attributes of all remnant prairies in the RLGIS 

database.

Rationale

Over 99 percent of Minnesota’s tallgrass prairie has been lost to agriculture or development (Minnesota 

County Biological Survey, 2010). Most of the remaining prairie tracts are in small, disjointed pieces; many 

do not support prairie-obligate species due to their size and isolation from other prairie habitat. This is 

true of the remnant prairie fragments on Hamden Slough NWR. The location of most Refuge remnants is 

not well-documented or known by current staff. Knowing and recording the locations will provide 

important information for prairie restoration and management. 

Remnant prairies can provide valuable information about the species composition of local native prairies 

and use it to develop species lists for tallgrass prairie restorations. Grasses and forbs of remnant prairies 

can also serve as a local seed source for tallgrass prairie restorations in localized areas. It is even 

possible that remnant prairie species could become established on adjacent grasslands. If managed in 

conjunction with diverse tallgrass prairie restorations, the total area could support some prairie-obligate 

species over time. Remnant prairies are irreplaceable; not only are they a part of our prairie heritage, but 

remnant prairies are also important in sustaining tallgrass prairie habitats for future generations.

Objective 1-7: Diversify Grasslands

Over the life of the plan, improve the floristic composition of approximately 500 acres of seeded 

grasslands (native and non-native cool and warm season grasses) to attain high diversity restored mesic 

and wet-mesic prairie. Improved sites should exhibit at least 30 species of native tallgrass prairie 

vegetation within ten years. 

Strategies

• Use tallgrass prairie vegetation information from surveys conducted by Pemble (1995), Refuge 

remnant prairie inventories (see Objective 2-2) if applicable, and local knowledge to develop 

target mesic or wet-mesic prairie species lists.

• Verify locations and acres of seeded grasslands from Refuge Uplands Inventory (see Objective 1-

1), restoration needs, and prioritization among District restorations. 

• Assign prairie type (mesic or wet-mesic) according to the historic distribution of vegetation 

communities (table 3-1).

• Acquire appropriate local ecotype seed. Seed each area using the technique best suited for the 

situation.

• Record restoration information in RLGIS. 

Rationale

According to Refuge documents, upland restoration from 1992–1999 consisted mainly of drill-seeding 

native and non-native grasses into the previously-cropped fields. Over 800 acres were seeded only to 

grass. This was primarily due to original guidance outlined in the Hamden Slough NWR Concept Plan 

(FWS, 1992), which advised seeding Refuge uplands to cool and warm season grasses. Planting fields to 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

75

strictly grass provides, for the most part, adequate nesting habitat for waterfowl. At the time, little 

scientifically-sound information was available on the benefits of forbs to grassland bird species, small 

mammals, and invertebrates. In addition, the expense of forb seed was high, given the limited budget of a 

small Refuge. 

As time and knowledge progressed, areas were planted to local ecotype (locally native) seed containing a 

diverse mix of both forb and grass species. However, due to broadleaf weed control, some non-target 

forb species were removed via chemical use and/or intensive mowing. In order for grasslands to provide 

benefits for all prairie-obligate wildlife, especially grassland-nesting birds such as bobolinks and 

grasshopper sparrows, they should contain a high diversity of native grasses and forbs that afford the 

necessary structure and a sustainable food source. 

Sites will be selected for diversification based on upland inventory data (see Objective 1-5) and prioritized 

among the WMD’s Annual Work Plans. Generally, low diversity grasslands will be improved first. Another 

factor affecting selection and priority will be amount of non-native/invasive species present. Fields will be 

planted using a variety of methods, including over seeding post-burn, chemically treating, conversion 

using farming, and more as identified in the step-down Habitat Management Plan. Methods and timing 

will depend on seed availability, weather, resources, and other priorities within the District. 

Objective 1-8: Conversion of Food Plots to Tallgrass Prairie

Convert 50 acres of food plots (corn and soybeans) to native tallgrass prairie vegetation within the first 

three years of CCP approval. 

Strategies

• Continue farming food plots until resources become available (e.g., prairie seed). Ensure the field 

is planted to soybeans the year prior to the planned restoration. 

• Use species lists developed from historic vegetation communities and remnant prairie inventories. 

Verify prairie type.

• Acquire appropriate local ecotype seed. Seed each area using the technique best suited for the 

situation.

• Record restoration information in RLGIS.

Rationale

Two issues identified during the establishment phase of Hamden Slough NWR were loss of farming 

income in areas planned for habitat restoration and wildlife depredation on adjacent private cropland 

(FWS, 1988). To alleviate this, the Refuge agreed to maintain 500 acres of conservation farming (i.e.,

cover crop and row crop) within the core of Hamden Slough NWR. Originally, conservation farming 

provided waterfowl nesting habitat in the spring, while “lure crops” attracted waterfowl to Refuge fields 

instead of nearby private croplands. Twenty-two years later, Refuge cooperators farm 50 acres using 

conventional methods for growing row crops, with no associated benefits to nesting waterfowl. Refuge 

cooperators are currently farming two small plots near the headquarters for conversion to tallgrass prairie 

vegetation. 

Since Refuge establishment, there has been little documented information on the level of damage by 

waterfowl on neighboring crops. Also, there is no evidence waterfowl are using Refuge food plots as an 

alternative food source. A program to alleviate potential damage to private croplands is available to 

private landowners. The Service administers and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

issues depredation permits for lethal and non-lethal control of Canada geese to protect personal property 

(i.e., crops). Today, there are no reasons to maintain the food plots. They are providing no critical habitat 

for Refuge focal species or other resources of concern. In fact, the food plots are fragmenting upland 

nesting habitat on the south end. Fragmentation of grassland habitat has been associated with declines in 

locally breeding grassland birds (Herkert, 1994). In addition, a portion of one field is planted on “highly 

erodible soils,” which are vulnerable to wind and water erosion that could potentially cause sediments to 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

76

flow into the shallow lakes and marshes below. Restoration of these areas to diverse native tallgrass 

prairie vegetation will create a contiguous piece of uplands and wetlands totaling over 800 acres. 

Objective 1-9: Conversion of Cropland to Tallgrass Prairie 

Convert all existing and newly acquired cropland to native tallgrass prairie vegetation—primarily mesic 

and wet-mesic prairie—within five years of acquisition. 

Strategies

• Prepare seedbed by farming as soon as a cooperator can be found. Ensure the field is planted to 

soybeans the year prior to the planned restoration.

• Use species lists developed from historic vegetation communities and remnant prairie inventories. 

• Acquire local ecotype seed from mesic or wet-mesic prairie species. Seed each area using the 

technique best suited for the situation.

• Record restoration information in RLGIS.

Rationale

The loss of available grassland habitat may be influencing regional declines in grassland bird populations 

in the Midwest (Herkert et al., 1996). Over 99 percent of Minnesota’s tallgrass prairie has been lost to 

agriculture or development (Minnesota County Biological Survey, 2010) and seven out of 13 of the state’s 

breeding grassland bird species have experienced significant declines between 1966 and 2010 (Sauer et 

al., 2011). Within two miles of Hamden Slough NWR, approximately 25,000 acres of land are cropped, 

making up 60 percent or more of the land base. In support of the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health policy, we should, to the best of our ability and in concert with Refuge purposes 

and the Service mission, restore habitats to their historic condition and mimic natural processes. Restored 

tallgrass prairie benefits bobolinks, savanna sparrows, and grasshopper sparrows, three of Minnesota’s 

grassland birds in decline today. Tallgrass prairie restoration is a priority for Hamden Slough NWR. 

Acquired land will be converted from row crops to a diverse mix of local ecotype tallgrass prairie 

vegetation following recent Regional guidance. This guidance states that genetically modified organisms

can be used for restoration purposes but for no more than five years. Typically, the seedbed is prepared 

by farming the area with Roundup Ready® corn and soybeans in alternate years; ensuring the final crop 

year prior to restoration is planted in soybeans. Using Roundup Ready® crops safeguards the fields from 

significant broadleaf weed infestation with minimal chemical carryover, resulting in successful prairie 

vegetation establishment. Fields will be planted within five years of acquisition based on seed availability, 

resources, weather, and other factors. 

Objective 1-10: Habitat Structure

Manage all Refuge lands using prescribed burning, grazing, haying, and tree removal, alone or in 

combination. Managed lands should provide open vistas and mixed structures to benefit the full range of 

Refuge grassland focal species. 

Strategies

• Utilize prescribed burning as a management tool to set back encroaching young trees and 

shrubs, provide structural differences in vegetation, and promote vegetative diversity. 

• Initiate a grazing program on the Refuge to promote forb species diversity and a mosaic of 

vegetation heights. 

• Continue to use haying, as appropriate, to create specific vegetation heights. 

• Use removal techniques to rid Refuge uplands of trees established outside of their historical 

occurrence. 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

77

Rationale

Fire and grazing, along with a highly variable climate, shaped and maintained the pre-settlement tallgrass 

prairie. Frequent fires set back encroaching woody vegetation. Bison trampled young woody seedlings 

while grazing on tender grass shoots of newly burned areas allowing forb species to flourish. This 

interaction between fire and grazing created a shifting mosaic of microhabitats for grassland birds and 

other wildlife, prairie invertebrates, and prairie vegetation. 

Grassland-dependent birds adapted to the microhabitats resulting from frequent disturbance in the 

tallgrass prairies. Grassland-dependent birds require open vistas devoid of trees and tall shrubs for

nesting and rearing of young. Trees are hostile habitat on prairies, hosting cowbird parasites as well as 

providing perch and den sites for avian and mammalian predators. In the annotated bibliography “The 

effects of woody vegetation on grassland birds”, Bakker (2003) compiled and summarized relationships 

between grassland birds and woody vegetation from 81 scientific papers. Savanna sparrows had the 

most consistently negative association with woody vegetation followed closely by the grasshopper 

sparrow (Bakker, 2003). Grassland birds also prefer a range of vegetation structures. For example, the 

marbled godwit and upland sandpiper prefer grasslands with shorter, patchier structure while the sedge 

wren and bobolink prefer taller, dense stands of tallgrass vegetation. 

Currently, the uplands of Hamden Slough NWR are managed primarily using prescribed fire on a fiveyear rotation, when possible, as are the rest of the WPAs within the complex. Annual haying of a portion 

of the Hamden Lake bottom provides lek habitat for the greater prairie-chicken, but the routine has not 

changed for many years. Cattle grazing was employed early on, but was phased out as cattle operations 

became harder to find, and fire became more prominent. Without frequent and varied disturbance, 

restored prairie vegetation becomes vulnerable to tree invasion, accumulates heavy litter layers, and 

develops into stands dominated by grasses with little other structure.

The new approach to Refuge upland management will emulate effects of historic fire and grazing regimes 

using a combination of management tools. Management of Refuge uplands in concert with the 

surrounding WPAs will achieve habitat requirements for a range of Refuge grassland focal species. 

Additional benefits to breeding ducks may also result when associated pothole wetlands receive the 

applied management. The step-down Habitat Management Plan will contain details on use, location, and 

timing of management tools. 

Watershed

Objective 1-11 Watershed Sustainability

Over the course of the CCP, work with partners to focus efforts at the watershed level to reduce storm 

runoff, sedimentation, and other nonpoint source pollution and their potential impacts to Refuge water 

quality and quantity. 

Strategies

• Identify areas of highest concern for contributing sediment, nutrients, and surface water runoff 

into the Refuge; prioritize PFW Agreements; help implement Best Management Practices; and 

prioritize land acquisition where appropriate, using newly acquired GIS runoff analyses.

• Pursue implementation of a recommended three-year water quality/quantity monitoring program 

on Refuge wetlands and ditches. See Hamden Slough NWR Contaminants Assessment Program 

(CAP) (Brozowski, 2010) and Water Resources Inventory and Assessment (WRIA) (Newman and 

Eash, 2011) for more details.

• Increase communication with partners (Minnesota DNR, BRRWD, Red River Basin Commission, 

etc.) to acquire additional watershed quality information. 

Rationale

The Hamden Slough watershed once was covered with small, isolated pothole wetlands and larger 

shallow wetlands and lakes. Water was carried overland from the south and east by many small streams 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

78

and captured in the wetlands. The system as a whole was isolated except in wet years when larger 

basins apparently were interconnected. Today, the Hamden Slough watershed is a flow-through system, 

with water carried by multiple surface ditches, including the Ditch 15 system. Subsurface tile drainage 

also is becoming more prevalent in the area. Many of the ecosystem benefits afforded by wetlands and 

associated uplands have been lost with the advent of agricultural drainage. 

Based on information gathered for the Refuge CAP and WRIA, nonpoint source runoff from neighboring 

agricultural lands appears to be the primary threat to water quality on the Refuge. Because of surrounding 

land use and drainage practices, as well as the Hamden Slough NWR’s location at the base of these 

lands, it is likely that elevated concentrations of nutrients, bacteria, and sediment are transported into 

Refuge habitats during storm runoff events (Newman and Eash, 2011). Excessive nutrient and sediment 

loads can affect recruitment, growth, productivity, and viability of numerous wetland plants and animals 

(Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2002). The main carrier of these pollutants is the Ditch 15 

system, which connects neighboring uplands and wetlands to the Refuge and then to the Buffalo River. 

The Buffalo River is on the 2008 303(d) list of impaired waters both above and below the confluence with 

Ditch 15 for bacteria (E. coli) and turbidity (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency [MPCA], 2008). In 

addition, many water bodies adjacent to the Refuge also have impaired status due to elevated nutrient 

and mercury concentrations (Newman and Eash, 2011). Water monitoring sites about 4.5 miles 

downstream of the Refuge show that levels of E. coli and phosphorous are above levels proposed by the 

EPA and MPCA, respectively. Although waterways within the Hamden Slough watershed have not been 

assessed for inclusion in the list of impaired waters, MPCA has established a Total Monitoring Daily Load 

monitoring location near the confluence of the Buffalo River. 

The Service needs to be aware of impairments within the watershed, as they could be indicators of water 

quality threats to the Refuge and potential conditions of Refuge lands. The Service’s Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program will work with partners to implement conservation practices (e.g., planting buffer 

strips, restoring pothole wetland hydrology) on private lands within the watershed to reduce potential 

threats to Refuge resources. Restoration of sustainable plant communities and ecological processes 

(e.g., groundwater recharge) on the Refuge will require restoration of more natural patterns of waterflow

into, through, and out of the area (Heitmeyer, 2012).

Migratory Bird Populations

Objective 1-12: Upland Nesting Duck Pairs

Increase breeding duck pair density from 374 to 530 within the Refuge acquisition boundary by 2028.

Strategies

• Acquire land within the Refuge acquisition boundary.

• Restore wetlands on all Refuge lands.

• Work with partners and private landowners within the acquisition boundary to restore wetlands. 

• Improve wetland condition making them more attractive to breeding pairs.

• Monitor breeding pairs as outlined in Refuge Inventory and Monitoring Plan.

Rationale

Hamden Slough NWR has historical importance to wetland-dependent birds, especially waterfowl, due to 

its abundance and variety of wetland types. In 1989, after many efforts to preserve the area, the Refuge 

was established for waterfowl production, particularly ducks. Over the years, wetland restoration has 

been a priority of the Refuge. However, over 2,700 acres within the Refuge acquisition boundary remain 

in private ownership, contributing to the numerous drained wetlands and shallow lakes. It is welldocumented that the availability of wetlands drives the number of breeding ducks (Kantrud and Stewart,

1977). Currently, restored/existing wetlands within the acquisition boundary can support an estimated 374 

breeding pairs (FWS R3 Habitat and Population Evaluation Team [HAPET], 2009). Wetland restoration 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

79

within the acquisition boundary and follow-up management of all wetlands is critical for the Refuge to 

reach its full potential as a breeding place for waterfowl. 

The Service will acquire land within the acquisition boundary from willing sellers and restore all wetlands 

within the acquired tracts (see Objective 1-2). In addition, the Service will work with partners and private 

landowners to restore wetlands within the boundary on lands remaining in private ownership. Once 

restored, the focus will be improving the quality of wetland habitat, especially the distribution of emergent 

vegetation, making all wetlands more attractive to pairs (Weller and Spatcher, 1965; Murkin et al., 1982). 

Indirect manipulation of wetland vegetation will occur using grazing, prescribed burning, or haying on 

associated uplands (see Objective 1-10). The acquisition of remaining land to complete the Refuge, but 

more importantly the restoration of all remaining wetlands within the acquisition boundary along with 

habitat improvements, will sustain an estimated 530 breeding pairs annually. Implementing these 

strategies will also benefit many other wetland-dependent wildlife species.

Objective 1-13: Upland Nesting Duck Recruitment 

Over the life of the plan, increase the estimated median recruitment rate of ducks on Hamden Slough 

NWR from 0.46 to 0.55.

Strategies

• Acquire land within the Refuge acquisition boundary.

• Restore uplands to high quality native tallgrass prairie vegetation.

• Convert Refuge food plots to high quality native tallgrass prairie vegetation.

• Work with partners and private landowners to establish permanent grass cover adjacent to the 

Refuge.

• Manage Refuge uplands to provide a variety of vegetation structures and open vistas.

• Explore predator control options (e.g., trapping or exclosures).

Rationale

Wetlands drive breeding waterfowl pairs, while available grassland habitat is critical for duck nest 

success. Nesting habitat can range from native prairies and planted grasslands to old fields and road 

ditches. However, hens face challenges as many factors (e.g., climate, predation) play into nest success. 

Edge is probably the greatest indirect detriment to hen nest success. Edge is typically associated with

predator lanes in the form of a drainage ditch, field edge, shelterbelt and more. Further, trees also provide 

perches for avian predators. Providing quality habitat gives the hen a better chance to be successful and 

recruit ducks into the population. Research has shown that contiguous patches of permanent grassland 

with the least amount of edge possible is needed for a better chance of a successful nest (Higgins, 1977;

Duebbert et al., 1981; Sovada et al., 2000). Positive relationships between habitat patch size and duck 

nest success have been found (Greenwood et al., 1995; Sovada et al., 2000). Sovada et al. (2000) found 

smaller patches (less than 105 hectares) had lower brood daily survival rates and higher incidences of 

red fox compared to larger patches (greater than 105 hectares). This likely was related to the proximity of 

edge, used as a predator lane, to the duck nest. 

Permanent grass cover within two miles of the Refuge is limited. Roughly 25,000 acres are farmed 

compared to 6,000 acres of permanent grass on the Refuge and nearby WPAs. Contiguous patches of 

grassland also are limited within the acquisition boundary. A large portion of the Refuge interior is still in 

private ownership and farmed, although some is left idle and/or hayed. In existing grass cover, edge is 

predominant in the form of the surface drainage ditches, shelterbelts, roadways, and field edges. Very 

little suitable upland nesting habitat is available for waterfowl. 

The Service will acquire land within the acquisition boundary from willing sellers and restore all uplands 

within the acquired tracts (see Objective 1-9). In addition, the Service will work with partners and private 

landowners to establish permanent grass cover within the acquisition boundary on lands remaining in 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

80

private ownership. Once planted and restored, the focus will be improving the quality of upland habitat to 

make the area more suitable for nesting. Tree removal and direct management of upland vegetation will 

be implemented using haying, grazing, and prescribed fire to provide different vegetation structures 

preferred by a variety of upland-nesting ducks (see Objective 1-10). 

Objective 1-14: Bobolink Breeding Pairs

Increase breeding pairs of bobolinks on managed Refuge uplands (not including drained Hamden Lake) 

from 37 to 54 over the life of the plan.

Strategies

• Convert 50 acres of Refuge food plots to diverse tallgrass prairie vegetation.

• Diversify 500 acres of Refuge grasslands to diverse tallgrass prairie vegetation.

• Consider minor Refuge boundary adjustments to enhance management and reduce habitat 

fragmentation.

• Develop Inventory and Monitoring Plan. Outline protocol to monitor breeding grassland birds on 

the Refuge, including Bobolink.

Rationale

Bobolinks are one of many breeding grassland birds found in Minnesota that are on the decline (Sauer et 

al., 2011). This is likely due to many factors, one of which is loss or fragmentation of tallgrass prairie 

nesting habitat. Tree invasion could also be a factor affecting use of existing grassland patches by 

bobolinks. Bobolinks prefer moderate to tall, dense vegetation with less than five percent woody 

vegetation and a grassland patch size of 25 to 250 acres with forbs or shrubs for singing perches 

(Sample and Mossman, 1997). 

Based on point count surveys conducted between 1994 and 1996, bobolinks were the most numerous 

breeding grassland bird species on Hamden Slough NWR. An average of 50 birds was recorded during 

the three-year survey period. No detailed information is available on point locations, habitat types, or 

specific methodology. Point counts also were conducted in 2006, but the data were never analyzed and 

information on methodology could not be found. Using the grassland bird thunderstorm model developed 

by the FWS Region 3 HAPET office (2009), 1,480 acres of Hamden Slough grasslands (not including the 

drained Hamden Lake) currently can support 37 pairs of bobolinks (one pair per 40 acres). Refuge 

grasslands range from diverse tallgrass prairie to rank stands of primarily grass (500 acres). Although not 

numerous, scattered trees are still found in some areas. On the south unit, uplands are fragmented by 

food plots (50 acres) and the east boundary contains two private exclusions (15 acres) dominated by 

trees. In all, up to 565 acres could be improved for breeding bobolinks. 

Improving floristic quality of grasslands (see Objective 1-7 ), removing single/tree groves (see Objective 

1-10), converting food plots (see Objective 1-8 ), and possible minor expansion of the Refuge boundary, 

especially on the south unit, will provide more habitat of higher quality for bobolinks. It is reasonable to 

predict the newly-improved 565 acres of land could support two pairs per 40 acres or an estimated 28

pairs of bobolinks. The remaining 980 acres of uplands would still support one pair per 40 acres or 25 

pairs of bobolinks. Implementation of the strategies above will result in 53 bobolink breeding pairs using 

the restored prairies of Hamden Slough NWR. Implementing these strategies will also benefit many other 

prairie-obligate wildlife species. 

People

Goal: The Service will engage the public, build relationships, and encourage awareness of a landscape in 

balance. The Refuge will provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreation that connects people to the 

land and demonstrates the societal benefits of a restored prairie-wetland system.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

81

Objective 2-1: Welcome and orient visitors

Provide a welcoming, safe, accessible experience for Refuge visitors. 

Strategies

• Regularly review and update the Refuge website to provide clear and current information about 

Refuge management, natural history, and visitor activities.

• Ensure that entrance and directional signs are well-maintained and meet Service standards.

• Provide kiosks at key locations that welcome and orient visitors to the Refuge.

• Provide and maintain publications that are clear and accurate and meet Service publication 

standards. Develop a general Refuge information brochure.

• Ensure that all facilities are accessible according to standards of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act.

• Determine the annual number of visitors to the Refuge. Develop and implement a survey of 

overall visitor satisfaction if funding is available. 

Rationale

Welcoming and orienting Refuge visitors contributes to a quality wildlife-dependent recreation program as 

identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) and defined 

in the Service Manual (605 FW 1). The ease with which the public can understand where they can go, 

what they can do, and how to safely and ethically engage in wildlife-related activities increases visitor 

satisfaction and creates a positive impression of the Service and an identification with the mission and 

goals of the agency. 

Estimates of Refuge visitation are based on periodic vehicle counts by Refuge staff during times of 

expected use (e.g., hunting or interpretive program). The needs and satisfaction of visitors are known 

only from chance conversations with Refuge users. While Refuge-specific visitor surveys would provide 

better information for improving visitor opportunities, the procedures used to conduct proper visitor 

surveys are time consuming and costly. Therefore, basic data will be obtained within the constraints of 

limited Refuge resources. The number of people contacted at both on- and off-Refuge events will be 

recorded.

Objective 2-2: Hunting

Continue to provide the public with quality muzzleloader deer hunting opportunities. Continue to support 

and encourage youth waterfowl hunting on the Refuge.

Strategies

• Determine number of muzzleloader deer hunters that use the Refuge and their satisfaction with 

the quality of the hunt.

• Modify and clarify hunt boundaries for consistency, minimizing conflicts between user groups. 

• Explore potential modifications to the existing muzzleloader hunt within the state framework.

• Develop an updated hunting regulations leaflet.

• Work with the Minnesota DNR to incorporate the Refuge into current state white-tailed deer 

surveys.

• Continue to work with partners to host the one-day youth waterfowl hunt. 

• Provide adequate law enforcement for visitor safety and resource protection through routine 

patrols and continued cooperation with the Minnesota DNR and partnerships with other refuges.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

82

Rationale

Hunting is one of six wildlife-dependent recreational uses that receives priority consideration in Refuge 

planning and management under the Improvement Act. The Service recognizes hunting as a traditional 

outdoor pastime deeply rooted in our American heritage. Hunting can instill a unique understanding and 

appreciation of wildlife, their behavior, and their habitat needs. Hunting programs help promote 

understanding and appreciation of natural resources and their management on all lands and waters in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System). Surveys have shown that the number of adults 

participating in hunting programs has decreased in recent years. More concerning is the decreased 

number of youth engaged in the sport of hunting, especially waterfowl hunting. The State of Minnesota 

offers a special waterfowl season for youth—a one-day event of traditional waterfowl hunting in which

only youth can participate. Service staff recognizes the importance of youth waterfowl hunting and 

encourages youth to participate in the sport on Hamden Slough NWR, including the mentored hunt 

hosted by Ducks Unlimited (see Hunting and Fishing in chapter 3). An estimated 20 youth waterfowl 

hunters use the Refuge annually. 

It is estimated that the Refuge hosts fewer than 400 deer hunting visits each year. There may be 

opportunities to improve the muzzleloader deer hunting program by redefining the hunting areas, 

clarifying boundaries, and redesigning hunt brochures. By doing this, the number of hunters on the 

Refuge is expected to remain constant but provide for improved quality opportunities and maintain 

healthy wildlife populations. Changes would primarily aim to decrease conflicts between muzzleloader 

deer hunting and other priority public uses. Additional changes could be made based on comments 

received by visitors, hunters, and landowners via a satisfaction survey. A Refuge hunt plan has been 

written and allows for muzzleloader deer hunting and the youth waterfowl hunt. 

Objective 2-3: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Within five years of plan approval, increase the number and quality of opportunities for wildlife 

observation and photography. 

Strategies

• Identify and improve locations for vehicle pull-offs that will offer additional opportunities for wildlife 

observation and photography.

• Identify an area suitable for a seasonal observation/photo blind on the south side of Homstad 

Lake.

• Explore the option of constructing an observation deck or photo blind at Bisson Lake.

• Maintain the seasonal observation/photo blind at the prairie-chicken lek.

• Maintain the trail and observation platform at Hesby Lake.

Rationale

Hamden Slough NWR is a long, linear Refuge with limited contiguous grassland acres for nesting. Wildlife 

observation and photography are priority wildlife-dependent recreation activities listed in the Improvement 

Act. They are important and valuable activities that promote understanding and appreciation of natural 

resources and their management. Proper management of these uses provides invaluable opportunities 

for interaction between people and the natural environment with little or no detrimental effects to wildlife

or vegetation. 

To encourage visitation to Hamden Slough NWR throughout the year, additional public use facilities 

should be added and improvements to existing facilities should be made (figure 4-1). By expending this 

effort, visitors will be more engaged in wildlife observation and photography at Hamden Slough NWR. 

They may stay longer and enjoy their visit more. Longer visits may lead to a greater appreciation of 

Refuge grassland and wetland habitats for wildlife.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

83

Figure 4-1: Future Visitor Facilities
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

84

Objective 2-4: Environmental Education

Within three years of plan approval, provide environmental education programming to no fewer than 50 

students per year. Within ten years, develop a focused education partnership with at least one local 

school. 

Strategies

• Encourage teachers throughout the area to bring their classes to the Refuge.

• Develop focused education partnerships with local school districts.

• Expand the current prairie-chicken curriculum to include other seasons, habitat types, and wildlife 

species.

• Adapt existing Refuge System curricula (e.g., Rhythms of the Refuge) to Hamden Slough NWR.

• Hire a park ranger or visitor services specialist.

Rationale 

Incorporating environmental education into the school curricula is an important way to influence the future 

well-being of the Refuge. Only through understanding and appreciation will people be moved to personal 

and collective action to ensure a healthy Refuge for the future. Environmental education is important in 

forming general conservation attitudes and responsible conduct on the Refuge.

Developing an effective environmental education program is a very high priority for Hamden Slough 

NWR. In the past, the Refuge has offered limited environmental education opportunities by responding to 

special requests. This objective aims to move the Refuge’s environmental education program toward 

more action. This more active approach will depend on additional staff and resources devoted to visitor 

services. Visitor services staff at Tamarac NWR may be able to provide occasional assistance.

Because the Refuge has a limited history of offering environmental education and little participation data, 

the beginning objective has been set at 50 K–12 students in Becker and Clay Counties. Over the course 

of the next 15 years, the number of participants will increase as the program develops. Educators from 

throughout the local area will be encouraged to come out to the Refuge with their students for 

independent visits. Efforts of Refuge staff will focus initially on developing a close working partnership 

with the Lake Park-Audubon School District, which is nearest to the Refuge. Through this partnership, 

students will gain experience on a regular basis, allowing an understanding of Hamden Slough NWR and 

the importance of prairie-wetland habitats. 

Objective 2-5: Interpretation

Within 10 years, improve opportunities for self-guided interpretation of Refuge wildlife and habitats. 

Strategies

• Construct an interpretive loop trail that travels from the environmental education building through 

important prairie and wetland sites.

• Explore the feasibility of developing a wildlife drive on existing county and township roads. 

• Install kiosks at the Hesby Lake overlook and the Bisson Lake parking area to interpret prairiewetland ecology.

• Develop interpretive panels for the interior and exterior of the environmental education building.

• Update the Refuge bird list.

Rationale

With increased visitation comes an opportunity to interpret Refuge resources and educate a diverse 

group of visitors about conservation. While many people may visit the Refuge, they may not be aware of 

the wildlife and resources they are viewing from their vehicles or on foot. Constructing interpretive trails 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

85

and panels will help orient visitors and interpret the Refuge resources. Visitors will spend more time 

learning about the Refuge and its purpose from the additional opportunities provided. If people stay 

longer on Hamden Slough NWR, it may lead to a greater appreciation of the value and need for the 

conservation of important Refuge habitats for wildlife. 

Objective 2-6: Outreach

Throughout the life of the plan, increase local community support and appreciation for fish and wildlife 

conservation and endorsement of the Refuge’s role in conservation.

Strategies

• Develop a message that relays the important role Hamden Slough NWR plays in conservation,

and include it in all visitor services activities.

• Coordinate with other FWS stations and partners to expand outreach through local news media. 

• Maintain regular contact with community leaders and organizations through presentations and 

events. 

• Hold annual special events on the Refuge in conjunction with other local, regional, or national 

celebrations. 

Rationale 

It is important to Hamden Slough NWR that people, organizations, and agencies in the area know about 

the Refuge and support it as a valuable part of the community. Continued support is essential for the 

success of the Refuge and its long-term viability. Building support for land and water conservation among 

Refuge neighbors is essential to protect natural resources over the long-term.

Effective outreach depends on open and continuing communication and collaboration between the 

Refuge and its many publics. Outreach can foster a sense of ownership in the greater community and 

contribute to achievement of Hamden Slough NWR purposes and the Refuge System mission.

Objective 2-7: Volunteer Programs and Community Partnerships

Over the life of the plan, work with local communities and Friends of Detroit Lakes WMD to generate 

support for the Refuge that results in at least 100 volunteer hours annually. 

Strategies

• Recruit, orient, and train additional volunteers to assist with a variety of projects including visitor 

services programs, habitat restoration, biological programs, and maintenance tasks. 

• Seek additional, mutually beneficial partnership opportunities with local communities.

Rationale 

The Service recognizes the value of time and expertise contributed by individuals and groups. Volunteers 

help the Service achieve agency goals. Developing a volunteer program: 1) provides people with 

opportunities to assist in the accomplishment of the Refuge System mission, 2) enhances our 

performance through the creativity, innovations, labor, and expertise contributed by volunteers, 3) 

provides opportunities for students and others to gain experience in areas of interest for future careers, 

and 4) encourages stewardship of wild lands, wildlife, and other natural and cultural resources through 

public participation in, and contribution to, Service programs and operations. Whether through volunteers, 

support groups, or other important partnerships in the community, Refuge staff seeks to make Hamden 

Slough NWR an integral part of the community. 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

86

Objective 2-8: American Indian Cultural Practices

Maintain and enhance Refuge partnerships with American Indian tribes.

Strategies

• Continue to provide current opportunities for American Indian traditional uses on Refuge lands 

located within the White Earth Reservation.

• Increase communication and coordination with Tamarac NWR and the local White Earth Band of 

Ojibwe.

Rationale 

The Refuge is rich in both historic and pre-historic American Indian cultural traditions. Both the Dakota 

(Sioux) and Ojibwe (Chippewa) Indians used the resources of the wetlands and surrounding lands during 

historic times. Today, members of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe use the portion of the Refuge that lies 

within the White Earth Reservation—more specifically, the Refuge lands within Riceville Township—for 

hunting waterfowl and whitetail deer. Tamarac NWR has a well-established working relationship with the 

tribe and will assist with coordination on issues relevant to Hamden Slough NWR.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

87

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

In this appendix:

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Funding

5.3 Staffing

5.4 Partnership Opportunities

5.5 Step-Down Management Plans

5.6 Monitoring and Evaluation

5.7 Plan Review and Revision

5.1 Introduction

This chapter summarizes the actions, funding, coordination, and monitoring needed to implement the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). As noted in the inside cover of this document, this plan does 

not constitute a commitment for staffing increases or operational and maintenance increases. These 

decisions are at the discretion of Congress in overall appropriations and in budget allocation decisions 

made at the Washington and Regional levels of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service).

5.2 Funding

This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action for the future management of Hamden Slough National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge). The ability to enhance wildlife habitats and to develop and maintain 

quality public use facilities will require a significant commitment of staff and funding from the Service. The 

Refuge will continually need appropriate operational and maintenance funding to implement the 

objectives of this plan. The highest priority Hamden Slough NWR projects as chosen by Refuge staff are: 

• Full restoration of Pierce Lake.

• Full restoration of Bisson Lake, including raising/relocating Becker County Highway 14.

• Full restoration of Hamden Lake, including raising existing county and township roads.

• Implementation of a water monitoring plan as identified in the Water Resources Inventory and 

Assessment.

5.3 Staffing

Currently, Hamden Slough NWR has no full-time employees. The Refuge is managed by the staff of 

Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District (WMD, District). Table 5-1 lists current District staff. At least 

one additional position (visitor services specialist) will be needed for full implementation of this CCP. 

However, future funding is uncertain and new staff positions cannot be guaranteed. 

Table 5-1: Current Detroit Lakes WMD staffing

Category Number of Positions

Management 3

Biological 1

Visitor Services 0

Administrative 2

Maintenance 2

Fire Management 5

Law Enforcement 1
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

88

5.4 Partnership Opportunities

Partnerships are an essential element for the successful accomplishment of goals, objectives, and 

strategies at Hamden Slough NWR. The objectives outlined in this CCP need the support and the

partnerships of federal, state, and local agencies; non-governmental organizations, and individual 

citizens. Refuge staff will continue to seek creative partnership opportunities to achieve the vision of the 

Refuge. 

We expect to continue to work with the following notable partners, while also developing new 

partnerships:

• Red River Basin Commission

• Buffalo-Red River Watershed District

• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

• Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

• Friends of Detroit Lakes WMD

• Becker County

• Ducks Unlimited

• Pheasants Forever

• Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council

• Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society

• Safari Club International of Minnesota

• Izaak Walton League, Prairie Woods Chapter

• Detroit Lakes Area Birding Club

5.5 Step-Down Management Plans

The CCP for Hamden Slough NWR is intended to be a broad umbrella plan that: 1) outlines general 

concepts and objectives for habitat, wildlife, visitor services, cultural resources, and partnerships; and 2) 

guides Refuge management for the next 15 years. Step-down management plans provide greater detail 

for carrying out specific actions authorized by this CCP. Table 5-2 below presents step-down 

management plans that are anticipated to be needed, along with their current status and next revision 

date. Some of these plans logically suggest an integrated approach and, where appropriate, may be 

combined into a single integrated step-down management plan.

Table 5-2: Step-down Management Plans

Step-down Plan Existing Plan

Year Approved

New or Revised 

Plan

Habitat Management N/A 2014

Inventory and Monitoring N/A 2014

5.6 Monitoring and Evaluation

The direction set forth in this CCP and specifically-identified strategies and projects will be monitored 

throughout the life of the plan. Many actions inherent in the plan are new directions and monitoring will 
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

89

help understand the effects of the actions on habitat, wildlife, and public use patterns. In addition, the 

Refuge and its watershed will certainly change, and likely in ways unforeseen. Land use changes, 

invasive species, floods and droughts, disease outbreaks, and climate may alter expected outcomes. 

Monitoring will be critical to detecting and reacting to such change.

5.7 Plan Review and Revision

The CCP is intended to be a dynamic plan based on the concept of adaptive management. Since the 

CCP will be a constant reference and guide for Refuge staff, internal review will be continuous. In 

addition, it is expected that the public and partners will offer continuous feedback. The Service will 

document minor plan modifications when monitoring and evaluation determine that changes are needed 

to achieve Refuge goals and objectives. There will be opportunity for public review and comment before 

making any substantive amendments or revisions. A major plan review and re-write will occur after 15 

years.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

90

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

In this appendix:

A.1 Purpose and Need

A.2 Description of Alternatives

A.3 Affected Environment

A.4 Environmental Consequences
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

91

A.1 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action

A.1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to adopt and implement a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) for Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge) as mandated in 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) and that the CCP 

meets the purposes for which the Refuge was established, contributes to the overall mission of the 

Refuge System, and adheres to Service policies and mandates. 

Refuge purposes are derived from the legislative authority used to acquire specific refuge lands and are, 

along with Refuge System goals, the basis on which primary management activities are determined. 

Purposes for Hamden Slough NWR:

". . . conservation, management, and . . . restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. ¤ 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

16 U.S.C. ¤ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

. . . as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to “ . . . all the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] ...except the inviolate sanctuary provisions . . . ” 16 U.S.C. ¤ 718(c) (Migratory 

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Tax)

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge set forth in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 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.”

Appendix E of the CCP contains a list of key laws, orders and regulations that provide a framework for the 

proposed action.

A.1.2 Need for Action

This EA addresses the need to adopt a 15-year management plan for Hamden Slough NWR in order to 

provide guidance for future Refuge management; address significant issues; identify priorities; ensure 

consistent and integrated management; protect the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of the Refuge; evaluate the appropriateness and compatibility of public uses; and meet other 

requirements of the Improvement Act.

The CCP is needed because adequate, long-term management direction does not currently exist for the 

Refuge. A 1991 Concept Management Plan provided initial guidance for Refuge development and 

management. Updated guidance now is needed that makes use of lessons learned since then. In 

addition, the landscape has undergone changes that affect the Refuge, new threats to wildlife and habitat 

are emerging, new laws and policies are in place, and new scientific information is available. 

The plan is needed to help achieve Refuge goals for wildlife, habitat, and people:

Goal 1: Wildlife and Habitat – Habitats on Hamden Slough NWR will be restored, protected, and actively 

managed to provide a diversity of native wetland and grassland habitats. These efforts will be further 

leveraged by partnerships and conservation actions outside the Refuge, resulting in a resilient and 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

92

balanced landscape, meeting the needs of migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and 

other wildlife in an uncertain future.

Goal 2: People – The Service will engage the public, build relationships, and encourage awareness of a 

landscape in balance. The Refuge will provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreation that connects 

people to the land and demonstrates the societal benefits of a restored prairie-wetland system.

Significant issues that need to be addressed are summarized in section A.1.3 below. More detail about 

these issues can be found in chapter 2 of the CCP.

A.1.3 Scoping of the Issues

Internal scoping began in August 2010 when Service planning staff and Hamden Slough NWR staff 

developed a preliminary list of issues, concerns, and opportunities associated with management of the 

Refuge. A second internal scoping session was held with the Service’s Regional Office staff at Fort 

Snelling, MN, in March 2011 to get input on issues from regional supervisors, biologists, planners, and 

other program specialists.

Public scoping began in October 2010 when Refuge staff hosted an open house event in Detroit Lakes, 

MN, to inform the public of the planning process and to solicit their input on issues of concern. About 12 

people attended. In addition, a news release was distributed to area media, informational posters were 

displayed in local communities, and postcards soliciting comments were sent to several hundred names 

on the Refuge mailing list. 

In December 2010, the Refuge convened a team of resource professionals to share their perspectives on 

the biological and visitor services programs at Hamden Slough NWR. Participants included partner 

agencies, researchers, educators, and Refuge volunteers. Purposes of the workshop were to define 

significant issues and identify potential options for addressing them; share knowledge, ideas, and 

perspectives to ensure that best available information is considered; and begin to develop a shared vision 

for the future of the Refuge and the ecosystem.

In June 2011, the Refuge Manager met with both the Red River Basin Commission and the Buffalo-Red 

River Watershed District to provide information and solicit input on the Hamden Slough CCP. In July 

2011, the Refuge Manager mailed letters to all landowners within the approved boundary inviting them to 

meet one-on-one to discuss their thoughts on the future direction of the Refuge. Meetings were 

completed by early August.

A.1.4 Hamden Slough NWR Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

This section summarizes the major issues that were identified and analyzed as part of the CCP process. 

The issues were critical in framing the objectives for the various alternatives considered and formed the 

basis for evaluating environmental effects. More detailed explanation of the issues can be found in 

chapter 2 of the CCP.

Wetlands 

Prairie pothole wetlands

About 85 percent of Minnesota’s prairie pothole wetlands have been drained and the trend continues 

today as subsurface tile drainage systems improve. The exact number of pothole wetlands on the Refuge 

is not known, although more than 200 have undergone at least partial restoration. Individual wetlands 

have not been inventoried as to size, watershed, or hydrologic regime. Monitoring of the physical and 

biological condition of restored wetlands has been minimal. 

Managed wetlands

Natural water level cycles that historically maintained long-term wetland and wildlife productivity were 

heavily altered by drainage ditches and subsurface tiles in the early 20th century. Wetlands that 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

93

historically captured and held water were converted to a flow-through system. Some water level control 

now is possible on several of these larger wetlands, although water management capability is limited. 

These wetlands are managed primarily to provide habitat for migrating spring shorebirds and breeding 

waterfowl. Water levels also may be manipulated for fall shorebirds, overwintering resident wildlife, 

protection of roads, control of invasives, or to alleviate downstream flooding. The Refuge does not have 

an integrated wetland management plan. Invasive hybrid cattails are difficult to control. Invasive fish, 

especially fathead minnows, compete with wetland wildlife for food. 

Relict glacial lake restoration

Two of the largest relict glacial lakes—Pierce Lake and Hamden Lake—are still drained. All of Pierce 

Lake and some of Hamden Lake remain as private inholdings within the approved Refuge boundary. 

Restoration of Pierce Lake must be completed first in order to restore Hamden Lake. 

Uplands

Tallgrass prairie restoration

Many restored prairies on the Refuge have fairly low diversity of native plant species. Some sites are 

dominated by non-native cool season grasses. Non-native parsnip, spurge, knapweed, crown vetch, and 

tansy have been found on the Refuge; all are aggressive invaders. Fire and grazing regimes that 

historically sustained prairie diversity have been disrupted. Data on current condition of Refuge prairie 

restorations is limited.

Grassland-dependent bird populations have declined from historic levels far more than any other group of 

birds due to habitat loss and fragmentation. Grassland birds show a variety of habitat preferences based 

on vegetation height, cover density, grass/forb ratio, soil moisture, litter depth, woody vegetation, and 

plant species composition. It is important to maintain a mosaic of grassland habitats to meet the varying 

needs of grassland bird species of concern. 

Tallgrass prairie remnants

Some unbroken tallgrass prairie exists on the Refuge in small fragmented remnants. The location, size, 

and current status of most remnants are not well-documented, but most are thought to be in a degraded 

condition as evidenced by low native species diversity, and some could be lost to invasive and/or woody 

vegetation if not given management attention soon. These tallgrass prairie remnants are irreplaceable. 

Some may contain rare plant species that could provide a local seed source for upland restoration and 

diversification projects.

Management tools

About 50 acres are farmed as wildlife food plots to mitigate crop depredation on neighboring lands, but 

little information is available on depredation levels or use of the food plots by target species. The cropped 

areas increase habitat fragmentation and do not provide critical habitat for Refuge resources of concern. 

Erosion from the fields may be increasing sedimentation in the wetlands below. All farming must be 

compliant with new regional policy that limits use of genetically-modified, Glyphosate-tolerant corn and 

soybeans.

Rotational grazing by cattle was used as a management tool in the early years of the Refuge to emulate 

the historic disturbance effects of bison and elk but was phased out as other management techniques 

became available. Reinstating a grazing program could increase prairie diversity and heterogeneity, 

improve wildlife habitat, provide economic benefit to local landowners, and generate additional support for 

the Refuge in the local community. 

Watershed 

Historically, the matrix of prairie vegetation interspersed with wetlands in the Hamden Slough watershed 

slowed surface water runoff, allowing soil infiltration and recharge of groundwater aquifers. This prairie 

wetland ecosystem provided habitat for wildlife, maintained water quality, and helped to mediate 

downstream flooding in the Buffalo River. Now, however, the watershed is dominated by row crop 

production. Prairie vegetation has been removed. Ditches and subsurface tile lines have accelerated 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

94

water drainage and dried up wetlands. It is likely that elevated concentrations of contaminants are being 

transported onto the Refuge (Newman and Eash, 2011). Ongoing climate change could further 

exacerbate these issues. Restoration of sustainable plant communities, wildlife habitat, and ecological 

processes (such as flood storage and groundwater recharge) on the Refuge will require restoration of 

more natural patterns of water flow into, through, and out of the area (Heitmeyer, 2012).

People

Hunting

A late-winter deer muzzleloader season and a one-day youth waterfowl hunt are available on the Refuge. 

During the scoping period for this CCP, some members of the public expressed concerns about the 

safety of the muzzleloader hunt and the pressure on the deer herd. Some would like to see the entire 

hunting program eliminated to provide a sanctuary for wildlife. Others, however, were in support of 

continuing the muzzleloader deer hunt. Comments on the youth waterfowl hunt were generally 

supportive.

Wildlife observation and photography

Current opportunities include roadside viewing, one wetland overlook, one hiking trail, and a seasonal 

observation blind. Demand for additional visitor access outside these areas is low, but disturbance could 

become an issue if opportunities and/or demand increase. Clear definition is needed of where these uses 

should be allowed and with what stipulations. We want to encourage visitor connections to the Refuge 

while minimizing wildlife and habitat disturbance. 

Environmental education and interpretation

Environmental education and interpretive activities and materials on the Refuge are limited due to lack of 

dedicated staff. Few outdoor opportunities for school groups are available in the area. Development of a 

strong environmental education program is a high priority for the Refuge as resources become available. 

Outreach and community partnerships

Communication and partnerships increase public support and make the Refuge a valuable part of the 

community. Current methods include news releases, media interviews, and group presentations. 

Partnership with the volunteer group “Friends of the Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District”

increases awareness of both the District and the Refuge. Additional outreach and partnership efforts are 

desirable, but priorities must be set to make best use of limited resources and to generate the most 

benefits for the Refuge and the local area.

A.1.5 Decision Framework

This EA describes three alternatives for future Refuge management and the environmental 

consequences of each alternative. Each alternative has a reasonable mix of wildlife habitat prescriptions 

and wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

This EA is an important step in the Service’s formal decision-making process. In compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Regional Director of the Midwest Region (Region 

3 of the Service) will consider the information presented in this document to select the preferred 

management alternative. Selection of the preferred alternative is based on its environmental 

consequences and ability to achieve Refuge purposes and goals. The planning team has recommended 

Alternative C to the Regional Director. The Draft CCP was developed for implementation based on this 

recommendation.

The Regional Director will determine whether the preferred alternative is a major federal action, which 

would significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of 

NEPA. If it is determined not to be a major federal action, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will 

be issued. A FONSI means that the preferred alternative is selected and can be implemented in 

accordance with other laws and regulations. A Decision of Significant Impact would indicate the need to 

conduct more detailed environmental analysis in an Environmental Impact Statement.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

95

A.2 Description of Alternatives

A.2.1 Alternatives Development

Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management objectives and strategies designed 

to achieve Refuge purposes, the vision and goals identified in the CCP, and the mission and goals of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System) and the Service. Alternatives are formulated to 

address the significant issues, concerns, and opportunities identified by the Service and by the public 

during the scoping period. 

The three alternatives identified and evaluated represent different approaches to protecting, restoring, 

and managing Refuge wildlife, plants, habitats, and other resources as well as compatible wildlifedependent recreation. The planning team assessed the existing biological conditions and external 

relationships affecting the Refuge. This information contributed to the development of Refuge goals and, 

in turn, helped to formulate the alternatives. 

A.2.2 Elements Common to All Alternatives

Although the alternatives differ in many ways, there are similarities as well. These common features are 

listed below to reduce the length and redundancy of the individual alternative descriptions. 

• The Service would ensure that Refuge management complies with all federal laws and 

regulations that provide direction for managing units of the Refuge System.

• No adjacent landowners would be adversely impacted by any action taken by the Service without 

a mutual agreement and adequate compensation.

• All alternatives would provide equal protection and management of cultural resources.

A.2.3 Description of Alternatives

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)

This alternative reflects the current management direction of Hamden Slough NWR. It provides the 

baseline against which to compare other alternatives. It is also a requirement of NEPA that a no-action 

alternative is addressed in the planning process. A detailed description of the existing programs and uses 

contained in this alternative is found in chapter 3 of the CCP.

These are key elements of Alternative A:

• Quality and quantity of migratory bird habitat would remain about the same.

• Wetland water management would focus on drawdowns for migrating spring shorebirds and 

flooding for breeding waterfowl. Target water levels would be determined on a year-by-year basis 

for each wetland. 

• Remaining drained prairie pothole wetlands (about 40) would be restored. 

• Prairie restoration would continue on newly-acquired agricultural sites. 

• The primary upland management tool would be prescribed fire in the spring. Limited haying and 

tree removal would continue.

• Farming of wildlife food plots (about 50 acres) would continue, but use of genetically modified 

crops would not be allowed on Refuge food plots in compliance with current FWS Region 3 

policy. 

• Land acquisition from willing sellers would continue within the approved Refuge boundary.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

96

• Conservation partnerships with other agencies, landowners, and organizations would remain at 

the current level.

• Outreach, community partnerships, and priority public uses that are compatible and wildlifedependent would continue at present levels.

Alternative B: Wetland Focus 

This alternative would focus on increasing the quantity and quality of habitat for waterfowl. Acquisition 

and full restoration of Pierce Lake would be emphasized over the next 15 years. The hydrologic regime 

would better emulate natural seasonal and long-term variability. More diverse, sustainable wetland 

vegetation patterns would be restored. This alternative would build upon the wetland and waterfowl focus 

developed when the Refuge was first established.

These are key elements of Alternative B:

• Land acquisition from willing sellers would continue, with Pierce Lake as the highest priority. 

• Further restoration of managed wetlands would occur where appropriate and feasible. An 

integrated wetland management plan would be developed. 

• The natural hydrology of all prairie pothole wetlands would be restored and maintained. A 

baseline inventory of each site would guide management decisions.

• Construct nesting islands and over-water nesting structures to provide additional waterfowl 

nesting habitat.

• Planting of native prairie vegetation would continue on newly-acquired agricultural sites.

• Fire, grazing, haying, and tree removal would be used to manage uplands for nesting waterfowl. 

• Farming of wildlife food plots would continue, but with alternative crops and locations to maximize 

benefits to waterfowl. 

• Conservation partnerships would focus on increasing soil and water retention and restoring 

natural waterflow corridors in the Hamden watershed.

• The deer hunt would be eliminated; the waterfowl hunt would continue. Other visitor services 

programs would expand as resources allow. 

Alternative C: Wetland and Prairie Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

This alternative would focus on increasing the quantity and quality of habitat for waterfowl and grassland 

birds. Acquisition and full restoration of Pierce Lake would be emphasized over the next 15 years. The 

hydrologic regime would better emulate natural seasonal and long-term variability. More diverse, 

sustainable wetland and prairie vegetation patterns would be restored. This alternative would expand the 

wetland and waterfowl focus of Alternative B to include an additional focus on tallgrass prairie and 

grassland birds. A detailed description of objectives and actions included in this preferred alternative is 

found in chapter 4 of the CCP.

These are key elements of Alternative B:

• Land acquisition from willing sellers would continue, with Pierce Lake as the highest priority. 

• Further restoration of managed wetlands would occur where appropriate and feasible. An 

integrated wetland management plan would be developed. 

• The natural hydrology of all prairie pothole wetlands would be restored and maintained. A 

baseline inventory of each site would guide management decisions.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

97

• Emphasis on restoration and management of diverse tallgrass prairie would increase. Plant 

diversity would include a mix of native grasses, sedges, and forbs tailored to the specific 

characteristics of each site. A baseline inventory of each site would guide management decisions.

• Fire, grazing, haying, and tree removal would be used in combination to create the varied habitat 

structure needed by grassland birds and upland-nesting waterfowl. 

• Wildlife food plots would be converted to appropriate native vegetation.

• Conservation partnerships would focus on increasing soil and water retention and restoring 

natural waterflow corridors in the Hamden watershed.

Deer and waterfowl hunt programs would continue. Expansion of environmental education opportunities 

would be a high priority. Other visitor services programs would increase as staff availability increases, and 

core themes, key audiences, and measures of success would be developed.

Table A-1 (below) shows a summary of actions by alternative
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

98

Table A-1: Summary of Actions by Alternative

Issue/Topic

Alternative A (No Action)

Current management

Alternative B

Wetland Focus

Alternative C (Preferred 

Alternative)

Wetland and Prairie Focus

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT

Wetlands

Manage water levels in Bisson and 

the Big Six wetlands primarily by 

drawing down in spring/fall and 

flooding in summer. 

Continue to restore drained 

pothole wetlands. 

Continue working toward 

restoration of Pierce and Hamden 

lakes.

Manage water levels to better 

emulate natural seasonal and longterm variability. 

Restore all wetlands; ensure that 

each restoration is consistent with 

wetland type.

Restore Pierce Lake; continue 

working toward restoration of 

Hamden Lake.

Construct nesting islands and 

overwater nesting structures to 

provide additional waterfowl nesting 

habitat.

Manage water levels to better 

emulate natural seasonal and 

long-term variability. 

Restore all wetlands; ensure that 

each restoration is consistent with 

wetland type.

Restore Pierce Lake; continue 

working toward restoration of 

Hamden Lake.

Prairies

Convert cropland native prairie

vegetation.

Manage restored prairie to reduce 

plant litter and invasive species, 

and to promote native prairie 

vegetation.

Convert cropland to native prairie

vegetation. 

Manage prairies to provide 

waterfowl nesting cover. 

Convert cropland to native prairie

vegetation; improve floral 

composition of seeded grasslands; 

use seed mixtures tailored to the 

hydrogeomorphic setting of each 

site. 

Manage prairies to provide diverse 

habitat structure needed by 

grassland birds and uplandnesting waterfowl. 

Management 

tools

Farming

Continue cooperative farming of 

wildlife food plots (50 acres) 

without use of genetically-modified 

seed.

Use short-term farming (up to five

years on newly-acquired tracts) to 

prepare seedbeds on prairie 

restoration sites.

Continue cooperative farming of 

wildlife food plots, but switch to 

alternate crops and locations to 

increase waterfowl benefits. 

Use short-term farming to prepare 

seedbeds on prairie restoration 

sites.

Convert wildlife food plots to 

appropriate native prairie 

vegetation, primarily mesic and 

wet-mesic prairie.

Use short-term farming to prepare 

seedbeds on prairie restoration 

sites.

Fire, Haying, 

Grazing, Tree 

Removal

Prescribed fire in spring is primary 

tool for upland habitat 

management.

Hay 100 acres of Hamden lakebed 

annually.

No grazing.

Remove trees as needed to 

improve habitat for nesting 

grassland birds. 

Integrated use of fire, haying, 

grazing, and tree removal as 

needed to increase habitat benefits 

for priority wetland wildlife.

Integrated use of fire, grazing, 

haying, and tree removal as 

needed to increase habitat 

benefits for priority wetland and 

prairie wildlife.

Watershed 

sustainability

Work with partners to improve 

watershed condition as 

opportunities become available.

Continue to purchase land from 

willing sellers within the approved 

Refuge boundary.

Work with partners to increase soil 

and water retention within the 

watershed and to restore natural 

waterflow corridors.

Continue to purchase land from 

willing sellers within the approved 

Refuge boundary, with Pierce Lake 

as the highest priority.

Same as Alternative B.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

99

A.3 Affected Environment

This section contains a brief overview of the affected environment of Hamden Slough NWR. Additional 

detail is contained in chapter 3 of the CCP.

Hamden Slough NWR was authorized by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission in 1989 to restore 

5,944 acres of prairie and wetland habitat in west-central Minnesota for migratory waterfowl. About 3,200 

acres have been acquired and restored so far, and the location is recognized once again as an 

outstanding place to see migratory birds. 

A.3.1 Physical Environment 

Geology and Topography

The Des Moines Lobe, the most recent advance of the Wisconsin Glacier, left the bulk of surficial 

deposits in this portion of Becker County. The Wadena Lobe formed the Alexandria Moraine, a large 

Issue/Topic

Alternative A (No Action)

Current management

Alternative B

Wetland Focus

Alternative C (Preferred 

Alternative)

Wetland and Prairie Focus

PEOPLE

Welcome and 

orient visitors

Continue to provide current 

leaflets, directional signs, kiosk, 

and website. 

Evaluate effectiveness and 

completeness of information 

provided for visitors. Update 

regularly.

Same as Alternative B.

Hunting

Continue muzzleloader deer and 

youth waterfowl hunts.

Eliminate muzzleloader deer hunt. 

Continue youth waterfowl hunt.

Coordinate with tribe to evaluate use 

of Refuge lands by tribal members; 

seek opportunities to enhance the 

partnership.

Continue muzzleloader deer hunt; 

consider modifications to increase 

quality. Continue youth waterfowl 

hunt. 

Coordinate with tribe to evaluate 

use of Refuge lands by tribal 

members; seek opportunities to 

enhance the partnership.

Wildlife 

observation 

and 

photography

Maintain existing roads, trails, 

parking areas, overlooks, and 

viewing blind. Refuge is open from 

sunrise to sunset.

Enhance opportunities in balance 

with concerns about visitor safety 

and wildlife/habitat disturbance.

Same as Alternative B.

Environmental 

education and 

interpretation

Work with local schools and 

organizations by request when 

staff is available. Provide Prairie 

Trunk, prairie curriculum, and 

shelter for use by educators.

Continue Prairie Fun Day, 

mentored waterfowl hunt, and 

Detroit Lakes Bird Festival events. 

Continue webcam development. 

Maintain interpretive panels.

Continue current environmental 

education programs. 

Continue current interpretive events. 

Expand opportunities for self-guided 

interpretation.

Expand environmental education 

opportunities in partnership with 

local schools and community 

groups.

Continue current interpretive 

events. Expand opportunities for 

self-guided interpretation.

Outreach

Continue current level of outreach 

to off-site audiences including 

community group presentations by 

request, news releases for special 

events, and participation in local 

community events.

Continue current outreach activities.

Expand when resources allow, 

defining key audiences, core 

themes, and measures of success 

to be incorporated into all visitor 

services activities.

Same as Alternative B.

Volunteers 

and 

community 

partnerships

Continue current level of volunteer 

support from Friends of Detroit 

Lakes Wetland Management 

District.

Develop and expand partnerships 

with local communities and 

volunteers.

Same as Alternative B.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

100

glacial outwash slope that lies on the extreme eastern boundary of the Refuge. Therefore, the surficial 

geomorphology of the northern half of the Refuge is dominated by ground moraine, while the southern 

half of the Refuge is dominated by terminal moraine.

The northern portion of the Refuge, dominated by ground moraine and flatter northern till plain surfaces, 

contains the historic Hamden Lake. A higher density of larger pothole wetlands and shallow lakes are 

found in the southern portion of the Refuge due to the greater changes in topography. The Refuge lies 

within the lowest elevation within its watershed, which provides excellent wetland conditions, even in drier 

periods.

Hydrology

Hamden Slough NWR is located within the greater Red River Basin. Water flows primarily northward 

through the Refuge and then west into the Buffalo River. The Buffalo empties into the Red River, which 

flows north into Hudson Bay in Canada. The smaller Hamden Slough watershed is approximately 31,200 

acres (about 4.5 percent of the Buffalo River watershed). There is considerable surface-groundwater 

interaction, a key component of the water supply and function of Refuge wetlands.

Historically, water draining into the Refuge area was captured and held in several larger wetland basins. 

Local surface and groundwater runoff was held in several hundred small isolated wetland depressions. 

Collectively, these wetlands helped recharge regional groundwater and mediate downstream discharge 

and flooding in the Buffalo and Red Rivers (Heitmeyer, 2011). Extensive drainage of wetlands in the 

Hamden Slough area began with construction of Ditch 15 and its laterals in the early 20th century and has 

continued with ongoing installation of subsurface drainage tiles. Today, this inter-connected system 

transports water out of the Hamden Slough watershed to increase agricultural productivity. Water quality 

is compromised by sediment, nutrients, and other contaminants. The system is highly susceptible to flash 

flooding during high precipitation events (Newman and Eash, 2010). 

More than 200 drained wetlands on the Refuge have been at least partially restored with ditch fills, 

sediment removal, and/or water control structures. However, the largest shallow lakes within the Refuge 

boundary—Hamden and Pierce—are still drained and remain in private ownership.

Soils

Refuge soils were formed in glacial outwash sediments or in glacial drift overlying outwash. Silty clay 

loam and muck types are generally dominant. Glacio-lacustrine depressions, pothole depressions, 

drainages, and uplands each contain distinct soil series. Much of the ground moraine on the northern part 

of Hamden Slough NWR is poorly drained, while slope soils in the southern terminal moraine are 

moderately drained to well-drained.

Climate

The climate of the Hamden Slough region is classified as continental cold temperate with warm, 

moderately humid summers and cold dry winters. Mean monthly temperatures range from about 18 °F in 

January to about 75 °F in July. The annual growing season ranges from 145 to 175 days. Average annual 

precipitation is 25 inches, with a strong seasonal pattern typically increasing in April and reaching a peak 

in June, followed by a gradual decline to low levels in winter. Long-term climate and local precipitation 

data suggest an approximate 10 to 12 year pattern of alternating wet and dry periods. In general, 

precipitation and streamflow data indicate markedly increased amounts over the past 20 years 

(Heitmeyer, 2012). 

Wetlands are very susceptible to climate change because of their shallow depths and high 

evapotranspiration rates. In nearly all climate simulation models, mean temperatures in the Northern 

Great Plains could increase between 6.5 °F and 11.0 °F over the next 100 years. Without a substantial 

increase in precipitation to counteract increased temperature, severe impacts such as decreased water 

inputs, decreased storage capacity, change in hydroperiod, and increased frequency of drought will occur 

(North American Bird Conservation Initiative [NABCI], 2010). Climate records indicate that the strong 

east-west precipitation gradient across the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) steepened during the 20th

century, with weather stations in the west becoming drier and stations in the east becoming wetter. The 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

101

greatest drying occurred in the Canadian provinces. Climate simulations for the PPR show that a 3.6 °F

increase in temperature would cause many highly productive wetlands to go dry, especially in the 

Dakotas and Saskatchewan (NABCI, 2010), likely causing eastward shifts in the breeding range of 

waterfowl (Johnson et al., 2010).

A.3.2 Vegetation and Wildlife

Historic conditions

Historical accounts from the settlement of Hamden Township in the 1870s describe “The grass in some 

places was two and a half feet high, the rolling prairie was dotted with lakes and groves here and there.

(Wilcox, 1907)” More specifically, the area encompassed by Hamden Slough NWR, as depicted on the 

original General Land Office map, was an open prairie with abundant wetlands and lakes including a 

large “impassable marsh” named Hamden Lake. 

Bison grazed the prairie. Other mammals in the area likely included elk, moose, deer, coyote, jackrabbit, 

and the occasional pronghorn antelope. But it was the abundance of birds that defined Hamden. W.A. 

Wilkin, one of the first settlers of Hamden Township states, “Game was very plentiful, especially ducks, 

geese and prairie-chickens. It was no trouble to keep our families in meat, as all we had to do was to look 

out on the lake in the morning and see where the ducks were . . . and with a double-barreled shotgun, we 

could usually kill enough to last the whole day. (Wilcox, 1907)” Other birds of interest recorded include 

whooping cranes, common moorhens, Eskimo curlews, and passenger pigeons.

Current conditions

Vegetation in temporary wetlands typically includes emergent annuals adapted to constant water 

fluctuations such as beggarticks, smartweeds, wild millet, ragweed, and cocklebur. Vegetation commonly 

found in seasonal wetlands includes some grasses, bulrush species, sedges, spikerushes, arrowhead, 

and some cattail. Semi-permanent wetlands usually have a combination of robust emergent vegetation 

such as cattails and bulrushes, along with submerged vegetation such as coontail, watermilfoil, and 

pondweeds. Many Refuge wetlands have too much or too little emergent vegetation. Hybrid cattail, an 

invasive emergent, is very aggressive and forms dense stands when conditions are right. Most vegetation 

management on the Refuge is to reduce stands of hybrid cattail.

More than 1,500 acres of former crop fields have been planted to native grasses and forbs. Early 

restorations included a mix of warm and cool season grasses, sometimes including non-native species. 

Over time, diversity of seed mixes has increased. More forbs are included and only seed from the local 

area is used. Invasive plants are probably the biggest threat to Refuge uplands. Of greatest concern are 

crown vetch, wild parsnip, and common tansy. All are prolific seeders, have a long-lasting seed bank, and 

are easily moved around by mowing.

Over 200 species of birds have been recorded on the Refuge. Every wetland niche—from dense cattail to 

seasonal emergent vegetation to mudflats to open water—is used by wetland birds. Migrating shorebirds 

include Hudsonian godwits; white-rumped, western, and pectoral sandpipers; short-billed dowitchers; and 

semi-palmated plovers. Marbled godwit, greater yellowlegs, and killdeer breed on the Refuge. Waterfowl 

are seen in large numbers during migration and may include lesser scaup, American wigeon, and 

northern pintail. Breeding waterfowl include Canada goose, trumpeter swan, blue-winged teal, mallard, 

and canvasback, among others. Other waterbird species include American white pelican, pied-billed 

grebe, Virginia rail, Franklin’s gull, black tern, and American bittern. 

Grassland birds have responded to the restoration of upland habitat. Species documented on Hamden 

Slough include, but are not limited to, bobolink; clay-colored, grasshopper, and field sparrows; western 

meadowlarks; and northern harriers. Species that frequent margins between grassland and wetland 

include common yellowthroat, LeConte’s sparrow, sedge wren, and savanna sparrow, among others. 

Upland sandpiper and greater prairie-chicken are attracted to the mowed portion of the drained Hamden 

Lake.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

102

Mammals on the Refuge include white-tailed deer, coyote, badger, raccoon, striped skunk, mink, and 

muskrat. Document amphibians and reptiles include eastern garter and smooth green snakes; tiger 

salamander; plains leopard, wood, and tree frogs; northern spring peeper; common snapping and 

western painted turtle; and the 12-lined skink.

A.3.3 Public Use

Hunting and Fishing

Muzzleloader hunting for deer and a youth waterfowl hunt are available on the Refuge. There are no 

fishable waters.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

The roadways crisscrossing the Refuge fragment habitat, but also provide convenient opportunities for 

wildlife observation. In addition, a pullover is available at Bisson Lake, the Hesby trail and overlook offers 

a short accessible walk through restored prairie ending at Hesby wetland, and a prairie-chicken 

observation blind is located on the drained Hamden lakebed.

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Currently, the Refuge does not have a formal environmental education program due to lack of trained, 

available staff. On request, District staff or volunteers may work with educators to present programs at 

local schools. An environmental education shelter recently was constructed at the old headquarters area. 

A prairie curriculum, Prairie Trunk with teaching aids, and a live prairie-chicken webcam are available for 

use by educators. Interpretive materials and programs are minimal due to lack of staff. Materials include a 

bird list, informational leaflet, kiosk, and two interpretive panels. Programs include an annual Prairie Fun 

Day and an interpretive program held in conjunction with the mentored youth waterfowl hunt.

Socioeconomics

Hamden Slough NWR is located in Becker County in west central Minnesota, about forty miles east of the 

North Dakota border. The population of Becker County was 32,504 in the 2010 census (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2012). The Refuge lies seven miles northwest of Detroit Lakes, MN (county seat, population 

8,570) and one mile from Audubon, MN (population 520). Becker County has a total area of 1,315 square 

miles (841,600 acres).

Median household income in Becker County is just over $46,000; about 11% of the population has 

income below the poverty line. The five-year estimate (2006–2010) of unemployment is 5.3 percent (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2012). About 75 percent of workers are private wage and salary earners, another 14 

percent work for the government, and 11 percent are self-employed.

In 2007, Becker County had 1,202 farms totaling nearly 400,000 acres. Total market value of products 

sold was $150 million, about evenly divided between crops and livestock/poultry. Net income averaged 

$40,137 per farm. Sixty percent of operators had a primary occupation other than farming (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 2007).

In 2009, the tourism industry generated about $62.6 million in gross sales in Becker County and 

supported 1,310 jobs, contributing $4 million in sales tax to the state economy (Explore Minnesota 

Tourism, 2011). The region offers water-based recreation, cultural attractions, and multiple festivals and 

special events.

A.3.4 Archeological and Cultural Values

The Cheyenne were the first known historic Native American group to live in the upper reaches of the 

Red River Valley. They were decimated by smallpox during the early 1780s, leaving the area open for the 

Ojibwe who became the dominant people in the region until the mid-1800s. The first land cession by the 

southern Ojibwe was made in 1837. Multiple treaties with the Ojibwe, Dakota, and Winnebago tribes soon 

opened up central Minnesota to logging and settlement. Construction of the Northern Pacific Railway 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

103

through the Hamden Slough region in the late 1800s stimulated tremendous population growth. By 1923, 

Becker County had a population of nearly 23,000 people.

The Indian Springs site is the only known prehistoric site within the authorized Refuge boundary. It was 

discovered during a 1997 cultural resources survey (Ward et al.). Three working basalt tools were found, 

but a period of occupation could not be pinpointed. The survey also located 12 historic farmsteads or 

other historic sites within the authorized Refuge boundary.

A.4 Environmental Consequences

A.4.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives

Air Quality

None of the management alternatives would have appreciable, long-term impacts on ambient air quality 

conditions in the area. Habitat management involving prescribed fire would occur under each alternative, 

but prescribed fire would be used only under ideal weather conditions. Approved smoke management 

practices developed by state and federal land management agencies would be implemented in all burning 

events. Nevertheless, under each alternative there would be some potential for temporary air quality 

impacts from smoke in areas near the Refuge.

Actions to manage smoke include altering ignition techniques and sequence, halting ignition, suppressing 

the fire, use of local law enforcement as traffic control, and roadway signs. Burning will be done only on 

days that the smoke will not be blown across nearby communities and/or Refuge neighbors or when the 

wind is sufficient as not to cause heavy concentrations. The Annual Prescribed Fire Plan for each unit will 

have specific mitigation measures to deal with unexpected smoke management problems. Refuge staff 

will work with neighboring agencies and in consultation with Minnesota air quality personnel to address 

smoke issues that require additional mitigation.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Bill Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus federal 

attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income populations with 

the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The Order directed federal agencies to 

develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and addressing disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of their program, policies, and activities on minority and 

low-income populations. The Order is also intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs 

substantially affecting human health and the environment and to provide minority and low-income 

communities with access to public information and participation in matters relating to human health or the 

environment.

None of the alternatives described in this EA will disproportionately place any adverse environmental, 

economic, social, or health impacts on minority and low-income populations. Public use activities that 

would be offered under each of the alternatives would be available to any visitor regardless of race, 

ethnicity, or income level.

Cultural Resources

The Service is responsible for managing archaeological and historic sites found on refuges. Under each 

of the alternatives evaluated in this EA, Refuge management would ensure compliance with relevant 

federal laws and regulations, particularly Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Prior to all 

habitat and facility projects, appropriate efforts will be made to identify and protect cultural resources

within the area of potential impact by contacting the Regional Historic Preservation Officer for project 

review.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

104

Climate Change

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies under its 

direction that have land management responsibilities to consider potential climate change impacts as part 

of long-range planning endeavors. Some potential impacts of climate change on the prairie pothole 

ecosystem in Minnesota have been identified that may need to be considered and addressed in the 

future. For example: 

• If climate conditions continue to be warmer and wetter in the Hamden Slough area, more water 

may enter the Refuge, resulting in decreased water quality and increased sedimentation in 

wetland habitats. Downstream flooding and nutrient loading could be exacerbated unless regional 

land use changes and water discharge/runoff could be mediated.

• More frequent drought conditions in the western portion of the PPR could shift waterfowl use 

eastward, making habitat restoration in the eastern portion of the PPR (including Hamden Slough 

NWR) even more important for waterfowl populations.

• Many plant and animal communities may change as species’ ranges shift due to changes in 

climate, with less-adaptable species becoming threatened by the changing conditions and moretolerant species moving in to take their place. Invasive non-native species often are tolerant to 

changing conditions and may out-compete native plants for resources.

Managers and resource specialists on the Refuge need to be aware of the potential effects of climate 

change. When feasible, documenting long-term vegetation, wildlife, and hydrologic changes should 

become a part of research and monitoring programs. Adjustments in management direction may be 

necessary over time to adapt to a changing climate.

Carbon Sequestration

Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been linked to global climate change. In relation to 

comprehensive conservation planning for refuges, carbon sequestration is one of the primary climaterelated management strategies that can be considered despite uncertainty surrounding site-specific 

climate change effects. The U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE, 1999) defines carbon sequestration as 

“ . . . the capture and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the 

atmosphere.” 

Vegetation is an important factor in global carbon sequestration. Both wetlands and grasslands have 

been shown to be carbon sinks, capturing and storing carbon, thereby removing a portion of the 

atmospheric carbon dioxide. The USDOE report notes that ecosystem protection is important to carbon 

sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere.

Prescribed burning releases carbon dioxide directly to the atmosphere from plants consumed during 

combustion. However, new vegetation quickly replaces the burned vegetation and, over multiple years of 

burns, an increasing root network develops below the soil surface in prairies, effectively capturing large 

quantities of carbon. No net decrease in the amount of carbon sequestered on the Refuge will occur due 

to prescribed burning. Restoration of uplands and wetlands previously cleared for agriculture will increase 

the total quantity of sequestered carbon on the Refuge under all alternatives. All alternatives would result 

in increased carbon storage due to continuing land acquisition and restoration. Grasses and forbs 

characteristic of the Refuge ecosystem are effective at capturing and storing carbon both above and 

below the ground.

A.4.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative

This section examines the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of implementing each 

alternative. Impacts are discussed under three broad categories consistent with the CCP: habitat, wildlife, 

and people. A summary table of impacts is included at the end of this section (table A-2).
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

105

Habitat

All alternatives would have a positive net effect on quantity and quality of wetland and prairie habitats, 

although acreage, plant diversity, and quality of wildlife habitat achieved over the next 15 years would 

vary by alternative. Alternatives B and C would provide the most diverse and highest quality wetland 

habitat. Alternative C also would provide the highest quality prairie habitat and the greatest increase in 

overall biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge. 

Wetland

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, wetland acreage would increase slowly as the Service continued to acquire and 

restore lands within the Refuge boundary. Overall plant diversity would remain stable as existing 

restoration and management programs continued. Invasive hybrid cattail would continue to dominate 

many wetlands. Overall habitat quality for waterfowl and other wetland wildlife would not change.

Alternatives B and C

Under Alternatives B and C, wetland acreage would increase significantly due to full restoration of Pierce 

Lake over the next 15 years. Diversity, composition, distribution, and regeneration of native vegetation 

communities would improve due to a wetland management approach that emulated historic seasonal and 

long-term water level variations and ensured restoration of each wetland according to its historic type. 

Efforts to reduce invasive cattails would be more successful. Quality of habitat for waterfowl and other 

wetland-dependent wildlife would improve along with these improvements in wetland vegetation.

Increased physical and biological integrity would improve wetland sustainability and resilience to 

stressors such as drought, invasive species, and climate change.

Prairie 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, prairie acreage would increase slowly as the current rate of land acquisition 

continued. Plant diversity would remain mostly stable; newly acquired agricultural lands would continue to 

be seeded with a variety of native prairie plants, but species composition on existing restorations would 

not be improved. Overall quality of habitat for grassland birds and nesting waterfowl would remain largely 

stable as current management programs continued.

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, prairie acreage could increase more than under Alternative A due to the high priority 

placed on acquisition and restoration of the Pierce Lake area. Prairie plant diversity would remain mostly 

stable. Newly acquired agricultural lands would continue to be planted with a mix of grasses, sedges, and 

forbs. Species composition on existing restorations would not be improved. Approximately 850 acres of 

existing restorations were planted with grasses only, and approximately 550 acres were planted with a 

mix of grasses, sedges, and forbs.

Quality of habitat for grassland birds and nesting waterfowl would increase due to integrated use of fire, 

haying, and grazing to provide appropriate structural diversity, which also could benefit many other 

wildlife species. Wildlife food plots would continue to be farmed; new locations coupled with the use of 

alternative crops such as alfalfa, wheat, and oats would attract more waterfowl. 

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, prairie acreage could increase more than under Alternative A due to the high priority 

placed on acquisition and restoration of the Pierce Lake area and conversion of all farmed food plots to 

native prairie vegetation. 

Diversity of plant species and habitat structure would both increase significantly compared to Alternatives 

A and B. Newly acquired agricultural land would continue to be planted to diverse prairie, and floral 

composition of about 500 acres of existing restored grassland would be enhanced to include many 

species of forbs and sedges. Seed mixes would be tailored to the specific condition of each site. 

Enhanced plant diversity would also result in improved habitat structure for wildlife. Integrated use of fire,
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

106

grazing, and haying would further improve wildlife habitat structure and would maintain plant and animal 

diversity over the long term. Increased biological integrity would result in improved overall health of the 

prairie ecosystem and its resilience to stressors such as drought, invasive species, and climate change. 

Watershed 

All alternatives would reduce erosion and improve water quality in the Hamden Slough watershed by 

converting crop fields to native prairie and encouraging adoption of additional conservation measures on 

privately owned agricultural land. Alternatives B and C include more focused attention on areas of 

greatest concern within the Hamden watershed, so greater reduction in erosion and sediment and more 

natural waterflow patterns would be expected under these two alternatives than under Alternative A, with 

increased benefits to Refuge wetlands, water quality, and downstream flood reduction. 

Wildlife

Migratory birds and other wildlife of the prairie pothole ecosystem would benefit from all three 

alternatives, although the magnitude of benefit for Refuge priority species would vary. Alternative C 

provides the greatest overall benefits to priority wildlife species due to increased quality of both wetland 

and prairie habitats. 

Waterfowl 

Under Alternative A, waterfowl numbers would remain stable or show a small increase. Quality of habitat 

would not change much, but amount of habitat could increase as land acquisition and restoration 

continue. 

Under Alternatives B and C, significant increases in waterfowl numbers during breeding and migration 

would be expected as wetland habitat improves due to improved hydrology and diversity of vegetation 

and a large increase in acreage when Pierce Lake is restored. Upland nesting habitat also would improve 

compared to Alternative A due to greater emphasis on managing to provide mixed vegetation structure for 

a wide variety of upland nesting ducks. 

Under Alternative B, islands and overwater nesting structures would also be constructed in the restored 

wetlands to provide additional waterfowl nesting sites. These features would benefit generalist species, 

primarily mallards and Canada geese that readily utilize both nesting islands and structures. Benefits to 

upland-nesting ducks with more specific requirements, such as blue-winged teal and northern pintail,

would be minimal. Both species are declining in Minnesota while mallards and Canada geese are 

increasing (Sauer, 2011). Construction of nesting islands is extremely expensive, and therefore, locations 

must be planned in order to maximize use, while minimizing predation and deterioration (Shaffer et al., 

1999). In addition, annual maintenance of both features requires significant staff time. With limited 

resources available, the addition of overwater nesting structures and islands must be carefully 

considered.

Grassland Birds

Under Alternative A, grassland bird populations would remain stable or increase slightly. Quality of habitat 

would not change much, but amount of habitat could increase as land acquisition and restoration 

continued. 

Grassland bird populations are more likely to increase under Alternative B than under Alternative A,

because the increased emphasis on fire, grazing, and haying that would provide mixed vegetation 

structure for upland nesting waterfowl also would provide improved structural diversity needed by priority 

grassland bird species. 

Grassland bird populations would benefit most under Alternative C because of the increase in prairie 

habitat diversity compared to Alternatives A and B. Each grassland bird species has unique habitat 

requirements. For example, sedge wrens prefer tall dense vegetation, western meadowlarks like 

moderate-to-tall patchy vegetation, and upland sandpipers do well in shorter vegetation, while preferred 

habitat of greater prairie-chickens varies by season. Improved floral composition of restored prairies 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

107

under Alternative C would increase the structural diversity needed by priority grassland birds beyond what 

could be accomplished solely with fire, grazing, and haying in a prairie with few plant species. 

Greater prairie-chickens currently utilize a mowed lek area within the drained Hamden lakebed. When 

Hamden Lake is fully restored, the lek will likely be under water. However, the lek is merely a breeding 

ground used to attract a mate, and prairie-chickens will readily mobilize to a more suitable area if 

conditions are not right. No nesting habitat will be lost with the restoration of Hamden Lake, thus no 

detrimental effects on prairie-chicken numbers will occur. In fact, additional nesting habitat will be added 

under Alternative C as food plots are restored to tallgrass prairie vegetation and more upland acres are 

acquired.

Other Wildlife 

Wetland birds—including priority species such as sedge wren, marbled godwit, black tern, Le Conte’s 

sparrow, and migratory shorebirds—would benefit most under Alternatives B and C due to increased 

quantity and quality of wetland and wet prairie habitat. Ultimately, when Hamden Lake is restored, much 

of what is now attractive habitat to marbled godwits could potentially be under water, depending on 

climate conditions at a given time. However, with increased restoration of wet meadow and temporary 

wetland habitats on the Refuge under Alternatives B and C, there will be quality habitat available to meet 

the needs of marbled godwits and other wetland wildlife. 

Butterflies and other prairie insects would benefit most under Alternative C due to increased diversity of 

tallgrass prairie plants. Higher diversity plant communities have more species of insects than do lowerquality sites. Prairie insects are major contributors to many ecosystem functions including soil formation 

and aeration, plant decomposition, and seed distribution. In addition, more than half of all flowering plants 

require insects for pollination (Helzer, 2010), 

Alternative C would provide the most benefit to many reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals. The 

more-diverse plant community would provide microhabitats needed by many animals for cover, nesting, 

and thermal regulation. The high diversity of plants and insects would provide stable, balanced food 

sources.

People

Under Alternative A, wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, visitor numbers, and economic effects of 

the Refuge on the local community would remain largely stable.

Under Alternative B, some wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities would be reduced (deer hunting 

eliminated), while others would increase (wildlife viewing sites, self-guided interpretation) or remain 

stable. Each change would directly affect the people who participate in that activity, but overall quality of 

opportunities would increase, as would visitor numbers. County property tax revenues would decline as 

land acquisition continues, although at least some of that reduction would be mitigated by Refuge 

Revenue Sharing payments. The local economy would benefit from cooperative grazing, haying, and 

farming activities on Refuge lands.

Under Alternative C, some wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities would be stable (hunting) and 

others would increase (environmental education, wildlife viewing sites, self-guided interpretation). Each 

change would directly affect the people who participate in that activity, but overall quality of opportunities 

would increase, as would visitor numbers. Local schools would benefit from increased access to 

environmental education programs. County property tax revenues would decline as land acquisition 

continues, although at least some of that reduction would be mitigated by Refuge Revenue Sharing 

payments. The local economy would benefit from cooperative grazing, haying, and short-term farming 

activities on Refuge lands.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

108

Table A-2: Summary of Impacts by Alternative 

Issues Alternative A (No Action)

Current Direction

Alternative B 

Wetland Focus

Alternative C (Preferred)

Wetland and Prairie Focus

HABITAT AND WILDLIFE

Wetland

Small increase in acreage.

Stable plant diversity. 

Stable wetland wildlife habitat.

Significant increase in 

acreage. 

Increased plant diversity.

More diverse wetland wildlife 

habitat.

Significant increase in acreage. 

Increased plant diversity.

More diverse wetland wildlife habitat. 

Prairie

Stable or small increase in 

acreage. 

Stable plant diversity.

Stable habitat structure.

Some increase in acreage.

Stable plant diversity.

Some increase in structural 

habitat diversity.

Some increase in acreage. 

Increased plant diversity

Significant increase in structural 

habitat diversity.

Water quantity and 

quality

Little or no change. Improved. Improved. 

Waterfowl populations Stable or small increase. Significant increase. Significant increase.

Grassland bird 

populations

Stable or small increase. Some increase. Significant increase.

PEOPLE

Hunting Stable opportunities. No 

program changes.

Reduced opportunities (deer 

hunt eliminated; waterfowl 

hunt continued). 

Stable opportunities. Potential 

increases in quality.

Wildlife observation 

opportunities

Stable. Some increases. Some increases. 

Quality of 

environmental 

education and 

interpretation

Small increase. Increase in self-guided 

interpretation. 

Significant increase in environmental 

education. Increase in self-guided 

interpretation.

Quality of signs, 

brochures, website

Small increase. Occasional 

improvements.

Increased. Increased.

Public awareness and 

support

Stable. Increased. Increased.
Appendix B: Species of Concern

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

109

Appendix B: Species of Concern

In this appendix:

Priority Species of Concern for Hamden Slough NWR

Comprehensive List of Species of Concern for Hamden Slough NWR

Priority Species of Concern for Hamden Slough NWR

Focal Species Habitat Type Habitat Structure Life History 

Requirement

Other Benefiting 

Species

Greater Prairie-Chicken

Upland Sandpiper

Marbled Godwit

Mesic Prairie Short, open vegetation Breeding

Foraging

Foraging, Breeding

Short-eared Owl, Western 

Meadowlark

Upland Sandpiper

Greater Prairie-Chicken

Western Meadowlark

Blue-winged Teal

Moderate to tall 

vegetation, patchy 

Full Season

Nesting and Brood 

Rearing

Full Season

Nesting

Northern Harrier, Upland 

Sandpiper, Grasshopper 

Sparrow, Savannah 

Sparrow

Mallard

Northern Harrier

Bobolink

Moderate to tall, dense 

vegetation

Nesting

Full Season

Full Season

Common Yellowthroat, 

Sedge Wren, Le Conte’s 

Sparrow

Marbled Godwit

Greater Prairie-Chicken

Le Conte’s Sparrow

Wet Prairie Disturbed prairie 

(haying or grazing), 

areas with low or 

patchy vegetation

Foraging, Breeding

Breeding

Full Season

Hudsonian Godwit, Bluewinged Teal, Wilson’s 

Phalarope, Western 

Meadowlark

Nelson’s (Sharp-tailed) 

Sparrow, Savannah 

Sparrow

Mallard

Northern Harrier

Sedge Wren

Le Conte’s Sparrow

Tall, dense vegetation Nesting

Full Season

Full Season

Full Season

Sandhill Crane, Bobolink, 

Common Yellowthroat, 

American Bittern, 

Nelson’s (Sharp-tailed) 

Sparrow

Marbled Godwit

Migratory Shorebirds

Wetland Natural 

Depression (divided by 

zone)

Shallow water, 

short/sparse to open 

shoreline, low/disturbed 

vegetation

Foraging Migratory Shorebirds, 

American bittern, Loafing 

Waterfowl

Mallard

Black Tern 

Le Conte’s Sparrow

Hemi-marsh, 

interspersed vegetation 

and shallow open 

water, peripheral 

vegetation 

Full Season

Full Season

Full Season

Waterfowl, Sora, 

American Bittern, Blackcrowned Night Heron, 

Nelson’s (Sharp-tailed) 

Sparrow

Northern Harrier

Sedge Wren 

Greater Prairie-Chicken 

Tall, dense vegetation Full Season

Full Season

Wintering

Red-winged Blackbird, 

Yellow-headed Blackbird, 

Sora, American Bittern, 

Common Yellowthroat, 

Marsh Wren 

Canvasback

Lesser Scaup

Black Tern

Sedge Wren 

Managed 

Impoundments

Varying degrees of 

vegetation and open 

water

Breeding, 

Molting/Migration

Molting/Migration

Full Season

Full Season

Waterfowl, Migratory 

Shorebirds, Blackbirds, 

Sora, American Bittern, 

Bald Eagle, Marsh Wren
Appendix B: Species of Concern

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

110

Comprehensive List of Species of Concern for Hamden Slough NWR

Hamden Slough NWR

Comprehensive List of

Bird Species of Concern

USFWS BCC 2008

U.S. Shorebird Con. 

Plan

PPJV

PPP LLC 2009

PIF Priority Spp. 1998

Audubon Watch

list 2007

NA Waterbird PlanNPPP

R3 RCP 2002

State-End, Thr, SpC

MN SGCN

Common Name Scientific Name

Refuge Purpose

BCR-11

FWS-R3

N Plains-Prairie

Parklands

PPJV

R3

Red

Yellow

Loons

Common Loon Gavia immer Rare /

declining X

Grebes

Pied-billed Grebe* Podilymbus podiceps X X X X

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus X X X High 

Concern Thr X

Red-necked Grebe* Podiceps grisegena X

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis Moderate 

Concern X

Pelicans

American White 

Pelican

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos

Moderate 

Concern SpC X

Herons/Bitterns

American Bittern* Botaurus lentiginosus X X X X High 

Concern

Rare / 

declining X

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis X X X Very High 

Concern

Rare / 

declining X

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Moderate 

Concern

Black-crowned Night 

Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Moderate Concern

Rare /

declining X

Ducks, Geese, Swans

Canada Goose* Branta canadensis X

Trumpeter Swan* Cygnus buccinator X X X X Rare /

declining? Thr X

Wood Duck Aix sponsa X X X

Gadwall Anas strepera X X

American Wigeon Anas americana X X

Mallard* Anas platyrhynchos X X X

Blue-winged Teal* Anas discors X X

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeta X X

Northern Pintail Anas acuta X X Rare /

declining X

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca X

Canvasback* Aythya valisineria X X ?????

Redhead* Aythya americana X X

Ring-necked Duck* Aythya collaris X X

Greater Scaup Aythya marila X

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis X X Rare /

declining

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola X
Appendix B: Species of Concern

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

111

Hamden Slough NWR

Comprehensive List of

Bird Species of Concern

USFWS BCC 2008

U.S. Shorebird Con. 

Plan

PPJV

PPP LLC 2009

PIF Priority Spp. 1998

Audubon Watch

list 2007

NA Waterbird PlanNPPP

R3 RCP 2002

State-End, Thr, SpC

MN SGCN

Common Name Scientific Name

Refuge Purpose

BCR-11

FWS-R3

N Plains-Prairie

Parklands

PPJV

R3

Red

Yellow

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula X

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus X X

Common Merganser Mergus merganser X

Red-breasted 

Merganser Mergus serrator X

Ruddy Duck* Oxyura jamaicensis X

Hawks & Eagles

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus X X X ???? X

Northern Harrier* Circus cyaneus X X Rare / 

declining X

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Rare / 

declining X

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Rare / 

declining SpC X

Falcons

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus X X Rare /

declining Thr X

Upland Game Birds

Greater PrairieChicken Tympanuchus cupido X X X SpC X

Rails & Coots

Yellow Rail Coturnicops 

noveboracensis X X X X X X High Concern

Rare /

declining SpC X

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola X Moderate 

Concern X

Sora* Porzana carolina X X

American Coot* Fulica americana X

Cranes

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis X

Shorebirds

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola Moderate

American Golden 

Plover Pluvialis dominica High-migrant habitat X X

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius 

semipalmatus

Moderate-migrant 

habitat

Killdeer* Charadrius vociferus Moderate

American Avocet Recurvirostra 

americana High-Spp Concern X

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Moderate-migrant 

habitat

Greater Yellowlegs* Tringa melanoleuca Moderate Rare /

declining X

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria X X Moderate

Willet Tringa semipalmata Moderate
Appendix B: Species of Concern

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

112

Hamden Slough NWR

Comprehensive List of

Bird Species of Concern

USFWS BCC 2008

U.S. Shorebird Con. 

Plan

PPJV

PPP LLC 2009

PIF Priority Spp. 1998

Audubon Watch

list 2007

NA Waterbird PlanNPPP

R3 RCP 2002

State-End, Thr, SpC

MN SGCN

Common Name Scientific Name

Refuge Purpose

BCR-11

FWS-R3

N Plains-Prairie

Parklands

PPJV

R3

Red

Yellow

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius Moderate

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda X X High-Spp Concern, 

breed X Rare / declining X

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus X High Rare / 

declining X

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica X X High-Spp Concern X X Rare / 

declining X

Marbled Godwit* Limosa fedoa X X High-Spp Concern X X X X Rare / 

declining SpC X

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres High X

Red Knot Calidris canutus X Low-UnC in region X

Sanderling Calidris alba Low-UnC in region X

Semipalmated 

Sandpiper Calidris pusilla High-migrant habitat X X X

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Moderate

White-rumped 

Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis High-migrant habitat X X X

Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii Moderate-migrant 

habitat

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Moderate-migrant 

habitat

Dunlin Calidris alpina High-migrant habitat X X

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus Moderate-migrant 

habitat X Rare / declining

Buff-breasted 

Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis X X High X Rare / declining X

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus X X Moderate Rare / 

declining X

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus 

scolopaceus

Moderate-migrant 

habitat

Common Snipe* Gallinago gallinago Moderate-migrant 

habitat X

American Woodcock Scolopax minor X Rare / 

declining X

Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor High-Spp Concern X X X Rare / 

declining Thr X

Gulls/Terns

Franklin's Gull Leucophaeus pipixcan X X High 

Concern SpC X

Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia Moderate 

Concern

Common Tern Sterna hirundo X Moderate 

Concern

Rare /

declining Thr X

Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri Rare / 

declining SpC X

Black Tern* Chlidonias niger X X X X High 

Concern

Rare / 

declining X

Doves
Appendix B: Species of Concern

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

113

Hamden Slough NWR

Comprehensive List of

Bird Species of Concern

USFWS BCC 2008

U.S. Shorebird Con. 

Plan

PPJV

PPP LLC 2009

PIF Priority Spp. 1998

Audubon Watch

list 2007

NA Waterbird PlanNPPP

R3 RCP 2002

State-End, Thr, SpC

MN SGCN

Common Name Scientific Name

Refuge Purpose

BCR-11

FWS-R3

N Plains-Prairie

Parklands

PPJV

R3

Red

Yellow

Mourning Dove* Zenaida macroura X

Cuckoos/Roadrunners

Black-billed Cuckoo* Coccyzus 

erythropthalmus X X X X Rare /declining X

Owls

Long-eared Owl Asio otus Rare /

declining

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus X X X X Rare /

declining SpC X

Nighthawks/Nightjars

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor X

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus X Rare /

declining

Woodpeckers

Red-headed 

Woodpecker

Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus X X X X Rare /declining

Yellow-bellied 

Sapsucker* Sphyrapicus varius X

Northern Flicker* Colaptes auratus X Rare /

declining

Flycatchers

Eastern Wood-pewee Contopus virens X

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus X

Swallows

Northern Roughwinged Swallow*Stelgidopteryx 

serripennis X

Wrens

House Wren* Troglodytes aedon X

Sedge Wren* Cistothorus platensis X X X Rare /

declining X

Marsh Wren* Cistothorus palustris X X X

Warblers

Golden-winged 

Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera X X Rare / declining X

Cape May Warbler Setophaga tigrina Rare / 

declining X

Bay-breasted Warbler Setophaga castanea X X

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla X

Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis Rare / 

declining X

Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis X X Rare / 

declining X

Sparrows/Grosbeaks

Clay-colored 

Sparrow* Spizella pallida X X
Appendix B: Species of Concern

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

114

Hamden Slough NWR

Comprehensive List of

Bird Species of Concern

USFWS BCC 2008

U.S. Shorebird Con. 

Plan

PPJV

PPP LLC 2009

PIF Priority Spp. 1998

Audubon Watch

list 2007

NA Waterbird PlanNPPP

R3 RCP 2002

State-End, Thr, SpC

MN SGCN

Common Name Scientific Name

Refuge Purpose

BCR-11

FWS-R3

N Plains-Prairie

Parklands

PPJV

R3

Red

Yellow

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla Rare /

declining X

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus X X

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus 

savannarum X X X Rare / declining X

Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus 

henslowii X X X X Rare / declining End X

Le Conte's Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii X X Rare / 

declining X

Nelson's (Sharptailed) Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni X X X X X Rare / 

declining SpC X

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana X

White-throated 

Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis X

Rose-breasted 

Grosbeak

Pheucticus 

ludovicianus X

Dickcissel Spiza americana X X X X Rare /

declining X

Blackbirds/Orioles

Bobolink* Dolichonyx orizivorus X X Rare / 

declining X

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna Rare / 

declining X

Western Meadowlark* Sturnella neglecta X Rare / 

declining

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus X X

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius Rare / 

declining

*asterisk indicates documented nesting on the Refuge
Appendix C: Species List

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

115

Appendix C: Species Lists

In this appendix:

Hamden Slough NWR Birds

Hamden Slough NWR Mammals

Hamden Slough NWR Plants

Hamden Slough NWR Birds

Species and Abundance

SpringSummerFallWinter

Loons

Common Loon Gavia immer o r r

Grebes

Pied-billed Grebe* Podilymbus podiceps c c c

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus r r

Red-necked Grebe* Podiceps grisegena r r

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis r r

Pelicans

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos o o o

Cormorants

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus c o o

Herons and Bitterns

American Bittern* Botaurus lentiginosus u u u

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis r r r

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias c c c

Great Egret Ardea alba o o o

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis r r

Green Heron* Butorides virescens u u u

Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax r r

Vultures

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura o r o

Ducks, Geese, and Swans

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons r r

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens o o

Ross's Goose Chen rossii r r

Canada Goose* Branta canadensis a c a r

Trumpeter Swan* Cygnus buccinator o o o

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus o o o

Wood Duck Aix sponsa a c a

Gadwall Anas strepera c r u

American Wigeon Anas americana u u u

American Black Duck Anas rubripes r r r

Mallard* Anas platyrhynchos a u a

Blue-winged Teal* Anas discors c c c

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeta c o c

Northern Pintail Anas acuta c o o
Appendix C: Species List 

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

116

Species and Abundance

SpringSummerFallWinter

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca u u

Canvasback* Aythya valisineria c u c

Redhead* Aythya americana c u c

Ring-necked Duck* Aythya collaris c o c

Greater Scaup Aythya marila r r

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis c r c

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola c r u

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula c r u

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus u r u

Common Merganser Mergus merganser r r r

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator r r r

Ruddy Duck* Oxyura jamaicensis u r u

Hawks and Eagles

Osprey Pandion haliaetus r r r

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus c u c r

Northern Harrier* Circus cyaneus c c c

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus u r u

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii u u u

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis r r

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus u r u

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus u r u

Red-tailed Hawk* Buteo jamaicensis c c c u

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus o r r

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos r r r

Falcons

American Kestrel* Falco sparverius c c c

Merlin Falco columbarius r r

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus o o o

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus r r

Upland Game Birds

Gray Partridge Perdix perdix o o o o

Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus o o o o

Greater Prairie-Chicken Tympanuchus cupido o r r r

Wild Turkey* Meleagris gallopavo r r r r

Rails and Coots

Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis r r r

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola c c c

Sora* Porzana carolina c c c

American Coot* Fulica americana a c a

Cranes

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis r r r

Shorebirds

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola o o o

American Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica o o

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus o o o
Appendix C: Species List

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

117

Species and Abundance

SpringSummerFallWinter

Killdeer* Charadrius vociferus c c c

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana u r u

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes c o o

Greater Yellowlegs* Tringa melanoleuca c o o

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria u o u

Willet Tringa semipalmata u r u

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius u u u

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda r r r

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus r r r

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica r r

Marbled Godwit* Limosa fedoa u u u

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres r r

Red Knot Calidris canutus o o o

Sanderling Calidris alba o o o

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla o o o

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla o o o

White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis o o o

Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii o o o

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos o o o

Dunlin Calidris alpina o o o

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus o o o

Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis o o o

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus o o o

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus r r

Comon Snipe* Gallinago gallinago c o c

American Woodcock Scolopax minor o o

Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor c o o

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus o o o

Gulls and Terns

Franklin's Gull Leucophaeus pipixcan c c

Bonaparte's Gull Chroicocephalus 

philadelphia u u

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis o o o

Herring Gull Larus argentatus r r r

Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia r r

Common Tern Sterna hirundo u r u

Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri u r u

Black Tern* Chlidonias niger c u c

Doves

Rock Pigeon Columba livia c c c c

Mourning Dove* Zenaida macroura c c c

Cuckoos and Roadrunners

Black-billed Cuckoo* Coccyzus erythropthalmus r r

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus r r

Owls
Appendix C: Species List 

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

118

Species and Abundance

SpringSummerFallWinter

Eastern Screech-Owl Megascops asio r r r

Great Horned Owl* Bubo virginianus u u u u

Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus r o

Long-eared Owl Asio otus r r

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus r r

Nighthawks and Nightjars

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor u r u

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus r r r

Swifts

Chimney Swift* Chaetura pelagica o r o

Hummingbirds

Ruby-throated Hummingbird* Archilochus colubris u u u

Kingfishers

Belted Kingfisher* Megaceryle alcyon o o o

Woodpeckers

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus r u

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus o o o

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker* Sphyrapicus varius u u u

Downy Woodpecker* Picoides pubescens u u u u

Hairy Woodpecker* Picoides villosus u u u u

Northern Flicker* Colaptes auratus c u c

Pileated Woodpecker* Dryocopus pileatus r r r r

Flycatchers

Eastern Wood-pewee Contopus virens r

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus o o o

Eastern Phoebe* Sayornis phoebe u u u

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus r r r

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis r r r

Eastern Kingbird* Tyrannus tyrannus o c o

Shrikes

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor r r r

Vireos

Yellow-throated Vireo* Vireo flavifrons u r r

Blue-headed (Solitary) Vireo Vireo solitarius r r r

Warbling Vireo* Vireo gilvus u r r

Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus r r r

Red-eyed Vireo* Vireo olivaceus u r r

Jays, Magpies, Crows

Blue Jay* Cyanocitta cristata c c u c

Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia r r r

American Crow* Corvus brachyrhynchos a c a o

Common Raven Corvus corax r r r

Larks

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris a u c o

Swallows
Appendix C: Species List

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

119

Species and Abundance

SpringSummerFallWinter

Purple Martin Progne subis o o o

Tree Swallow* Tachycineta bicolor a c a

Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis c o c

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia c o c

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota u u u

Barn Swallow* Hirundo rustica a c a

Chickadees and Titmice

Black-capped Chickadee* Poecile atricapillus c u c a

Nuthatches

Red-breasted Nuthatch* Sitta canadensis r r r r

White-breasted Nuthatch* Sitta carolinensis c u c c

Creepers

Brown Creeper Certhia americana r r r r

Wrens

House Wren* Troglodytes aedon o o o

Sedge Wren* Cistothorus platensis c c u

Marsh Wren* Cistothorus palustris c c u

Kinglets, Bluebirds, Thrushes

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa r r r

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula r r

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea r r

Eastern Bluebird* Sialia sialis c c c

Towsend's Solitaire Myadestes townsendi r r

Veery Catharus fuscescens r r

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus r r

Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus r r

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus r r

American Robin* Turdus migratorius a a u r

Mimics

Gray Catbird* Dumetella carolinensis u u u

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos r r r

Brown Thrasher* Toxostoma rufum u u u

Starlings

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris o o o o

Pipits

American Pipit Anthus rubescens r r

Waxwings

Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus r r

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum r r r r

Warblers

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera r r

Tennessee Warbler Oreothlypis peregrina o r r

Orange-crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata u o

Nashville Warbler Oreothlypis ruficapilla o r o

Northern Parula Setophaga americana r r
Appendix C: Species List 

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

120

Species and Abundance

SpringSummerFallWinter

Yellow Warbler* Setophaga petechia c c c

Chestnut-sided Warbler Setophaga pensylvanica r r r

Magnolia Warbler Setophaga magnolia r r

Cape May Warbler Setophaga tigrina r r

Yellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata u u

Black-throated Green Warbler Setophaga virens r r

Blackburnian Warbler Setophaga fusca r r

Pine Warbler Setophaga pinus o o

Palm Warbler Setophaga palmarum u u

Bay-breasted Warbler Setophaga castanea r r

Blackpoll Warbler Setophaga striata r r

Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia o r o

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla o r o

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla o r r

Northern Waterthrush Parkesia noveboracensis r r

Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis r r

Mourning Warbler Geothlypis philadelphia r r

Common Yellowthroat* Geothlypis trichas c c c

Wilson's Warbler Cardellina pusilla o r o

Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis r r r

Tanagers

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea o r o

Sparrows, Buntings, Grosbeaks

Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus u

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea u u

Chipping Sparrow* Spizella passerina c c c

Clay-colored Sparrow* Spizella pallida c c c

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla r r r

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus c c c

Lark Sparrow* Chondestes grammacus o o o

Savannah Sparrow* Passerculus sandwichensis u u u

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum u u o

Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii r r r

Le Conte's Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii u u u

Nelson's (Sharp-tailed) Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni o r o

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca o o

Song Sparrow* Melospiza melodia c c c

Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii o r o

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana o o o

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis u u

Harris's Sparrow Zonotrichia querula o o

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys o o

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis c c u

Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus r o r

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis u u c
Appendix C: Species List

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

121

Species and Abundance

SpringSummerFallWinter

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis r r r r

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus o o o

Indigo Bunting* Passerina cyanea u u u

Dickcissel Spiza americana r r r

Blackbirds and Orioles

Bobolink* Dolichonyx orizivorus c a c

Red-winged Blackbird* Agelaius phoeniceus a a a r

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna r r r

Western Meadowlark* Sturnella neglecta c c c

Yellow-headed Blackbird* Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus u c u

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus u r a r

Brewer's Blackbird* Euphagus cyanocephalus u r u

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula c c a r

Brown-headed Cowbird* Molothrus ater c c c r

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius r r r

Baltimore Oriole* Icterus galbula c u u

Finches

Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator r r

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus u u o o

House Finch* Carpodacus mexicanus u u o o

Common Redpoll Acanthis flammea r r

Hoary Redpoll Acanthis hornemanni r

Pine Sisken Spinus pinus u u o u

American Goldfinch* Spinus tristis u u u u

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus r

Old World Sparrows

House Sparrow Passer domesticus o o o o

Accidental/Casual Species

Black Scoter Melanitta americana 

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera 

Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata 

Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni 

White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca 

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus

a=abundant, c=common, u=uncommon, o=occasional, r=rare

*asterisk indicates documented nesting on the Refuge
Appendix C: Species List 

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

122

Hamden Slough NWR Mammals

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Masked Shrew* Sorex cinereus Northern Grasshopper 

Mouse* Onychomys leucogaster

Northern Water Shrew Sorex palustris Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus

Pigmy Shrew* Microsorex hoyi Prairie Vole* Microtus ochrogaster

Short-tailed Shrew* Blarina brevicauda Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Star-nosed Moles Condylura cristata House Mouse Mus musculus (exotic)

Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Woodland Jumping 

Mouse* Napaeozapus insignis 

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Coyote Canus latrans

White-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus townsendii Red Fox Vulpes vulpes

Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus Raccoon Procyon lotor

Woodchuck Marmota monax Fisher * Martes pennanti

Thirteen-lined Ground 

Squirrel 

Spermophilus 

tridecemlineatus Short-tailed Weasel Mustela erminea

Franklin's Ground Squirrel Spermophilus franklinii Least Weasel * Mustela nivalis

Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata

Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Mink Mustela vison

Plains Pocket Gopher Geomys bursarius Badger Taxidea taxus

Plains Pocket Mouse* Perognathus flavescens Stripped Skunk Mephitis mephitis

Beaver Castor canadensis River Otter Lutra canadensis

Western Harvest Mouse* Reithrodontomys 

megalotis Bobcat * Lynx rufus

Prairie Deer Mouse* Peromyscus maniculatus White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus

White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus Moose Alces alces

* Asterisk indicates likely present, but undocumented
Appendix C: Species List

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

123

Hamden Slough NWR Plants

Common name Scientific name Common name Scientific name

Grasses

Red top Agrostis alba Switchgrass Panicum virgatum

Quackgrass Agropyron repens Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea

Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii Timothy Phleum pratense

Side-oats grama Bouteloua curtipendula Common Reed Grass Phragmites australis

Smooth brome grass Bromus inermis Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis

Bluejoint Calamagrostis canadensis Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium

Northern reedgrass Calamagrostis stricta 

inexpansa

Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans

Canada wild rye Elymus canadensis Prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata

Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum Prairie dropseed Sporobolus heterolepis

Junegrass Koeleria macrantha Porcupine grass Stipa spartea

Mat muhly Muhlenbergia richardsonii

Aquatic Monocots

Slough Sedge Carex atherodes Hardstem bulrush Scirpus acutus

Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum Three-square bulrush Scirpus americanus

Rush spp. Juncus spp. Softstem bulrush Scirpus validus

Duckweed spp. Lemna spp. Burreed Sparganium spp.

Milfoil spp. Myriophyllum spp. Narrow-leaved cattail Typha angustifolia

Pondweeds Potamogeton spp. Hybrid cattail Typha x glauca

Aquatic buttercup Ranunculus spp. Greater bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris var. 

americana

Arrowhead/Duck potato Sagittaria latifolia Wild celery Vallisneria spp.

Trees and Shrubs

Box elder Acer negundo Chokecherry Prunus virginiana

Saskatoon Serviceberry 

(Juneberry)

Amelanchier alnifolia Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa

Lead plant Amorpha canescens Currant Ribes americanum

False indigo Amorpha fruticosa Wild rose Rosa spp.

Red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera Common red raspberry Rubus idaeus var. 

strigosus spp.

Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Peach-leaved willow Salix amygdaloides

Cottonwood Populus deltoids Sandbar willow Salix exigua

Trembling aspen Populus tremuloides Black willow Salix nigra

Wild plum Prunus americana Western snowberry Symphoricarpos 

occidentalis

Broadleaf Plants

Yarrow Achillea millefolium Stiff goldenrod Oligoneuron rigidum

Prairie onion Allium stellatum False gromwell Onosmodium molle

Common ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia Wood-sorrel Oxalis spp.

Meadow anemone Anemone canadensis Common parsnip Pastinaca sativa

Thimbleweed Anemone cylindrica Swamp lousewort Pedicularis lanceolata

Columbine Aquilegia canadensis Wood betony Pedicularis Canadensis

Wormwood Artemisia campestris Silverleaf scurf-pea Pediomelum argophyllum

White sage Artemisia ludoviciana Downy Phlox Phlox pilosa 

Common milkweed Asclepias syriaca Smartweed Polygonum spp.

Green milkweed Asclepias hirtella Purslane Portulaca spp.

Beggarticks Bidens cernua Silverweed Potentilla anserina

Mustard Brassica nigra Tall cinquefoil Potentilla arguta

Marsh marigold Caltha palustris (Virginia) Mountain Mint Pycnanthemum 

virginianum

Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides Buttercup Ranunculus spp.

Water hemlock Cicuta maculata Gray-headed coneflower Ratibida pinnata

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta

Native thistle spp. Cirsium spp. Curly dock Rumex crispus
Appendix C: Species List 

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

124

Common name Scientific name Common name Scientific name

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Crown vetch Securigera varia

Golden corydalis Corydalis aurea Golden ragwort Senecio aureus

White lady's slipper Cypripedium candidum Black nightshade Solanum nigrum

White prairie clover Dalea candida Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis

Purple prairie clover Dalea purpureum Oldfield goldenrod Solidago nemoralis

Smooth horsetail Equisetum laevigatum Showy goldenrod Solidago speciosa

Daisy fleabane Erigeron strigosus Perennial sow-thistle Sonchus arvensis

Spotted joe pye weed Eupatorium maculatum Prairie blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium campestre

Common/Tall boneset Eupatorium 

perfoliatum/altissimum

Heath aster Symphyotrichum ericoides

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula White panicle aster Symphyotrichum 

lanceolatum

Plains grass-leaved 

goldenrod

Euthamia gymnospermoides Aromatic aster Symphyotrichum 

oblongifolium

Wild licorice Glycyrrhiza lepidota Silky aster Symphyotrichum pratense

Yellow star grass Hypoxis hirsuta Purplestem aster Symphyotrichum 

puniceum

Wild lettuce Lactuca canadensis Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare

Vetchling spp., beach 

pea spp.

Lathyrus spp. (Purple) Meadow rue Thalictrum dasycarpum

Rough blazing star Liatris aspera Meadow goat's beard Tragopogon dubius

Hoary puccoon Lithospermum canescens Red clover Trifolium pratense

Pale spiked lobelia Lobelia spicata Stinging nettle Urtica dioica

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Star-flowered Solomon's 

seal

Vagnera stellata

Black medic Medicago lupulina Mullein Verbascum spp.

Alfalfa Medicago sativa Blue vervain Verbena hastata

Yellow sweet-clover Melilotus officinalis Hoary vervain Verbena stricta

White sweet-clover Melilotus alba Bird’s foot violet Viola pedata

Wild mint Mentha arvensis Downy yellow violet Viola pubescens

Wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa White camass Zigadenus elegans

Evening primrose Oenothera biennis Golden Alexander Zizia aurea

Mosses

Clubmoss spp. Lycopodium spp.
Appendix D: Glossary

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

125

Appendix D: Glossary

Adaptation: Adjustment in natural or human systems to a new or changing environment. Adaptation to 

climate change refers to adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected

climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities. Various types of 

adaptation can be distinguished, including anticipatory and reactive adaptation, private and public 

adaptation, and autonomous and planned adaptation.

Adaptive Management: The rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring to gain 

information and experience necessary to assess and modify management activities. A process that uses 

feedback from refuge research and monitoring and evaluation of management actions to support or 

modify objectives and strategies at all planning levels (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Alternatives: Different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and 

goals, helping fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, and resolving issues (FWS, 602 FW1 

1.6). 

Appropriate Use: A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following four 

conditions (FWS, 603 FW1 1.6):

• The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Fish and Wildlife 

Improvement Act of 1978.

• The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the National Wildlife Refuge System 

mission, or goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 

1997, the date the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 was signed into 

law.

• The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under state regulations.

• The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11.

Approved Acquisition Boundary: A project boundary that the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service approves upon completion of the planning and environmental compliance process. An approved 

acquisition boundary only designates those lands that the Service has authority to acquire and/or manage 

through various agreements. Approval of an acquisition boundary does not grant the Service jurisdiction 

or control over lands within the boundary, and it does not make lands within the refuge boundary part of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. Lands do not become part of the Refuge System until they are 

purchased or are placed under an agreement that provides for management as part of the refuge system. 

Biological Control: The use of organisms or viruses to control weeds or other pests. 

Biological Diversity: The variety of life, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences 

among them, and the communities in which they occur (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6). 

Biological Integrity: Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at the genetic, organism, and 

community levels consistent with natural conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape 

genomes, organisms, and communities (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Candidate Species: Plants and animals for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient 

information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act, but for which development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other 

higher priority listing activities.
Appendix D: Glossary

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

126

Carbon Sequestration: The uptake and storage of carbon. Trees and plants, for example, absorb 

carbon dioxide, release the oxygen, and store the carbon. Fossil fuels were at one time biomass and 

continue to store the carbon until burned.

Climate Change: Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as 

temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change 

may result from: 1) natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's 

orbit around the sun; 2) natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation);

3) human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the 

land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification, etc.).

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): The codification of the general and permanent rules published in 

the Federal Register by the departments and agencies of the Federal Government. It is divided into 50 

titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation. The 50 subject matter titles contain one or 

more individual volumes, which are updated once each calendar year, on a staggered basis. 

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a 

national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional judgment, will not materially interfere with or 

detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purposes of the national 

wildlife refuge (FWS, 603 FW 2 2.6). 

Compatibility Determination (CD): A written determination signed and dated by the Refuge Manager 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Chief signifying that a proposed or existing use of a 

national wildlife refuge is a compatible use or is not a compatible use. The director of the Service makes 

this delegation through the Regional Director (FWS, 603 FW 2 2.6).

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP): A document that describes the desired future conditions of 

a refuge or planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management direction to achieve the 

purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; maintains and, where appropriate, 

restores the ecological integrity of each refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System; helps achieve 

the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and meets other mandates (FWS, 602 FW1 

1.6).

Cultural Resource Inventory: A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic area. Inventories may involve various 

levels, including background literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify all exposed 

physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample inventory to project site distribution and density 

over a larger area. Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine eligibility for the National 

Register of Historic Places follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4. 

Cultural Resources: “Those parts of the physical environment—natural and built—that have cultural 

value to some kind of sociocultural group . . . [and] those non-material human social institutions . . . .” 

Cultural resources include historic sites, archeological sites and associated artifacts, sacred sites, 

traditional cultural properties, cultural items (human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and 

objects of cultural patrimony), and buildings and structures.

Easement: A privilege or right that is held by one person or other entity in land owned by another. 

Ecological Integrity: The integration of biological integrity, natural biological diversity, and environmental 

health; the replication of natural conditions (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Ecosystem: A biological community together with its environment, functioning as a unit. For 

administrative purposes, 53 ecosystems covering the United States and its possessions have been 

designated. These ecosystems generally correspond with watershed boundaries, and their sizes and 

ecological complexity vary (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6). 
Appendix D: Glossary

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

127

Effects (Impacts): Effects include:

• Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

• Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth-inducing effects 

and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or 

growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including 

ecosystems.

• Cumulative effects, which result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

that, collectively, become significant over time.

Effects and impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous. Effects includes ecological (such as 

the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected 

ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or 

cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions that may have both beneficial and 

detrimental effects even if, on balance, the agency believes the effect will be beneficial (40 CFR 1508.8).

Endangered Species: Any species of plant or animal defined through the Endangered Species Act as 

being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and published in the 

Federal Register.

Endangered Species Act (ESA): Through federal action and by encouraging the establishment of state 

programs, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 provided for the conservation of ecosystems upon which 

threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend. The Act authorizes the 

determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened; prohibits unauthorized taking, 

possession, sale, and transport of endangered species; provides authority to acquire land for the 

conservation of listed species, using land and water conservation funds; authorizes establishment of 

cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to states that establish and maintain active and adequate 

programs for endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; authorizes the assessment of civil and 

criminal penalties for violating the Act or regulations; and authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone 

furnishing information leading to arrest and conviction for any violation of the Act or any regulation issued 

thereunder. 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, 

funded, or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or 

modify their critical habitat. 

Environmental Action Statement (EAS): The decision document for an environmental assessment for 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The EAS will consist of a one-page document indicating the proposal, 

the Service decision, references to supporting documents (if any), and a signature block. The purposes of 

the EAS are to establish a process for internal review of National Environmental Policy Act-related 

decision documents and to provide an appropriate administrative record of NEPA-related decisions at all 

management levels of the Service (FWS, 550 FW3 3.3 C).

Environmental Analysis: The process associated with preparing documents such as environmental 

assessments and environmental impact statements and the decision whether to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. It is an analysis of alternative actions and their predictable short-term 

and long-term effects, which include physical, biological, economic, and social factors and their 

interactions.

Environmental Assessment (EA): A systematic analysis to determine if proposed actions would result in 

a significant effect on the quality of the environment.
Appendix D: Glossary

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

128

Environmental Consequences: The scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of alternatives. The 

environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any adverse environmental 

effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the relationship between short-term 

uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any 

irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposal should it be 

implemented (40 CFR 1502.16). 

Environmental Health: Abiotic composition, structure, and functioning of the environment consistent with 

natural conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the environment (FWS, 602 FW1 

1.6).

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A detailed written statement, required by section 102(2)(C) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts of a proposed action, 

adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term uses of the 

environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible 

and irretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 1508.11).

Environmental Justice: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws regardless of race, color, national origin, or 

income.

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): A document prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act and supported by an environmental assessment that briefly presents why a 

federal action will have no significant effects on the human environment and for which an Environmental 

Impact Statement will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13).

Goal: A descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys 

purposes but does not define measurable units (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Greenhouse Gas (GHG): Any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases 

include, but are not limited to, water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), ozone (O3), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Habitat: The physical and biological resources required by an organism for its survival and reproduction; 

these requirements are species-specific. Food and cover are major components of habitat and must 

extend beyond the requirements of the individual to include a sufficient area capable of supporting a 

viable population.

Incompatible: Any use (recreational or nonrecreational) of a refuge that, in the sound professional 

judgment of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will materially interfere with or detract from 

the fulfillment of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. 

Incompatible uses are not allowed to occur on Service areas.

Indicator: In effects analysis, a way for measuring effects from management alternatives on a particular 

resource or issue.

Interjurisdictional Fish: Fish that occur in waters under the jurisdiction of one or more states, for which 

there is an interstate fishery management plan or which migrates between the waters under the 

jurisdiction of two or more states bordering on the Great Lakes.

Invasive Species: Invasive species are organisms that are introduced into a non-native ecosystem and 

that cause, or are likely to cause, harm to the economy, environment, or human health.

Inventory: Accepted biological methods to determine the presence, relative abundance, and/or 

distribution of species (FWS, 702 FW2 2.6).
Appendix D: Glossary

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

129

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision—that is, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, a threat to the resources of the unit, 

conflict in uses, public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition (FWS, 602 FW1 

1.6).

Major Federal Action: Includes action with effects that may be major and that are potentially subject to 

federal control and responsibility. “Major” reinforces but does not have a meaning independent of 

significantly. “Actions” include new and continuing activities. Federal actions include adoption of official 

policy, formal plans, programs, and approval of specific projects (40 CFR 1508.18).

Migratory Birds: Birds that follow a seasonal movement from their breeding grounds to their wintering 

grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and songbirds are all migratory birds.

Monitoring: Accepted biological methods to determine the status and/or demographics of species over 

time (FWS, 702 FW2 2.6). 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): This act, promulgated in 1969, requires all federal 

agencies to disclose the environmental effects of their actions, incorporate environmental information, 

and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must 

integrate NEPA with other planning requirements and must prepare appropriate NEPA documents to 

facilitate better environmental decision making (40 CFR 1500). The law also established the Council on 

Environmental Quality to implement the law and to monitor compliance with the law.

National Wilderness Preservation System: A network of federally owned areas designated by 

Congress as wilderness and managed by one of four federal agencies: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, or the U.S. Forest Service. Includes over 600 areas 

and more than 105 million acres. The National Wildlife Refuge System includes over 20 million acres of 

wilderness on more than 60 refuges (FWS, 610 FW1 1.9).

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge): A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or 

water within the National Wildlife Refuge System, but does not include Coordination Areas. A complete 

listing of all units of the Refuge System is located in the current Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System): All lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife 

management areas, waterfowl production areas, and other areas for the protection and conservation of 

fish, wildlife, and plant resources.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act): Sets the mission and 

administrative policy for all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Clearly defines a unifying 

mission for the Refuge System; establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public 

uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation); establishes a formal process for determining compatibility; establishes the responsibilities 

of the Secretary of the Interior for managing and protecting the Refuge System; and requires a 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended portions of the 

Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.

Native Species: A species, subspecies, or distinct population that occurs within its natural range or 

natural zone of potential dispersal (i.e., the geographic area the species occupies naturally or would 

occupy in the absence of direct or indirect human activity or an environmental catastrophe). 

No-Action Alternative: In the context of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan, this refers to the current 

management direction. With this alternative, no change from current CCP would be implemented.
Appendix D: Glossary

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

130

Non-native Species: A species, subspecies, or distinct population that has been introduced by humans 

(intentionally or unintentionally) outside its natural range or natural zone of potential dispersal.

Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, when and 

where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives derive from goals and 

provide the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating the 

success of strategies. Objectives are to be attainable, time-specific, and measurable (FWS, 602 FW1 

1.6).

Planning Area: The area upon which the planning effort will focus. A planning area may include lands 

outside existing planning unit boundaries currently studied for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System and/or partnership planning efforts. It also may include watersheds or ecosystems outside of our 

jurisdiction that affect the planning unit. At a minimum, the planning area includes all lands within the 

authorized boundary of the refuge (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Planning Team: A planning team is interdisciplinary in membership and function. A team generally 

consist of a Planning Team Leader, Refuge Manager, staff biologists, a state natural resource agency 

representative, and other appropriate program specialists (e.g., social scientist, ecologist, recreation 

specialist). Other federal and Tribal natural resource agencies may also be asked to provide team 

members, as appropriate. The planning team prepares the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

appropriate National Environmental Policy Act documentation (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Prescribed Burning: Controlled application of fire to the landscape that allows the fire to be confined to a 

predetermined area while producing the intensity of heat and rate of spread required to achieve planned 

management objectives.

Preferred Alternative: A proposed action in the National Environmental Policy Act document for the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan identifying the alternative that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

believes best achieves planning unit purposes, vision, and goals; helps fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the ecological integrity of each refuge and 

the Refuge System; addresses the significant issues and mandates; and is consistent with principles of 

sound fish and wildlife management.

Priority Public Uses: Six uses authorized by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 to have priority and are found to be compatible with the refuge purposes. This includes hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation.

Proposed Action: In the context of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan, this is the same as the 

Preferred Alternative.

Public Involvement: A process that offers affected and interested individuals and organizations 

opportunities to become informed about, and to express their opinions on, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

actions and policies. In the process, these public views are studied thoroughly and are thoughtfully 

considered in shaping decisions for refuge management.

Purposes of the Refuge: The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive 

order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, 

authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. For refuges that encompass 

congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the Wilderness Act are additional purposes of the 

refuge (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Record of Decision (ROD): A concise public record of a decision prepared by the federal agency, 

pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act, that contains a statement of the decision, identification of 

all alternatives considered, identification of the environmentally preferable alternative, a statement 

whether all practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected have 
Appendix D: Glossary

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

131

been adopted (and if not, why they were not), and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where 

applicable for any mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). 

Resident Species: A nonmigratory species inhabiting a given locality throughout the year. Examples 

include white-tailed deer, muskrat, raccoon, mink, and fox.

Scoping: A process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed by a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and for identifying the significant issues. Involved in the scoping process are federal, 

state, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals.

Shorebird: Long-legged birds, also known as waders, belonging to the order Charadriiformes that use 

shallow wetlands and mud flats for foraging and nesting. 

Significant Issue: A significant issue is typically: within Service jurisdiction, suggests different actions or 

alternatives, and will influence the decision (FWS, 602 FW3 3.4 3b). 

Species: A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable characteristics, and that can 

interbreed and produce young. A category of biological classification.

Sound Professional Judgment: A finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with principles of 

sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and resources, and adherence 

to the requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and other applicable laws. 

Stakeholder: A person or group who has an interest in activities within the Planning Area.

Step-down Management Plan: A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects (e.g., 

habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It describes strategies and implementation 

schedules for meeting Comprehensive Conservation Plan goals and objectives (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Strategy: A specific action, tool or technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives (FWS, 602 FW 1.6).

Threatened Species: Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered species throughout all 

of or a significant portion of their range within the foreseeable future. A plant or animal identified and 

defined in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and published in the Federal Register.

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be or hope to do, based 

primarily upon the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, specific refuge purposes, and other 

mandates. The vision statement for the refuge should be tied to the mission of the Refuge System; the 

purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the ecological integrity of each refuge and the 

Refuge System; and other mandates (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Waterfowl: A group of birds that include ducks, geese, and swans (belonging to the order Anseriformes). 

Waterfowl Production Area (WPA): Prairie wetlands with associated uplands managed to provide 

nesting areas for waterfowl and owned in fee title by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These lands are 

purchased from willing sellers with funds from Federal Duck Stamp sales. They are open to public 

hunting, fishing, and trapping according to state and federal regulations.

Watershed: The entire land area that collects and drains water into a river/stream or river/stream system.

Wetland: A wetland is land transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is 

usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For the purposes of this 

classification a wetland must have one or more of the following three attributes: 1) at least periodically, 

the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; 2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and 
Appendix D: Glossary

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

132

3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during 

the growing season of each year (Cowardin et al., 1979).

Wetland Management District (WMD): An area covering several counties that acquires (with Federal 

Duck Stamp funds), restores, and manages prairie wetland habitat critical to waterfowl and other wetland 

birds. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use: A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, or environmental education and interpretation. These are the six priority public uses of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System as established in the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act, as amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other than the six priority public uses, are those 

that depend on the presence of wildlife. These other uses will also be considered in the preparation of 

refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans; however, the six priority public uses always will take 

precedence (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Wildlife Diversity: A measure of the number of wildlife species in an area and their relative abundance.

Waterbirds: This general category includes all birds that inhabit lakes, marshes, streams and other 

wetlands at some point during the year. The group includes all waterfowl, such as ducks, geese, and 

swans and other birds such as loons, rails, cranes, herons, egrets, ibis, cormorants, pelicans, shorebirds, 

and passerines that nest and rely on wetland vegetation. 
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

133

Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Administrative Procedures Act of 1946

Outlines administrative procedures to be followed by federal agencies with respect to identification of 

information to be made public; publication of material in the Federal Register; maintenance of records; 

attendance and notification requirements for specific meetings and hearings; issuance of licenses; and 

review of agency actions. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

Establishes as policy of the United States the protection and preservation for American Indians of their 

inherent right to freedom to believe, express, and practice their traditional religions. The Act directs 

federal agencies to evaluate their policies and procedures, in consultation with native traditional religious 

leaders, in order to determine changes required to protect and preserve Native American religious cultural 

rights and practices. 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008

Prohibits discrimination of individuals based on disability. It requires that public transportation services be 

accessible to individuals with disabilities and prohibits discrimination in employment of qualified 

individuals with disabilities. It requires the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to issue 

regulations relating to discrimination of disabled individuals, and requires the National Council on 

Disability to conduct a study of areas designated as wilderness to determine the effect of the designation 

on the ability of individuals to enjoy such areas. The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 restored the intent 

and protections of the original act.

Antiquities Act of 1906

Authorizes the President to designate as National Monuments objects or areas of historic or scientific 

interest on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The Act requires that a permit be obtained for 

examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological sites, and the gathering of objects of antiquity on lands 

under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and Army; and provides penalties for 

violations.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Largely supplanted the resource protection provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological items. This 

Act established detailed requirements for issuance of permits for any excavation for or removal of

archaeological resources from federal or Indian lands. It also established civil and criminal penalties for 

the unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of any such resources; for any trafficking in such 

resources removed from federal or Indian land in violation of any provision of federal law; and for 

interstate and foreign commerce in such resources acquired, transported or received in violation of any 

state or local law. This act also required the land managing agencies to establish public awareness 

programs regarding the value of archaeological resources to the Nation. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1960, as amended

This act carries out the policy established by the Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 1935 

(known as the Historic Sites Act). It directs federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior 

whenever they find a federal or federally assisted, licensed, or permitted project may cause loss or 

destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric, or archaeological data. The Act authorizes use of 

appropriated, donated, and/or transferred funds for the recovery, protection, and preservation of such 

data. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological data in federal construction projects.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1969 

Ensures that certain buildings financed or leased by federal agencies are constructed (or renovated) so 

that they will be accessible to the physically handicapped.
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

134

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended 

Prohibits the possession, sale, or transport of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, or part, nest, or 

egg except as permitted by the Secretary of the Interior for scientific or exhibition purposes or for the 

religious purposes of Indians.

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937

Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land conservation and utilization in order to 

correct maladjustments in land use and thus assist in such things as control of soil erosion, reforestation, 

preservation of natural resources, and protection of fish and wildlife. Some early refuges and hatcheries 

were established under authority of this Act.

Clean Air Act of 1970 

Regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. The Act and its amendments charge 

federal land managers with direct responsibility to protect the “air quality and related values” of land under 

their control. These values include fish, wildlife, and their habitats.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986

Authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water Conservation Fund moneys, removing a prior 

prohibition on such acquisitions. Requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a National Wetlands 

Priority Conservation Plan, requires the states to include wetlands in their comprehensive outdoor 

recreation plans, and transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amounts equal to import duties 

on arms and ammunition. It established entrance fees at national wildlife refuges. It also extended the 

Wetlands Loan Act authorization through 1988 and required the Secretary to report to Congress on 

wetlands loss. In addition, it directed the Secretary, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to 

continue the National Wetlands Inventory; to complete mapping of the contiguous United States; and to 

produce at ten-year intervals reports to update and improve in the September 1982 "Status and Trends of 

Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat in the Coterminous United States, 1950s to 1970s." This act also 

increased the price of duck stamps.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

Directs federal agencies to take actions that would further the purposes of the Act and to ensure that 

actions they carry out, authorize, or fund do not jeopardize endangered species or their critical habitat. 

The Act also provides authority for land acquisition. Conservation of threatened and endangered species 

has become a major objective of both land acquisition and refuge management programs. 

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969

This act expanded the provisions of the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 to include the 

listing of species in danger world-wide and added mollusks and crustaceans to the animals that could be 

listed.

Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966

This act was the predecessor to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and directed the Secretary of the 

Interior to produce a list of native U.S. vertebrate species in danger of extinction for the limited protection 

of those animals. 

Environmental Education Act of 1990

Established the Office of Environmental Education within the Environmental Protection Agency to develop 

and administer a federal environmental education program in consultation with other federal natural 

resource management agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (1971)

States that if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes any development activities that may affect the 

archaeological or historic sites, the Service will consult with federal and state Historic Preservation 

Officers to comply with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

135

Executive Order 11644: Use of Off-road Vehicles on the Public Lands (1972)

Established policies and procedures to ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be 

controlled and directed to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those 

lands, and minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands. EO 11989 (1977) amends section 2 

of EO 11644 and directs agencies to close areas negatively impacted by off-road vehicles.

Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management (1977)

Prevents federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse impacts associated with occupancy and 

modification of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of floodplain development.” In the course of 

fulfilling their respective authorities, federal agencies “shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, 

minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural 

and beneficial values served by floodplains.

Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands (1977)

Directs federal agencies to: (1) minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands; and (2) preserve 

and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a practical alternative exists.

Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs (1982)

Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by requiring federal agencies to use the state process to 

determine and address concerns of state and local elected officials with proposed federal assistance and 

development programs.

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations (1994)

Mandates that each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by 

identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of 

its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. This order also 

creates an Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice to provide guidance to federal agencies 

in overcoming these issues. 

Executive Order 12906: Coordinating Geographical Data Acquisition and Access: The National 

Spatial Data Infrastructure (1994), as amended by Executive Order 13286: Amendment of 

Executive Orders, and Other Actions, in Connection With the Transfer of Certain Functions to the 

Secretary of Homeland Security (2003)

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in cooperation with state, local, and tribal 

governments, and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial Data Infrastructure to support public 

and private sector applications of geospatial data. Of particular importance to Comprehensive 

Conservation Plans is the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS), which is the adopted 

standard for vegetation mapping. Using NVCS facilitates the compilation of regional and national 

summaries, which, in turn, can provide an ecosystem context for individual refuges.

Executive Order 12962: Recreational Fisheries (1995)

Directs federal agencies to improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of 

United States aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities in cooperation with states 

and tribes.

Executive Order 12996: Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (1996)

Defines a conservation mission for the National Wildlife Refuge System, six compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities, and four guiding principles for management of the Refuge System. Directs the 

Secretary of the Interior to undertake several actions in support of management and public use and to 

ensure the maintenance of the biological integrity and environmental health of the Refuge System. It also 

provides for the identification of existing wildlife-dependent uses that will continue to occur as lands are 

added to the Refuge System.
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

136

Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites (1996)

Directs federal land management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian 

sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such 

sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Executive Order 13061: Federal Support of Community Efforts Along American Heritage Rivers 

(1997)

Established the American Heritage Rivers initiative for the purpose of natural resource and environmental 

protection, economic revitalization, and historic and cultural preservation. The Act directs federal 

agencies to preserve, protect, and restore rivers and their associated resources important to our history, 

culture, and natural heritage.

Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (2000)

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal 

officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications.

Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species (1999)

Directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species, detect and respond rapidly to and

control populations of such species in a cost effective and environmentally sound manner, accurately 

monitor invasive species, provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions, conduct 

research to prevent introductions, to control invasive species, and to promote public education on 

invasive species and the means to address them. This EO replaces and rescinds EO 11987: Exotic 

Organisms (1977).

Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (2001)

Instructs federal agencies to conserve migratory birds by several means, including the incorporation of 

strategies and recommendations found in Partners in Flight Bird Conservation plans, the North American 

Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the United States Shorebird 

Conservation Plan, into agency management plans and guidance documents.

Executive Order 13443: Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation (2007)

Directs federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable effect on public land 

management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the Department of the Interior and 

the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and 

the management of game species and their habitat.

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, as amended

Minimizes the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to 

nonagricultural uses. Federal programs include construction projects and the management of federal 

lands.

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, as amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for committees that provide advice to the federal 

government. Advisory committees may be established only if they will serve a necessary, nonduplicative 

function. Committees must be strictly advisory unless otherwise specified and meetings must be open to 

the public.

Federal-Aid Highways Act of 1968

Establishes requirements for approval of federal highways through wildlife refuges and other designated 

areas to preserve the natural beauty of such areas. The Secretary of Transportation is directed to consult 

with the Secretary of the Interior and other federal agencies before approving any program or project 

requiring the use of land under their jurisdiction.
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

137

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act) of 1950

Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance for state fish restoration and 

management plans and projects. It is financed by excise taxes paid by manufacturers of rods, reels, and 

other fishing tackle. 

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act) of 1937

Taxes the purchase of ammunition and firearms and earmarks the proceeds to be distributed to the states 

for wildlife restoration. 

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988

Established requirements for the management and protection of caves and their resources on federal 

lands, including allowing the land managing agencies to withhold the location of caves from the public 

and requiring permits for any removal or collecting activities in caves on federal lands.

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) of 2004

Allows the government to charge a fee for recreational use of public lands managed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and other agencies. The recreation fee program is a program by which fees paid by 

visitors to certain federal recreation sites are retained by the collecting site and used to improve the 

quality of the visitor experiences at those sites. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1975, as amended

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to designate plants as noxious weeds and to 

cooperate with other federal, state, and local agencies; farmers associations, and private individuals in 

measures to control, eradicate, prevent, or retard the spread of such weeds. The Act requires each 

federal land-managing agency, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to designate an office or 

person to coordinate a program to control such plants on the agency’s land and implement cooperative 

agreements with the states, including integrated management systems to control undesirable plants.

Federal Records Act of 1950

Directs the preservation of evidence of the government's organization, functions, policies, decisions, 

operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other information.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, as frequently amended particularly by the Clean 

Water Act of 1977 

This Act and its amendments have as their objectives the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters and, therefore, regulates the discharge of 

pollutants into waters of the United States. The act protects fish and wildlife, establishes operation 

permits for all major sources of water pollution, limits the discharge of pollutants or toxins into water, and 

makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters 

unless a permit is obtained under the Clean Water Act. Section 404 charges the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers with regulating discharge of dredge or fill materials into waters of the United States, including 

wetlands. The "Clean Water Act" became the common name with amendments in 1977.

Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, as amended

Declares the intent of Congress that recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement be given full 

consideration as purposes of federal water development projects. The Act also authorizes the use of 

federal water project funds for land acquisition in order to establish refuges for migratory waterfowl when 

recommended by the Secretary of the Interior, and authorizes the Secretary to provide facilities for 

outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife at all reservoirs under his control, except those within national

wildlife refuges. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as frequently amended 

Establishes a comprehensive national fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources policy with emphasis on the 

commercial fishing industry but also with a direction to administer the Act with regard to the inherent right 

of every citizen and resident to fish for pleasure, enjoyment, and betterment and to maintain and increase 

public opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife resources. The 1998 amendments to the Act 
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

138

modified the powers of the Secretary of the Interior in regard to volunteer service, community 

partnerships, and education programs. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, as amended

Requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species, identify species of management concern, and 

implement conservation measures to preclude the need for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934

Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife conservation with other water resource 

development programs by requiring consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state fish 

and wildlife agencies where the “waters of a stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized, 

permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted...or otherwise controlled or modified” by any agency 

under federal permit or license. This act also authorized use of surplus federal property for wildlife 

conservation purposes and authorized the Secretary of the Interior to provide public fishing areas and 

accept donations of lands and funds. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 

Improves the administration of fish and wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws including the 

Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife 

Act of 1956. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal 

property on behalf of the United States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on Service projects and

appropriations to carry out a volunteer program.

Food Security Act of 1985 (Farm Bill), as amended

Known as the Farm Bill, this act contains several provisions that contribute to wetland conservation. The 

Swampbuster provisions state that farmers who convert wetlands for the purpose of planting after 

enactment of the law are ineligible for most farm program subsidies. The Act also established the 

Wetlands Reserve Program to restore and protect wetlands through easements and restoration of the 

functions and values of wetlands on such easement areas.

Freedom of Information Act of 1966

Requires all federal agencies to make available to the public for inspection and copying administrative 

staff manuals and staff instructions; official, published and unpublished policy statements; final orders 

deciding case adjudication; and other documents. Special exemptions have been reserved for nine 

categories of privileged material. The Act requires the party seeking the information to pay reasonable 

search and duplication costs.

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended 

Authorizes and governs the lease of geothermal steam and related resources on public lands. Section 

15(c) of the Act prohibits issuing geothermal leases on virtually all U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceadministered lands.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 1935 

Popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended in 1965, declared it a national policy to preserve 

historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. It provided 

procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites. Among other things, 

National Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under authority of this Act. 

Lacey Act of 1900, as amended

Originally designed to help states protect their native game animals and to safeguard U.S. crop 

production from harmful foreign species. The Act prohibits interstate and international transport and 

commerce of fish, wildlife, or plants taken in violation of domestic or foreign laws. It regulates the 

introduction to the United States of foreign species into new locations.
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

139

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

Provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus federal land, appropriations from oil and gas 

receipts from the outer continental shelf, and other sources for land acquisition under several authorities. 

Appropriations from the fund may be used for matching grants to states for outdoor recreation projects 

and for land acquisition by various federal agencies including the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

Establishes a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve areas recommended by the Secretary 

of the Interior for acquisition with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds. Authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to cooperate with local authorities in wildlife conservation and to conduct investigations, to publish 

documents related to North American birds, and to maintain and develop refuges. The Act provides for 

cooperation with states in enforcement. It establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or 

gift of areas approved by the Commission for migratory birds. This act includes acquisition authority for 

purchase or rental of a partial interest in land or waters and requires the Secretary of the Interior to 

consult with the appropriate units of local government and with the governor of the state concerned, or 

the appropriate state agency, before recommending an area for purchase or rental. This provision was 

subsequently amended in 1983, 1984, and 1986 to require that either the governor or the state agency 

approve each proposed acquisition. The role of the Commission was expanded by the North American 

Wetland Conservation Act to include approving wetlands acquisition, restoration, and enhancement 

proposals recommended by the North American Wetlands Conservation Council.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp Act) of 1934

Known as the Duck Stamp Act, this act requires every waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older to carry a 

stamp, and earmarks proceeds of Duck Stamps to buy or lease waterfowl habitat. A 1958 amendment 

authorizes the acquisition of small wetland and pothole areas to be designated as “Waterfowl Production 

Areas,” which may be acquired without the limitations and requirements of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 

Implements various treaties and conventions between the United States and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and 

the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Except as allowed by special regulations, the 

Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, capture, possess, buy, sell, purchase, barter, export, or import 

any migratory bird, part, nest, egg, or product.

Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended

Authorizes and governs mineral leasing on acquired public lands.

Minerals Leasing Act of 1920, as amended

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of deposits of coal, oil, gas, and other 

hydrocarbons, sulphur, phosphate, potassium, and sodium. Section 185 of this act contains provisions 

relating to granting rights-of-way over federal lands for pipelines.

Mining Act of 1872, as amended

Authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for the so-called “hardrock” minerals (such as gold and 

silver) on public lands.

National and Community Service Act of 1990

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the United States in full and/or part-time projects 

designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill 

environmental needs. Among other things, this law established the American Conservation and Youth 

Service Corps to engage young adults in approved human and natural resource projects, which will 

benefit the public or are carried out on federal or tribal lands.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended

This act and the implementing regulations developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 

1500–1508) require federal agencies to integrate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process 
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

140

with other planning at the earliest possible time to provide a systematic interdisciplinary approach to 

decision making; to identify and analyze the environmental effects of their actions; to describe appropriate 

alternatives to the proposed actions; and to involve the affected state and federal agencies, tribal 

governments, and public in the planning and decision making process. This act requires the disclosure of 

the environmental impacts of any major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

Repeatedly amended, the Act provides for preservation of significant historical features (buildings, 

objects, and sites) through a grant-in-aid program to the states. It established a National Register of 

Historic Places and a program of matching grants under the existing National Trust for Historic 

Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468–468d). The Act established an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

which was made a permanent independent agency in 1976 (90 Stat. 1319). That Act also created the 

Historic Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are directed to take into account the effects of their actions 

on items or sites listed or eligible for listing in the National Register. Section 110 requires federal agencies 

to manage historic properties, e.g., to document historic properties prior to destruction or damage; section 

101 requires federal agencies consider Indian tribal values in historic preservation programs and requires 

each federal agency to establish a program leading to inventory of all historic properties on its land.

National Trails System Act of 1968

Established the National Trails System to protect the recreational, scenic, and historic values of some 

important trails. National Recreation Trails may be established by the Secretaries of the Interior or 

Agriculture on land wholly or partly within their jurisdiction, with the consent of the involved state(s) and 

other land managing agencies, if any. National scenic and national historic trails may only be designated 

by an Act of Congress. Several national trails cross units of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997)

This act consolidates the authorities relating to the various categories of lands for the conservation of fish 

and wildlife administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service by 

designating all such areas part of a single National Wildlife Refuge System. Areas include wildlife 

refuges, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife threatened with extinction, wildlife 

ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, and waterfowl production areas. The law also prohibits 

knowingly disturbing any area within the system or the take of Refuge System wildlife without a permit. 

The Act addresses the growing need for recreational opportunities by providing a decision framework for 

allowing appropriate and compatible uses of the Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act of 2000

Establishes a commission to promote awareness by the public to develop a long-term plan to meet 

priority needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System, require an annual report on the needs, and improve 

public use programs and facilities. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

This act, which amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, serves as the 

"organic act" for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Act states first and foremost that the mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System is focused singularly on wildlife conservation. It establishes a 

unifying mission for the Refuge System, reinforces the importance of refuge purposes to guide 

management direction, articulates a process for determining compatible uses of refuges, identifies six 

priority wildlife-dependent recreation uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education and interpretation), and adds a requirement for preparing comprehensive 

conservation plans through a public planning process. The Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to 

maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 

Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to encourage the use of volunteers to help in the management 

of refuges within the National Wildlife Refuge System; facilitates partnerships between the Refuge 
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

141

System and nonfederal entities to promote public awareness of the resources of the Refuge System and 

public participation in the conservation of the resources; and encourages donations and other 

contributions.

National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer Improvement Act of 2010 

Maintains the current funding authorization level for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s volunteer and 

community partnerships programs that are vital to national wildlife refuges but makes a number of 

important amendments. The law amends the National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer and Community 

Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 to direct the Service to carry out a National Volunteer Coordination 

Program within the National Wildlife Refuge System. It also requires the Director of the Service to publish 

a national strategy for the coordination and utilization of volunteers within the Refuge System and provide 

at least one regional volunteer coordinator for each Service region to implement the strategy. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990

Requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate cultural 

items under their control or possession. This act imposes serious delays on a project when human 

remains or other cultural items are encountered in the absence of a plan.

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 2000

Establishes a matching grants program to fund projects that promote the conservation of neotropical 

migratory birds in the United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989

Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between the United States, Canada, and 

Mexico. North American Wetlands Conservation Council is created to recommend projects to be funded 

under the Act to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Available funds may be expended for up to 

50 percent of the United States’ share cost of wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the 

United States (or 100 percent of the cost of projects on federal lands).

Partnerships for Wildlife Act of 1992

Established a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund to receive appropriated funds and donations 

from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to assist the state fish and game 

agencies in carrying out their responsibilities for conservation of non-game species. The funding formula 

is no more than 1/3 federal funds, at least 1/3 foundation funds, and at least 1/3 state funds. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended

Requires that any recreational use on areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System be "compatible" with 

the primary purpose(s) for which the area was acquired or established. This Act also requires that 

sufficient funding be available for the development, operation and maintenance of recreational uses that 

are not directly related to the area's primary purpose(s). 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935

Provides for payments to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the sale of products from 

refuges. A major revision in 1964 requires all revenues received from refuge products be distributed to 

counties for public schools and roads (this stipulation later removed). Another revision in 1974 requires 

that any remaining funds be transferred to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for land acquisition. A 

1978 amendment stated payments to counties were established as: 

• on acquired land, the greatest amount calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre, three-fourths 

of one percent of the appraised value, or 25 percent of the net receipts produced from the land, 

and on land withdrawn from the public domain, 25 percent of net receipts and basic payments.

This amendment also required counties to pass payments along to other units of local government within 

the county that suffer losses in revenues due to the establishment of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service areas.
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

142

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability under any program or activity receiving federal financial 

assistance. 

Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899, as amended

Requires the authorization by the Chief of Engineers prior to any work in, on, over, or under navigable 

waters of the United States. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides authority for the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service to review and comment on the effects on fish and wildlife activities proposed to be 

undertaken or permitted by the COE. Service concerns include contaminated sediments associated with

dredge or fill projects in navigable waters.

Secretarial Order 3289 Amendment 1: Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America’s 

Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources (2010)

Secretarial Order 3285, issued in March of 2009, made production and transmission of renewable energy 

on public lands a priority for the Department of the Interior. This Secretarial Order, 3289A1, issued in 

February of 2010 establishes a Department-wide approach for applying scientific tools to increase 

understanding of climate change and to coordinate an effective response to its impacts on tribes and on 

the land, water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and cultural resources that the Department manages.

Sikes Act of 1960, as amended

Provides for the cooperation by the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Defense with state agencies in 

planning, development, and maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor recreation facilities on 

military reservations throughout the United States. It requires the Secretary of each military department to 

use trained professionals to manage the wildlife and fishery resource under his jurisdiction and requires 

federal and state fish and wildlife agencies be given priority in management of fish and wildlife activities 

on military reservations.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

Regulates surface mining activities and reclamation of coal-mined lands. Further regulates the coal 

industry by designating certain areas as unsuitable for coal mining operations.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948

Provides that upon a determination by the Administrator of the General Services Administration, real 

property no longer needed by a federal agency can be transferred without reimbursement to the 

Secretary of the Interior if the land has particular value for migratory birds or to a state agency for other 

wildlife conservation purposes.

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998

Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation planning that includes public 

involvement, and provides funding for approved public use roads and trails and associated parking lots, 

comfort stations, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities.

Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2000

In December 2002, Congress required federal agencies to publish their own guidelines for ensuring and 

maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information that they disseminate to the public 

(44 U.S.C. 3502). The amended language is included in section 515(a). The Office of Budget and 

Management directed agencies to develop their own guidelines to address the requirements of the law. 

The Department of the Interior instructed bureaus to prepare separate guidelines on how they would 

apply the Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed “Information Quality Guidelines” to 

address the law.

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell their homes, businesses, or farms to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Act requires that any purchase offer be no less than the fair market 

value of the property.
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

143

Water Resources Planning Act of 1965

Established the Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet representatives, including the 

Secretary of the Interior. The Council reviews river basin plans with respect to agricultural, urban, energy, 

industrial, recreational, and fish and wildlife needs. The Act also established a grant program to assist 

states in participating in the development of related comprehensive water and land use plans.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968

Established a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and prescribes the methods and standards 

through which additional rivers may be identified and added to the system. Section 5(d)(1) requires that in 

all planning by federal agencies for the use and development of water and related land resources, 

consideration be given to potential wild, scenic, and recreation rivers. Rivers are added to the national 

system based on their free-flowing character and their outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreation, 

geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, ecological, or other values. Rivers in the system are managed 

to maintain and protect these outstandingly remarkable values for present and future generations. 

Wilderness Act of 1964

Defined the Wilderness resource and established the National Wilderness Preservation System. It 

directed the Secretary of the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more 

acres and every roadless island (regardless of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and National Park 

Systems and to recommend to the President the suitability of each such area or island for inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System, with final decisions made by Congress. The Secretary of 

Agriculture was directed to study and recommend suitable areas in the National Forest System. This act 

also prescribes the management of new inclusions as wilderness. 

Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970

Established a permanent Youth Conservation Corps program within the Departments of the Interior and 

Agriculture. Within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, YCC participants perform many tasks on refuges, 

fish hatcheries, and research stations.
Appendix F: Literature Cited

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

144

Appendix F: Literature Cited

Anderson, R. C. 2006. “Evolution and origin of the central grassland of North America: Climate, fire, and 

mammalian grazers.” Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 133(4): pp. 626–647.

Anteau, M. J. 2011. “Do interactions of land use and climate affect productivity of waterbirds and prairiepothole wetlands?” Wetlands 32: pp. 1–9.

Bakker, K. K. 2003. The effect of woody vegetation on grassland nesting birds: An annotated 

bibliography. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science 82: pp. 119–141. *Updated January 

2008 

Biondini, M. E., A. A. Steuter, R. G. Hamilton. 1999. “Bison use of fire-managed remnant prairies.” Journal 

of Range Management 52(5): pp. 454–461.

Briggs, J. M., A. K. Knapp, J. M. Blair, J. L. Heisler, G. A. Hoch, M. S. Lett, J. K. McCarron. 2005. “An 

ecosystem in transition: Causes and consequences of the conversion of mesic grassland to shrubland.”

BioScience 55(3): pp. 243–254.

Brozowski, J. 2010. “Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge, Contaminants Assessment Process 

(CAP).” Twin Cities Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, MN: p. 

32.

Christensen, K. A. 1998. “Soil Survey of Becker County, Minnesota: Part 1.” United States Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Gov’t Printing Off: p. 184.

Collins, S. L. and L. L. Wallace, editors. 1990. “Fire in North American tallgrass prairies.” University of 

Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. “Classification of wetlands and deepwater 

habitats of the United States.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, DC.

Dickmann, D. I. and Cleland, D. T. 2002. “Fire return intervals and fire cycles for historic fire regimes in 

the Great Lakes Region: A synthesis of the literature, DRAFT.” Great Lakes Ecological Assessment: p. 

21. 

Duebbert, H. F., E. T. Jacobson, K. F. Higgins, and E. B. Podoll. 1981. “Establishment of seeded 

grasslands for wildlife habitat in the Prairie Pothole Region.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Special 

Scientific Report, Wildlife No. 234. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center; 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/tools/grasland/contents.htm (Version 16Jul97).

Explore Minnesota Tourism. 2011. “Tourism and Minnesota’s economic recovery.” State of Minnesota. 

Accessed 21 May 2012 at: http://www.exploreminnesota.com.

Hartnett, D. C., K. R. Hickman, L. E. Fischer Walter. 1996. “Effects of bison grazing, fire, and topography 

on floristic diversity in tallgrass prairie.” Journal of Range Management 49(5): pp. 413–420.

Heisler, J. L., J. M. Briggs, and A. K. Knapp. “Long-Term Patterns of Shrub Expansion in a C4-

Dominated Grassland: Fire Frequency and the Dynamics of Shrub Cover and Abundance.” American 

Journal of Botany 90(3): pp. 423–428.

Heitmeyer, M. E., R. L. Esser, J. D. Eash and B. J. Newman. 2012. “Hydromorphic evaluation of 

ecosystem restoration and management options for Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge.” Prepared 

for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Minneapolis, MN. Greenbrier Wetland Services Report No. 

12-01. Blue Heron Conservation Design and Printing LLC, Bloomfield, MO. 
Appendix F: Literature Cited

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

145

Greenwood, R. J., A. B. Sargeant, D. H. Johnson, L. M. Cowardin, and T. L. Shaffer. 1995. “Factors 

associated with duck nest success in the Prairie Pothole Region of Canada.” Wildlife Monographs 128:1–

57. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online; 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/orthrdata/nestsuc/nestsucc.htm (Version 02Jun99).

Helzer, C. 2010. The ecology and management of prairies in the central United States. Published for The 

Nature Conservancy by the University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, IA.

Herkert, J. R. 1994. “The effects of habitat fragmentation on Midwestern grassland bird communities.”

Ecological Applications 4(3): pp. 461–471.

Herkert, J. R., D. W. Sample, and R. E. Warner. 1996. “Management of Midwestern grassland 

landscapes for the conservation of migratory birds.” Pages 89–116 in F. R. Thompson, III, ed. 

Management of Midwestern Landscapes for the Conservation of Neotropical Migratory Birds. U.S. Forest 

Service, General Technical Report NC-187. North Central Forest Experimental Station, St. Paul, MN.

Higgins, K. F. 1977. “Duck nesting in intensively farmed areas of North Dakota.” Journal of Wildlife 

Management 41(2): pp. 232–242.

Higgins, K.F. 1986. “Interpretation and compendium of historical fire accounts in the Northern Great 

Plains. Resource Publication 161. Washington DC: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Houston Engineering, Inc. 2010. “Mainstem Planning Region Planning Summary” in Appendix G of 

“Buffalo-Red River Watershed District Revised Watershed Management Plan.” Prepared by Houston 

Engineering, Inc., Buffalo-Red River Watershed District, Barnesville, Minnesota and Prescribed by 

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, St. Paul, MN. p. 50.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.”

Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, 

Switzerland: p. 104.

Joern, A. 2005. “Disturbance by fire frequency and bison grazing modulate grasshopper assemblages in 

tallgrass prairie.” Ecology 86(4): pp. 861–873.

Johnson R. R., Oslund, F. T., and D. R. Hertel. 2008. “The past, present, and future of prairie potholes in 

the United States.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(3): pp. 84a–87a.

Johnson, C., B. V. Millett, T. Gilmanov, R. A. Voldseth, G. R. Guntenspergen, and D. E. Naugle. 2005. 

“Vulnerability of northern prairie wetlands to climate change.” BioScience 55(10): pp. 863–872.

Johnson, C., B. Werner, G. R. Guntenspergen, R. A. Voldseth, B. Millet, D. E. Naugle, M. Tulbere, R. W. 

H. Carroll, J. Tracy, and C. Olawsky. 2010. “Prairie wetland complexes as landscape functional units in a 

changing climate. BioScience 60(2): pp. 128–140.

Kaminski, R. M. and H. H. Prince. 1981. “Dabbling duck activity and foraging responses to aquatic 

macroinvertebrates.” Auk 98: pp. 115–126.

Kantrud, H. A. 1986. “Effects of vegetation manipulation on breeding waterfowl in prairie wetlands: A 

literature review.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Technical Report 3.

Kantrud, H. A. and R. E. Stewart. 1977. “Use of natural basin wetlands by breeding waterfowl in North 

Dakota.” Journal of Wildlife Management 41: pp. 243–253.
Appendix F: Literature Cited

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

146

Knapp, A. K. and M. D. Smith. 2001. “Variation among biomes in temporal dynamics of aboveground 

primary production.” Science, New Series (291)5503: pp. 481–484.

Knapp, A. K., J. M. Blair, J. M. Briggs, S. L. Collins, D. C. Hartnett, L. C. Johnson, E. G. Towne. 1999. 

“The keystone role of bison in North American tallgrass prairie.” BioScience (49)1: pp. 39–50.

Knopf, F. L. 1996. “Prairie Legacies – Birds” in F. B. Sampson and F. L Knopf, eds. Prairie Conservation: 

Preserving North America’s Most Endangered Ecosystem. Island Press, Washington, DC and Covelo, 

CA. 

Krapu, G. L., P. J. Pietz, D. A. Brandt, and R. R. Cox. 2004. Does presence of permanent fresh water 

affect recruitment in prairie-nesting dabbling ducks? Journal of Wildlife Management 68: pp. 332–341.

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

Lincoln, F. C., S. R. Peterson, and J. L. Zimmerman. 1998. “Migration of Birds.” U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC; Circular 16. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center Online; http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/migratio/index.htm (Version 

02Apr2002).

McClain, W.E. and S.L. Elzinga. 1994. “The occurrence of prairie and forest fires in Illinois and other

Midwestern states, 1679–1854.” Erigenia 13: pp. 79–90. 

Minnesota County Biological Survey. 2008. “Minnesota’s remaining prairie 100 years after the public land 

survey.” Minnesota DNR; http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/mcbs/prairie_map.pdf.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Otter Tail Regional Hydrological Assessment, Part 

B. GIS Specialist, Division of Waters, Minnesota DNR, St. Paul, MN. 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2005. “Field guide to the native plant communities of 

Minnesota: The prairie parkland and tallgrass aspen parklands provinces.” Ecological Land Classification 

Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. 

Minnesota DNR, St. Paul, MN. 

Murkin, H. R., R. M. Kaminski, and R. D. Titman. 1982. “Responses by dabbling ducks and aquatic 

invertebrates to an experimentally manipulated cattail marsh.” Can. J. of Zool. 60: pp. 2324–2332.

Murkin, H. R. 1989. “The basis for food chains in prairie wetlands.” Pages 316–338 in A. van der Valk, 

editor. Northern Prairie Wetlands. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.

Newman, B. and J. Eash. 2011. Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge, Water Resource Inventory and 

Assessment (WRIA), Water Resources Branch, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minneapolis, MN: p. 46.

North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI), U.S. Committee. 2010. “The State of the Birds 2010 

Report on Climate Change, United States of America.” U.S. Dept. of Interior: Washington, DC: p. 32.

North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI), U.S. Committee, 2011. “The State of the Birds 2011 

Report on Public Lands and Waters.” U.S. Department of Interior: Washington, DC: p. 48.

Ojima, D.S. and J.M. Lackett. 2002. “Preparing for a changing climate: The potential consequences of 

climate variability and change --Central Great Plains.” Fort Collins: Central Great Plains Steering 

Committee and Assessment Team, Colorado State University.

Payer, R. D. and C. G Scalet. 1978. “Population and production estimates of fathead minnows in a South 

Dakota prairie wetland.” Prog. Fish-Cult. 40: pp. 63–66. 
Appendix F: Literature Cited

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

147

Pemble, R. H. 1995. “A survey of native prairie remnants and prairie species of special interest in the 

vicinity of the Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge, Becker County, Minnesota.” Report prepared for 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Department of Biology, Moorhead State University, Moorhead, MN. 

Plumb, G. E. and J. L. Dodd. 1994. “Foraging ecology of bison and cattle.” Rangelands 16(3): pp. 107–

109.

Pyne, S. J. 1982. Fire in America: A Cultural History of Wildland and Urban Fire. University of Washington 

Press: p. 264.

Salk, R.J. and Schneider, I.E. 2007. Study of Current Area Visitors: Detroit Lakes-Mahnomen 2007. 

University of Minnesota, Tourism Center.

Sampson, F. and F. Knopf. 1994. “Prairie conservation in North America.” BioScience 44 (6): pp. 418–

421.

Sample, David W., and Michael J. Mossman. 1997. “Managing habitat for grassland birds - a guide for 

Wisconsin.” Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI, PUBL-SS-925–97: p. 154. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/wiscbird/index.htm (Version 03Jun2002).

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2011. The 

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966–2010. Version 12.07.2011 USGS 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Shaffer, Terry, Ann Dahl, Mike Johnson, Ron Reynolds, Kathy Baer, and Glen Sargeant. 1999. Mallard 

Use of Nesting Islands Depends on Surrounding Upland Cover. Waterfowl 2000 12(2):16. Jamestown, 

ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/nstisle/index.htm (Version 02DEC99).

Smith, A. G., J. H. Stoudt, and J. B. Gollop. 1964. “Prairie potholes and marshes.” Pages 39–50 in J. P. 

Linduska, editor. Waterfowl Tomorrow. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Sovada, M. A., M. C. Zicus, R. J. Greenwood, D. P. Rave, W.E. Newton, R. O. Woodward and J. A. 

Beiser. 2000. “Relationships of habitat patch size to predator community and survival of duck nests.”

Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3): pp. 820–831. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/habpatch/habpatch.htm (Version 17Nov2000).

Stewart, R. E. and H. A. Kantrud. 1971. “Classification of natural ponds and lakes in the glaciated prairie 

region.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 92: p. 26.

Swanson, G. A. and H. F. Duebbert. 1989. “Wetland habitats of waterfowl in the Prairie Pothole Region.” 

Pages 228–267 in A. van der Valk, eds. Northern Prairie Wetlands. Iowa State University Press, Ames, 

IA.

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

and cattle grazing. Ecological Applications 15(5):pp. 1550–1559.

Transeau, E. N. 1934. “The prairie peninsula.” Ecology 16(3): pp. 423–437.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. State and County QuickFacts. Accessed 21 May 2012 at: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27/27005.html.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. Census of Agriculture County Profile: Becker County -- Minnesota. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Accessed 21 May 2012 at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov.
Appendix F: Literature Cited

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

148

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon sequestration research and development. Report # 

DOE/SC/FE-1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Fossil Energy. 

U.S. Environment Protection Agency. 2002. “Methods for evaluating wetland condition: Land-use 

characterization for nutrient and sediment risk assessment.” Office of Water, U.S. EPA, Washington DC. 

EPA-822-R-02-025.

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2009. Climate Literacy: The Essential Principles of 

Climate Sciences. 2nd Version. U.S. Global Change Research Program/Climate Change Science 

Program, Washington, DC: p. 17; www.climatescience.gov.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Final Environmental Assessment for Proposed Establishment of the 

Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge, Becker County, Minnesota. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 3, Twin Cities, MN: p. 86.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge Concept Plan: A 

description of the long-range management and development objectives of Hamden Slough National 

Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Twin Cities, MN: p. 24.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Hunting Plan: Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Dept. 

of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Ft. Snelling, MN: p. 19.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program: Restoring Wildlife Habitat on 

Minnesota’s Private Lands: p.6.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Identifying Refuge Resources of Concern and Management 

Priorities: A Handbook. Washington, DC: p. 60.

van der Valk, A. G., and C. B. Davis. 1978. “The role of seed banks in the vegetation dynamics of prairie 

glacial marshes.” Ecology 59: pp. 322–335.

Ward, J. A.; Cromwell, R.J.; McCarthy, J.P.; Dobbs, C.A. 1997. A Cultural Resources Management Plan 

for the Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge - Becker County, Minnesota. IMA Consulting, Inc., 

Minneapolis, MN.

Weaver, J. E. 1954. North American Prairie. Johnsen Publishing Company, Lincoln, NE: p. 357.

Weller, M. W. and C. E. Spatcher. 1965. “Role of habitat in the distribution and abundance of marsh 

birds.” Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Special Report 43: p. 31.

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

Wright, H. A. and A. W. Bailey. 1980. “Fire ecology and prescribed burning in the Great Plains: A 

research review.” USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep INT-77.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

149

Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

In this appendix:

Hunting

Wildlife Observation and Photography (including means and dates of access)

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Cooperative Farming as a Habitat Management Tool to Enhance and Restore Refuge Grasslands

Haying

Prescribed Grazing

Tree Harvest – Wood Cutting

Placement/Construction of New, Small Parking Areas

Scientific Studies and Research Projects by Third Parties

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Hunting 

Refuge Name: Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge, located in Becker County, Minnesota, was established on 

September 18, 1989, by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission as the 452nd national wildlife 

refuge.

Refuge Purposes: 

The primary purpose of Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge is “ . . . for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purposes, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act) and including “ . . . conservation management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 

U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [668dd–668ee])

Description of Use:

Public hunting will be allowed on all or portions of the Refuge in accordance with the State of Minnesota 

regulations and seasons for two separate hunts: the Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day and the Muzzleloader 

Deer Season. 

The Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day will take place on Refuge fee title property, in Audubon and Riceville 

Townships. Hamden Township (60percent of the Refuge) will be closed to waterfowl hunting. The hunting 

season for the Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day is usually one week ahead of the opening of the State 

Waterfowl Season. Tentatively it will take place on Saturday, September 23, 2006, the 4th weekend in 

September.

The White-tailed Deer Muzzleloader Season will take place on all tracts of Hamden Slough NWR 

purchased in fee title. The State of Minnesota Deer Muzzleloader season is usually approved for 15 days 

beginning on the last weekend in November. 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

150

Both hunts will take place in accordance with Minnesota regulations and seasons. No additional Refuge 

permits or taking regulations are expected. Biological data from harvested deer in Units #259 and #297 

are collected by the Minnesota DNR to reconstruct basic information on the deer herd. The Refuge staff 

will consult with Minnesota DNR biologists to adjust harvest recommendations for future hunts and in 

conjunction with the state, sample deer for Chronic Wasting Disease and other diseases. 

The Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day will take place on Refuge fee title property in Audubon and Riceville 

Townships, a total of 1360 acres. Hamden Township (60 percent of the Refuge) will be closed to 

waterfowl hunting. Hunting will take place on restored native tallgrass prairie and restored wetlands. Fall 

migrating waterfowl will be the primary users of restored wetlands during the Youth Waterfowl Hunting 

Day. Well-developed county and township roads provide public access to all hunting areas.

The White-tailed Deer Muzzleloader Season will take place on all tracts of Hamden Slough NWR 

purchased in fee title in Audubon, Hamden, and Riceville Townships. This will allow hunting on all 3,402 

acres of Hamden Slough NWR in Audubon, Hamden, and Riceville Townships. Hunting will take place on 

restored native tallgrass prairie and restored wetlands. Resident winter wildlife will be the primary users of 

that habitat during the muzzleloader season for white-tailed deer. Well-developed county and township 

roads provide public access to all hunting areas. 

The hunting season for the Minnesota Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day is usually one week ahead of the 

opening of the Minnesota State Waterfowl Season. Tentatively, the first Youth Waterfowl Hunt will take 

place on Saturday, September 23rd, the 4th weekend in September, 2006. The Minnesota Youth 

Waterfowl Hunt will take place for one day, on the 3rd or 4th weekend of September, during each 

subsequent year, subject to Minnesota State regulations. 

The State of Minnesota Deer Muzzleloader season is usually approved for 15 days beginning on the last 

weekend in November. For 2006, the Minnesota Deer Muzzleloader is scheduled for November 25 -

December 10. The Minnesota Deer Muzzleloader hunt will take place for 15 days, beginning on the last 

weekend in November, during each subsequent year, subject to Minnesota State regulations.

Both hunts will take place in accordance with Minnesota regulations and seasons. No additional Refuge 

permits or taking regulations are expected. No supporting facilities or structures are expected to be used. 

An estimated 75 youth hunters, ages 15 and below, are expected for the Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day 

and should be accompanied by approximately 30 non-hunting adults. An estimated total of 200 deer 

hunters is expected during the 15-day Muzzleloader Hunt.

Maintaining the "Closed to Hunting" status of the Refuge does not provide for all the priority public uses 

identified as goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U. S. 

C. 460K) and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U. S. C. 668dd—668ee) 

provide authorization for hunting and fishing on national wildlife refuges. The effects of hunting and fishing 

on refuges have been examined in several environmental review documents, including the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement on the Operation of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1976), 

Recommendations on the Management of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1978), and the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement on the Management of the National Wildlife Refuges (1988). Nothing in 

the establishing authority for the Hamden Slough NWR (Migratory Bird Conservation Act {16 U. S. C. § 

715}) precludes hunting on the Refuge.

Maintaining the "Closed to Hunting" status of the Refuge does not provide for all the public uses identified 

as goals of the Refuge. The 1988 Hamden Slough Final Environmental Assessment developed for the 

establishment of the Hamden Slough NWR identified providing compatible wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses, including " . . . waterfowl and resident game hunting, wildlife observation and photography . . . " as 

public use benefits. It further states, "An estimated 50 percent of the public use would be for these 

activities." There are no known administrative conflicts associated with the proposed hunting program. All 

features of the program are in compliance with Refuge objectives.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

151

Fifteen federal Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) are adjacent to or near Hamden Slough National 

Wildlife Refuge. They are used by waterfowl, deer, and upland game hunters during the Minnesota State 

hunting seasons.

Availability of Resources: 

The current staffing levels are sufficient to support a public hunting program on Hamden Slough NWR. 

Refuge funding is available to manage both hunts. No increase in costs is expected above the Refuge's 

current Operations and Maintenance budget. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Youth Waterfowl Hunting and white-tailed deer hunting activities are intended to meet the conservation 

and priority public use objectives of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act and Refuge 

objectives and management goals without adversely affecting the primary objectives and mission of the 

Refuge. Refuge white-tailed deer hunting and Youth Waterfowl Hunting follow all applicable laws, 

regulations, and policies including the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 50 CFR, National Wildlife Refuge 

System Manual, National Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and Hamden Slough National 

Wildlife Refuge goals and objectives. These activities are compliant with the purpose of the Refuge and 

the National Wildlife Refuge System mission. Operating the hunting activity does not alter the Refuge's 

ability to meet habitat goals, provides for the safety of the areas' citizens, and supports several of the 

primary objectives of the Refuge.

Disturbance to wildlife is an anticipated affect, as people participate in the Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day. 

Disturbance to wildlife is limited to occasional flushing of non-target species and the harvest of individual 

members of the waterfowl species approved for taking on the Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day. Waterfowl 

hunting would only occur on Refuge tracts in Audubon and Riceville Townships. Some temporary 

dispersal of migratory birds from the north and south ends of the Refuge may occur. The dispersal of 

migratory birds could include Canada geese, which can be harvested by hunters hunting on Waterfowl 

Production Areas or private land around the Refuge, during the Minnesota Special Goose Season. 

Refuge tracts in Hamden Township, which total 60 percent of the Refuge acreage, will be undisturbed. 

Maintaining Hamden Township as a closed area during the Youth Waterfowl Hunt, as outlined in the 

Hunting Management Plan, provides a resting and feeding area for waterfowl during the hunting day. 

Disturbance to wildlife is the anticipated effect, as people participate in the Muzzleloader Deer Hunt. 

White-tailed deer hunting would occur on all Refuge tracts in Audubon, Hamden and Riceville Townships. 

Some temporary dispersal of deer from the Refuge may occur. These deer could be harvested by hunters 

hunting on Waterfowl Production Areas or private land around the Refuge. Disturbance by vehicles will be 

limited, as off-road travel will not be permitted. Special access accommodations for persons with 

disabilities will be minimal, utilizing existing gravel trails on the Refuge. 

Disturbance to wildlife is limited to occasional flushing of non-target species and the harvest of individual 

members of white-tailed deer during the Minnesota State muzzleloader hunt. Restrictions to the hunting 

program assure that these activities have no adverse impacts on other wildlife species and little adverse 

impact to other public use programs.

Restrictions on both hunting programs assure that these activities have no adverse impacts on other 

wildlife species and little adverse impact to other public use programs. Disturbance by vehicles will be 

limited, as off-road travel will not be permitted. Special access accommodations for persons with 

disabilities will be minimal, utilizing existing gravel trails on the Refuge. 

As indicated in the Hamden Slough NWR Hunting Management Plan, adjustments to the species hunted 

and harvestable limits will be annually evaluated by wildlife surveys conducted by both the State of 

Minnesota and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

152

Long-term impacts:

• The muzzleloader hunt helps control the size of the deer herd, reducing the stress of disease and 

the damaging effects to habitat causes by over population. As indicated in the Hamden Slough 

NWR Hunting Management Plan, adjustments to the species hunted and harvestable limits will 

be annually evaluated by wildlife surveys conducted by both the State of Minnesota and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Conducting deer hunting during the late November muzzleloader season, as 

outlined in the Hunting Management Plan, will not disturb resting and feeding areas for migratory 

birds during their migration period. The first week of November is the normal freeze-over period of 

area wetlands, and most migrating birds have left the area by November 10th. 

• No long-term impacts to wildlife are expected from the Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day. 

By facilitating hunting on the Refuge, program participants’ knowledge and appreciation of wildlife will 

increase, which should lead to increased public stewardship of wildlife and their habitats at the Refuge. 

Increased public stewardship will support and complement the Service's actions in achieving the Refuge's 

purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The Service has allowed public hunting and administered a hunting program on WPAs since the early 

1960s. Most recent estimates show that more than 125,000 people visit WPAs located in Minnesota 

annually for the purpose of hunting. During its history, the Service has not noted any significant adverse 

effects of this program on the administration of WPAs and has determined that this use is compatible with 

the purposes of the WPAs and the Refuge System's mission statement. The hunting program for Hamden 

Slough NWR will be consistent with the program administered by the Service for WPAs. Based on the 

similarities between adjacent and nearby WPAs and the Refuge, it is expected that the establishment of a 

hunting program for Hamden Slough NWR should not adversely affect the Refuge's purpose or goals.

Public Review and Comment:

The first period of public review and comment began November 30, 2004 and ended January 10, 2005. A 

second period of review began November 4, 2005 and ended December 9, 2005.

The following methods were used to solicit public review and comment:

• Posted notice at Refuge headquarters 

• Public notice in newspaper with wide local distribution 

• Posted notices in public places

• Letter to other interested persons

• Public meeting

• Extended comment period

• Media used to solicit public review and comment included Becker County Record, and Detroit 

Lakes Tribune.

Why was this level of public review and comment selected?

The public was notified by newspaper, radio, and other media regarding a public meeting on November 

30, 2004 to review opening the Refuge to hunting and also propose various Refuge hunting options. At 

the meeting, the public was given the opportunity to make comments on opening the Refuge to hunting, 

and the types of hunting desired. Following the meeting, a public comment period lasted from November 

30, 2004 to December 15, 2004. Comments or letters were received from 23 respondents, of which a 

majority favored either limited waterfowl hunting or limited deer hunting. Some respondents 

recommended either the waterfowl or deer hunt but were opposed to the other. Most expressed concern 

about wildlife disturbance and the effect on hunting on nearby private and public lands. Recorded public 

comments and letters are maintained for review at the Refuge office. 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

153

After initial public comments from the 2004 November public meeting were received, a draft Hunting Plan, 

and draft Hunting Environmental Assessment and draft Compatibility Determination were placed at the 

Detroit Lakes Public Library on December 17, 2004. Legal notification and news articles on December 19 

and 22, 2004 informed the public that the hunting proposal documents were available for review and that 

additional public comments would be received through January 10, 2005. With the comments generated 

during the first public comment period being generally favorable to the proposed Hunting Plan, and since 

no new information was obtained to revise the plan, the Refuge submitted a draft Hamden Slough Hunt 

Plan, draft Environmental Assessment, and draft Compatibility Determination to the Region 3 Office of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Their comments and suggestions were incorporated into a final draft Hunt Plan, final draft Environmental 

Assessment, and final draft Compatibility Determination, in November, 2005. The public was notified a 

second time by newspaper, radio, and other media about a second public comment period, which lasted 

from November 4 through December 9, 2005. With the comments generated during both public comment 

periods being generally favorable to the proposed Hunting Plan, and since no new information was 

obtained to revise the Plan, the Refuge submitted the final draft Hunting Plan, final draft Environmental 

Assessment, and final draft Compatibility Determination to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 

office for approval.

Summarize comments received and any actions taken or not taken because of comments 

received.

Comments or letters were received from 23 respondents, of which a majority favored either limited 

waterfowl hunting or limited deer hunting. Some respondents recommended either the waterfowl or deer 

hunt, but were opposed to the other. Most expressed concern about wildlife disturbance and the effect on 

hunting on nearby private and public lands. The comments are summarized below:

Public Comment Number of comments

Maintain No Hunting status 5

Open for general waterfowl hunting 1

Open for restricted waterfowl hunting 14

Maintain no waterfowl hunting status 1

Open for general deer hunting 1

Open for restricted deer hunting 11

Maintain no deer hunting status 1

Open small game and upland bird hunting 1

1) Issue/Concern: Traditional public use opportunities, especially limited hunting, should be 

provided on Service lands.

There would be a positive impact on this issue, since lands would be open to limited hunting. If Hamden 

Slough National Wildlife Refuge remained closed, it would essentially represent a sanctuary unavailable 

to the public for the harvest of wildlife resources. The public desire for public use opportunities would not 

be met and actually decrease from levels when private ownership controlled public use. National Wildlife 

Refuge System goals, the President's Executive Order, and Refuge objectives for public use opportunities 

would not be met. 

If the Refuge was opened for Big, Small, Upland, and season length Waterfowl Hunting, there would be a 

negative impact on this issue. A significant proportion of the public would view the general hunting as 

disturbing wildlife, particularly waterfowl, and adversely affecting hunting on public and private lands 

surrounding the Refuge. 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

154

2) Issue/Concern: A balance of public uses should be accommodated.

During the Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day and Deer Muzzleloader season, areas open to wildlife 

observation, environmental education, and interpretation would also be open for specified public hunting. 

Time and spacing considerations in the Hunting Management Plan would help accommodate a variety of 

user groups. Disturbance of public use and wildlife would be minimal with one day of youth waterfowl 

hunting in September. The muzzleloader hunting season in late November takes place after wetlands 

freeze over, and numbers of migrating birds and public use is minimal. If no hunting is permitted, some 

negative impact is expected on this issue. 

If the Refuge was opened to all Minnesota State hunt seasons, areas open to wildlife observation, 

environmental education, and interpretation would also be open to public hunting. Refuge general hunting 

will disturb the high concentration of waterfowl that now use the Refuge in September, October, and early 

November. This will reduce public wildlife viewing opportunity, and reduce the quantity of waterfowl, 

which are hunted on the surrounding private and public lands. Time and spacing considerations in the 

Hunting Management Plan would help accommodate a variety of user groups, but the disturbance of 

other public use activities would be a factor negatively affecting a quality visitor experience. 

3) Issue/Concern: A concern by private landowners near or adjacent to Refuge land is that Refuge 

hunting will reduce the quality of hunting on surrounding property. 

With a September Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day and a late November Deer Muzzleloader season, there 

would some minimal disturbance having a negative impact on this issue. The disturbance factor is 

considered minimal, as the Refuge would be open for only one day of waterfowl hunting in September, 

and for a 15 day period of muzzleloader deer hunting, in late November and early December. It is also 

possible that Refuge hunting will increase hunting opportunities on surrounding lands by increasing the 

wildlife moving beyond the Refuge boundary.

If the Refuge remains closed to hunting, Hamden Slough NWR would act as a wildlife sanctuary and 

maintain a reservoir of migratory game birds and white-tailed deer. These animals do move beyond the 

Refuge boundary and are available for hunting on private and public property. The public's desire for 

Refuge public use opportunities would not be met and actually decrease from levels when private 

ownership controlled public use. National Wildlife Refuge System goals, the President's Executive Order, 

and Refuge objectives for public use opportunities would not be met. 

If the Refuge was opened to all Minnesota State hunt seasons, there would be significant negative impact 

on this issue, with multiple hunting seasons disturbing wildlife, particularly waterfowl, from early 

September through early December. This could adversely affect hunting on public and private lands 

surrounding the Refuge by moving migratory game birds to other sanctuary areas. 

4) Issue/Concern: Hunting programs should be biologically sound from a populations and habitat 

standpoint.

With a September Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day and a late November–early December Deer 

Muzzleloader season, hunting will result in the removal of white-tailed deer and a decrease in the 

population of waterfowl species. However, this loss of individuals from populations, in accordance with 

specified seasons and regulations, is expected to be compensatory in nature. By compensatory, this 

means removing part of the population by hunting is only at the level that is lost naturally from predation, 

injury, disease, weather, competition, and other factors. 

Disturbance of non-targeted wildlife species under limited hunting could result in additional stress on 

these animals, but the impacts are not expected to be significant. Hunter entry and exit will be limited to 

foot travel, and Refuge regulations prohibit the removal of any plant materials. With these constraints on 

visitor behavior, impacts to wildlife habitat and local plant communities are expected to be minor. The 

Youth Waterfowl Hunt would provide a closed migratory bird hunting area (Hamden Township) since that 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

155

portion of the Refuge will be closed to any migratory game bird hunting to comply with the 40 percent

restriction considered in policies of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

If the Refuge remained closed to hunting, ecological impacts would center on the expected increase of 

the white-tailed deer population without hunting and the absence of natural predators. Large numbers of 

deer would degrade the existing Refuge and adjacent habitat through over-browsing, having negative 

impacts on flora and other fauna and deer health. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources target 

for deer density in this area is 4.4 deer/square mile. Deer density in Unit #259 is currently estimated at 8.4 

deer/square mile. 

If the Refuge was opened to all Minnesota State hunt seasons, there would be significant negative impact 

on this issue. General hunting will result in the removal of game species and a disturbance and decrease 

in the populations of these species. However, this loss of individuals from populations, in accordance with 

specified seasons and regulations, is expected to be compensatory in nature. By compensatory, this 

means removing part of the populations of animals by hunting is only at the level that is lost naturally from 

predation, injury, disease, weather, competition, and other factors.

Disturbance of non-targeted wildlife species, with the Refuge open to hunting for all Minnesota State 

hunting seasons, will result in additional stress on resident wildlife, particularly migratory birds, over a 

period from early September through mid-November. Daily usage of the Refuge is expected by multiple 

hunter groups for any state season. Their entry and exit will be limited to foot travel, and Refuge 

regulations prohibit the removal of any plant materials. Impacts to wildlife populations and local plant 

communities are expected to be moderate.

Public Notification

Legal notification and news articles on December 19 and 22, 2004 informed the public that the hunting 

proposal documents were available for review, and that additional public comments would be received 

through January 10, 2005. Two comments were received: one by the White Earth Reservation Tribal 

Council and one from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. No comments were received from 

the general public. 

A second comment period was posted for review at the Detroit Lakes Public Library and Refuge 

headquarters, on November 4, 2005. Legal notification and news articles on November 3 and November 

6, 2005 informed the public that the hunting proposal documents were available for review, and that 

additional public comments would be received through December 9, 2005. Public review was taken in the 

form of written comments and phone calls for a period of 35 days. No additional comments during the 

second public review period. With the comments generated during both public comment periods being 

generally favorable to the proposed Hunting Plan, and since no new information was obtained to revise 

the plan, the Refuge will implement the Hunting Plan as written.

Determination:

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X .Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Ensure annual wildlife surveys are completed and that the hunting program is adjusted to 

populations.

2. Annually review all hunting activities and operations to ensure compliance with all applicable 

State and Federal laws, regulations and policies.

3. Construction and use of permanent blinds is not permitted.

4. Use of motorized boats is not permitted.

5. All boats, decoys, and blind materials must be removed at the end of the day.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

156

6. Hunting dogs are under the immediate control of the hunter.

7. Public entry to hunting areas is not allowed earlier than 2 hours before legal shooting hours.

The following additional special regulations are necessary to ensure the planned public hunting seasons 

are compatible with Hamden Slough NWR’s goals, objectives, and purposes. 

Suggested Regulations for Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge:

A. Hunting of White-tailed Deer is permitted on the Refuge subject to the following conditions:

1. Hunting of white-tailed deer is permitted in accordance with Minnesota state hunting regulations 

during the state Deer Muzzleloader Season only, with muzzleloaders. 

2. Hunters may use portable stands. Hunters may not construct or use permanent blinds, 

permanent platforms, or permanent ladders.

3. All stands and personal property must be removed from the Refuge at the end of each day’s hunt.

4. Entry to hunting areas is not allowed earlier than two hours before legal shooting hours.

5. Allowable equipment: State regulations will govern all weapons and ammunition used for hunting 

on the refuge. All-terrain-vehicles (ATV) will be allowed on Refuge roads, for disabled hunting 

only. 

B. Hunting of Waterfowl is permitted on designated areas of the Refuge subject to the following 

conditions:

1. Hunting of waterfowl is permitted in accordance with state hunting regulations during the 

Minnesota State Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day only, by hunters age 15 and under. Waterfowl 

hunting will be limited to Refuge tracts in Audubon and Riceville Townships, only. Refuge tracts in 

Hamden Township are closed.

2. We prohibit the use of motorized boats.

3. We prohibit the construction or use of permanent blinds, stands, or scaffolds. 

4. You must remove all personal property, which includes boats, decoys, blinds, and blind materials 

(except for blinds made entirely of marsh vegetation) brought onto the Refuge following that day's 

hunt. 

5. We allow the use of hunting dogs, provided the dog is under the immediate control of the hunter 

at all times during the state approved hunting season. 

6. Entry to hunting areas is not allowed earlier than two hours before legal shooting hours.

Subsequent modifications in hunting regulations will be addressed in an amendment process as needed, 

and the public will be informed through leaflets or postings. Hunter numbers and success, observations or 

measurements of animal health, and measurements of habitat conditions may all be used to determine if 

changes in hunting regulations are necessary.

Justification:

Waterfowl hunting is a historical and current tradition of residents of northwestern Minnesota. Allowing 

waterfowl hunting on Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge, with the stipulations above, will have a 

positive effect on the wildlife resources of the Refuge. The dispersal of migratory birds during the Youth 

Waterfowl Hunting Day will include Canada geese, which can be harvested by hunters hunting on 

Waterfowl Production Areas or private land around the Refuge, during the Minnesota Special Goose 

Season. Canada goose populations in western Minnesota need to be kept within the limits necessary to 

prevent extensive crop depredation to private lands surrounding the Refuge. Failure to maintain the 

goose population within normal levels supported by the public will result in serious degradation of Refuge 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

157

support and cooperation, particularly from adjacent and local private landowners. This will impact other 

wildlife species on the Refuge. 

The Hamden Slough NWR Hunting Management Plan provides the management needed to ensure 

compatibility with the goals of the Refuge and to maintain compliance with the 1997 National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act. The 1997 Improvement Act identified hunting, when compatible, as one 

of six priority public uses. Waterfowl hunting will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or Refuge purposes, including migratory bird 

conservation. Compliance with the Hamden Slough NWR Hunting Management Plan ensures associated 

disturbance to wildlife is localized, temporary and minor. Those portions of the Refuge with increased 

activities generally have facilities present to accommodate the public use with minor impacts to the 

habitat. The stipulations will reduce or eliminate any unwanted impacts from waterfowl hunting.

Annual wildlife surveys conducted by the State of Minnesota and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have 

provided the data to ensure that hunting of waterfowl species doesn't jeopardized their long-range 

population goals. The continuation of these surveys on Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge will 

provide the necessary data for managing the hunting program into the future.

Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2020

Signature: Refuge Manager: /Mike Murphy/ 12/12/2005

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: /Tom Worthington (Acting)/ 12/14/2005

(Signature and Date)
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

158

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography (including means and dates of access)

Refuge Name: Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge, located in Becker County, Minnesota, was established on 

September 18, 1989, by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission as the 452nd national wildlife 

refuge.

Refuge Purposes: 

The primary purpose of Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge is “ . . . for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purposes, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act) and including “ . . . conservation management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 

U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [668dd–668ee])

Description of Use:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) encourages wildlife observation and photography as a 

means for the public to enjoy the Refuge resource. Access to the Refuge would be limited to foot traffic 

only (including hiking, snowshoeing, and cross country skiing). Access by bicycles, horses, and motorized 

vehicles would be limited to county and township roads. Boats will not be allowed within the Refuge.

Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses on National Wildlife Refuge System lands as 

identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Entry on all or portions of 

individual areas may be suspended by posting upon occasions of unusual or critical conditions affecting 

land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or public safety.

Availability of Resources: 

The needed staff for developing and administering the wildlife observation/photography program is 

available. Because of the anticipated low impact of these uses, minimal staff time will be required. Most 

resources will be dedicated to the upkeep of associated facilities for these uses.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Both short- and long-term impacts include temporary disturbance to wildlife while visitors access the 

Refuge. However, by limiting the disturbance on the Refuge to foot travel only, these disturbances will be 

minimized. 

This CD also allows for the siting of the prairie-chicken blind as well as a photography blind to be placed 

in easily accessible areas and allowing the public unique opportunities to enjoy Refuge wildlife. Blinds will 

be placed in areas to provide opportunities for specific wildlife observation/photography while minimizing 

disturbance to wildlife and habitat.

Public Review and Comment:

This Compatibility Determination was part of the Draft Hamden Slough NWR Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review included a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and a 

public meeting. Additionally, drafts of this and all CDs were available at the Detroit Lakes WMD 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

159

headquarters for review and comment. Comments received and agency responses are included in the 

final CCP.

Determination:

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X .Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Access to the Refuge will be by foot traffic only (including hiking, snowshoeing, and cross country 

skiing).

2. Motorized vehicles, bicycles, and horses are restricted to adjacent county and township roads. 

Boats are not allowed within the Refuge.

3. Blinds for wildlife observation/photography can be placed to provide specific wildlife viewing 

opportunities.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. This use is a 

priority public use on national wildlife refuges. By providing wildlife observation and photography, the 

public will have an opportunity to observe/photograph wildlife on the Refuge. This could lead to a further 

appreciation of the Refuge and associated resources.

Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2027

Signature: Refuge Manager: /Ryan Frohling/ 10/01/2012

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: __ /Tom Worthington (Acting)/ 10/05/2012

(Signature and Date)
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

160

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Refuge Name: Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge, located in Becker County, Minnesota, was established on 

September 18, 1989, by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission as the 452nd national wildlife 

refuge.

Refuge Purposes: 

The primary purpose of Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge is “ . . . for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purposes, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act) and including “ . . . conservation management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 

U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [668dd–668ee])

Description of Uses:

To allow wildlife interpretation and environmental education programs to be conducted on Hamden 

Slough NWR. Formal programs include activities prepared, scheduled, and organized for school-aged 

children and organized groups by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff. Programs conducted by the Prairie 

Wetlands Learning Center and Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge would be included in this category. In 

most cases, curriculums and program schedules are prepared in advance. These curriculums address a 

number of wildlife conservation issues including wetland and grassland conservation, migratory bird 

management, and the conservation of endangered species. Informal programs include self-guided auto 

tour routes and nature trails and impromptu presentations and discussions of wildlife conservation issues 

with interested citizens, casual visitors, and unscheduled groups. The visitation and use of the Refuge by 

local educators and their classes on their own for the purposes of furthering their understanding of natural 

resource management issues would also classified as an informal program.

In addition, this use includes the development of indoor interpretive areas at the Refuge’s environmental 

education building. The purposes of these exhibits are many, but include telling the story of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and conservation of prairie-wetland habitats.

Availability of Resources: 

The current staffing levels are sufficient to support environmental education and interpretation programs 

on Hamden Slough NWR. No increase in costs is expected above the Refuge's current Operations and 

Maintenance budget. However, increases in visitor services staff may result in an expanded effort.

Anticipated Impacts of the Uses: 

The overall impacts to the Refuge and associated wildlife populations from this use will be minimal. 

There will be some disturbance to waterfowl and other wildlife but at levels that will not likely interfere with 

waterfowl production. School buses and personal vehicles will utilize parking areas already constructed 

for use by waterfowl hunters and other Refuge users. The limited number of nature trails planned for 

development will be done in a way to minimize disturbance to vegetation and wildlife use of these areas. 

Any auto tour routes will be designed to minimize disturbance to waterfowl during the spring 

breeding/nesting season.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

161

Public Review and Comment:

This Compatibility Determination was part of the Draft Hamden Slough NWR Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review included a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and a 

public meeting. Additionally, drafts of this and all CD’s were available at the Detroit Lakes WMD 

headquarters for review and comment. Comments received and agency responses are included in the 

final CCP.

Determination:

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X .Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

The stipulations for environmental education and interpretation are the same as for wildlife observation 

and photography.

1. Environmental education /interpretation activities are allowed on the Refuge from August 1st 

through March 31st.

2. Environmental education/interpretation will be allowed year round from adjacent township and 

county roads, Refuge trails, and parking lots.

3. Access on the Refuge will be by foot traffic only (including hiking, snowshoeing, and cross 

country skiing).

4. Motorized vehicles, bicycles, and horses are restricted to adjacent county and township roads. 

Boats are not allowed within the Refuge.

5. The headquarters area, including the environmental education building, will remain open year

round for environmental education and interpretation.

6. The Refuge Manager may allow staff or expert-led special events such as birding festivals, etc. 

on a case-by-case basis.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. This use is a 

priority public use on national wildlife refuges. By allowing environmental education and interpretation, the 

public will have an opportunity to learn about the Refuge, its habitats and wildlife. This could lead to a 

further appreciation of the conserving the Refuge and associated resources. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2027

Signature: Refuge Manager: /Ryan Frohling/ 10/01/2012

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: __ /Tom Worthington (Acting)/ 10/05/2012

(Signature and Date)
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

162

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Cooperative Farming as a Habitat Management Tool to Enhance and Restore Refuge Grasslands

Refuge Name: Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge, located in Becker County, Minnesota, was established on 

September 18, 1989, by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission as the 452nd national wildlife 

refuge.

Refuge Purposes: 

The primary purpose of Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge is “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, 

or for any other management purposes, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act) and including “...conservation management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans... 16 

U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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.

Description of Use:

Cooperative farming is the term used for cropping activities done by a third party on land that is owned by 

the Service. This type of activity is usually done on a short term basis (five years or less) to prepare an 

optimum seedbed for the establishment of native prairie species. 

The cropping is done under the terms and conditions of a Cooperative Farming Agreement or Special 

Use Permit issued by the Refuge Manager. The terms of the Agreement or Permit insure that all current 

Service and Refuge restrictions are followed.

Cooperative farming activities are only compatible on previously disturbed areas that have unacceptable 

levels of chemical residue, noxious weeds, or non-native plant species or ecotypes or to honor the land 

use clauses of a purchase agreement. To ensure that all Service policies are met, all such land use 

clauses must be approved by the Refuge Manager prior to Service acceptance of the purchase 

agreement.

Contracts are typically written for three to five years. The cooperator breaks up the ground the first year 

and then farms it for the remaining two to four years. The last year of the contract requires the cooperator 

to seed the field to soybeans. Soybean stubble is the preferred substrate for the Refuge to seed native 

grasses and forbs into. 

Farming entails the use of mechanical equipment such as tractors, disks, and seeders. Each site is tilled 

prior to spring planting, once ground conditions permit. Tilling requires one to two days per site. Some 

sites may also be treated with herbicide prior to planting. Crops such as corn and soybeans are planted. 

Typically, planting is completed in one day or less on any individual site, and planting on all sites usually 

begins as early as mid-April and is completed as late as early June depending on soil conditions and type 

of crop planted. Cooperators are limited to using only Service-approved herbicides. The use of genetically 

modified crops (GMO crops), specifically glyphosate-tolerant corn and soybeans, will be authorized on 

Refuge lands consistent with current Regional policy. Beginning in calendar year 2012, the use of 

genetically modified, glyphosate-tolerant corn and soybeans will be used only for the purpose of habitat 

restoration.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

163

Harvest techniques are the same for both no-till and traditional farming practices. Harvest begins in the 

fall, using a self-propelled harvesting implement such as a combine, and usually takes about one day per 

site and is complete on all sites by late October.

Availability of Resources: 

The needed staff time for development and administration of cooperative farming programs is already 

committed and available. Most of the work needed to prepare for this use would be done as part of 

routine grassland management duties. The decision to use a cooperative farmer would occur as part of 

strategies developed under grassland development and management discussions. The additional time 

needed to coordinate issuance and oversight of the needed Special Use Permit or Cooperative Farming 

Agreement is relatively minor and within existing Refuge resources.

The cooperative farming of Service land will in most cases generate income for the Service. In 

accordance with Service policy, some of the farming income may be reduced to achieve the ultimate 

purpose of the agreement (grassland cover) by having the cooperator purchase seed or apply herbicide 

for the grassland restoration as the final step of the farming agreement. All farming income received will 

be submitted for deposit in the Refuge Revenue Sharing Account and is not available at the Refuge level 

to offset station costs incurred in administration of this use. All Service employees involved in the 

administration of the program must, however, be sensitive to the primary purpose of cooperative farming; 

providing an optimum seedbed for native prairie plant species. The Service should receive a fair market 

value from cooperative farmers, but generation of income is a secondary consideration when developing 

the terms and conditions of a cooperative farming agreement.

To lessen any appearance of favoritism or impropriety, Refuge Managers should document how 

cooperators were selected and how rental rates were derived (see Refuge Manual). 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

The use of farming provides Refuge staff with a management tool that allows the Refuge staff to meet the 

habitat goals and objectives. Service policy calls for maintaining or restoring Refuge habitats to historic 

conditions if doing so does not conflict with Refuge purposes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). 

Cooperative farming to prepare suitable seedbeds for native prairie plantings will result in short-term 

disturbances and long-term benefits to both resident and migratory wildlife. Short-term impacts will 

include disturbance and displacement typical of any noisy heavy equipment operation. Cropping activities 

in old fields or abandoned croplands will also result in short-term loss of habitat for any animal or insect 

species using those areas for nesting, feeding, or perching. Long-term benefits are extremely positive due 

to establishment of diverse nesting cover including native tallgrass species. The resulting habitat will 

greatly improve conditions for most of the same species affected by the short-term negative impacts. 

Strict time constraints placed on this use will limit anticipated impacts to these relatively minor areas.

Public Review and Comment:

This Compatibility Determination was available for public review from April 18, 2011 through May 2, 2011. 

Determination:

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X .Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Cooperative farming agreements will be limited to five years or less.

2. Farming activity will only take place on previously altered tracts of land within the Refuge and 

must meet specific habitat and related wildlife objectives and contribute to the purposes of the 

Refuge.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

164

3. Cooperating farmers will be subject to Service policy and regulation regarding use of chemicals. 

Herbicide and pesticide use is restricted by type and to the minimum necessary amount applied.

4. Special conditions of Cooperative Farming Agreements will address unique local conditions as 

applicable.

5. Planting and harvest activities are restricted to minimize disturbance of wildlife species. 

6. The use of GMO crops is limited to glyphosate-tolerant corn and soybeans.

7. Beginning in calendar year 2012, the use of genetically-modified, glyphosate-tolerant corn and 

soybeans will be used only for the purpose of habitat restoration.

Justification:

Farming, both conventional and with the use of glyphosate-tolerant corn and soybeans, contributes to the 

achievement of Refuges purposes and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, because it helps 

enhance and restore grassland habitat for migratory birds and resident wildlife. The cooperative farming 

of previously disturbed areas which are owned by the Service and have unacceptable levels of chemical 

residue, noxious weeds, or non-native plant species or ecotypes or are being farmed to honor the land 

use clauses of a purchase agreement to prepare an optimum seedbed for the establishment of native 

prairie species, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System mission.

1. Only areas that have already been significantly manipulated or altered by cropping activities will 

be affected. These areas contain few if any native plants and offer extremely limited value to the 

ecological integrity of the unit or landscape.

2. Cooperative farming activities in most cases provide the fastest, most cost-effective way to 

establish native prairie species on areas that have unacceptable levels of chemical residue, 

noxious weeds, or non-native plant species or ecotypes. Refuge staff could complete all work, but 

for most districts that would require additional equipment and/or staff to efficiently break up nonnative brome sod, or to cultivate and control weeds on small, widely scattered tracts of land. 

Hiring contractors to do this work at rates that can approach $100/acre is a possibility but would 

require additional funds in years when the farming acres were high. By using local farmers to 

conduct these farming activities, Refuge budgets and staff time can be better allocated to 

completing the needed restoration (seeding of native grasses and forbs) on lands that have 

completed the farming cycle and are in good condition for seeding.

3. Short term impacts of farming small tracts of land are minor. No wildlife or habitat losses occur 

when land purchased in row crop is farmed for an additional period of two–five years. Low quality 

grasslands that are farmed as a first step to conversion to higher-value native grasslands will 

result in habitat loss for trust resources during the farming period. The long-term benefits to the 

ecological integrity of the Refuge and landscape by restoring these degraded or row-cropped 

areas to native prairie plant species are significant and exceed the short term losses incurred 

through the cropping process.

Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2021

Signature: Refuge Manager: /Scott B. Kahan/ (undated)

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: /James T. Leach (Acting)/ 5/04/2011

(Signature and Date)
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

165

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Haying

Refuge Name: Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge, located in Becker County, Minnesota, was established on 

September 18, 1989, by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission as the 452nd national wildlife 

refuge.

Refuge Purposes: 

The primary purpose of Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge is “ . . . for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purposes, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act) and including “ . . . conservation management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 

U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [668dd–668ee])

Description of Use:

Haying is the cutting and removal of grass, either non-native cools season species such as brome or 

native warm or cool season species. Haying of this type is typically done by a cooperative farmer acting 

under authority of a Cooperative Farming Agreement or Special Use Permit issued by the Refuge 

Manager.

Haying can be an effective management tool as part of an overall grassland management plan to improve 

and maintain district grasslands for the benefit of migratory birds. Grasslands need periodic renovation to 

maintain vigor, diversity, and the structure necessary for migratory bird use. Haying is an effective 

alternative for burning or grazing, which are two other means used by district staff to maintain grassland 

vigor. If local site conditions preclude use of prescribe fire due to hazards to neighboring property or a 

similar problem, removal of accumulated biomass through haying does serve to reduce unwanted 

overstory, reduce woody plant invasion, etc. Such removal will allow for more vigorous regrowth of 

desirable species following the haying, although results are neither as dramatic nor positive as with 

prescribed fire. 

Hamden Slough NWR has historically allowed haying, especially within Hamden Lake bottom. Although 

specific acreages for fields to be hayed will vary by unit, they will typically range from five to 40 acres with 

only rare exceptions exceeding 100 acres.

Availability of Resources: 

The current staffing levels are sufficient to support a haying program on Hamden Slough NWR. Refuge 

funding is available to manage this use. No increase in costs is expected above the Refuge's current 

Operations and Maintenance budget. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Haying will result in short-term disturbances and long-term benefits to both resident and migratory wildlife 

using the Refuge. Short-term impacts will include disturbance and displacement typical of any noisy 

heavy equipment operation. Cutting and removal of standing grasses will also result in short-term loss of 

habitat for those species requiring tall grasses for feeding and perching such as obligatory grassland 

species such as the bobolink or dickcissel. Long-term benefits will accrue due to the increased vigor of 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

166

the regrown grasses or the establishment of highly desirable native tallgrass species, which will improve 

conditions for those same species affected by the short-term negative impacts. Longer-term negative 

impacts may occur to resident wildlife species such as pheasant that would lose overwintering habitat in 

the hay areas. Strict time constraints placed on this use will limit anticipated impacts to these relatively 

minor areas.

Public Review and Comment:

This Compatibility Determination was part of the Draft Hamden Slough NWR Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review included a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and a 

public meeting. Additionally, drafts of this and all CD’s were available at the Detroit Lakes WMD 

headquarters for review and comment. Comments received and agency responses are included in the 

final CCP.

Determination:

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X .Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Haying will only be allowed after July 15 to minimize disturbance to nesting migratory birds. In 

normal years, most birds are off the nest by this date. 

2. Bales must be removed from the Refuge within two days of baling.

3. Windrowed grass left lying to dry prior to baling must be raked and moved every two days if left 

on newly seeded native grass and in no cases should it remain on the ground more than six days 

prior to baling.

Justification:

Haying will not materially interfere with waterfowl production if done within the necessary stipulations. 

Use of haying as a management tool can be a valuable technique for providing long-term habitat 

improvements to grassland that otherwise would degrade through natural succession or dominance of 

non-native plants. Without this tool, the areas would suffer encroachment of undesirable woody species 

such as box elder or ash or would remain in unwanted non-native cool season grasses such as brome.

Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2022

Signature: Refuge Manager: /Ryan Frohling/ 10/01/2012

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: ___/Tom Worthington (Acting)/ ____ 10/05/2012

(Signature and Date)
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

167

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Prescribed Grazing

Station Name: Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge, located in Becker County, Minnesota, was established on 

September 18, 1989, by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission as the 452nd national wildlife 

refuge.

Refuge Purposes: 

The primary purpose of Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge is “ . . . for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purposes, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act) and including “ . . . conservation management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 

U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [668dd–668ee])

Description of Use:

Allow the limited grazing by domestic livestock, chiefly cattle but potentially including other domestic 

livestock, on Hamden Slough NWR (Refuge) to improve grassland vigor and health. Controlled grazing is 

recognized as a valuable tool to remove standing vegetation, reduce vegetative litter, and suppress 

woody vegetation.

Grazing may take place anytime from April through November. Most commonly, the Refuge will use short 

duration grazing pulses lasting four to eight weeks and then require livestock removal. The Refuge will 

employ three typical seasons of use. One season will be early spring (mid-April to late May) on native 

prairie or seeded native grasses designed to reduce the vigor of exotic species and increase the vigor of 

native species. Summer grazing (July 15–September 1) may be used, especially on non-native 

grasslands, to stimulate the grassland after the peak nesting season yet allow vegetative regrowth in the 

fall. Fall grazing (September 1–October 31) will be designed to have effects similar to spring grazing, 

mostly on native prairie remnants or fields seeded with native tallgrass prairie species.

Fencing and control of livestock will be the responsibility of the cooperating private party. Market rate 

grazing fees will be required of permittees. Market rates will be determined annually in consultation with 

U.S. Department of Agriculture on prevailing local grazing rates.

Frequency of grazing on any unit will be based on site-specific evaluation of the grassland unit being 

managed. Historically, the Refuge has frequently grazed units for two consecutive years and then 

eliminated grazing from the unit for several years before resuming grazing.

Grazing is not a priority public use as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. 

As an economic use of Refuge System lands, a Compatibility Determination for grazing is mandatory.

Availability of Resources:

Developing grazing agreements and monitoring compliance and biological effects requires some U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) resources. Most grazing costs (fencing, monitoring herd health, etc.) 

are incurred by the permittee. Some alternative grassland management is required if we do not use 

grazing as a tool for grassland management. Typically, these other tools include prescribed burning, 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

168

mowing, and haying. Haying has comparable costs to controlled grazing, since it also requires 

administering Special Use Permits. Mowing is more expensive since all costs are the responsibility of the 

Service. Prescribed burning is an effective grassland management tool, but staff limitations prevent us 

from burning as many acres as desirable each year. In addition, there is likely an ecological benefit to 

rotating grassland management techniques and seasons over time so that a given field is grazed one 

year and burned another.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Grazing will result in both short-term disturbance and long-term benefits to both resident and migratory 

wildlife at the Refuge. Short-term impacts will include disturbance and trampling of vegetation and 

aesthetic concerns. Grazing will result in short-term loss of habitat, but the long-term benefits will greatly 

outweigh this loss by establishing a diverse nesting cover of tall grasses and promoting increased vigor of 

regrown grasses. The resulting habitat will greatly improve conditions for most of the same species 

affected by the short-term loss.

Public Review and Comment:

This Compatibility Determination was part of the Draft Hamden Slough NWR Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review included a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and a 

public meeting. Additionally, drafts of this and all CD’s were available at the Detroit Lakes WMD 

headquarters for review and comment. Comments received and agency responses are included in the 

final CCP.

Determination:

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X .Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Grazing will not occur more frequently than three out of every five years on any tract without the 

preparation of a site-specific Compatibility Determination.

2. No insecticides, including insecticidal dusting bags, will be allowed on the Refuge

3. No supplemental feeding will be allowed without specific authorization of the Refuge Manager.

4. Control and confinement of the livestock will be the responsibility of the permittee. 

Justification:

Controlled grazing by domestic livestock will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for 

which the units were established. Limited livestock grazing creates temporary disturbances to vegetation. 

Many of these disturbances are desirable for grassland management. Grazing produces an undesirable 

but short-term impact to grassland bird nesting and site aesthetics. Controlled grazing is an alternative 

management tool that can be used to replace or compliment prescribed burning, mowing, or haying on 

grasslands. Without occasional disturbance caused by mowing, haying, burning, or grazing the health of 

the grassland community would decline, as would the areas’ potential for waterfowl production.

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2022 

Signature: Refuge Manager: /Ryan Frohling/ 10/01/2012

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: ___/Tom Worthington (Acting)/ __10/05/2012

(Signature and Date)
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

169

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Tree Harvest – Wood cutting

Refuge Name: Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge, located in Becker County, Minnesota, was established on 

September 18, 1989, by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission as the 452nd national wildlife 

refuge.

Refuge Purposes: 

The primary purpose of Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge is “ . . . for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purposes, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act) and including “ . . . conservation management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 

U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [668dd–668ee])

Description of Use:

This Compatibility Determination involves the removal of standing or fallen trees by private individuals

and applies to all wood removal activities regardless of the ultimate use of the wood (e.g., firewood, pulp, 

etc.). Differences in scope and necessary equipment will occur depending on the amount and type of 

wood available for removal. Impacts to the purpose of the Refuge and the Refuge System mission are 

similar regardless of the reason why the wood is removed. This activity will only occur where the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has determined that a management need exists to remove wood from 

the Refuge consistent with Refuge plans or other documents. Wood cutting is not a priority public use, as 

defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

Wood removal may be done within former homesites, along existing windbreaks/shelter belts and in other 

areas on the Refuge where trees are encroaching on the prairie. Harvest sites will vary in size from a 

portion of an acre up to several hundred acres depending on the site and management objectives. 

Wood removal activities may be authorized throughout the year. Most often, wood removal activities will 

occur during the winter months when frozen ground will facilitate access and afford protection to 

underlying soils and vegetation.

The scope of the activity will be determined by the management objective for the area and by the quantity 

and quality of available wood. Equipment used for harvest may range from chainsaws and axes, to 

traditional logging equipment such as feller bunchers and log skidders. Access may be by snow machine, 

all-terrain vehicle (ATV), pick-up truck, farm tractor, or larger traditional logging equipment.

Harvest of wood products may be permitted on the Refuge to stop, reduce, or reverse the encroachment 

and presence of trees on prairie habitats. The tallgrass prairie habitat is arguably the most endangered of 

all North American ecosystems, with less than one percent of the historic habitat remaining. 

Encroachment of woody vegetation due to fire suppression, absence of landscape-scale grazing, and tree 

planting practices continue to threaten this habitat type. The Refuge is established for migratory birds, 

and managing woody vegetation to enhance prairie habitat generally facilitates that purpose. In 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

170

accordance with the Refuge System mission, restoration of the tallgrass prairie habitat is appropriate on 

the Refuge. Managing woody vegetation is an important means to that end.

Availability of Resources: 

The time required to plan, issue permits, and monitor the implementation of a wood product harvest 

program would require the dedication of some existing staff hours to this activity. In permitting a wood 

products harvest, the Refuge Manager has identified a management need and presumably has secured 

and prioritized station resources to that end.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

In permitting this type of activity, the potential exists to directly impact waterfowl production by 

displacement of birds from localized areas due to disturbance or crushing of nests as a result of access 

for this activity. These impacts are easily avoided by timing of the activity in accordance with site-specific 

characteristics. In limited and rare instances, a small number of individuals of tree-nesting species (e.g.,

wood duck, hooded merganser, etc.) may be displaced from a local area for obvious reasons.

Indirect impacts to waterfowl production will occur as a result of removing woody vegetation. In nearly 

every instance, these impacts will be positive. The removal of woody vegetation from historic prairie 

habitats positively impacts waterfowl production and the System mission by facilitating the restoration of 

tallgrass prairie and removing artificially created predator habitat from within the Refuge.

Access for the purpose of removing wood may impact habitat by rutting soils, destroying groundcover, 

creating weed seedbeds, and increasing sedimentation due to runoff in nearby wetlands. These impacts 

can be avoided by timing of the activity.

Anticipated long-term impacts include the reduction of woody species in Refuge grasslands and resulting 

benefits to grassland dependent wildlife.

Impacts to the habitat as a result of access to the Refuge for wood removal purposes are potentially 

significant, but also easily avoided. Areas where woody species are removed for the purpose of 

conversion of the habitat type to prairie will likely receive follow-up treatments of burning, farming, or both. 

Ground disturbance in these areas is less problematic and possibly desirable depending on the specific 

site. Access to and from these areas will need to be carefully controlled (via Special Use Permit) to avoid 

impacts such as rutting and increased sedimentation in area wetlands due to run-off. If existing roads are 

not present, access can be restricted to periods of frozen ground to avoid or minimize impacts to 

underlying vegetation and soils.

Other indirect impacts are generally considered positive and thus, do not materially interfere with or 

detract from the purpose of waterfowl production or the Refuge System mission. The removal of trees 

along trails, in shelter belts, and within old homesites will benefit waterfowl production by assisting with 

the restoration of prairie habitat and eliminating predator habitat and perch sites. Individuals participating 

in the wood harvest program will be under Special Use Permit and thus, site-specific stipulations will 

ensure resource protection and achievement of management goals. Control of woody species 

encroachment on prairie habitats is a necessary management activity for the Hamden Slough NWR in 

converting areas back to their historical grassland condition and directly supports the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

Public Review and Comment:

This Compatibility Determination was part of the Draft Hamden Slough NWR Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review included a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and a 

public meeting. Additionally, drafts of this and all CD’s were available at the Detroit Lakes WMD 

headquarters for review and comment. Comments received and agency responses are included in the 

final CCP.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

171

Determination:

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X .Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Work will generally be restricted to areas where soil types indicate that pre-settlement habitat was 

comprised of native prairie vegetation.

2. If work is in an area where waterfowl nesting is likely, no cutting operations will be permitted from 

April 1 through July 15.

3. Vehicle access for wood removal will be limited to existing trails or restricted to the frozen ground 

period when rutting and damage to growing vegetation would occur.

4. A Special Use Permit will be issued so that site-specific impacts can be reduced or eliminated 

and Service management goals are met.

Justification:

Any direct impacts on waterfowl production (take, disturbance, etc.) can be largely avoided by timing the 

activity so that it is not coincident with the waterfowl production season. Removal of trees in certain 

instances will, on occasion, eliminate wood duck, hooded merganser, or other cavity-nesting species 

habitat. This would be an irregular and occasional impact, and since most wood harvest will be 

associated with restoration sites, it is unlikely that these areas would have provided historic nesting sites. 

Due to the benefits that would be realized by other waterfowl species, and the abundance of artificial and 

natural nest sites for cavity-nesting species in the area, these impacts would not significantly detract from 

Refuge purposes or the Refuge System mission.

This use contributes to the achievement of Refuge purposes. Removal of woody vegetation that is 

encroaching intro historic prairie habitat is an ongoing management concern for the Refuge, and private 

citizens can be a valuable partner in removing and controlling woody vegetation in localized areas to 

benefit migratory bird habitat.

Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2022

Signature: Refuge Manager: /Ryan Frohling/ 10/01/2012

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: ___/Tom Worthington (Acting)/ __ 10/05/2012

(Signature and Date)
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

172

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Placement/Construction of New, Small Parking Areas

Refuge Name: Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge, located in Becker County, Minnesota, was established on 

September 18, 1989, by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission as the 452nd national wildlife 

refuge.

Refuge Purposes: 

The primary purpose of Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge is “ . . . for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purposes, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act) and including “ . . . conservation management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 

U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [668dd–668ee])

Description of Use:

Allow the placement and construction of small parking areas on Hamden Slough NWR (Refuge) where 

the Refuge Manager considers necessary to provide safe off-road parking and access to the general 

public for the following permitted activities: hunting, wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation—all priority public uses on National Wildlife Refuge System lands. In 

addition, these parking areas will be used by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) personnel while 

conducting management activities or biological surveys and assessments. This Compatibility 

Determination will also allow the expansion of current parking areas to better facilitate more Refuge users 

and staff, especially for special events, peak hunting, and others. 

These parking areas will be less than one acre and will be relatively primitive with primarily grass or 

gravel surfaces. Barriers to restrict motorized vehicles within the parking areas and to identify the parking 

area boundary generally will be constructed of wood posts, wire fence, or rock barriers, as appropriate 

and available on a site-specific basis. 

Availability of Resources: 

Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge is open to most priority public uses at specific times during the 

year. One of the comments the Refuge has received in the past is the lack of adequate parking around 

Hamden Slough NWR, particularly during the muzzleloader deer hunting season. Because these will be 

primitive parking lots, the effort to establish or expand and maintain them should be minimal. Refuge staff

and volunteers already maintain several parking lots around the Refuge; more parking lots would add a 

minimal amount of maintenance.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Installation and use of these parking areas will result in minimal impacts, as these parking areas are used 

infrequently during most of the year by either the general public participating in authorized and permitted 

activities or by Service personnel. Peak use of these areas will generally occur during fall hunting 

seasons when no disturbance to nesting or young animals will result. Impacts to habitat will be minimal 

due to their relatively small size (less than one acre). Impacts will be lessened by selecting sites away 

from any wetland or native prairie. Generally, parking areas will be constructed at or near abandoned 

farm sites utilizing existing graveled driveways or previously constructed farm field approaches 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

173

immediately off public roadways. Parking lots will not be constructed within the interior of the Refuge to 

minimize wildlife disturbance, impacts to unique or critical habitats, and conflicts with other authorized 

public uses.

Public Review and Comment:

This Compatibility Determination was part of the Draft Hamden Slough NWR Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review included a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and a 

public meeting. Additionally, drafts of this and all CD’s were available at the Detroit Lakes WMD 

headquarters for review and comment. Comments received and agency responses are included in the 

final CCP.

Determination:

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X .Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Parking areas must not be constructed in areas where negative wetland impacts will result.

2. Parking areas must not be constructed on native prairie habitat.

3. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

4. Construction of parking lots will be directly adjacent to existing township/county roads.

5. An archaeological review of each selected site shall be made through the State Historic 

Preservation Officer and Regional Historic Preservation Officer prior to construction.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. This use is 

permitted, as it is deemed necessary to provide safe off-road access by the public to participate in 

appropriate and permitted priority uses and will not diminish the primary purposes of waterfowl production 

and the conservation of migratory birds and other wildlife. This use will meet the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System by providing resources for the benefit of the American public while conserving 

fish, wildlife, and plant resources on these lands.

Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2022

Signature: Refuge Manager: /Ryan Frohling/ 10/01/2012

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: ___/Tom Worthington (Acting)/ ____10/05/2012

(Signature and Date)
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

174

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Scientific Studies and Research Projects by Third Parties

Refuge Name: Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge, located in Becker County, Minnesota, was established on 

September 18, 1989, by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission as the 452nd national wildlife 

refuge.

Refuge Purposes: 

The primary purpose of Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge is “ . . . for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purposes, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act) and including “ . . . conservation management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 

U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [668dd–668ee])

Description of Use:

The Refuge allows research investigations on a variety of biological, physical, archeological, and social 

components to address Refuge management information needs or other issues not related to Refuge 

management. Studies are or may be conducted by federal, state, and private entities, including the U.S.

Geological Survey, Minnesota DNR, state and private universities, non-governmental organizations, and 

independent researchers and contractors through the issuance of a Special Use Permit. Each research 

project will be approved by the Refuge Manager on a case-by-case basis. 

Research investigations will follow a specific protocol. Sites and timing of the investigations will depend 

on each individual project. Locations, means of access, and frequency of visits will be stipulated by the 

Special Use Permit. 

Availability of Resources: 

Facilities and staff are currently available to issue and oversee Special Use Permits required for research 

projects. Staff resources are deemed adequate to manage this use at anticipated levels. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts include disturbance to wildlife and habitat. Efforts to capture animals can cause 

disturbance, injury or death. Sampling activities can also disturb habitat by trampling of vegetation.

No long-term impacts are expected as the scientific studies and research projects by third parties are 

typically short duration investigations. These studies also provide valuable information regarding Refuge 

resources and management that will help make decisions in the future. All impacts can be controlled by 

the issuance of Special Use Permits.

Public Review and Comment:

This Compatibility Determination was part of the Draft Hamden Slough NWR Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review included a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and a 

public meeting. Additionally, drafts of this and all CD’s were available at the Detroit Lakes WMD 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

175

headquarters for review and comment. Comments received and agency responses are included in the 

final CCP.

Determination:

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X .Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Prior to conducting investigations, researchers will obtain Special Use Permits.

2. Researchers must possess all applicable state and federal permits as required for their research.

3. Researchers must provide the Refuge with copies of all data and a final report.

Justification:

Research is conducted to provide useful information on which to base Refuge management decisions in 

the future. In order to make scientifically-based decisions, research must be conducted to monitor and 

document management activities.

Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2022

Signature: Refuge Manager: /Ryan Frohling/ 10/01/2012

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: ___/Tom Worthington (Acting)/ ____10/05/2012

(Signature and Date)
Appendix H: Appropriate Use Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

176

Appendix H: Appropriate Use Determinations

In this appendix:

Haying

Construction of New Small Parking Lots

Cooperative Farming for Habitat Restoration Purposes

Prescribed Grazing

Scientific Studies and Research Projects by Third Parties

Tree Harvest – Wood Cutting
Appendix H: Appropriate Use Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

177

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Haying

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already 

described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not 

be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the 

use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes No X .

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate ______ Appropriate X .

Refuge Manager:_______/Ryan R. Frohling/ __________________________ Date:___10/1/12______

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:_______/Richard T. Speer (Acting)/ ________________ Date:__ 10/5/12 _____

A Compatibility Determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive Orders and Department and Service 

policies? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

X

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix H: Appropriate Use Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

178

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Construction of New Small Parking Lots

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already 

described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not 

be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the 

use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes No X .

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate ______ Appropriate X .

Refuge Manager:_______/Ryan R. Frohling/ __________________________ Date:___10/1/12______

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:_______/Richard T. Speer (Acting)/ ________________ Date:__ 10/5/12 _____

A Compatibility Determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive Orders and Department and Service 

policies? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

X

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix H: Appropriate Use Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

179

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Cooperative Farming for Habitat Restoration Purposes

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already 

described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not 

be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the 

use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X . No ____

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate ______ Appropriate X .

Refuge Manager:_______/Ryan R. Frohling/ __________________________ Date:___10/1/12______

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:_______/Richard T. Speer (Acting)/ ________________ Date:__ 10/5/12 _____

A Compatibility Determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive Orders and Department and Service 

policies? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

X

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix H: Appropriate Use Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

180

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Prescribed Grazing 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already 

described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not 

be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the 

use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes No X .

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate ______ Appropriate X .

Refuge Manager:_______/Ryan R. Frohling/ __________________________ Date:___10/1/12______

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:_______/Richard T. Speer (Acting)/ ________________ Date:__ 10/5/12 _____

A Compatibility Determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive Orders and Department and Service 

policies? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

X

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix H: Appropriate Use Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

181

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Scientific Studies and Research Projects by Third Parties

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already 

described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not 

be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the 

use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes No X .

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate ______ Appropriate X .

Refuge Manager:_______/Ryan R. Frohling/ __________________________ Date:___10/1/12______

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:_______/Richard T. Speer (Acting)/ ________________ Date:__ 10/5/12 _____

A Compatibility Determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive Orders and Department and Service 

policies? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

X

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix H: Appropriate Use Determinations

Hamden Slough NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

182

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Tree Harvest – Wood Cutting 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already 

described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not 

be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the 

use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes No X .

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate ______ Appropriate X .

Refuge Manager:_______/Ryan R. Frohling/ __________________________ Date:___10/1/12______

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:_______/Richard T. Speer (Acting)/ ________________ Date:__ 10/5/12 _____

A Compatibility Determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive Orders and Department and Service 

policies? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

X

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix I: List of Preparers

Hamden Slough NWR /Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

183

Appendix I: List of Preparers

Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District Staff

Ryan Frohling, Project Leader

Rebecca Esser, Wildlife Biologist

Scott Kahan, Project Leader (former)

Branch of Conservation Planning Staff

Karen Westphall, Wildlife Biologist/Planner Region 3 USFWS

Gabe DeAlessio, GIS Specialist, Region 3 USFWS

Mark Hogeboom, Writer/Editor, Region 3 USFWS

Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge

26624 North Tower Road

Detroit Lakes, MN 56501-7959

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/hamdenslough

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

Region 3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov/midwest