Draft Kulm 

Wetland Management District

Habitat Management Plan

Kulm Wetland Management District 

North Dakota

October 2014

Prepared by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Kulm Wetland Management District

1 First Street SW

Kulm, North Dakota 58456 

CITATION for this document:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Draft habitat management plan, Kulm Wetland Management District. Kulm, 

ND: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region. 192 p.
Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

2 
Contents

Summary 7

Abbreviations 9

CHAPTER 1—Introduction 11

1.1 Scope and Rationale 11

1.2 Legal Mandates 14

1.3 Relationship to Other Plans 16

CHAPTER 2—Background 23

2.1 District Location and Description 23

2.2 Management Units 25

2.3 Geographical Setting 28

2.4 Physical Environment 34

2.5 Habitat Condition of the District 40

CHAPTER 3—Resources of Concern 43

3.1 Identification of Resources of Concern 43

3.2 Priority Resources of Concern 44

3.3 Resources of Concern and Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health 46

3.4 Habitat Requirements of Resources of Concern 47

3.5 Potential District Contributions to the Habitat Needs of Resources of Concern 65

3.6 Reconciling Conflicting Habitat Needs for Resources of Concern 66

CHAPTER 4—Goals and Objectives 71

4.1 Focusing Conservation Using Strategic Habitat Conservation 71

4.2 Landscape-scale Changes in Wetlands and Grasslands 78

4.3 Overview: Importance of Wetlands to Waterfowl Populations 80

4.4 Overview: Importance of Grasslands to Waterfowl and Other Migratory Bird Populations 83

4.5 Goals and Objectives: Landscape-scale Conservation Delivery Goals and Objectives 89

4.6 Local-scale Conservation Delivery Goals and Objectives 100

CHAPTER 5—Conservation Strategies 113

5.1 Conservation Units 113

5.2 Landscape-scale Conservation Strategies and Prescriptions 114

5.3 Local-scale Management Strategies and Prescriptions 123

5.4 Adaptive Management 136

5.5 Inventory and Monitoring 137

Appendix A List of Preparers and Reviewers 139

Appendix B Environmental Assessment 141

Appendix C Scoping Notice 155

Appendix D List of Comprehensive Conservation Plan Goals and Objectives 157

Appendix E 2012 Landscape Classification Index for Waterfowl Production Areas 163

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

3 
Literature Cited 169

FIGURES

1-1. Location of Kulm Wetland Management District within the Prairie Pothole Region of North 

America 13

1-2. Location of designated piping plover critical habitat within Kulm Wetland Management District 19

1-3. Location of Kulm Wetland Management District within the Dakota Grasslands Conservation Area 21

2-1. Location of Kulm Wetland Management District in North Dakota 23

2-2. Lands administered by Kulm Wetland Management District, North Dakota 24

2-3. An example of individual management units and different habitat types occurring on the Mayer 

Waterfowl Production Area in Logan County, North Dakota 27

2-4. Average density and distribution of five combined dabbling ducks including mallard (Anas 

platyrhynchos), blue-winged teal (Anas discors), gadwall (Anas strepera), northern shoveler (Anas 

clypeata), northern pintail (Anas acuta) in the Kulm Wetland Management District and USFWS 

Dakotas Zone from surveys conducted from 1987-2011 29

2-5. Major physiographic units representing level 3 ecoregions from east to west including the 

Missouri Coteau Slope, Missouri Coteau, and Glaciated Plains within Kulm Wetland Management 

District 30

2-6. Level 3 and 4 ecoregions (Omernik 1987, 1995, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2003) 

within Kulm Wetland Management District 32

2-7. Eight-digit watersheds within Kulm Wetland Management District 33

2-8. Mean annual precipitation from 1971–2000 for Kulm Wetland Management District 35

2-9 Variation in land use at Kulm Wetland Management District based on the 2013 National 

Agricultural Statistics Service, North Dakota Cropland Data Layer 37

2-10. Distribution and classification (Cowardin et al. 1979) of wetland basins based on National 

Wetland Inventory data in Kulm Wetland Management District 38

3-1. Breeding distribution of mallard (Anas platyrhyncos) in North America based on relative 

abundance breeding bird survey data from 2006-2012 48

3-2. Abundance and distribution of five species of dabbling ducks across the Canadian and Montana, 

North Dakota, and South Dakota portions of the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region 49

3-3. Estimated combined number of annual duck recruits for mallard, blue-winged teal, gadwall, 

northern shoveler, and northern pintail in the USFWS Dakotas Zone, North Dakota, and Kulm 

Wetland Management District 50

3-4. Density and distribution of five dabbler species in the Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota 

portions of the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region 53

3-5. Breeding distribution of bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) in North America based on relative 

abundance breeding bird survey data from 2006–2012 54

3-6. Density and distribution of bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Dakotas Zone 54

3-7. Breeding distribution of grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) in North America 55

3-8. Density and distribution of grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Dakotas Zone 56

3-9. Breeding distribution of clay-colored sparrow (Spizella pallida) in North America 57

3-10. Density and distribution of clay-colored sparrow (Spizella pallida) in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Dakota Zone 58

3-11. Breeding distribution of black tern (Chlidonias niger) in North America 59

3-12. Relative probability of occurrence of black tern (Chlidonias niger) in the North Dakota portion 

of the PPR 60

3-13. Breeding distribution of marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa) in North America 61

3-14. Relative probability of occurrence of marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa) in the North Dakota 62

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

4 
portion of the PPR

3-15. Breeding distribution of northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) in North America 63

3-16. Relative probability of occurrence of northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) in the North Dakota 

portion of the PPR 64

3-17. Average duck production for Kulm Wetland Management District from 1987 to 2012 for 5 

primary dabbler species (mallard, gadwall, blue-winged teal, northern shoveler, and northern pintail 65

4-1. Strategic habitat conservation design for migratory bird conservation at Kulm Wetland 

Management District 74

4-2. Three-tier conservation delivery approach for Kulm Wetland Management District aimed at 

sustaining waterfowl and other migratory bird populations in the Prairie Pothole Region 76

4-3. Values of cropland and pasture based on National Agricultural Statistics Service data from 2001 

through 2010 in the Prairie Pothole Region 79

4-4. Cumulative increased demand for energy resources from 2000 through 2010 in the Prairie Pothole 

Region 79

4-5. Percent of September 2010 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) area expiring during 2011 –

2017 by state areas within the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region 80

4-6. Relationship between May pond abundance and number of breeding waterfowl (5 primary 

dabbler species) 81

4-7. Distribution of ≥60, ≥40, and <40 Percent grassland cover (10.4 km2 scale) within Kulm Wetland 

Management District and the USFWS Dakotas Zone 84

4-8. Documented relationships between bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), clay-colored sparrow 

(Spizella pallida), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus 

bairdii), and chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus) populations and the proportion of 

cropland within a 1–mile radius within U.S. Prairie Pothole Region of USFWS Region 6 87

4-9. Documented relationships between horned lark, LeConte’s sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii), 

Savanna sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), and sedge wren (Cistothorus platensis) populations 

and the proportion of cropland within a 1–mile radius within U.S. Prairie Pothole Region of USFWS 

Region 6 87

4-10. Documented relationships between American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), black tern 

(Chlidonias niger), marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa), and northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) bird 

populations and the proportion of cropland within a 1–mile radius within U.S. Prairie Pothole Region 

of USFWS Region 6 89

4-11. Percent of 2006 wetland area protected within the PPJV and 200 year projections of wetland 

protection and wetland loss 91

4-12. Percent of grass cover protected within the PPJV and 200 year projections of grassland 

protection and grassland loss. Asterisk represents multiplication 93

4-13. An index of potential grassland conversion for Kulm Wetland Management District based on 

Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) data for belowground soil productivity 94

4-14. Coarse-scale change in 40% grassland area using a 10.4 km2 moving window analysis from 

2005 to 2012 and potential change in 40% grassland by 2018 if all expiring conservation reserve 

program (CRP) lands are not re-enrolled in the USFWS Dakotas Zone 99

4-15. State and transition model (STM) for a loamy ecological site in Central Dark Brown Glaciated 

Plains major land resource area #053B 103

4-16. Predicted yellow toadflax suitability model relative to Waterfowl Production Areas within Kulm 

Wetland Management District 109

TABLES

3-1. Priority resources of concern identified for Kulm Wetland Management District, North Dakota 45

3-2. Priority habitat types and associated limiting factors and threats at Kulm Wetland Management 

District, North Dakota 46

4-1. Landscape variables used in the strategic habitat conservation model of the potential of the 

landscape to support waterfowl and other migratory bird populations in Kulm Wetland Management 73

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

5 
District

4-2. Predicted phenological cues for conducting defoliation of native prairie during the spring 

management window in the grassland systems in the Prairie Pothole Range 105

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

6 
Summary

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has selected strategic habitat conservation (SHC) as 

our business model for conservation which requires that conservation delivery be focused at the 

landscape level, along with resource allocation, in areas that will have the greatest conservation benefit

to priority trust species. The need for efficient conservation delivery has never been greater because of 

recent acceleration in wetland drainage and conversion of grasslands for agricultural purposes

throughout the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR; Stephens et al. 2008, Fargione et al. 2009, Oslund et al. 

2010, Doherty et al. 2013, Johnston 2013, Wright and Wimberley 2013, Johnston 2014). Staff at Kulm 

Wetland Management District (District) have prepared an SHC-based Habitat Management Plan 

(HMP), a step-down management plan from the North Dakota Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP; USFWS 2008a), to direct conservation delivery in landscapes that can support the highest 

biological outcomes for priority migratory bird species such as breeding waterfowl (Anas spp.). The 

District primarily protects wetland and grassland habitat in perpetuity on 126,519 acres of wetland 

easements and 61,029 acres of grassland easements and on 45,302 acres of fee-title waterfowl 

production areas (WPAs; N = 201). This HMP uses the best available science including empirical 

species–habitat relationship abundance models to link conservation of priority species at the scale of 

Kulm WMD to the conservation of their populations within the North Dakota, South Dakota, and 

northeast Montana portions of the United States PPR. This HMP would be implemented through 2022 

(≈9 years) when the next revision of the CCP is scheduled to take place. 

Implementation of SHC also requires that conservation design and delivery be explicitly tied to 

population objectives (i.e., desired population size, occupancy, demographic rate, densities) in 

landscapes where the desired biological outcomes are predicted to occur (Johnson et al. 2009). 

Therefore, staff at Kulm WMD has selected the following population objectives to guide conservation 

delivery within the SHC design during the next 9 years:

1. Target wetland conservation in landscapes that support ≥25 breeding duck pairs/mi2 

to maximize carrying capacity levels for breeding waterfowl (Anas spp.) and 

contribute to stable populations within the Prairie Pothole Region;

2. Target grassland conservation in landscapes that support ≥60 breeding duck pairs/mi2 

(Anas spp.) and nest success levels above population maintenance levels (≥15–20% 

nest success) (Cowardin et al. 1985) to maximize waterfowl production and contribute 

to stable populations within the Prairie Pothole Region; 

3. Increase habitat protection in landscapes that support high brood occupancy rates 

(Walker et al. 2013a) characterized by high densities of small- to mid-size wetland 

basins and a high proportion of grassland within a 10.4 km2 area to maintain 

waterfowl recruitment potential within the Prairie Pothole Region;

4. Target habitat conservation in landscapes that support densities above mean 

population levels for priority wetland- and grassland-dependent migratory bird species 

identified in this HMP.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

7 
The goals, objectives, and strategies included in this HMP are linked to SHC population objectives 

using a waterfowl-based landscape classification model that functions as a decision support tool to 

target resource allocation in landscapes where biological potential is the highest to support waterfowl 

carrying capacity, waterfowl production, and meet the habitat requirements of priority wetland- and 

grassland-dependent migratory birds (referred to as resources of concern [ROC]). The classes do not 

represent priority order from 1A to 5, rather each class may have a different set or combination 

of conservation treatments (acquisition, enhancement, management) that can be used by 

managers to achieve the waterfowl population objectives of the SHC approach while benefitting 

other priority ROC. For example, acquisition of wetlands in 1A, 1B, and 4A landscapes would 

provide the highest biological return to support the carrying capacity of waterfowl and pulses in their 

productivity that occur during wet periods in the PPR (Walker et al. 2013b). This includes targeting 

protection and acquisition of conservation easements, enhancement and restoration of wetlands and 

grasslands on private lands under the USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, restoration of 

native mixed-grass prairie and reconstruction of non-native grasslands to diverse native stands on feetitle WPAs, and management of vegetation structure for nesting priority species on fee-title WPAs. 

Because a large proportion of wetland (>50%) and grassland (>90%) habitat on private lands is 

currently unprotected in the District (USFWS Kulm WMD, Kulm, North Dakota, unpublished data), 

future conservation of these habitats is critical for the District to support the carrying capacity for 

waterfowl and other migratory bird populations in the PPR. The highest priority conservation 

treatment under the SHC conservation design is to conserve at-risk high-density wetlands that occur in 

cropland-dominated landscapes because they support waterfowl carry capacity and pulses in waterfowl 

populations that coincide with high spring pond density (Walker et al. 2013b). However, the rate of 

future easement acquisition will likely depend on 1) obtaining sufficient funding levels, 2) maintaining 

landowner interest and acceptance of the easement program, and 3) rate of land-use change influenced 

by demand for commodities and public policy (Doherty et al. 2013). Although the District is uniquely 

positioned to implement landscape conservation, if habitat protection does not outpace habitat losses 

in the future, then the goals and objectives identified in this HMP and other regional conservation 

plans may need to be refined to reflect what can actually be achieved (Doherty et al. 2013). Therefore, 

the District will continue to acquire wetland and grassland conservation easements from willing 

landowners in the shortest duration possible to protect critical habitats before they are converted and 

maintain the District’s contribution to waterfowl and other wetland- and grassland-dependent 

migratory bird populations. 

The District intends to track the outcomes of our conservation actions on selected priority species 

through assumption-based research and focused monitoring to determine the level of progress 

(contribution to populations within USPPR) that the District is achieving. This iterative process 

requires flexibility in conservation delivery that can be modified as new scientific information is 

obtained during the strategic habitat conservation process. 

Ultimately, if biological outcomes are the currency that managers desire as a return on their 

conservation investment, then directing specific conservation treatments to different landscape types 

provides an efficient means for conservation delivery under an SHC framework (USFWS 2006b, 

2008c).

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

8 
Abbreviations

ac acres

BIDEH Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health

BCR Bird Conservation Region

ca. circa

CCP comprehensive conservation plan

CRP conservation resource program

CDL cropland data layer 

DGCA Dakota Grasslands Conservation Area

DNC dense nesting cover

ESD ecological site description

FmHA Farmers Home Administration

ft feet

GIS geographic information system

drift prairie glaciated plains

GPFD Great Plains Fire District

HMP habitat management plan

HAPET habitat and population evaluation team

ha hectare

HCPC Historic climax plant community

in inches

I & M inventory and monitoring

IMP inventory and monitoring plan

km kilometers

District, Kulm WMD Kulm Wetland Management District

LCC landscape conservation cooperative

MLRA major land resource area

Tribes Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

m meters

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

mi miles

mph miles per hour

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

Improvement Act National Wildlife Improvement Act of 1997

Refuge or NWR national wildlife refuge

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System

NPAM native prairie adaptive management

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

9 
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan

NABCI North American Bird Conservation Initiative

ND North Dakota

PPJV Prairie Pothole Joint Venture

PPR Prairie Pothole Region

Region, Region 6 Mountain-Prairie Region

ROC resources of concern

SD standard deviation

STM state-and-transition model

SHC strategic habitat conservation

Service, USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USPPR United States Prairie Pothole Region

VOR visual obstruction reading

WPA waterfowl production area

WMD wetland management district

WDA wildlife development area

yr year

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

10
CHAPTER 1 

Introduction

The Kulm Wetland Management District (District) was established in 1971 to conserve habitat for 

the benefit of waterfowl and other migratory birds. The District primarily protects wetland and 

grassland habitat in perpetuity on 126,519 acres of wetland easements and 61,029 acres of grassland 

easements and on 45,302 acres of fee title waterfowl production areas (WPAs; N = 201). Limitedinterest conservation easements are purchased voluntarily from willing landowners to conserve 

important wetland and grassland habitats to meet the breeding requirements for waterfowl and other 

migratory birds. Waterfowl production areas (WPA) are purchased using funds generated primarily 

from the sale of federal Duck Stamps in fee title to protect and restore habitat for waterfowl 

production. 

1.1 Scope and Rationale 

The purpose of this habitat management plan (HMP) is to provide a strategic plan for consistently 

and effectively protecting, acquiring, enhancing, restoring, and managing wetland and grassland 

habitat for waterfowl and other priority migratory bird species (hereafter resources of concern) on the 

District. A recently completed North Dakota Wetland Management Districts Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2008a) and a North Dakota 

Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges CCP (USFWS 2006a) provide overarching authority and 

guidance regarding habitat goals, objectives, management, and protection on the District. The HMP 

will serve as the primary step-down management plan for the CCP (USFWS 2008a) and will provide 

managers with specific guidance to work within a landscape context to implement strategic habitat 

conservation (SHC; USFWS 2006b) to conserve grassland and wetland habitat to support the carrying 

capacity and production of waterfowl and other migratory bird populations. This SHC approach will 

guide administration of conservation easements, private lands enhancement and restoration, and 

management activities on WPAs throughout the District for the next 9 years when the next CCP is 

scheduled for completion. Staff identified 5 primary factors that describe the need for this HMP to 

inform conservation delivery on the District:

1. Establish habitat conservation goals and objectives that step down from the CCP that 

increase the efficiency and biological return of conservation activities using the principles 

of SHC. 

2. Establish measurable targets for individual goals and objectives based on clear rationales 

to conserve wetland and grassland habitat for priority resources of concern on the District. 

Carefully planned conservation treatments with quantifiable outcomes described in this 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

11
HMP will be a catalyst for adaptive management and iterative decision making using 

SHC.

3. Ensure that management decisions are consistent with the mandates of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (NWRS) Improvement Act of 1997. 

4. Design an effective Inventory and Monitoring Plan that will provide biologists and 

managers with meaningful scientific information acquired from assumption-based 

research and focused inventories and monitoring to facilitate biologically defensible 

management decisions. 

5. Provide the public including adjacent landowners, visitors, other state and federal agencies 

and private organizations with information regarding strategic habitat management 

decisions on the District.

The District has stewardship over an important network of public lands and conservation 

easements held on private lands that protect habitat for the benefit of waterfowl and other migratory 

birds, threatened and endangered species, and resident wildlife. By administering these conservation 

lands, the District (Figure 1-1) contributes to a much larger network of districts and national wildlife 

refuges located in the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) that collectively function to support migratory bird 

populations, ecosystem services, and the mission of the NWRS. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

12
Figure 1-1. Location of Kulm Wetland Management District within the Prairie Pothole 

Region of North America. 

The contribution of the District to the NWRS mission is guided by the principles set forth in the 

wildlife and habitat vision of the Improvement Act. These principles are:

 Wildlife comes first.

 Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management.

 Refuges must be healthy.

 Growth of refuges must be strategic.

 The NWRS serves as a model for habitat management with broad participation from others.

The HMP provides a framework for continued conservation of waterfowl and other migratory 

birds at landscape- and local-scales using the principles of SHC (USFWS 2006b, 2008c) and adaptive 

management (Williams et al. 2009). Successful implementation of this HMP will increase the 

District’s contribution to migratory bird populations through focused conservation delivery that 

accounts for factors influencing the persistence of their habitats such as grassland conversion, wetland 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

13
drainage, landowner acceptance of conservation programs, conservation policy, and climate change. 

Multiple priority species referred to as resources of concern (ROC; USFWS 2002) were selected for 

inclusion in the HMP because their conservation benefits larger guilds of species that use habitats and 

respond to management similarly (Lambeck 1997, Noon et al. 2009). Staff selected species with 

sufficient data describing their ecology, life history, and associated habitat relationships to allow for 

development of optimal management strategies and greater likelihood for their persistence (Noon et al. 

2009). The Service’s SHC approach uses priority species to help managers make better decisions 

about managing trust species on lands under stewardship (Johnson et al. 2009). Because one outcome 

of SHC is to develop objectives for each general habitat type (Johnson et al. 2009), the District 

selected species as ROC whose habitat requirements were indicative of the perceived habitat 

requirements of larger guilds of similar species in the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem. 

Development of this HMP required a critical evaluation of the current and future management 

direction of the District that aims to conserve wildlife populations and their habitats and support the 

mission of the NWRS. Information used to develop the goals, objectives, and strategies (described in 

Chapter 4) was obtained from relevant scientific literature, prior inventory and monitoring data, expert 

opinion and Service expertise. This HMP also was peer reviewed by credible independent experts to 

ensure that the proposed SHC approach was based on scientifically defensible strategies for managing 

habitat that are both transparent and replicable within the PPR. The District will conduct a thorough 

review of the HMP every 5 years to incorporate new scientific information and if necessary, modify 

conservation design and delivery where appropriate.

1.2 Legal Mandates

There are several legal mandates that apply to this HMP.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

Similar to national wildlife refuges, wetland management districts are managed to achieve the 

mission and goals of the NWRS and their designated purpose(s) as described in establishing 

legislation, executive orders or other establishing documents. Administration and guidance of the 

NWRS are provided in the Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (P.L. 87-714), Title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, the Service Manual, and the Improvement Act. 

The Improvement Act provided a unified mission for the NWRS: 

 

To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

The Improvement Act further states that each refuge shall be managed:

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

14
 to fulfill the mission of the NWRS;

 to fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;

 to consider the needs of fish and wildlife first;

 to fulfill the requirement of developing a CCP for each unit of the NWRS and fully involve the 

public in the preparation of these plans;

 to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the NWRS;

 to recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are 

legitimate and priority public uses; 

 to retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses. 

ESTABLISHING LEGISLATION AND DISTRICT PURPOSES

The District was established in 1971 as part of the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program under the 

authority of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934 (“Duck Stamp Act”) as 

amended by Public Law 85-585 in August 1958. This legislation allowed for the acquisition of WPAs 

and conservation easements for waterfowl production. 

The purposes of the District were established by the following legal authorities: 

1. Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act 16 USC 718(c) – “As waterfowl production areas 

subject to all provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act...except the inviolate 

sanctuary provisions.” 

2. Migratory Bird Conservation Act 16 USC 715(d) – “For any other management purposes, 

for migratory birds.”

A December 2006 memorandum from then Region 6 Assistant Regional Director Richard A. 

Coleman further reaffirmed that the purpose of all Region 6 Districts is “to assure the long-term 

viability of the breeding waterfowl population and production through the acquisition and 

management of waterfowl production areas, while considering the needs of other migratory birds, 

threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife.”

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

The legal authority for the Service to acquire conservation easements to protect grasslands and 

wetlands is granted under the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act 16 USC 718d(c), the Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956, (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, (16 

U.S.C. 3901), the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act [16 U.S.C. 4601-9(a)(1)], and the North 

American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4401 - 4412). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

15
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) conservation easements in the District were not acquired 

as part of the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program. FmHA easements were established “for 

conservation purposes” by the U.S. Farm Service Agency under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Act 

of 1981 and 1985 (7 U.S.C. 331 and 335), Executive Orders 11990 and 11988, and Section 1314 of 

the 1985 Food Security Act. 

WATERFOWL PRODUCTION AREAS

Waterfowl production areas are public lands purchased in fee title by the federal government for 

the production of waterfowl and other migratory birds on behalf of the American public. Funding 

resources used to buy WPAs generally comes from the purchase of federal Duck Stamps by sportsmen 

and the general public. All WPAs are administered by the Service within an administrative WMD 

boundary that defines the geographical extent of the District. WPAs are open to the public for hunting, 

fishing, bird watching, trapping, hiking and most other non-motorized and non-commercial outdoor 

recreation.

WILDLIFE DEVELOPMENT AREAS

Wildlife Development Areas (WDAs) were purchased in fee title by the Bureau of Reclamation as 

part of North Dakota’s Garrison Diversion Unit. Wildlife development areas were transferred to the 

Service through a memorandum of agreement between the Service, Bureau of Reclamation and the 

North Dakota Game and Fish Department. The District manages the Pilgrims Rest WDA, a 640 acre 

unit, similar to WPAs to benefit waterfowl and other migratory birds.

LIMITED-INTEREST NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES

The District has three limited-interest national wildlife refuges (NWR) that were established in 

1939 “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife” by Executive Orders 

8162 ([Bone Hill NWR; 640 acres] and [Maple River NWR; 712 acres]) and 8117 (Dakota Lake 

NWR; 2,799 acres). A North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges CCP (USFWS 2006) 

provides guidance on the administration of these NWRs. 

1.3 Relationship to Other Plans

This HMP is a stepdown plan from the North Dakota Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 

2008a). The goals, objectives, and strategies described in this HMP provide a more refined vision of 

conservation delivery for the District. The District also acknowledges several existing local, regional, 

and national conservation plans (described below). The contribution of the District to these 

conservation plans mainly occurs through the acquisition and protection of conservation easements 

and management of wetland and grassland habitat on WPAs that benefit migratory birds. Most

regional and national conservation plans tend to be broad in context, focus on landscape-scale 

conservation, and generally coincide with the purposes of the District and the mission of the NWRS. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

16
The District plans are existing plans (i.e., North Dakota WMD CCP; USFWS 2008a) that have been 

the foundation for previous management since their implementation. All conservation plans listed 

below were reviewed, and where appropriate, specific goals and objectives were integrated into this 

HMP.

NATIONAL PLANS

This HMP is related to several national plans.

NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP; U.S. Department of the Interior and 

Environment Canada 2012) provides an internationally coordinated strategy to restore waterfowl 

populations through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. A diverse set of conservation 

partners including federal, state, provincial, tribal, and local governments, businesses, conservation 

organizations, and individual citizens implement the plan through regional joint ventures that identify 

important habitats to sustain waterfowl populations and benefit other wetland-associated species.

USFWSMIGRATORY BIRD PROGRAM STRATEGIC PLAN

The Migratory Bird Program completed a 10-year strategic plan in 2004 (USFWS 2004). The 

strategic plan seeks to conserve and manage migratory bird populations and their habitats. The Service 

is the principle federal agency charged with protecting and enhancing populations of migratory birds 

and their habitat. This strategic plan sets goals for ensuring the long-term sustainability of all 

migratory bird populations and for maintaining their intrinsic, ecological, recreational, and economic 

significance. 

NORTH AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVATION INITIATIVE

The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) contributes to a strategic and 

nationally coordinated series of plans that seek to conserve and manage migratory bird populations 

and their habitats throughout North America. A NABCI committee provides oversight to advance bird 

conservation in North America based on defensible science and cost-effective management at the 

landscape scale in region-specific Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs); the District occurs within BCR 

11, Prairie Potholes. Conservation of North American birds is described under four planning 

initiatives: the North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004), U.S. Shorebird 

Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2001), the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et 

al. 2002) and NAWMP (U.S. Department of the Interior and Environment Canada 2012). 

RECOVERY PLANS FOR FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES

Where federally listed threatened or endangered species occur in the District, the Service applies 

the management goals and strategies outlined in the following species recovery plans: 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

17
 Piping plovers (Charadrius melodus), a threatened species, have been documented in Logan 

and McIntosh counties on both public and private lands. The District contains designated 

critical habitat in these counties (Figure 1-2) and follows the Piping Plover Recovery Plan for 

the Northern Great Plains (USFWS 1988) and the Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Piping 

Plovers Breeding on the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains of the United States (USFWS 

1994). 

 The District lies on the eastern edge of the migration pathway for the endangered whooping 

crane (Grus americana). Recovery of this species is guided by the International Whooping 

Crane Recovery Plan (Canadian Wildlife Service and USFWS 2007). Whooping cranes are 

occasionally observed during migration on the District. The District consults the Whooping 

Crane Contingency Plan (USFWS 2001a) for appropriate actions when dealing with a 

confirmed observation of whooping cranes. 

 Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) are considered a candidate species whose breeding range 

includes the District. A Sprague’s Pipit Conservation Plan provides information on their lifehistory and outlines goals to maintain or increase their current population size and viability 

throughout their distribution (Jones 2010). A step-down document, Management Strategy and 

Guidelines for Sprague’s Pipit on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Region 6, offers 

recommendations for identifying and managing Service-owned prairies, especially in cases 

where the site-specific occurrence of Sprague’s pipit has yet to be determined, or they are 

known to occur (USFWS 2011a). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

18
Figure 1-2. Location of designated piping plover critical habitat within Kulm Wetland 

Management District. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

19
REGIONAL PLANS

This HMP relates to several regional plans. 

PLAINS AND PRAIRIE POTHOLES LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION COOPERATIVE

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) are applied conservation science partnerships 

focused on a defined geographic area that inform on-the-ground strategic conservation efforts at 

landscape scales. LCCs aim to enable resource management agencies and organizations to collaborate 

in an integrated fashion within and across landscapes (USFWS 2010a). The Service and its partners 

work within the Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC to facilitate landscape-scale conservation.

PRAIRIE POTHOLE JOINT VENTURE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV) was established under the framework of the NAWMP. 

Partners within the PPJV have identified a conservation goal of 0.57 million ha of wetlands and 4.2 

million ha of grasslands to maintain migratory bird populations in the future (Ringelman et al. 2005).

The PPJV Implementation Plan provides a conservation framework for all migratory birds in the 

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa portions of the PPR (Ringelman et al. 

2005). The plan incorporates stepped-down objectives for waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds and 

landbirds with conservation measures that focus on sustaining migratory bird populations at objective 

levels through targeted wetland and grassland protection, restoration and enhancement programs. 

LAND PROTECTION PLAN FOR THE DAKOTA GRASSLANDS CONSERVATION AREA

The majority of the District is included in the Dakota Grasslands Conservation Area (DGCA; 

Figure 1-3) which aims to aims to conserve 240,000 acres of wetlands and 1.7 million acres of 

grasslands within the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem of North Dakota and South Dakota (USFWS 

2011b). The purpose of the DGCA is to provide for the long-term viability of breeding waterfowl 

populations through the conservation of existing habitats while considering the needs of other 

migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife. The DGCA follows the goals 

and objectives outlined in the PPJV plan and aims to conserve all migratory birds through the 

permanent protection of wetland and grassland habitat through conservation easements purchased 

from willing sellers. At current acquisition rates, the goal for the proposed DGCA would be achieved 

within 30 years. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

20
Figure 1-3. Location of Kulm Wetland Management District within the Dakota Grasslands 

Conservation Area.

NORTHERN PRAIRIE AND PARKLAND WATERBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN

The Northern Prairie and Parkland Waterbird Conservation Plan is a joint Canada/United States 

effort that provides guidelines for the conservation, maintenance and management of waterbirds and 

their habitats throughout the region (Beyersbergen et al. 2004). 

NORTHERN PLAINS/PRAIRIE POTHOLES REGIONAL SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN

This regional shorebird conservation plan outlines goals aimed at maintaining breeding shorebird 

populations and their habitat used during migration (Skagen and Thompson 2000). The plan also 

describes factors that are challenging shorebird populations along with management and monitoring 

needs for shorebird species.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

21
PARTNERS IN FLIGHT BIRD CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN MIXED-GRASS 

P RAIRIE

This plan provides a long-term framework for ensuring that viable populations of landbirds 

continue to exist and function within larger avian communities (Fitzgerald et al. 1999). The plan also 

describes opportunities for the integration of population objectives with other regional plans, the 

ecological requirements for these species and habitat management strategies that benefit landbird 

communities. 

NORTH DAKOTA COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY

North Dakota’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy was developed by the North 

Dakota Game and Fish Department and it provides strategic vision for preserving wildlife diversity

within the state (Hagen et al. 2005). It is intended to identify species of greatest conservation need, 

provide fundamental background information, strategic guidance and provide a framework for 

developing and coordinating conservation actions to safeguard all fish and wildlife resources. 

DISTRICT PLANS

This HMP relates to several District plans.

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLANS

The North Dakota Wetland Management District CCPs (USFWS 2006, USFWS 2008a) provide 

broad guidance on the stewardship of District lands and related management activities for a period of 

15 years. The CCPs identified the role that the District has in supporting the NWRS mission and 

specific goals and objectives were developed to provide a framework for managing District resources.

This HMP is a step-down management plan from the North Dakota WMD CCP (USFWS 2008a) that 

will integrate and refine the CCP goals and objectives and provide specific management strategies that 

are consistent with establishing purposes of the District.

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN

The District’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan provides a comprehensive strategy for 

controlling or eliminating key invasive species. The IPM plan specifically outlines chemical, 

biological, mechanical and cultural application methods and best management practices used to help 

reduce the abundance of invasive species on the District. This HMP will provide detailed strategies for 

controlling invasive species within specific habitat types (i.e., native prairies, reconstructed prairies, or 

seeded introduced grasslands) using application methods that are scientifically appropriate in timing, 

frequency and intensity.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

22
CHAPTER 2 

Background

This chapter inventories and describes the habitat found on the Kulm WMD. 

2.1 District Location and Description

The District is located in south-central North Dakota and provides administration of lands within a 

4-county area (Figure 2-1). The District boundary coincides with the peripheral extent of Dickey, 

LaMoure, Logan and McIntosh; total area for Dickey, LaMoure, Logan and McIntosh Counties is 

298,095 ha (736,610 ac), 295,841 ha (731,038 ac), 261,921 ha (647,222 ac), and 257,576 ha (636,484 

ac), respectively.

 

Figure 2-1. Location of Kulm Wetland Management District in North Dakota.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

23
Similar to most of eastern North Dakota, the District is located in a rural, agriculturally based 

region with a low human population density that generally does not exceed five people per square mile 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2010). The nearest metropolitan centers from the District headquarters located in 

Kulm, North Dakota (Figure 2-1), include Bismarck, North Dakota (130 mi), Fargo, North Dakota 

(150 mi), Sioux Falls, South Dakota (285 mi), and Minneapolis, Minnesota (330 mi). 

The District protects wetland and grassland habitat on 187,548 acres of conservation easements 

(USFWS North Dakota Wetland Acquisition Office, data current to February 27, 2014) and 45,402 

acres of fee title land (200 WPAs & 1 WDA; WPAs hereafter) for the benefit of waterfowl and other 

migratory birds (Figure 2-2). 

Figure 2-2. Lands administered by Kulm Wetland Management District, North Dakota. 

Wetland, grassland, and FmHA conservation easement data was current through 2013. The USFWS makes no claim as to the accuracy or 

completeness of the displayed information. Shaded areas depicting USFWS conservation easements and WPAs are for illustrative purposes 

only and do not represent legal boundaries or in the case of easements, acreage of wetland or grassland resources included in the easement 

contract. For more detailed information on the boundaries of conservation easement or WPA lands, contact the USFWS Realty Office 

located in Bismarck, North Dakota.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

24
2.2 Management Units

There are several management units found on the Kulm WMD. 

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

The District administers 126,519 acres of wetland easements and 61,029 acres of grassland 

easements. The Service purchases limited-interest conservation easements from willing private 

landowners that have voluntarily sold a portion of their property rights to allow for perpetual 

protection of wetland and/or grassland habitat. All land remains in private ownership. Property tax and 

land management, including control of noxious weeds and other invasive plants and trees, remains the 

responsibility of the landowner. Landowners maintain complete control of public access to the land 

under easement. The Service actively enforces conservation easements to ensure that their integrity is 

not compromised. 

While the easement contract specifies perpetual protection, it does not eliminate all activities. 

Wetland easements generally prohibit draining, burning, filling, or leveling and grassland easements 

generally prohibit the plowing, breaking sod, or permanent alteration of grassland habitat or alteration 

of natural topography. However, protected wetland basins may be hayed or grazed without restriction 

and farmed during natural dry cycles. Grassland easements prohibit conversion to cropland or 

alteration of natural topography, but do not restrict grazing or seed harvesting in any way and haying 

is permitted after July 15 each year.

The District has 30 FmHA easements which are administered by the Service primarily to protect 

wetlands. However, FmHA easements can vary from easement to easement based on the provisions 

outlined in the quitclaim deed for each property. Generally, most FmHA easements were acquired for 

conservation, recreation, or wildlife purposes, but some included provisions for historical and cultural 

resources as well.

LIMITED-INTEREST EASEMENT NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES

The District also administers a total of 4,152 acres on the following limited-interest easements 

NWRs: Bone Hill NWR, Maple River NWR, and Dakota Lake NWR. These limited-interest easement 

NWRs permanently protect wetland habitat for migratory birds. Wetlands on these NWRs are 

generally permanent wetland types (e.g., lakes, riverine) that waterfowl and other wetland-dependent 

birds use during migration and to a lesser extent for breeding and nesting purposes. The Service 

utilizes management of these NWRs following the goals and objectives outlined in the North Dakota 

limited-interest CCP to manage these NWRs (USFWS 2006). The Service’s water management 

capability on these NWRs is limited to an earthen/sheet pile dam with stop log on Dakota Lake NWR 

and an earthen dam and sheet pile weir on Maple River NWR.

WATERFOWL PRODUCTION AREAS

The District manages 45,402 acres held in fee title ownership on 201 WPAs (WPA range = 0.3 – 

1756 acres) comprised of 24,810 acres of natural wetlands and 20,592 acres of grasslands that are 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

25
actively managed in the District. The Service actively manages native sod prairie, low- and highdiversity reconstructed prairies, seeded introduced grasslands composed of dense nesting cover (DNC; 

intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), tall wheatgrass (T. ponticum), and alfalfa 

(Medicago sativa) or sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis) on individual management units within each 

WPA for nesting birds (Figure 2-3). Management of these grasslands aims to enhance the condition of 

nesting cover for waterfowl and other migratory birds using a variety of management techniques 

including the use of prescribed fire, grazing, haying, prairie reconstruction, tree removal and invasive 

species management. Wetlands on WPAs also serve as important habitat that are used by waterfowl 

during migration, breeding, nesting, and brood-rearing periods and as a primary source of forage, 

concealment from predators, and for courtship displays and social interactions. However, the Service 

does not have the ability to manipulate water levels on natural wetlands within WPAs. Therefore, 

wetlands on WPAs are likely influenced by ecosystem processes (see Euliss et al. 2008) and adjacent 

land use practices.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

26
Figure 2-3. An example of individual management units and different habitat types 

occurring on the Mayer Waterfowl Production Area in Logan County, North Dakota.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

27
2.3 Geographical Setting

The section describes the geographical setting of the Kulm WMD.

PRAIRIE POTHOLE REGION

The PPR encompasses approximately 900,000 km2 and extends southeast from the provinces of 

Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba in Canada through portions of Montana, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa (Gleason et al. 2005; Figure 1-1). The geographic extent of the PPR also 

coincides with the NABCI BCR #11, Prairie Potholes. Although much of the native grassland (70% in 

ND; Conner et al. 2001) and wetland habitat (49% in ND; Dahl 1990) in the PPR has been converted 

primarily for agricultural purposes, the remaining habitat supports approximately 50% of the breeding 

waterfowl (Batt et al 1989) in North America and is critically important to other migratory birds (Igl 

and Johnson 1997, Niemuth et al 2009). Remaining habitat also helps maintain important ecosystem 

services including regional and national biodiversity, attenuation of floodwater, nutrient cycling, 

carbon sequestration, groundwater recharge, and providing recreational opportunities (Hubbard 1988, 

Knutsen and Euliss 2001, Euliss et al. 2008, Gleason et al. 2011). 

The District composes only 1.2% (1,113,433 ha) of the total land area within PPR, but it has a 

crucial role in supporting the carrying capacity and production of waterfowl and other migratory birds 

due to the extensive base of grassland and wetland habitat remaining in the four counties. In fact, 

waterfowl pair density exceeds 100 duck pairs per square mile in many parts of the District (Figure 2-

4). These areas are generally associated with high wetland densities (which can exceed 100 wetland 

basins per square mile) that are attractive to most migratory birds in the PPR (Johnson and Grier 

1988). Continued protection and management of grassland and wetland habitat within the District also 

contributes to the goals and objectives outlined in the aforementioned national, regional and local 

conservation plans. 

MIXED-GRASS PRAIRIE ECOSYSTEM

The District lies within the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem which is one of the largest grassland 

dominated ecosystems in North America (Bragg and Steuter 1996). Historically, this ecosystem was 

characterized by a mosaic of mixed-grass prairie and dynamic wetlands that remained largely 

undisturbed until the onset of European settlement and the initial conversion of native prairie for lowintensity agriculture during the 1830’s to 1880’s (Samson and Knopf 1994, Severson and Hull Sieg 

2006). Although approximately two-thirds of the mixed-grass prairie has been converted for 

agricultural purposes (National Wildlife Federation 2001), the remaining grasslands in this ecosystem

are highly productive and support North America’s largest and most diverse assemblage of breeding 

waterfowl (Batt et al. 1989), shorebirds (Skagen and Thompson 2000), waterbirds (Kushlan et al. 

2002) and grassland songbirds (Rich et al. 2004). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

28
Figure 2-4. Average density and distribution of five combined dabbling ducks including 

mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), blue-winged teal (Anas discors), gadwall (Anas strepera), 

northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), northern pintail (Anas acuta) in the Kulm Wetland 

Management District and USFWS Dakotas Zone from surveys conducted from 1987-2011. 

Estimates were derived from breeding waterfowl pair surveys conducted during the USFWS four square mile breeding waterfowl and habitat 

survey during 1987-2011.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

29
PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS WITHIN THEDISTRICT

Major physiographic regions that formed through glacial processes in the District from west to 

east include the Missouri Coteau Slope, Missouri Coteau, and Glaciated Plains, also known as the 

Drift Prairie (Figure 2-5). Dissecting the District from north to south is the Missouri Coteau, a terminal 

moraine created during Wisconsin glaciation ca. 10,000 years ago. Elevation increases nearly 305 m 

(1,000 ft) above the James River Valley which transcends the Glaciated Plain physiographic unit. The 

Missouri Coteau is characterized by rough and hilly terrain intermixed with abundant depressional 

wetlands exceeding >100 wetlands per square mile. This area also supports most of the remaining 

intact native mixed-grass prairie grasslands in the District because the dissected topography and highly 

erodible soils are less desirable for row crop agriculture. The combination of wetland/grassland habitat 

in relatively large blocks makes the Missouri Coteau an important physiographic area in the District

for waterfowl production (Stewart and Kantrud 1973, Cowardin et al. 1995, Reynolds et al. 2001, 

Reynolds et al. 2007). The Drift Prairie lies east of the Missouri Coteau and also contains areas where 

wetland density exceeds 100 wetlands per square mile. The highly fertile soils of the Drift Prairie 

along with the flatter terrain are more amenable to row crop agriculture. Finally, the Missouri Slope 

descends from the Missouri Coteau to the west and is bordered along its western margin by the 

Missouri River. Numerous draws and coulees naturally drain the area and though wetlands are still 

prevalent, they are less numerous than in the Missouri Coteau or Drift Prairie. 

Figure 2-5. Major physiographic units representing level 3 ecoregions from east to west 

including the Missouri Coteau Slope, Missouri Coteau, and Glaciated Plains within Kulm 

Wetland Management District.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

30
ECOREGIONS WITHIN KULM WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

There are several ecoregions within the Kulm WMD.

LEVEL 3 ECOREGIONS

The District occurs within 3 primary ecoregions (Omernik 1987, 1995, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 2003) from west to east: Northwestern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion 42, 

Northwestern Great Plains Ecoregion 43, and Northern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion 46. 

The Northwestern Glaciated Plains level 3 ecoregion 42 marks the westernmost extent of 

continental glaciations. This moraine landscape has significant surface irregularity and high 

concentrations of wetlands. The rise in elevation along the eastern boundary defines the beginning of 

the Great Plains. Land use is transitional between the intensive row crop farming in Drift Plains 

ecoregion 46i (level 4 ecoregion) to the east and the predominance of cattle ranching and farming to 

the west in Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion 43 (level 3).

The Northwestern Great Plains level 3 ecoregion 43 is limited to the extreme southwest corner of 

Logan County within the District. It is a semiarid rolling plain of shale, siltstone, and sandstone 

punctuated by occasional buttes and badlands. Native grasslands persist in areas of steep or broken 

topography, but they have been largely replaced by spring wheat and alfalfa over most of the 

ecoregion. 

The Northern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion 46, commonly referred to as the Drift Prairie, formed 

from prolonged glacial activity between 70,000 and 10,000 years ago. This ecoregion is characterized 

by flat to gently rolling topography and sub-humid conditions that historically fostered a grassland 

transition between the tall- and short-grass prairies in North America. The remaining seasonal and 

temporary wetland basins in this ecoregion provides important breeding habitat used by waterfowl and 

other migratory birds. 

LEVEL 4 ECOREGIONS

The District also lies within 8 level 4 ecoregions (Omernik 1987, 1995; Figure 2-6). The Missouri 

Coteau Ecoregion 42a is characterized by rolling topography and abundant depressional wetlands. 

This ecoregion formed during the prolonged retreat of the Wisconsin glaciation that stalled at the 

Missouri escarpment for thousands of years and slowly melted beneath a mantle of sediment to create 

the characteristic pothole topography found throughout the Missouri Coteau. Land use is a mixture of 

tilled agriculture in flatter areas and grazing land on steeper slopes. Remaining wetland and grassland 

habitat represents one of the most productive areas for breeding waterfowl in North America. 

The Collapsed Glacial Outwash Ecoregion 42b formed from gravel and sand that was deposited 

by glacial meltwater and precipitation runoff over stagnant ice. Many large shallow wetlands and lakes 

are found in this ecoregion that tend to be slightly to very alkaline depending upon the flow path of 

groundwater moving through the permeable outwash deposits. They attract birds preferring large areas 

of open water such as American white pelican, black tern, and Forster’s tern, as well as those living in 

brackish water such as American avocet and tundra swan.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

31
Figure 2-6. Level 3 and 4 ecoregions (Omernik 1987, 1995, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 2003) within Kulm Wetland Management District.

The Missouri Coteau Slope Ecoregion 42c declines in elevation from the Missouri Coteau 

Ecoregion 42a to the Missouri River. Unlike Missouri Coteau Ecoregion 42a, the Missouri Coteau 

Slope has a simple drainage pattern and fewer wetland depressions. Due to the level to gently rolling 

topography, there is more cropland than the Missouri Coteau Ecoregion 42a. Cattle ranching also 

occurs on the steeper land along drainages. 

The River Breaks Ecoregion 43c is characterized by broken terraces and uplands that descend to 

the Missouri River and its tributaries. The dissected topography, wooded draws, and uncultivated areas 

are conducive for wildlife. 

The Glacial Lake Basin Ecoregion 46c was formed when major stream or river drainages were 

blocked by glacial ice during the Pleistocene. It is heavily tilled and is limited to a small area in the 

southeast corner of Dickey County in the historical Lake Dakota basin.

The Glacial Lake Deltas Ecoregion 46d was formed from river deposits entering glacial lake 

basins. The heaviest sediments, mostly sand and gravel, formed delta fans at the river inlets. As lake 

floors were exposed during glacial ice withdrawal, wind reworked the sand in some areas into dunes. 

Unlike the highly productive glacial lake plains, the dunes in the delta areas have a thin vegetative 

cover and a high risk for wind erosion. These are used mainly for grazing or irrigating agriculture.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

32
The Drift Plains Ecoregion 46i generally has level to rolling topography formed by the retreating 

Wisconsin glaciation. Because of the productive soil and level topography, it is almost entirely 

cultivated, with many wetlands drained or simply tilled and planted. However, abundant temporary 

and seasonal wetlands are found throughout this ecoregion which are highly attractive to waterfowl. 

The Glacial Outwash Ecoregion 46j generally has smooth topography, highly permeable soils with 

low water-holding capacity, and is poor to fair for crop production that is used for irrigated agriculture. 

This ecoregion is limited to the extreme eastern portion of LaMoure County in the District.

WATERSHEDS

The District lies almost entirely within the Missouri Main Stem region, which is the primary 

drainage area for the Missouri River (USFWS 2008). There are also six eight-digit hydrologic units 

(called cataloging units or watersheds) within the District that are included in the drainage area: Apple, 

Beaver, Elm, Upper James, Upper Lake Oahe, and West Missouri Coteau; the Western Wild Rice 

eight-digit hydrologic unit is part of the Hudson Bay drainage area (Figure 2-7). These units are 

considered watersheds that typically drain more than 700 square miles (USDA NRCS 2011a). 

Figure 2-7. Eight-digit watersheds within Kulm Wetland Management District. 

(USDA NRCS 2011a).

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

33
2.4 Physical Environment

This section describes the physical environment of the Kulm WMD. 

CLIMATE

North Dakota is characterized as a continental climate with large daily and seasonal variation in 

temperatures. The climate has been relatively stable for the last 2,500 years compared to the period 

between 2,500 to 7,000 years ago when south-central North Dakota transitioned from a forestdominated landscape to the mixed-prairie grassland-dominated landscape that occurs today (Bluemle 

1975). Mean monthly temperatures from 1901–2010 in Edgeley, North Dakota, located approximately 

15 miles northeast of Kulm (the approximate center of the District), during January are 8.7° F and 

69.6° F in July with mean monthly low temperatures of -1.6 °F in January and monthly highs that 

average 83.4 °F in July (High Plains Regional Climate Center 2011). The last freezing temperature 

below 28 °F in the spring typically occurs by May 5 and the first killing frost (≤28° F) typically occurs 

around October 5 at Edgeley (USDA NRCS 2011b). On average, there are 127 growing days in the 

District where the temperature exceeds 28° F (USDA NRCS 2011b). 

Mean annual precipitation received from 1901-2010 at Edgeley was 18.09 inches (range = 9.74–

28.75 in) with May (2.67 in) and June (3.57 in) being the wettest months and January (0.44 in) and 

December (0.37 in) receiving the least precipitation. Mean annual snowfall during this period was 25.4 

inches in Edgeley (High Plains Regional Climate Center 2011). However, annual snowfall can 

approach 70 inches during extreme winters. Annual precipitation generally increases from west to east 

in the District with portions of Dickey County receiving the highest amount of annual precipitation 

(Figure 2-8). The bulk of the precipitation that the District receives can be attributed to thunderstorms 

that occur from May through July. Winds are generally moderate (less than 20 mph) though it is not 

uncommon for winds to exceed 30 mph with periodic gusts over 40 mph. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

34
Figure 2-8. Mean annual precipitation from 1971–2000 for Kulm Wetland Management 

District. 

Map data were developed using Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) climate data derived from finescale grid-based estimates of climatic parameters such as precipitation, temperature, and dew point. (USDA NRCS 2011c).

TOPOGRAPHY

Topographic variation within the District can be attributed to three distinct physiographic 

ecoregions spanning the District from west to east including the Missouri Coteau Slope, Missouri 

Coteau, and Glaciated Plains (Figure 2-5). Glacial stagnation formed the rolling hummocks, abundant 

“pothole” wetland basins, and large expanses of grasslands in the Missouri Coteau. The greatest 

topographic relief (up to 500 ft) occurs along the escarpment in the Missouri Coteau. Constant 

movement of thick glacial ice in the Glaciated Plains created a nearly flat to undulating (≤20 ft of 

topographic relief) surface that is characterized by extremely productive soils that resulted from the 

disintegration of glacial drift sedimentary rock and numerous wetlands (exceeding 100 basins per 

square mile in some portions of the District) that are important to breeding waterfowl. The Missouri 

Coteau Slope physiographic unit is located in the westernmost extent of continental glaciation and its 

easternmost boundary is the start of the Great Plains (Bryce et al. 1998). This ecoregion contains 

significantly less wetland basins than in the Missouri Coteau and Glaciated Plains ecoregions and the 

gradual decline in elevation towards the Missouri River makes the area conducive for row crop 

agriculture. Because of the low wetland density and abundant row crop agriculture in the Missouri 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

35
Coteau Slope, this area has lower habitat value to breeding migratory bird populations than the 

Missouri Coteau or Glaciated Plains. 

GEOLOGY

The geologic character (soils and topography) of the District was constructed by several glaciers 

that occupied south-central North Dakota during the Pleistocene Epoch. Prior to several glaciated 

periods, the last ending approximately 12,000 years ago, south-central North Dakota resembled areas 

west of Mandan, North Dakota, with buttes, and large-scale, wind- and water-sculpted scenery 

(Bluemle 1975). Today, the landscape reflects several glaciation periods that deposited various 

materials comprised of sand, silt, clay, gravel, boulders, and mineral rich soils created by glaciers 

grinding rock and constant bacterial action and weathering of the sedimentary glacial drift layer 

(Bluemle 1975). Two types of sedimentary rock are found in the District: glacial drift and bedrock. 

The shallow glacial drift layer occurs above a much more extensive layer of sedimentary bedrock 

consisting of sandstone, shale, and lignite created 50–80 million years ago during the late Cretaceous 

to Tertiary periods (Bluemle 1975). 

SOILS

Data obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) indicate a diversity of 

soils types on the District. Number of soil types identified includes 96, 84, 78, and 76 for LaMoure, 

Dickey, Logan, and McIntosh Counties, respectively. The top 10 soil types account for 79.7%, 54.6%, 

54.7%, and 56.7% of the totals within each of the respective counties. LaMoure County is primarily 

dominated by Barnes-Svea and Svea-Barnes loams. Dickey County is dominated by Barnes-Svea, 

Hamerly-Tonka-Parnell, and Barnes-Cavour loams. Logan County is dominated Zahl-Williams and 

Buse-Barnes loams. McIntosh County is also dominated by loams, primarily Zahl-Williams, BearpawZeeland, and Wabek-Appam sandy loams. In general, intensity of row crop agriculture follows an 

east–west gradient with cropping intensity highest in the east (LaMoure and Dickey Counties) with 

fields planted primarily to corn (Zea mays), soybeans (Glycine max), and wheat (Triticum aestivum). 

In comparison, in the west (Logan and McIntosh counties) small grain farming [i.e., wheat, barley 

(Hordeum vulgare), sunflowers (Helianthus annuus)] and livestock production are more prevalent. 

LANDSCAPE COMPOSITION

In 2013, land use in the District was comprised of 53.2% agricultural crops (19% corn [Zea 

maize], 23% soybeans [Glycine max], 5.4% wheat [Triticum spp.], and other cropland (5.8%), 32.8% 

grassland, 9.6% wetland, 0.6% forest, and 3.8% developed (low to high intensity human modification) 

(Figure 2-9; NASS 2013). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

36
Figure 2-9 Variation in land use at Kulm Wetland Management District based on the 2013 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, North Dakota Cropland Data Layer. 

Other cropland included all non-corn/wheat/soybean agricultural crops and fallow/idle cropland. Grassland was classified using 

grassland/pasture, switchgrass, and barren categories.

National Wetlands Inventory data identified 163,704 wetland basins covering 125,717.1 ha in the 

District (Figure 2-10). Wetland area was comprised of temporary (15,758 ha), seasonal (47,055 ha), 

semipermanent (44,114 ha), lake (16,309 ha) and riverine (2,479 ha) types (Cowardin et al. 1979), 

respectively. Approximately 47.9% and 44.3% of all wetlands are temporary and seasonal basins. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

37
Figure 2-10. Distribution and classification (Cowardin et al. 1979) of wetland basins based 

on National Wetland Inventory data in Kulm Wetland Management District.

VEGETATION

Native Sod Prairie – Historically, the composition and function of mixed-grass native prairie 

communities was shaped by weather, precipitation, fire, and grazing by free-roaming herbivores 

(Sedivec and Printz 2012). The potential composition and ecological function of these native sod 

prairies have been characterized using ecological site descriptions (ESDs) for North Dakota (Sedivec 

and Printz 2012). The potential plant community on ecological sites is influenced by surface soil 

depth, soil texture, available soil moisture, land slope and exposure, precipitation, and soil fertility and 

salinity. 

The District currently has some native sod prairie on 139 of 201 WPAs (69%). The observed plant 

community is strongly influenced by the timing, frequency, intensity, and duration of previous 

defoliation treatments implemented at appropriate levels to stimulate native plants and limit invasion 

by exotic cool-season grasses (Murphy and Grant 2005, Grant et al. 2009, Ellis-Felege et al. 2013). 

The majority of native sod prairie on Service-owned WPAs in the District is highly invaded by smooth 

brome (Bromus inermis) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) due to either decades of rest and/or 

infrequent defoliation (Kirsch et al. 1978, Kirby et al. 1992). Thus, the Service is engaged in an 

adaptive management study (USFWS 2011c) aimed at restoring these prairies. Specific restoration 

goals, objectives and strategies are described in Chapter 4 of this HMP. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

38
Because the District is dominated by loamy soils, staff selected the loamy ESD to characterize the 

potential plant communities that exist on native sod mixed-grass prairies on WPAs. Vegetation for 

loamy ESDs for the Central Brown Glaciated Plains major land resource area (MLRA) #053B (Printz 

et al. 2012a) and Central Black Glaciated Plains MLRA #055B (Printz et al. 2012b) is as described:

Central Brown Glaciated Plains #053B—The historic climax plant community 

(HCPC) evolved with grazing by large herbivores and occasional fire. The HCPC can 

be maintained or can return on degraded ecological sites using favorable management 

treatments such as prescribed grazing that allow for adequate recovery periods (Printz 

et al. 2012a). Potential vegetation in the HCPC is approximately 85% grasses or grasslike plants, 10% forbs, and 5% shrubs. The HCPC is dominated by western 

wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) and green needlegrass (Nassella viridula) and 

includes other grasses and grass-like plants including needle-and-thread (Hesperostipa 

comata ssp. comata), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), porcupine grass (Hesperostipa 

spartea), bearded wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus spp. subsecundus), and sedges 

(needleleaf sedge [Carex duriuscula] and thread-leaved sedge [Carex filifolia]). 

Common forbs include American vetch (Vicia Americana), green sagewort (Artemisia 

dracunculus), silverleaf scurfpea (Pediomelum argophyllum), and Missouri goldenrod 

(Solidago missouriensis). Common shrubs include prairie rose (Rosa arkansana), 

leadplant (Amorpha canescens), winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata), and fringed 

sagewort (Artemisia frigida).

The plant community shifts away from the HCPC under adverse management (e.g., 

continuous season-long grazing or annual early spring grazing) or during extended 

periods of rest (Printz et al. 2012a). The resulting plant community states include 

community phases 2.2 – western wheatgrass/green needlegrass/Kentucky bluegrass, 

3.3 – blue grama/sedge, and 4.4 – Kentucky bluegrass.

Central Black Glaciated Plains #055B—The HCPC also evolved through disturbance 

by periods of intense, short-duration grazing and frequent fire. When properly 

managed, ecological sites resemble the HCPC (Printz et al. 2012b). The HCPC is 

dominated by cool-season grasses including green needlegrass and western 

wheatgrass and includes other grasses such as slender wheatgrass (Elymus 

trachycaulus), bearded wheatgrass, needle-and-thread, and porcupine grass and big 

bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), blue grama, and sideoats grama (Bouteloua 

curtipendula) warm-season grasses. A variety of leguminous and non-leguminous 

perennial forbs can occur, but in small amounts (Printz et al. 2012b). 

Heavy continuous grazing and/or continuous spring grazing that do not allow 

ecological sites to recover or extended periods of rest will cause these sites to shift 

away from the HCPC (Printz et al. 2012b). The resulting plant community states 

include community phases 1.2 – big bluestem/sideoats grama/western wheatgrass, 1.3 

– snowberry/chokecherry/grasses, 2.1 – green needlegrass/western 

wheatgrass/Kentucky bluegrass, 2.2 – Kentucky bluegrass/blue grama/sedge, 3.1 – 

invaded by Kentucky bluegrass or smooth brome, 3.2 – Kentucky bluegrass sod/forbs, 

3.3 – annual/pioneer perennial, 4.1 – green ash/bur oak/shrubs, 4.2 – bur oak/green 

ask/ironwood/Sprengel sedge, 5.1 – oak/sedge, 5.2 – mature oak/Kentucky bluegrass, 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

39
5.3 – buckthorn/oak, 5.4 – oak/eastern redcedar, and 5.5 – buckthorn/Kentucky 

bluegrass.

Additional ESDs for the District including a full description of each HCPC and other community 

phases can be located online at https://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov/. 

Seeded Introduced Grassland—These grasslands known as dense nesting cover (DNC; 

intermediate wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, and alfalfa or sweetclover) provides a cost-effective seed 

mix that produces tall, dense vegetation for nesting waterfowl (Duebbert et al. 1981, Higgins and 

Barker 1982). The District does not currently seed DNC on WPAs. The majority of existing seeded 

introduced grasslands occur on WPAs having former cropland (cropland present prior to acquisition 

by the Service) that were seeded during the 1970’s and 1980’s. These grasslands are highly degraded 

by smooth brome due to prolonged rest. Density and extent of noxious weeds such as Canada thistle 

(Cirsium arvense), yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), absinth wormwood (Artemisia absinthium), and 

leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) also is typically higher in these grasslands than native sod or 

reconstructed prairies. The District reconstructs these seeded introduced grasslands using diverse 

native grass and forb seed mixes. However, this process is expected to take 40-50 years if the District 

reconstructs an average of 200 acres per year.

Reconstructed Prairie—Reconstructing prairie on formerly cultivated land on WPAs provides an 

opportunity for the District to create heterogeneous nesting habitat for migratory birds (see Salo et al. 

2004, Fuhlendorf et al. 2006, Bloom et al. 2013) that is more sustainable and resistant to invasion by 

exotic grasses and noxious weeds (Berger 1993, Cramer 1991, Jacobs and Sheley 1999, Norland et al. 

2013). Currently, low-diversity reconstructed prairie occurs on 48 of 201 WPAs (24%) in the District. 

The majority of these grasslands were seeded over 20 years ago using low-diversity native grassdominated mixes that are now invaded by smooth brome and/or Kentucky bluegrass. To restore plant 

community diversity to these low-diversity reconstructions, the District plants species-rich seed mixes 

that are representative of the HCPC on ecological sites to improve the likelihood of successful 

establishment. Specific ESDs contain the best available information that describes potential species 

dominance and community composition targets that managers can use to create site-appropriate seed 

mixes (Sedivec and Printz 2012). 

2.5 Habitat Condition of the District 

This section described the habitat conditions found on the Kulm WMD. 

PRE-SETTLEMENT

Historically, the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem was composed of vast expanses of intact 

grasslands and high densities of wetlands which exceeded 40 basins/km2

 in some areas (Kantrud et al. 

1989) and covered 20 to 60% of the PPR (Seabloom and van der Valk 2003). Lands now administered 

by the Service in the U.S. PPR would have been unaltered, consisting of highly functional native plant 

communities that allowed natural ecological processes to persist for nearly 10,000 years following the 

retreat of the Wisconsin glaciation. Native prairies consisted a mix of tallgrass and shortgrass species 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

40
including both cool- and warm-season species (Dekeyser et al. 2013) that were maintained by periodic 

grazing by millions of bison (Bison bison) and other native herbivores and burning as a result of 

natural fires. Bison are thought to have created a mosaic of seral stages and different vegetation 

heights and species composition across the landscape by grazing new plant growth on recently burned 

sites.

INFLUENCE OF EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT

The onset of European settlement and the initial conversion of native prairie for low-intensity 

agriculture in the PPR occurred from the 1830’s to 1880’s (Samson and Knopf 1994, Severson and 

Hull Sieg 2006). In North Dakota, the number of Euro-American settlers increased from 1,200 in 1870 

to 290,000 by 1900 (Severson and Hull Sieg 2006). During this period, humans wantonly and 

indiscriminately killed the millions of bison that once grazed the grasslands of North Dakota; the last 

herd (≈300 animals) was sighted near Carrington, North Dakota in 1874 (Wilcox 1907). The 

extirpation of bison and conversion of grasslands for agriculture permanently altered the form and 

function of remaining grasslands in this region. Wetlands remained largely undrained prior to the 

1950’s when advances in machinery and technology provided the means to drain large areas (Severson 

and Hull Sieg 2006). 

CURRENT CONDITION OF THE DISTRICT

Landscape-scale—Losses in grassland and wetland habitat have recently accelerated in the PPR 

due to conversion and drainage for crop production (Stephens et al. 2008, Oslund et al. 2010, Rashford 

et al. 2011, Doherty et al. 2013, Johnston 2013a,b, Wright and Wimberly 2013). Consequently 

grassland-dependent birds have substantially declined in the PPR and they are now considered one of 

the most imperiled guilds of birds in North America (Brennan and Kuvlesky 2005, Askins et al. 2007). 

The carrying capacity of waterfowl and other wetland-dependent birds in the PPR also has been and 

will continue to be reduced as wetlands are drained in the future. Yet, over 50% of the breeding 

waterfowl population is supported by remaining wetland and grassland habitat in the PPR (Batt et al. 

1989). If habitat losses continue at rates at or above those estimated by Rashford et al. (2011) and C. 

R. Loesch (USFWS Habitat and Populations Evaluation Team [HAPET], Bismarck, North Dakota, 

unpublished data), conservation agencies (e.g., USFWS and its partners) will only have until 2082 and 

2111, respectively, to conserve grasslands and wetlands when these habitats are either converted or 

protected; only 37 and 55% of the 2006 grassland and wetland extent would be protected in perpetuity 

(Doherty et al. 2013). If habitat loss rates accelerate beyond these rates, even greater levels of 

Migratory Bird Conservation Funds (i.e., Duck Stamp dollars) than those allocated to the Region 6 

portion of the U.S. PPR in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 will be needed to protect grasslands and 

wetlands before they are permanently converted or drained. The rate of future conservation easement 

acquisition by the Service will likely depend on: 1) obtaining increased funding levels, 2) maintaining 

landowner interest and acceptance of the easement program(s), and 3) rate of land-use change 

influenced by demand for commodities and public policy. If habitat protection does not outpace 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

41
habitat losses in the future, then habitat protection goals of the PPJV may need to be refined to reflect 

what can actually be achieved (Doherty et al. 2013). 

Local-scale —Currently, a large proportion of privately owned native grasslands in the District are 

continuously grazed from May through October each year. Although some grassland birds such as 

chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus), upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), marbled 

godwit (Limosa fedoa), and willet (Tringa semipalmata) respond positively to these season-long 

grazing systems, breeding bird densities are highest in light to moderately grazed pastures in the 

Missouri Coteau (Salo et al. 2004). Overgrazing pastures on private lands also negatively affects 

waterfowl nest success (Bloom et al. 2013), attractiveness to waterfowl (Gilbert et al. 1996, Fondell 

and Ball 2004), and the production of most upland nesting migratory birds (Kirsch et al. 1978). 

Consequently, local-scale operating decisions result in landscape-level effects when intense grazing is 

conducted by the majority of private landowners in the District. 

On fee-title WPAs, the District primarily has management capability on upland habitat types 

consisting of native sod prairie, low- and high-diversity reconstructed prairie, and seeded introduced 

grassland (i.e., dense nesting cover [DNC] consisting of intermediate wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, and 

alfalfa and/or sweetclover). These grasslands are managed to provide moderate to tall vegetation 

structure preferred by nesting waterfowl (Kantrud and Higgins 1992, Devries and Armstrong 2011, 

Bloom et al. 2013) and the majority of other migratory birds (Salo et al. 2004). However, a high 

proportion of these grasslands are highly degraded by exotic cool-season grasses (smooth brome and 

Kentucky bluegrass; see Ellis-Felege et al. 2013 for a complete summary on the effects of exotic coolseason grasses on terrestrial plant and wildlife communities) that create monotypic stands of 

vegetation structure. 

The District provides heterogeneous nesting cover on these grasslands for waterfowl and other 

migratory birds by restoring native sod using active management or reconstructing old (>15 years) 

DNC using species-rich native mixes. However, native prairie plant community composition on WPAs 

has been severely degraded due to decades of rest which promote invasion by exotic cool-season 

grasses (Murphy and Grant 2005, Grant et al. 2009). Because smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass 

exotic grasses tend to dominate native sod grasslands, managers will target individual exotic coolseason grasses using specific management treatments described in this HMP that reduce these invaders 

and stimulate native plants to improve habitat condition. Although the District is actively grazing 

grasslands on WPAs to maintain stand vigor and restore plant community composition, the District 

has limited ability to conduct prescribed fires on native sod and reconstructed prairies that mimic 

historic fire intervals. Therefore, managers utilize grazing treatments and conduct prescribed fires as 

resources allow to attempt to achieve the goals, objectives, and strategies for grassland management 

on WPAs outlined in this HMP. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

42
CHAPTER 3 

Resources of Concern

This chapter describes resources of concern on the Kulm WMD. 

3.1 Identification of Resources of Concern

Identification of priority species, hereafter resources of concern, is important during the biological 

planning phase of SHC and is considered the focal point of a HMP. Staff considered ROC to be those 

identified in the purpose(s) of the District, and include individual species, species groups, plant or 

animal communities, and threatened and endangered species (HMP policy 620 FW 1; USFWS 2002) 

that represent the needs of other species that use habitats and respond to conservation similarly (Noon 

et al. 2009) and those that would likely decline without proactive and strategic conservation. 

Ultimately, consideration of species–habitat relationships at landscape- and local-scales within the 

SHC conservation design was designed to improve the efficiency of conservation delivery in 

landscapes that yield the highest biological returns (primarily waterfowl carrying capacity and 

production). 

Strategic habitat conservation approach aims to achieve the highest landscape-scale biological 

outcomes for priority species, measured by the degree of impact that conservation actions have on 

wildlife populations. This HMP uses a science-driven approach including empirical species–habitat 

relationship abundance models to link conservation of ROCs at the scale of Kulm WMD to the 

conservation of migratory bird populations within the United States portion of the mixed-grass prairie 

ecosystem within the PPR. Kulm WMD intends to track the outcomes of our conservation actions to 

selected ROC through focused monitoring and research using an adaptive management framework to 

determine the level of progress (contribution to populations within U.S. PPR) that the District is 

achieving. This iterative process requires flexibility in conservation delivery that can be modified as 

new scientific information is obtained during the adaptive management process. 

POTENTIAL RESOURCES OF CONCERN

Kulm WMD administers a network of fee title and limited-interest easement lands primarily for 

the production of waterfowl. However, a diverse group of migratory wading birds, shorebirds, 

songbirds, and raptor species also rely on these lands to meet their habitat requirements during a 

portion of their annual life cycle. The primary sources of information the District used to identify 

potential migratory bird ROC included: 

 continental, regional, and state conservation plans for waterfowl, land birds, shorebirds, raptors, 

and waterbirds applicable to the PPR (see Chapter 1);

 USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008b);

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

43
 scientific literature and migratory bird population trends in the PPR;

 USFWS spatial models for individual migratory bird species.

Species listed as threatened, endangered, or candidates for listing under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 also were considered as potential ROC. Federally threatened, endangered, and candidate 

species were identified using the Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) available online 

at http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/indexPublic.do and then reviewing relevant recovery plans for listed 

species. 

Staff evaluated the potential of these trust species to serve as ROC that could be targeted for 

conservation during the next 9 years as outlined in this HMP. Individual species were considered 

potential ROC by reviewing national, regional, and state conservation plans/lists that identify

overlapping priority migratory bird species of conservation need within the PPR. 

3.2 Priority Resources of Concern

Selection of individual ROC included a detailed evaluation of bird species response to landscapescale features, proximate (site-specific) characteristics, or a combination of both (Cunningham and 

Johnson 2006). Because there is variability in habitat selection patterns among bird species in the PPR, 

meeting the requirements of all species can be challenging (USFWS 2012). Therefore, selection of a 

subset of species that was representative of the needs of many grassland-dependent and/or wetlanddependent species helps the District target habitat protection and management efforts in landscapes 

where biological outcomes are expected to be high. Conservation of wetland and grassland habitat is 

important to support the production of approximately 50–80% of continental waterfowl populations 

(Cowardin et al. 1983, Batt et al. 1989) and over 200 migratory bird species that breed in the PPR 

(USFWS 2008a). 

INCORPORATION OF STRATEGIC HABITAT CONSERVATION

The USFWS has adopted SHC as its business model for targeting resources in landscapes 

predicted to have the greatest conservation benefit to fish and wildlife populations (USFWS 2006b, 

Johnson et al. 2009). SHC has four primary components: biological planning, conservation design, 

conservation delivery, and assumption-based monitoring and research. The Service identified 

guidelines for selecting a set of priority ROC as part of the biological planning phase of SHC that 

included: 1) reviewing existing scientific information pertaining to species habitat requirements, 2) 

identifying measures of population performance, and 3) identifying population objectives that account 

for relevant limiting factors or threats to populations (Johnson et al. 2009). Staff then selected a set of 

priority ROC (Table 3-1) to guide conservation delivery within Kulm WMD that was primarily 

focused on meeting waterfowl population objectives, but will likely have significant benefits to other 

migratory bird populations during the next 9 years. These species were considered as priority ROC 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

44
(Table 3-1) because the District occurs within their primary breeding range and each ROC occurred at 

densities sufficient to detect their response to management treatments. 

We acknowledge that Kulm WMD lies within an administrative boundary and is not a stand-alone 

ecological unit. However, conservation of selected ROC through acquisition of priority wetland and 

grassland habitat (Table 3-2) along with the management of fee-title WPAs, and habitat restoration 

and enhancement on private lands is important to contribute to the sustainability of migratory bird 

populations in the PPR. Other species that would be assumed to benefit from targeted conservation of 

an individual ROC would be those with similar habitat requirements at both landscape- (i.e., density of 

wetlands, amount of grassland in landscape) and local-scales (i.e., vegetation structure). 

Table 3-1. Priority resources of concern identified for Kulm Wetland Management District, 

North Dakota.

Species Guild

Blue-winged teal (Anas discors) waterfowl

Mallard (Anas platyrhyncos) waterfowl

Gadwall (Anas strepera) waterfowl

Northern shoveler (Anas clypeata) waterfowl

Northern pintail (Anas acuta) waterfowl

Marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa) shorebird

Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) passerine

Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) passerine

Clay-colored sparrow (Spizella pallida) passerine

Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) raptor

Black tern (Chlidonias niger) waterbird

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

45
Table 3-2. Priority habitat types and associated limiting factors and threats at Kulm 

Wetland Management District, North Dakota.

Habitat type Associated resources of concern Limiting factors or threats

Perennial grassland 

(including native sod 

and seeded grasslands)

Contributes to breeding requirements for all 

ROC (blue-winged teal, mallard, gadwall, 

northern shoveler, northern pintail, marbled 

godwit, grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, claycolored sparrow, northern harrier, black tern). 

Percent grassland at various scales on the 

landscape and vegetation height-density at local 

scales were important factors influencing 

habitat selection for ROC. Perennial grasslands 

can be actively managed to meet habitat 

requirements for ROC.

Grassland conversion for agricultural 

purposes, fragmentation by energy 

development, overgrazing, 

degradation by invasive species or 

lack of grazing and fire.

Wetland

Supports breeding requirements 8 of the 11 

ROC (blue-winged teal, mallard, gadwall, 

northern shoveler, northern pintail, marbled 

godwit, black tern, northern harrier). Annual 

abundance and distribution of wetlands 

influence habitat selection for ROC. Active 

management does not occur on natural wetlands 

i h i i

Wetland drainage and degradation by 

agricultural practices resulting in 

wetland loss, nutrient loading from 

runoff, and sedimentation.

3.3 Resources of Concern and Biological Integrity, 

Diversity, and Environmental Health

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states that, in administering the 

NWRS, the Service shall “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health

(BIDEH) of the NWRS are maintained...” The Service’s policy on biological diversity, integrity, and 

environmental health (601 FW 3; USFWS 2001) provides managers with an evaluation process to 

analyze their refuge and recommend the best management direction to prevent further degradation of 

environmental conditions, and where appropriate and in concert with refuge purposes and System 

mission, restore lost or severely degraded components. The Service defines BIDEH as follows:

 Biological Diversity—the variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences between them, and the communities and ecosystems in 

which they occur;

 Biological Integrity—biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, and 

community levels comparable with historic conditions, including the natural biological 

processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities;

 Environmental Health—composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other 

abiotic features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that 

shape the environment.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

46
Meretsky et al. (2006) stated that the BIDEH policy (USFWS 2001) directs units of the NWRS to 

assess their importance across landscape scales and “forge solutions to problems arising outside refuge

boundaries.” Scott et al. (2004) further recommended that the NWRS focus conservation outside fee 

title lands to maintain BIDEH because refuges can become isolated in a landscape matrix of urban and 

agricultural development without adjacent land protection. Conservation easements purchased by the 

Service from willing landowners allow the Service to protect wetlands or grasslands outside fee title 

boundaries. Thus, the District’s primary contribution to BIDEH during the next 9 years will be 

through acquisition and protection of important wetland and grassland habitats on private lands using 

limited-interest conservation easements that support migratory bird populations. 

Restoration of degraded wetland and grassland habitats on fee title lands also contributes to 

BIDEH, but to a lesser extent than conservation easements, due to the much smaller land area that 

comprise fee title lands. For example, reconstructing tracts of degraded, homogeneous stands of 

degraded dense nesting cover on fee title lands that have a cropping history to diverse stands of native 

grasses and forbs also contributes to BIDEH by increasing ecosystem services of these grasslands 

(Werling et al. 2014). Secondly, restoration of native sod grasslands on fee title lands is specifically 

aimed at improving BIDEH as the diversity and composition of native plant communities is restored. 

The Service is actively engaged in a long-term study, Native Prairie Adaptive Management (NPAM) 

that is evaluating factors influencing the success of restoring native sod and BIDEH, as described in 

Chapter 4 (Moore et al. 2010, USFWS 2011c). By combining prairie reconstruction with native prairie 

restoration on fee title lands, the District increases the potential for BIDEH to be supported in part by 

fee-title WPAs in the District.

The extent that wetland and grassland habitats (and associated BIDEH) are maintained in the 

future within the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem will largely depend on the 1) extent of wetlands and 

grasslands protected, 2) rate of future land use change caused conversion of grasslands or drainage of 

wetlands, and 3) changes in agricultural and energy policies (Doherty et al. 2013). Although other 

factors such as climate change have the potential to influence wildlife populations, landscape-level 

land use changes caused by conversion of wetland and grassland habitats (Stephens et al. 2008, 

Fargione et al. 2009, Oslund et al. 2010, Doherty et al. 2013, Johnston 2013, Wright and Wimberley 

2013, Johnston 2014) currently pose an immediate and much greater threat to the persistence of 

wildlife populations in the PPR. 

3.4 Habitat Requirements of Resources of Concern

The following synthesis of selected ROC and their habitat requirements is intended to briefly 

summarize important trends, demographic rates, landscape patterns of abundance or occurrence, and 

local-scale habitat requirements. This information was used by staff to link landscape- and local-level 

patterns of habitat selection of ROC to potential biological outcomes (i.e., nest success, brood 

occupancy, density) described under the SHC design described in Chapter 4. Individual goals and 

objectives throughout Chapter 4 also explicitly tie the expected biological outcomes for individual 

ROC to the population objectives of the SHC design. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

47
FIVE PRIMARY DABBLERS—MALLARD,BLUE-WINGED TEAL,

GADWALL,NORTHERN PINTAIL,NORTHERN SHOVELER

We selected mallard, blue-winged teal, gadwall, northern pintail, and northern shoveler because 

they are the most abundant and widely distributed breeding duck species in the PPR (Loesch et al. 

2012). Consequently, conservation of wetlands and grasslands in the PPR is targeted in landscapes that 

coincide with these species populations.

Breeding Range—Although mallard, blue-winged teal, gadwall, northern pintail, and northern 

shoveler breed throughout many parts of the United States and Canada (i.e., mallard distribution in 

Figure 3-1), approximately 51% of all breeding ducks in North America occur in the PPR (Batt et al. 

1989). Critical, internationally recognized conservation areas have been identified for these five 

dabblers based on their breeding distribution in the PPR (Figure 3-2) (Doherty et al., In Press). 

Figure 3-1. Breeding distribution of mallard (Anas platyrhyncos) in North America based on 

relative abundance breeding bird survey data from 2006-2012. 

(Sauer et al. 2014). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

48
Figure 3-2. Abundance and distribution of five species of dabbling ducks across the 

Canadian and Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota portions of the U.S. Prairie 

Pothole Region.

These species included mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), blue-winged teal (Anas discors), gadwall (Anas strepera), northern shoveler (Anas 

clypeata), and northern pintail (Anas acuta). Map depicts the mean abundance from 2002 – 2010 from the traditional Waterfowl Breeding 

Pair and Habitat Survey area. Mean population estimates were summed across the entire landscape and grouped into 10 percent bins, such 

that a value of 10 represents the smallest area in which 10% of the population is contained relative to each year.

Population Status – From 1987–2012, the annual number of total recruits for the 5 primary 

dabblers has increased across the USFWS Dakotas Zone (all WMDs in North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

49
and in northeast Montana), North Dakota, and Kulm WMD (Figure 3-3). Population levels in the PPR 

appear to be linked to the annual abundance of wetlands with population decreases during dry periods 

(Rohwer et al. 2002) and pulses in populations during wet years (Walker et al. 2013b). 

Figure 3-3. Estimated combined number of annual duck recruits for mallard, blue-winged 

teal, gadwall, northern shoveler, and northern pintail in the USFWS Dakotas Zone, North 

Dakota, and Kulm Wetland Management District.

Based on four-square mile survey data collected from 1987–2012 (USFWS HAPET, Bismarck, North Dakota, unpublished data).

9000

8000

Five Dabblers

7000

6000

5000

4000

sdn

3000

asuo2000 hT

1000

0

8788899091929394959697989900010203040506070809101112

1919191919191919191919191920202020202020202020202020

USFWS Dakotas Zone NorthDakota

Kulm Linear (USFWS Dakotas Zone)

Linear (NorthDakota) Linear (Kulm)

Landscape-level Species–Habitat Relationships—The density and distribution of mallard, bluewinged teal, gadwall, northern pintail, and northern shoveler coincides with the abundance of wetlands 

on the landscape (Figure 3-4) (Stewart and Kantrud 1973, Krapu et al. 1983, Johnson and Grier 1988, 

Loesch et al. 2012); temporary and seasonal basins attract approximately 70% of breeding pairs when 

they are present (Loesch et al. 2012). These species also depend on grasslands for nesting. Thus, 

landscapes containing large expanses of grasslands and abundant wetlands are considered critical 

conservation areas for waterfowl (Greenwood et al. 1995, Reynolds et al. 2001, Sovada et al. 2000, 

Phillips et al. 2003). For example, research indicates that the amount of perennial grassland cover 

(Greenwood et al. 1995, Reynolds et al. 2001, Horn et al. 2005, Stephens et al. 2005), amount of 

cropland (Drever et al. 2007, Devries and Armstrong 2011, Bloom et al. 2013), and abundance of 

wetland basins (Walker et al. 2013b) on the landscape were primary factors influencing nest success of 

waterfowl in the PPR. Conservation of wetland/grassland complexes also is important because these 

areas have high occupancy by waterfowl broods (Walker et al. 2013a). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

50
Figure 3-4. Density and distribution of five dabbler species in the Montana, North Dakota, 

and South Dakota portions of the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. 

These species included mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), blue-winged teal (Anas discors), gadwall (Anas strepera), northern shoveler (Anas 

clypeata), and northern pintail (Anas acuta). Map reflects the mean density of breeding pairs from 1987 to 2011 from four-square mile 

survey data compiled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat and Population Evaluation Team.

Local-level Species–Habitat Relationships—Upland-nesting waterfowl generally prefer tall, dense 

grassland cover for nesting (Duebbert and Frank 1984, Higgins and Barker 1982, Lokemoen 1984). 

Both nest density (Lokemoen et al. 1990, Fondell and Ball 2004) and success are positively influenced 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

51
by vegetation density and height (Koper and Schmiegelow 2007, Devries and Armstrong 2011, Bloom 

et al. 2013). Removing excessive litter also is important because, otherwise, grasslands can function as 

prey reservoirs (abundant Microtus spp.) that attract predators and negatively affect waterfowl nest 

success (Voorhees and Cassel 1980, Norrdahl and Korpimaki 2000, Devries and Armstrong 2011). 

Management Considerations—Because the presence of wetlands are not static in space or time in 

the PPR (Niemuth et al. 2010), wetland conservation must include protecting a diversity of wetland 

types across a large geographic extent to ensure that suitable habitat is available on an annual basis to 

support the carrying capacity for breeding waterfowl (Doherty et al., In Press) and other wetlanddependent populations (Niemuth and Solberg 2003). Conservation of grasslands should focus on 

protecting grasslands in areas of high waterfowl pair density and providing tall, dense cover on public 

and private lands supporting high concentrations of breeding waterfowl. Managers also should 

consider potential effects of treatments (e.g., grazing, prescribed fire) on nesting waterfowl (Naugle et 

al. 2000a, Bloom et al. 2013). Leaving grasslands idle or conducting management treatments after the 

nesting season will attract greater densities of nesting waterfowl (Barker et al. 1990, Bloom et al. 

2013). Management should be conducted when grassland stand vigor and vegetation structure have 

declined, which negatively affects waterfowl production (Devries and Armstrong 2011). 

BOBOLINK (DOLICHONYX ORYZIVORUS) 

Breeding Range—Bobolink are considered continuous breeders across their range (Figure 3-5) 

wherever suitable habitat exists (Martin and Gavin 1995). 

Figure 3-5. Breeding distribution of bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) in North America 

based on relative abundance breeding bird survey data from 2006–2012. 

(Sauer et al. 2014).

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

52
Population Status—From 1966–2012, bobolink populations declined by 2.2% across their 

breeding range (Sauer et al. 2014). A decline of 0.3% also occurred in the PPR, but an increase of 

1.1% occurred in North Dakota during this same time period. 

Breeding Season Phenology—Bobolinks arrive on the breeding grounds in late April to early May 

and depart from July to September (Shaffer et al. 2006a). Both males and females exhibit high fidelity 

to breeding sites (Bollinger 1998). Nest initiation occurs in early to mid-June and may persist through 

mid-July (Stewart 1975, Winter et al. 2004). 

Landscape-level Species–habitat Relationships —Bobolink are considered an area sensitive 

species because their presence has been positively correlated to the size of remaining grassland 

patches (Johnson and Igl 2001, Quamen 2007, Ribic et al. 2009). Density of bobolink also is 

negatively correlated with the percentage of trees and shrubs (Winter et al. 2006) and amount of 

agricultural edge in the landscape (Fletcher and Koford 2002). Density of bobolink varies across the 

USFWS Dakotas Zone in conjunction with grassland availability (Figure 3-6) (Unpublished data, 

USFWS PPJV, Bismarck, North Dakota).

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

53
Figure 3-6. Density and distribution of bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Dakotas Zone. 

Map data derived from Quamen (2007) and 2003 HAPET landcover. 

Local-level Species–habitat Relationships—Bobolink use native or tame grasslands having 

moderate to tall vegetation structure (height–density, height), moderate forb cover, and minimal 

woody vegetation, and moderate litter depths (Winter et al. 2005, Shaffer et al. 2006a, Winter et al. 

2006). Documented habitat characteristics at use sites include 10–134 cm vegetation height, 6–26 cm 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

54
visual obstruction reading, 17–65% grass cover, 15–33% forb cover, ≤22% shrub cover, ≤35% bare 

ground, 5–75% litter cover, and ≤9 cm litter depth (Shaffer et al. 2006a). 

Management Considerations—Refrain from applying management treatments (e.g., grazing, 

prescribed fire, haying) during nesting (Bollinger 1991). If treatments are conducted on individual 

units, ensure that suitable habitat exists on adjacent units for nesting or renesting bobolinks (Bollinger 

1988). Density of bobolinks is directly correlated to the intensity of management treatments (Kantrud 

1981, Salo et al. 2004). For example, on grazed sites, bobolinks occur at low densities or avoid 

intensely treated grasslands, but occur at high densities on light to moderately grazed sites where ≥50–

65% of vegetation remains following treatment (Salo et al. 2004). 

GRASSHOPPER SPARROW (AMMODRAMUS SAVANNARUM) 

Breeding Range—Although the grasshopper sparrow breeding distribution is widely spread in 

North America, their core breeding area occurs in the Great Plains (Figure 3-7) (Sauer et al. 2014)

Figure 3-7. Breeding distribution of grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) in 

North America.

Based on relative abundance breeding bird survey data from 2006–2012 (Sauer et al. 2014).

Population Status—From 1966–2012, grasshopper sparrow populations declined by 2.9% across 

their breeding range (Sauer et al. 2014). Decline of 2.2% and 3.9% also occurred in the PPR and in 

North Dakota portions of their breeding range. 

Breeding Season Phenology—Grasshopper sparrows arrive on the breeding grounds in April and 

depart to their wintering grounds by mid-September (Shaffer et al. 2006b). Grasshopper sparrows can 

produce up to two broods, one in late May and one in early July (Smith 1968), but one brood is likely 

more typical in the northern portion of their range (Shaffer et al. 2006b). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

55
Landscape-level Species–habitat Relationships—Grasshopper sparrows are considered an areasensitive species that positively responds to the amount of grassland on the landscape (Bakker et al. 

2002, Davis 2004). In the NWRS Dakota Zone, grasshopper sparrows occur at their highest densities 

in landscapes dominated by native grasslands (Figure 3-8) (Unpublished data, USFWS PPJV, 

Bismarck, North Dakota). 

Figure 3-8. Density and distribution of grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) 

in the National Wildlife Refuge System Dakotas Zone. 

Map data derived from Quamen (2007) and 2003 HAPET land cover.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

56
Local-level Species–habitat Relationships—Grasshopper sparrows occupy native and tame 

grasslands having intermediate vegetation heights. Response of grasshopper sparrows to presence of 

forbs, shrubs, bare ground, and litter are variable (Schaffer et al. 2006b). Documented habitat 

characteristics at use sites include vegetation height of 15–48 cm, 6–40 cm visual obstruction reading, 

33-72% grass cover, 4–33% forb cover, <35% shrub cover, <35% bare ground, 6–61% litter cover, 

and ≤9 cm litter depth (Shaffer et al. 2006b). 

Management Considerations—In mixed-grass prairies, density of grasshopper sparrows is low 

immediately following prescribed fire (Madden et al. 1996, Grant et al. 2010) or when <35% of 

vegetation remains following heavy grazing treatments (Salo et al. 2004). When possible, management 

treatments should not occur during the breeding season (Bollinger 1991). However, managers should 

consider appropriately timed treatments as grasshopper sparrow density increases 2–4 years post burn 

(Grant et al. 2010) and also was higher on lightly to moderately grazed grasslands versus idle 

grasslands (Kantrud and Kologiski 1982).

CLAY-COLORED SPARROW (SPIZELLA PALLIDA) 

Breeding Range—Clay-colored sparrows breed in portions of shortgrass, mixed-grass, and 

tallgrass prairies in Canada and the United States (Figure 3-9).

Figure 3-9. Breeding distribution of clay-colored sparrow (Spizella pallida) in North 

America.

Based on relative abundance breeding bird survey data from 2006–2012 (Sauer et al. 2014).

Population Status—From 1966–2012, clay-colored sparrow populations declined by 1.4% across 

their breeding range (Sauer et al. 2014). Similarly, clay-colored sparrow populations declined by 0.9% 

in the PPR and by 0.4% in North Dakota during the same period. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

57
Breeding Season Phenology—Clay-colored sparrows arrive on their breeding grounds in late April 

and depart to their wintering grounds by October. In North Dakota, they nest from mid-May to midJuly (Winter et al. 2004). They also exhibit high site fidelity to their breeding areas (Knapton 1978). 

Landscape-level Species–habitat Relationships—In the Minnesota and Iowa portions of the U.S. 

PPR, the density of clay-colored sparrow has been documented to be high in landscapes containing a 

high proportion of grassland (Quamen 2007). In the NWRS Dakota Zone, the highest densities occur 

in portions of North Dakota and northeast Montana (Figure 3-10) (Unpublished data, USFWS PPJV, 

Bismarck, North Dakota). 

Figure 3-10. Density and distribution of clay-colored sparrow (Spizella pallida) in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Dakota Zone. 

Map data derived from Quamen (2007) and 2003 HAPET land cover.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

58
Local-level Species–habitat Relationships—Clay-colored sparrows use native or tame grasslands 

having low shrubs or in dense grasslands where woody vegetation is not present (see Dechant et al. 

2003). They prefer to nest in dense grasslands containing western snowberry (Symphoricarpos 

occidentalis) and silverberry (Elaeagnus commutata) (Knapton 1978, Schneider 1998, Winter et al. 

2004). In North Dakota, their abundance also was positively influenced by percent forb cover, 

vegetation height–density, and litter depth (Schneider 1998).

Management Considerations—The presence of shrub cover in grasslands may be the most 

important factor to consider when evaluating habitat suitability for this species. Clay-colored sparrows 

respond positively to longer intervals (5–10 yr) between prescribed burns that allow woody shrubs to 

persist on grasslands (Madden et al. 1999). Idle grasslands and those that are lightly grazed also can 

contain high densities of clay-colored sparrows (Madden 1996, Salo et al. 2004), especially if shrub 

cover is present (Bock et al. 1993). 

BLACK TERN (CHLIDONIAS NIGER)

Breeding Range—Black terns primarily breed in the PPR, but isolated populations occur in 

Canada and the United States (Figure 3-11). 

Figure 3-11. Breeding distribution of black tern (Chlidonias niger) in North America. 

Based on relative abundance breeding bird survey data from 2006–2012 (Sauer et al. 2014).

Population Status—From 1966–2012, black tern populations declined by 2.4% across their 

breeding range (Sauer et al. 2014). Similarly, a decline of 1.2% and 2.6% occurred in the PPR and in 

North Dakota during the same period. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

59
Breeding Season Phenology—Black terns arrive on the breeding grounds in late March to early 

June and depart to their wintering grounds from late July through October (see Zimmerman et al. 

2002). Nesting begins in mid-May (Dunn and Agro 1995) where they will nest in consecutive years if 

favorable water and vegetation conditions exist (Dunn and Agro 1995).

Landscape-level Species–habitat Relationships—Research indicates that the area of seasonal 

(Steen and Powell 2012) and semipermanent wetlands positively influence breeding black terns 

(Naugle et al. 1999a, 2000, 2001). In the North Dakota portion of the PPR, occurrence of black terns 

was highest in northeast North Dakota (Figure 3-12). Black terns also prefer to nest in wetlands where 

there are less than 50% row crop agriculture in the surrounding landscape (Naugle et al. 2000b). 

Figure 3-12. Relative probability of occurrence of black tern (Chlidonias niger) in the North 

Dakota portion of the PPR.

(Unpublished data, USFWS HAPET, Bismarck, North Dakota).

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

60
Local-scale Species–habitat Relationships—Black terns occupy wetlands with >30 cm depth 

during the breeding season within large wetland complexes that contain both interspersed emergent 

vegetation and open water and abundant nest substrates (see Zimmerman et al. 2002). However, their 

presence is negatively correlated with the amount of woody vegetation along the periphery of wetlands 

(Naugle et al. 1999b, Shutler et al. 2000). 

Management Considerations—Management of water levels on semipermanent wetlands with 

control structures that provide nearly equal portions of emergent cover and open water and stable 

water levels (> 30 cm in depth) could provide suitable habitat (Zimmerman et al. 2002). The effect of 

managing grasslands adjacent to wetlands occupied by black terns is unknown. Protection of large 

wetland complexes has been suggested as the primary form of conservation for black terns (Naugle et 

al. 2000b). 

MARBLED GODWIT (LIMOSA FEDOA) 

Breeding Range—Marbled godwits primarily breed in the PPR of North America (Figure 3-13). 

Figure 3-13. Breeding distribution of marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa) in North America. 

Based on relative abundance breeding bird survey data from 2006–2012 (Sauer et al. 2014).

Population Status—From 1966–2012, marbled godwit populations have remained relatively stable 

(0.2% decline) across their breeding range (Sauer et al. 2014). Similar trends also occurred in the PPR 

(0.7% decline) and in North Dakota (0.6% increase) during the same period. 

Breeding Season Phenology—Marbled godwits breed from mid-April through late July and nest in 

mid-to-late May (Kantrud and Higgins 1992, Sedivec 1994). Following nesting, they begin to form 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

61
flocks in mid-to-late July (Maher 1973) and depart to their wintering grounds by late August (Ryan et 

al. 1984). 

Landscape-level Species–habitat Relationships—Presence of marbled godwits is positively 

associated with wetland abundance and the amount of grassland on the landscape (Ryan 1982, Ryan et 

al. 1984). In North Dakota, landscapes containing relatively intact wetland–grassland complexes had 

high occurrences of marbled godwits (Figure 3-14). 

Figure 3-14. Relative probability of occurrence of marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa) in the 

North Dakota portion of the PPR.

(Niemuth et al. 2009).

Local-level Species–habitat Relationships—Marbled godwits prefer native versus nonnative 

(seeded) grassland with short (<15 cm) vegetation height and wetlands with bare soil, open water, and 

sparse-to-moderately dense shoreline vegetation (Ryan et al. 1984, Dechant et al. 2001). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

62
Management Considerations—Management for marbled godwit should include maintaining short 

vegetation height (<15 cm) on native grasslands within large wetland–grassland complexes (Ryan et 

al. 1984, Kantrud and Higgins 1992). Protection of large expanses of grasslands containing a diversity 

of wetland types also is critical.

NORTHERN HARRIER (CIRCUS CYANEUS) 

Breeding Range—The breeding distribution of northern harrier is widely distributed across North 

America (Figure 3-15). However, they reach their highest levels of abundance in the PPR (Sauer et al. 

2014). 

Figure 3-15. Breeding distribution of northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) in North America. 

Based on relative abundance breeding bird survey data from 2006–2012 (Sauer et al. 2014).

Population Status—From 1966–2012, northern harrier populations decreased by 1% across their 

breeding range (Sauer et al. 2014). During the same period their population decreased by 0.9% in the 

PPR and increased by 1.3% in North Dakota. 

Breeding Season Phenology—Northern harrier arrive on the breeding grounds in late March to 

early April, nest from April to July, and depart to wintering grounds between August and November 

(see Dechant et al. 2002). 

Landscape-level Species–habitat Relationships—Northern harrier are considered a grassland 

obligate species as they respond positively to the amount of grass in the landscape (Herkert et al. 1999, 

Johnson and Igl 2001). The highest densities of northern harrier in North Dakota occur in landscapes 

with large expanses of grassland (Figure 3-16). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

63
Figure 3-16. Relative probability of occurrence of northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) in the 

North Dakota portion of the PPR.

(Niemuth et al. 2005).

Local-level Species–habitat Relationships—Northern harrier nest in tall, dense grasslands or on 

platforms of vegetation surrounded by emergent vegetation in wetlands (Clark 1972, Kantrud and 

Higgins 1992). They have been documented to use habitats with vegetation heights of 15-82 cm, 

visual obstruction readings of 7–54 cm, 33–53% grass cover, 18–25 forb cover, <2% shrub cover, 23–

30% litter cover, and 2–6 cm litter depth (Dechant et al. 2002). 

Management Considerations—Protection of large contiguous grasslands and wetlands is important 

to the sustainability of this species (Kantrud and Higgins 1992). Managers should maintain dense 

stands of grasslands using light-to-moderate grazing treatments (Bock et al. 1993), by burning every 

3–5 years to ensure prey availability remains high (Leman and Clausen 1984, Kaufman et al. 1990), or 

by maintaining idle fields (Sedivec 1994). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

64
3.5 Potential District Contributions to the Habitat 

Needs of Resources of Concern

The primary role of the District is to contribute to the production of waterfowl and other migratory 

birds in the PPR. It supports the habitat needs for waterfowl and other ROC by maintaining a perpetual 

limited interest on 187,548 acres of combined wetland and grassland conservation easements 

(Unpublished data current to February 27, 2014, USFWS North Dakota Wetland Acquisition Office, 

Bismarck) and on 45,402 acres of habitat on fee-title WPAs. Conservation easements are purchased 

from willing landowners to permanently protect wetlands or grasslands and the landowner typically 

manages the land in same way as it was before the easement was purchased. Wetland easements 

generally prohibit draining, burning, filling or leveling, and grassland easements generally prohibit the 

cultivation of grassland habitat, while still permitting the landowner traditional grazing uses. 

Waterfowl and other migratory birds in the District are supported by wetland and grassland habitat 

occurring on private land, conservation easements, and fee-title WPAs. These lands produced an 

average of 406,954 duck recruits (SD = 267,685) for the 5 primary dabblers on an annual basis from 

1987 – 2012 (Figure 3-17) (Unpublished data, USFWS HAPET, Bismarck, North Dakota). The 

District also contributes to the carrying capacity for the 5 primary dabblers in the PPR by supporting 

an average of 293,310 breeding pairs (SD = 171,143) from 1987 – 2012. Additionally, an average of 

53,034 breeding pairs (SD = 29,758) for 8 other waterfowl species (American wigeon [Anas 

americana], green-winged teal [A. crecca], wood duck [Aix sponsa], redhead [Aythya valisineria], 

canvasback [A. americana], lesser scaup [A. affinis], ring-necked duck [A. collaris], ruddy duck 

[Oxyura jamaicensis]) were supported during the same time period. 

Figure 3-17. Average duck production for Kulm Wetland Management District from 1987 to 

2012 for 5 primary dabbler species (mallard, gadwall, blue-winged teal, northern shoveler, 

and northern pintail. 

Derived from four-square mile survey data (Unpublished, USFWS HAPET, Bismarck, North Dakota). Red: fee title only, blue: limitedinterest wetland and grassland easements, green: private lands without easements, and purple: combined fee title, easement, private lands.

1,200,000

1,000,000

stiru

800,000

cre kc

600,000

u df o

400,000

#

200,000

0

87899193959799010305070911

19191919191919202020202020

Year

All Lands

Private

Easement

Federal

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

65
The District primarily contributes to maintaining the populations of other ROC in the PPR through 

protection of existing easements and acquisition of new easements on priority wetlands and 

grasslands. For example, wetland and grassland habitat at Kulm WMD supports other populations of 

ROC including 5.6% of bobolink, 5.9% of clay-colored sparrow, 4.1% of grasshopper sparrow 

populations that occur in the USFWS Dakotas Zone (all WMDs in North Dakota, South Dakota, and 

in northeast Montana) and 11.9% of marbled godwit, 7.9% of northern harrier, 7.6% of black tern 

populations occurring in North Dakota wetland management districts (Unpublished data, USFWS 

HAPET, Bismarck, North Dakota). However, a large proportion of wetland (>50%) and grassland 

(>90%) habitat on private lands is unprotected in the District (Unpublished data current to October 

2012, USFWS Kulm WMD, Kulm, North Dakota). Future conservation of these unprotected habitats 

is critical to the ability of the District to meet the population objectives for waterfowl and benefit other 

ROC populations in the PPR. Therefore, the District will continue to acquire wetland and grassland 

conservation easements from willing landowners to increase the District’s contribution to the habitat 

needs of waterfowl and other ROC. 

At local scales, management of grassland habitat on WPAs or enhancement of grasslands and 

restoration of wetlands on private lands under the USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

contributes to meeting the habitat requirements of ROC. The District actively manages grassland 

habitat on WPAs to provide vegetation structure preferred by waterfowl and other migratory birds for 

nesting. The restoration of highly degraded native sod grasslands and the reconstruction of old (>15 

year since seeding) dense nesting cover to diverse grasslands also is aimed at improving habitat 

condition for ROC and improving BIDEH. 

3.6 Reconciling Conflicting Habitat Needs for 

Resources of Concern

A primary purpose of this HMP is to develop effective conservation strategies that better enable 

the District to meet its establishing purpose of producing waterfowl and other migratory birds and 

contribute to the mission of the Service. Five waterfowl species and several other ROC were identified 

to guide conservation during the 9 years of this plan. The following conservation strategies (listed in 

priority order) are considered optimal for the District (based on the ability of a strategy to affect 

populations) to meet the habitat requirements for the selected ROC: 

1. acquisition and protection of wetland and grassland habitat using conservation 

easements;

2. delivering a targeted and efficient Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to enhance 

or restore habitat on private lands; 

3. management of uplands on fee-title WPAs to provide nesting cover for waterfowl and 

other migratory birds, and wetlands to provide waterfowl breeding pair and brood 

habitat. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

66
The District has identified five factors that limit the ability of the District to deliver “optimal” 

management strategies to meet the habitat needs for ROC during the next 9 years.

FUTURE ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

The District purchases wetland and grassland easements from willing landowners to secure 

these habitats in perpetuity and to contribute to the habitat protection goals aimed at sustaining 

waterfowl populations identified by the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (Ringelman et al. 2005). 

However, grassland habitats once viewed as having moderate-to-marginal potential for agriculture 

and small wetlands that have been avoided in the past are now being converted (via tiling or 

ditching) for crop production (Higgins et al. 2002, Rashford et al. 2011, Doherty et al. 2013, 

Wright and Wimberly 2013) due to the combined effect of larger equipment, new crop varieties, 

and high commodity prices that have enabled farming of these previously marginal lands 

(Fargione et al. 2009, Rashford et al. 2011). Although the Service cannot immediately reconcile 

these habitat losses, the Service could accelerate wetland and grassland acquisition to protect 

remaining breeding habitats before they are converted. However, the rate of future easement 

acquisition will likely depend on 1) obtaining sufficient funding levels, 2) maintaining landowner 

interest and acceptance of the easement program, and 3) the rate of land-use change influenced by 

public policy and demand for commodities. If habitat protection does not outpace habitat losses in 

the future, then habitat protection goals of the PPJV may need to be refined to reflect what can 

actually be achieved (Doherty et al. 2013).

Because current trends indicate that habitat losses will continue, managers have adopted an 

SHC design (described in chapter 4) to most effectively utilize the limited staff and resources of 

the District. The District will focus current and future easement acquisition activities in landscapes 

that support the current wetland and grassland acquisition strategies identified in the North Dakota 

CCP (USFWS 2008a) and the population objectives identified in this plan. 

GRAZING PRACTICES ON PRIVATE LANDS

Grassland habitat throughout the District is being lost due to expanded corn and soybean 

production in the region (Higgins et al. 2002, Fargione et al. 2009). Consequently, a high 

proportion of remaining grasslands available in private ownerships is intensely grazed because 

cattle must be produced on far fewer grassland acres. The resulting low vegetation structure from 

overgrazing negatively affects use by waterfowl and other migratory birds because most prefer 

moderate-to-tall vegetation structure for nesting (Gilbert et al. 1996, Fondell and Ball 2004, Salo 

et al. 2004, Bloom et al. 2013). Further, local-scale decisions become landscape-level effects when 

intense grazing is conducted by the majority of private landowners in the District. 

During the next 9 years, the Service will work cooperatively with willing landowners under 

the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to design grazing strategies that are proven to increase 

livestock performance and financial returns while improving rangeland condition and vegetation 

structure (Holecheck et al. 1999). These benefits will increase habitat suitability on private lands 

for waterfowl and other ROC throughout the District. Thus, the District could contribute to 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

67
landscape-level benefits to ROC on private lands by working with multiple landowners each year 

to implement rotational grazing systems.

RESTORATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF GRASSLANDS ON WPAS

Managers aim to provide heterogeneous nesting cover on fee-title WPAs in the District. 

However, a large proportion of these grasslands are highly degraded by exotic cool-season 

grasses. Because these invasive grasses tend to create monotypic stands of vegetation that can 

dominate entire fields, restoration of native sod grasslands and reconstruction of old (>15 year) 

stands of dense nesting cover to high diversity grasslands significantly improves nesting cover and 

ecological value to wildlife (Werling et al. 2014). Therefore, a priority of the District is to restore 

degraded native sod grasslands using precisely timed defoliation treatments to reduce the presence 

of exotic grasses and increase composition of native grasses and forbs, as well as reconstruct 

former croplands to diverse stands of native vegetation. The District has committed to this process 

during the next 9 years with the realization that some short-term losses in nesting cover will occur, 

but habitat condition and value to migratory birds is expected to increase over the long term. 

Similarly, reconstruction of fields containing dense nesting cover to diverse stands of native 

vegetation also requires a short-term loss (3–5 years) of nesting cover while the seedbed is being 

prepared using cooperative farming agreements. Therefore, the long-term ecological benefits of 

using species-rich native seed mixtures (Larson 2011, Werling et al. 2014) on WPAs include 

reducing future invasion by weeds (Carpinelli 2001, Pokorny et al. 2005, Blumenthal et al. 2003, 

Sheley and Half 2006), increasing grassland sustainability (Berger 1993, Cramer 1991, Jacobs and 

Sheley 1999), supporting animal food webs (Rowe and Holland 2013), and attracting a wide range 

of migratory birds (e.g., ROC) and other prairie-obligate species (pollinators) (Black et al. 2007). 

The District has identified landscapes having the highest biological potential (described in 

Chapter 4) to meet the habitat requirements of ROC and maximize the limited availability of staff 

time and resources. The District will focus its restoration and reconstruction efforts in landscapes 

where biological return is expected to be the highest. The District will re-evaluate restoration and 

reconstruction efforts over the next 9 years to determine if these efforts are yielding desired effects 

and to ensure that they coincide with future priorities. 

PRESCRIBED FIRE MANAGEMENT ON WPAS

Mixed-grass prairies are disturbance dependent meaning they require frequent defoliation to 

set back or rejuvenate community succession and maintain species diversity (Collins and Barber 

1985). At Kulm WMD, native sod and reconstructed prairie is managed using various forms of 

disturbance (primarily grazing) to maintain grassland vigor and community state, reduce invasive 

species, and limit encroachment by woody vegetation to provide suitable habitat for nesting ROC. 

However, the District has difficulty obtaining the appropriate level of prescribed fire (i.e., ≥1 burn 

every 5 years) to rejuvenate native sod and reconstructed prairies on individual WPAs. Limited 

staff, a large geographic distribution of WPAs, and a narrow treatment window (i.e., burn timing) 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

68
to conduct management treatments are factors that limit the availability of prescribed fire as a 

management tool on individual WPAs. 

The District is located within the USFWS Great Plains Fire District (GPFD) along with six 

other Districts in the Dakotas. Primary fire staff from the GPFD along with collateral duty fire 

staff coordinates each prescribed fire across the GPFD. However, conducting multiple burns in 

each WMD, across all seven WMDs, is challenging due the time required to mobilize fire crews 

and conduct prescribed fires within the narrow treatment window during the spring. Although the 

District has the capacity to manage grasslands using prescribed grazing on WPAs, the lack of 

prescribed fire at sufficient levels to manage native vegetation will challenge the ability of the 

District to successfully restore and reconstruct prairies during the next several years. The District 

may need to modify restoration and reconstruction efforts during the next 9 years if the availability 

of fire as a management tool does not improve and/or if grazing treatments alone do not improve 

or stabilize already declining prairies.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND HABITAT CONSERVATION

The District recognizes and supports the importance of the identifying potential impacts of global 

climate change on the habitats of the ROC. However, the effects of global climate change are likely to 

occur gradually rather than over a brief, catastrophic period. The more immediate threat to the 

sustainability of waterfowl and other migratory bird populations is direct habitat loss from the 

conversion of grasslands and drainage of wetlands across the PPR (Niemuth et al. 2014). Although 

some have hypothesized that climate change could shift availability of wetland habitat in the PPR 

(Johnson et al. 2010), current acquisition strategies for waterfowl conservation that target conservation 

in the central and western PPR provide the best benefit-to-cost ratio for waterfowl production (Loesch 

et al. 2012). Protection of intact habitats also has been suggested as a viable strategy to allow wildlife 

populations to adapt to climate change in the future (Hannah and Hansen 2005). Therefore, the most 

effective strategy to maintain waterfowl populations and prepare for climate change is to continue 

acquiring and protecting wetland and grassland easements throughout the District and the PPR. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

69
Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

70
CHAPTER 4 

Goals and Objectives

An HMP is considered a step down plan from a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) as it 

steps down from goals and objectives that were developed for multiple wetland management districts

(WMDs) during the completion of the North Dakota WMD CCP (USFWS 2008a). The goals represent 

broad statements of the desired future conditions of the Kulm Wetland Management District (District) 

The objectives are concise ideas that specify what needs to be achieved, how much needs to be 

achieved, when and where it needs to be achieved, and who is responsible for the work. In many cases, 

the habitat goals and objectives from a CCP do not provide the level of specificity necessary to 

develop an HMP or effectively manage habitat on District lands. Therefore, the District has developed 

additional goals, sub-goals, and objectives in this HMP that reflects a refined conservation vision for 

the District that coincides with the establishing purposes of providing habitat for the production of 

waterfowl and other migratory birds. Strategies, which are specific actions, tools, or techniques 

required to achieve objectives, will be discussed in Chapter 5. 

Throughout Chapter 4, goals, sub-goals, and objectives with associated rationales are presented. 

These represent the biological foundation for conservation and management during the next 9 years at 

Kulm WMD. Specific strategies for each objective are described in Chapter 5. The District has 

selected a strategic habitat conservation (SHC) approach aimed at optimally conserving waterfowl and 

other migratory bird populations. This approach explicitly links each goal, sub-goal, and objective at 

multiple scales (landscape to local) to contribute to the habitat requirements of priority resources of 

concern (Table 3-1) and the establishing purposes of the District. Staff selected this SHC approach 

because WMDs are uniquely positioned to implement landscape conservation for migratory bird 

populations using conservation easements to secure habitat on private lands, enhance and restore 

private lands under the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, and manage of fee-title waterfowl 

production areas. 

4.1 Focusing Conservation Using Strategic Habitat

Conservation

The Service has selected a conservation approach founded on SHC that requires efforts to be 

focused at the landscape level, along with resource allocation, in areas that provide the greatest 

conservation benefit to priority trust species (USFWS 2006b). However, strategically targeting 

conservation requires an understanding of how landscape structure affects demographic rates for 

priority species that yield desired outcomes (Wiens et al. 1993). Furthermore, the need for efficient 

conservation delivery at the landscape level has never been greater because of accelerated wetland 

drainage and conversion of grasslands for agricultural purposes throughout the Prairie Pothole Region 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

71
(Stephens et al. 2008, Fargione et al. 2009, Oslund et al. 2010, Doherty et al. 2013, Johnston 2013, 

Wright and Wimberley 2013, Johnston 2014). 

Implementation of SHC requires that conservation design and delivery be explicitly tied to 

population objectives (i.e., desired population size, occupancy, demographic rate, density) in 

landscapes where the desired biological outcomes are predicted to occur (Johnson et al. 2009). 

Therefore, staff at Kulm WMD has selected the following population objectives to guide conservation 

delivery using SHC during the next 9 years: 

1. Target wetland conservation in landscapes that support ≥25 breeding duck pairs/mi2 to 

maximize carrying capacity levels for breeding waterfowl (Anas spp.) and contribute to stable 

populations within the Prairie Pothole Region. 

2. Target grassland conservation in landscapes that support ≥60 breeding duck pairs/mi2

 (Anas

spp.) and nest success levels above population maintenance levels (≥15-20% nest success) 

(Cowardin et al. 1985) to maximize waterfowl production and contribute to stable populations 

within the Prairie Pothole Region.

3. Increase habitat conservation in landscapes that support high brood occupancy rates (Walker 

et al. 2013a) characterized by high densities of small- to mid-size wetland basins and a high 

proportion of grassland within a 10.4 km2 area to maintain waterfowl recruitment potential 

within the Prairie Pothole Region.

4. Target habitat conservation in landscapes that support densities above mean population levels 

for priority wetland- and grassland-dependent migratory bird species identified in this HMP.

This HMP represents the biological planning and conservation design phases of SHC that 

identified the potential of the landscape to contribute to the carrying capacity and production of 

waterfowl, while benefitting other migratory bird populations. Staff used a science-based approach 

including USFWS predictive species models to link conservation of priority trust species (ROC) at the 

scale of the District to the overall conservation of migratory bird populations within the PPR. The 

conservation design was intentionally waterfowl focused but also considers benefits to other migratory 

birds by targeting landscapes where densities of ROC are the highest. The desired outcome of this 

SHC conservation design is contribute to the waterfowl population objectives while benefiting other 

migratory bird species through focused conservation and resource management delivery. 

Staff selected a set of landscape variables (Table 4-1) under the SHC conservation design that 

represent the potential of different landscapes to contribute to waterfowl population objectives. 

Breeding duck pairs was selected as a variable in the model to identify important landscapes with 

sufficient wetland densities to support waterfowl populations. Percent grassland was selected because 

of the positive relationship to waterfowl nest success (Greenwood et al. 1995, Reynolds et al. 2001, 

Horn et al. 2005, Stephens et al. 2005, Howerter et al. 2014), brood occupancy (Walker et al. 2013a), 

and to the landscape-scale selection requirements of all 11 ROC. Ultimately, landscapes identified for 

conservation within the District can be classified using a landscape-scale model to guide conservation 

delivery using specific conservation treatments that maximize contributions to waterfowl and other 

ROC populations under the SHC conservation design (Figure 4-1).

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

72
Table 4-1. Landscape variables used in the strategic habitat conservation model of the 

potential of the landscape to support waterfowl and other migratory bird populations in 

Kulm Wetland Management District. 

Landscape Variable Description

Breeding Duck Pairs

Average number of pairs/mi2 from 1987-2011. Waterfowl pair density generated 

using geographic information system (GIS) modeling techniques utilizing 

USFWS National Wetland Inventory digital data, the USFWS Region 6 Four 

Square Mile Breeding Waterfowl Survey results, and regression equations 

predicting duck pair/wetland relationships developed by the USFWS Habitat and 

Population Evaluation Team and U.S. Geological Survey Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center.

Percent Grassland

Percent grassland within a 10.4 km2 area. Percent grassland was generated using 

the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) cropland data layer (CDL) 

derived from 2012 satellite imagery. We created a 2012 grass-dominated layer 

by combining all grassland dominated classes in the NASS CDL including 

native grassland, grass/pasture, grass/hay, and pasture/hay. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

73
Figure 4-1. Strategic habitat conservation design for migratory bird conservation at Kulm 

Wetland Management District. 

Map data reflect the mean density of breeding waterfowl pairs from 1987-2011 and percent grassland in 10.4 km2 within the North Dakota, 

South Dakota, and northeast Montana portions of the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. Percent grassland was generated using 2012 National 

Agricultural Statistics Service cropland data layer.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

74
The landscape classification model produces different types of landscapes with varying potential 

to support waterfowl and other migratory bird populations. Landscape classes were assigned based on 

a range of waterfowl pair density and similarity in grassland categories for classes 1A to 3B (>40% 

grassland) or 4A to 4C (<40% grassland) within a 10.4 km2 area. The classes do not represent 

priority order from 1A to 5, rather each class may have a different set or combination of 

conservation treatments (acquisition, enhancement, management) that can be used by managers 

to achieve the waterfowl population objectives of the SHC approach while benefitting other 

priority ROC. For example, acquisition of wetlands in 1A, 1B, and 4A landscapes (Figure 4-1) would 

provide the highest biological return to support the carrying capacity of waterfowl and pulses in 

productivity that occur during wet periods in the PPR (Walker et al. 2013b). 

This SHC approach will allow staff to work more efficiently given limited availability of 

resources while improving the transparency and accountability of our actions. The District intends to 

track the outcomes of our conservation actions on priority ROC through assumption-based research 

and outcome-based monitoring that will inform adaptive management and determine the level of 

progress (contribution to migratory bird populations within U.S. PPR) that the District is achieving.

This iterative process requires flexibility in conservation delivery that can be modified as new 

scientific information is obtained. Because the landscape is continually changing, it will be critical that 

District staff update the SHC conservation design at ≤5-year intervals to account for changes in the 

availability and juxtaposition of wetland and grassland habitat. 

Ultimately, if biological outcomes are the currency that managers desire as a return on their 

conservation investment, then directing specific conservation treatments to different landscape types 

provides an efficient means for conservation delivery under an SHC conservation design. 

INTEGRATED DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION USING STRATEGIC HABITAT 

CONSERVATION

This SHC conservation design provides a transparent plan for USFWS wetland district 

management that will improve the efficiency of conservation delivery based on the potential of 

different landscapes to contribute to the production of waterfowl and other migratory birds. This 

integrated SHC-based framework utilizes three tiers of conservation delivery (Figure 4-2) during the 

next 9-years:

1. Conservation Easements—“Acquire and Protect What We Can” 

Easements form the base for population-level sustainability of waterfowl and other migratory 

bird populations in the PPR. Acquire and protect all wetland and grassland habitats in priority 

areas first.

2. Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program— “Enhance What We Can” 

Maximize the extent of suitable wetland and grassland habitat on private lands in landscapes 

highly attractive to waterfowl first.

3. Fee-title Lands— “Manage What We Have” 

Ensure that fee title lands located in landscapes with high potential to contribute to the 

production of waterfowl and other ROC are optimally managed.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

75
Figure 4-2. Three-tier conservation delivery approach for Kulm Wetland Management 

District aimed at sustaining waterfowl and other migratory bird populations in the Prairie 

Pothole Region.

Conservation easements (Protect) represent the base for sustaining populations, private lands (Enhance) represent the opportunity to 

enhance and/or restore function to landscapes important to waterfowl and other migratory birds, and fee title lands (Manage) represent 

areas to maximize production of waterfowl and other migratory birds in functional landscapes.

Manage 

Enhance 

Protect

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE SHC CONSERVATION 

DESIGN

The following set of assumptions and limitations were incorporated into the development of the 

landscape classification model. Utilization of the model as a decision support tool also would be 

affected by the degree that each limitation impacts conservation delivery.

ASSUMPTIONS

• The distribution of breeding duck pairs in the PPR is positively correlated to the density and 

composition of wetlands available on the landscape (Stewart and Kantrud 1973, Krapu et al. 

1983, Johnson and Grier 1988, Loesch et al. 2012).

• Landscapes with high density wetlands are critical to waterfowl productivity in the PPR 

(Higgins 1977, Krapu et al. 1983, Cowardin et al. 1985, Krapu et al. 2006, Walker et al. 

2013b); spring wetland conditions are positively correlated with clutch size, nesting effort, and 

duckling survival (Krapu et al. 1983, Cowardin et al. 1985, Rotella and Ratti 1992, 

Greenwood et al. 1995).

• Protection of a diversity of wetland types across a wide geographic extent is critical to support 

base waterfowl carrying capacity levels (Doherty et al., In Press) and pulses in waterfowl 

populations (Walker et al. 2013b).

• ≥15–20% nest success is required to maintain stable mallard, northern pintail, blue-winged 

teal, gadwall, and northern shoveler populations (Cowardin et al. 1985, Klett et al. 1988).

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

76
• The proportion of perennial grassland cover on the landscape positively influences waterfowl 

nest success (Greenwood et al. 1995, Reynolds et al. 2001, Horn et al. 2005, Stephens et al. 

2005, Howerter et al. 2014) and brood occupancy (Walker et al. 2013a) in the PPR; <40, ≥40, 

and ≥60% grassland thresholds (per 10.4 km2

) are hypothesized thresholds to resources of 

concern that occur in these landscapes. Landscapes with ≥60% grassland were considered 

intact. 

• The proportion of cropland on the landscape negatively influences waterfowl nest success 

(Drever et al. 2007, Devries and Armstrong 2011, Bloom et al. 2013) and the density of 

multiple migratory bird species across several guilds in the PPR (Figures 4-9, 4-12 to 4-14).

• Landscapes with <40% cropland (≈60% grassland) were considered important conservation 

areas because they supported density levels above mean population levels for 14 of 18 

migratory bird species evaluated. 

• Density of migratory birds is a reliable indicator of habitat quality when combined with a 

demographic rate (Van Horne 1983), such as using nesting success as a measure of population 

response (Niemuth et al. 2005) for waterfowl.

• Landscapes containing large expanses of grasslands and abundant wetlands are highly 

productive areas for waterfowl (Greenwood et al. 1995, Sovada et al. 2000, Phillips et al. 

2003) and other migratory birds (Bakker et al. 2002, Niemuth et al. 2006) in the PPR.

• Conservation delivery implemented under this framework will increase the contribution of 

Kulm WMD to migratory bird populations in the PPR. However, the highest potential 

contributions to the population objectives identified in this plan will largely be derived from 

wetland and grassland easements and work on private lands under the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program. Management of fee-title WPAs also will be important to meet the 

designated purpose of waterfowl production on these lands.

LIMITATIONS

• Breeding duck pair estimates assigned to the landscape represent the 25–year average derived 

from 4-square mile survey estimates from 1987–2011. Because of the inherent variation in 

wetlands in the PPR (Niemuth et al. 2010, Loesch et al. 2012), actual patterns of waterfowl 

use may vary between dry and wet periods.

• Breeding duck pair estimates used in the model do not account for wetland losses that are 

rapidly occurring throughout the District. 

• The model does not account for future losses in native sod grasslands in the District. Future 

iterations of the model will be developed at ≤5 year intervals to account for grassland loss. 

• Interannual environmental conditions influence the annual distributions of many migratory 

birds such as grassland songbirds (Fontaine et al. 2009, Swanson and Palmer 2009). Thus, 

actual densities of migratory birds vary annually in space and time.

• Implementation of SHC at Kulm WMD alone will not stabilize entire migratory bird 

populations that are dependent upon sufficient breeding habitat being available across the 

PPR.

• The actual degree in intactness (i.e., connectedness and juxtaposition) within <40, ≥40, and 

≥60% grassland landscapes is variable, which likely influences the breeding success of many 

wetland- or grassland-dependent migratory birds. 

• Current staffing levels at Kulm WMD will challenge full implementation of the framework.

• Additional assumption-based research and outcome-based monitoring will be required to test 

hypotheses included in the SHC conservation design. Obtaining sufficient internal and 

external funding in conjunction with large-scale research grants will be critical to testing the 

assumptions of the framework. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

77
4.2 Landscape-scale Changes in Wetlands and 

Grasslands

The following rationale provides important context for how staff incorporated the role of recent 

land use patterns and importance of wetland and grassland habitats on the landscape into the overall 

SHC conservation strategy designed to benefit waterfowl and other migratory bird populations. 

Small, shallow wetlands with varying hydroperiods along with diverse stands of tall-grass, mixedgrass, and short-grass prairies once dominated the landscape in the PPR. Because migratory bird 

populations in the PPR depend on wetlands and grasslands for breeding purposes, partners within the 

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture have identified a conservation goal of 0.57 million ha of wetlands and 

4.2 million ha of grasslands to maintain waterfowl populations in the future (Ringelman et al. 2005). 

However, extensive conversion of wetlands (Oslund et al. 2010, Dahl 2014) and grasslands has 

occurred in this region for agricultural purposes (Fargione et al. 2009, Wright and Wimberly 2013, 

Johnston 2014). As of 2010, 54.2% and 45.6% of grasslands in North Dakota and South Dakota had 

been lost (Doherty et al. 2013). In conjunction with grassland losses, Dahl (2014) estimated that 

between 1997 and 2009, 4% of all wetland/water basins (107,177 basins) and 1.1% of the total 

wetland area (74,340 acres) lost in the U.S. PPR. However, these wetland habitat loss rates may be 

conservative because detect drainage efforts (e.g., contour draining, tile drainage) is difficult (Doherty 

et al. 2013). 

Although PPJV partners have made substantial gains in conservation by protecting 18.4% of 

grasslands and 34.4% of wetlands as of 2010 (Doherty et al. 2013), a significant amount of 

unprotected resources is at risk of being lost and current migratory bird population levels may not be 

sustainable unless substantial gains in habitat acquisition are achieved. Recent increases in pasture and 

cropland values (Figure 4-3) coincide with high demand for energy sources (Figure 4-4) and have 

contributed to extensive losses in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands (approximately 23.8% 

of all grass cover in PPJV, (Figure 4-5) (Doherty et al. 2013) that provide nesting cover for waterfowl 

and other migratory birds. Thus, economic pressures to convert remaining unprotected lands due to the 

attractiveness of high commodity prices and changes in U.S. agricultural and energy policies will 

continue to challenge the ability of the USFWS and PPJV partners to secure habitat in perpetuity from 

willing landowners (Doherty et al. 2013). 

Targeting conservation delivery as quickly and efficiently as possible in landscapes with abundant 

wetlands and wetland/grassland complexes is necessary to support stable populations of waterfowl and 

other migratory birds. Continued high levels of funding such as the 70% of Migratory Bird 

Conservation Funds that were allocated to the U.S. PPR in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 are instrumental 

in efforts to secure remaining habitat before grasslands are converted and wetlands are drained. 

However, conservation goals established by the PPJV will not be reached in the future without 

continued landowner interest in the easement program and high levels of funding because of the 

limited amount of time remaining to secure habitat given current conversion rates (Doherty et al. 

2013). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

78
Figure 4-3. Values of cropland and pasture based on National Agricultural Statistics Service 

data from 2001 through 2010 in the Prairie Pothole Region. 

(Doherty et al. 2013)

Figure 4-4. Cumulative increased demand for energy resources from 2000 through 2010 in 

the Prairie Pothole Region.

(Doherty et al. 2013).

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

79
Figure 4-5. Percent of September 2010 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) area expiring 

during 2011 – 2017 by state areas within the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region.

(Adapted from Doherty et al. 2013).

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

Iowa Minnesota Montana

North Dakota

gniripxEea rA P

South Dakota

RC tcenerP

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Yearly % Expiration Cumulative % Expiration

Year

4.3 Overview: Importance of Wetlands to Waterfowl 

Populations

The District considered an extensive set of scientific literature demonstrating the importance of 

wetlands to define a number of descriptive landscape classes for conservation and prioritization 

discussions. An overview of the importance of wetlands to waterfowl is provided below. 

DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE

Abundance and availability of wetlands in the PPR greatly influences the size, distribution, and/or 

productivity of waterfowl populations and other migratory birds (Stewart and Kantrud 1973, Krapu et 

al. 1983, Kantrud and Stewart 1984, Kantrud et al. 1989, Niemuth and Solberg 2003, Niemuth et al. 

2006, Loesch et al. 2012, Walker et al. 2013b, Doherty et al., In Press). The distribution of waterfowl 

generally coincides with the density of wetlands on the landscape (Stewart and Kantrud 1973, Krapu 

et al. 1983, Johnson and Grier 1988, Loesch et al. 2012); temporary and seasonal basins attract 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

80
approximately 70% of breeding pairs when they are wet (Loesch et al. 2012). The importance of these 

wetland basins to breeding waterfowl is apparent during years when percent wet area of ponds is high 

creating optimum environmental conditions for breeding ducks (Stewart and Kantrud 1973) (Figure 4-

6). Temporary and seasonal wetlands are preferred habitat by wetland-dependent wildlife (Kantrud 

and Stewart 1984, Niemuth et al. 2006, Loesch et al. 2012) because they warm early in the spring and 

produce critical food resources (i.e. aquatic invertebrates and carbohydrate-rich plant seeds; see 

Swanson et al. 1974, Euliss et al. 1999, Krapu et al. 2004a) that nesting female waterfowl rely on to 

optimize body condition (Pietz et al. 2000) and ducklings rely on to enhance their growth and survival 

(Cox et al. 1998) prior to fledging (Swanson and Duebbert 1989). Consequently, the Service annually 

monitors waterfowl populations and wetland conditions throughout the PPR and have identified areas 

important to breeding waterfowl populations (Figure 3-3) using results from the 4-square mile survey 

initiated in 1987.

Figure 4-6. Relationship between May pond abundance and number of breeding waterfowl 

(5 primary dabbler species).

Derived from USFWS four square mile breeding duck pair survey results from 1987-2011 for the North Dakota, South Dakota, and northeast 

Montana portions of the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

81
REPRODUCTIVE EFFORT

Researchers have documented that nest survival of upland-nesting waterfowl is positively 

correlated with wetland conditions during May (Drever et al. 2007, Walker et al. 2013b). Other studies 

have documented a negative relationship between nest survival and the number of wetland basins 

(Phillips et al. 2003, Drever et al. 2004, Stephens et al. 2005). However, the disparity between these 

studies may be related to a spatial and temporal response in both current and recent primary 

productivity in conjunction with wetland conditions that was evaluated by Walker et al. (2013). Future 

long-term studies are needed to quantify the effect of complex ecological relationships (i.e., predator 

community dynamics [Sargeant et al. 1993] and wetland conditions [Krapu et al. 1983]) that coincide 

with pulses in wetland abundance and/or changes in landscape composition on waterfowl populations. 

Nesting effort for the five primary upland nesting ducks in the PPR also has been found to be 

positively correlated to the abundance of ponds during the breeding season (Krapu et al. 1983, 

Cowardin et al. 1985, Greenwood et al. 1995, Bloom et al. 2013). For example, renesting propensity 

of mallards (Krapu et al. 1983, Cowardin et al. 1985) and pintails (Richkus 2002) is related to pond 

abundance. Because the energetic cost of incubation is high (Afton and Paulus 1992), exogenous 

resources (e.g., aquatic invertebrates) (Krapu and Reinecke 1992) consumed after failure of the initial 

nest are critical for clutch formation (Krapu 1974, Krapu 1981, Esler and Grand 1994). Females may 

terminate nesting after failure of an unsuccessful nest in years when pond abundance is low to enhance 

their future reproductive potential (Richkus 2002). Although nest success can be high in dry years 

(Krapu et al. 1983), recruitment may remain low because brood survival (Krapu et al. 2000) and 

renesting potential is low during these years (Krapu et al. 1983, Cowardin et al. 1985). 

REPRODUCTIVE OUTPUT

During wet years, such as 1993, that follow a dry period (1988-1992), foraging conditions for 

nesting dabbling ducks are optimal and blue-winged teal, gadwall, and mallard nest late into the 

summer (Krapu et al. 2001). Exceptionally productive years coincide with high-quality foraging 

conditions (Krapu et al. 2004b) that can result in larger clutch sizes (Pietz et al. 2000) and smaller 

overall declines in clutch sizes during the nesting season (Krapu et al. 2004b) in response to favorable 

environmental conditions. For example, gadwalls acquire lipid reserves required for egg development 

after arriving on the breeding grounds (Unpublished data, G. Krapu, Jamestown, North Dakota). 

Reproductive output of gadwall increases with percent basin wet area and pond density by producing a 

larger clutches (additional 1–2 eggs per clutch) during years when water conditions are favorable 

(Pietz et al. 2000). Likewise, gadwall, pintail, and blue-winged teal can maintain larger clutch sizes in 

wet years (Krapu et al. 2004c). Although these types of reproductive responses are complex, improved 

lipid reserves acquired on the breeding grounds in gadwall (Pietz et al. 2000), blue-winged teal, 

northern shoveler, and pintails (effect in pintails occurs after failure of initial nest [Krapu et al. 

2004b]) increases their productivity during years when wetlands are abundant in response to increases 

in local food availability (i.e., plant seeds or production of aquatic invertebrates coincides with 

wetland reflooding following periods of drawdown [Chura 1961, Euliss et al. 1999]). Protein acquired 

from aquatic invertebrates, a major component of female dabbling ducks diet during egg production 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

82
(Krapu and Reinecke 1992), is important to maintain energetic and nutrient reserves that are especially 

important during renesting (Krapu 1981). 

WATERFOWL BROODS

Availability of abundant wetlands is important to brood survival of mallards (Rotella and Ratti 

1992, Krapu et al. 2000, Amundson and Arnold 2011). Brood occupancy also is closely associated 

with increasing wet area and perennial grass cover on the landscape (10.4 km2 area; Walker et al. 

2013a). Large seasonal and semi-permanent wetlands are important to broods (Rotella and Ratti 1992, 

Krapu et al. 2006, Walker et al. 2013a), as ≥90% of mallard broods can occur on these basins (Krapu 

et al. 2004a). Recent findings by Walker et al. (2013) also indicate that many clustered small- to midsized wetlands have higher occupancy rates than larger wetlands. Consequently, focusing conservation 

(i.e., grassland and wetland protection) in areas with high perennial grassland and complexes of smallto mid-sized wetlands may be important to breeding waterfowl (Walker et al. 2013a). Because of the 

spatial variation in wetlands across time (Niemuth et al. 2010), protecting a diversity of wetland types 

also is important to waterfowl broods because they increase their use of seasonal wetlands and 

decrease their use of semi-permanent wetlands during wet years (Krapu et al. 2006). This pattern of 

seasonal wetland use by broods during wet years also reduces the likelihood of predation by mink 

because they prefer permanent to semi-permanent wetlands (Krapu et al. 2004b). Therefore, protecting 

seasonal habitat appears to be particularly important to mallard production because duckling survival 

is higher when >40% of seasonal basins contain water (Krapu et al. 2006). 

4.4 Overview: Importance of Grasslands to Waterfowl 

and Other Migratory Bird Populations

Grasslands conservation is essential to maintain the productivity of migratory birds (Herkert et al. 

2003, Stephens et al. 2003, Reynolds et al. 2001, Bloom et al. 2013) and other ecological services 

(Werling et al. 2014) that grasslands provide. The Service has allocated significant resources to protect 

more than 10,000 km2 of grasslands and wetlands (primarily through perpetual conservation 

easements; Loesch et al. 2012) to support the production of >50% of waterfowl (Batt et al. 1989) and 

grassland songbirds (Knopf 1996) in North America. However, recent conversion of grasslands 

(Stephens et al. 2008, Rashford et al. 2011, Doherty et al. 2013, Johnston 2013, Wright and Wimberly 

2013, Johnston 2014) for agricultural use (Fargione et al. 2009) has resulted in extensive losses of 

grasslands that migratory birds rely on for nesting. Therefore, conservation of remaining intact 

landscapes may be critical because they disproportionately contribute to sustaining biodiversity 

(Kiesecker et al. 2011), ensure that ecological processes persist at levels necessary to support 

migratory birds (Greenwood et al. 1995, Herkert et al. 2003, Stephens 2003), and provide the best 

opportunity for species to adapt to climate change (Hannah and Hansen 2005, Mawdsley et al. 2009). 

Grasslands also provide important ecosystem services including biodiversity, soil fertility, flood and 

drought mitigation, nutrient cycling, climate stabilization, pollination, and prevention of soil erosion 

(Gleason et al. 2008, Maczko and Hidinger 2008, Werling et al. 2014). These also yield important 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

83
social and economic benefits including livestock production, recreation, and bioenergy production. 

Below is an overview of the importance of grasslands to waterfowl and other migratory birds. 

SELECTION OF ≥60, ≥40, AND <40 PERCENTGRASSLANDS TO 

TARGET MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION

The District quantified the amount of grassland cover using a focal sum analysis (10.4 km2 scale) 

to identify 3 distinct grassland categories: ≥60, ≥40, and <40%, respectively (Figure 4-7). Selection of 

the 10.4 km2 scale to estimate grassland cover thresholds was based on its relevance to nest success 

(Reynolds et al. 2001) and brood occupancy (Walker et al. 2013a) for waterfowl. The hypothesized 

relationship of these grassland categories to migratory bird populations is discussed in detail below. 

Figure 4-7. Distribution of ≥60, ≥40, and <40 Percent grassland cover (10.4 km2 scale) 

within Kulm Wetland Management District and the USFWS Dakotas Zone.

Percent grassland was generated using National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) cropland-data layer for 2012 within the North 

Dakota, South Dakota, and northeast Montana portions of the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

84
Research indicates that waterfowl nest success in the PPR was positively influenced by the 

amount of perennial grassland cover (Greenwood et al. 1995, Reynolds et al. 2001, Horn et al. 2005, 

Stephens et al. 2005, Howerter et al. 2014) and abundance of wetland basins (Walker et al. 2013b), 

and negatively by the amount of cropland (Drever et al. 2007, Devries and Armstrong 2011, Bloom et 

al. 2013). Because nest success is believed to be an important factor affecting waterfowl populations 

(Cowardin et al. 1985, Greenwood et al. 1995, Hoekman et al. 2002, Howerter et al. 2014), targeting

specific conservation treatments (see Table 4-2) in areas with a minimum of 40% grassland cover 

(Reynolds et al. 2001) and high wetland densities (e.g., ≥60 duck pairs/mi2

) will be important to 

contribute to population objectives while benefitting ROC. Conservation of wetland/grassland 

complexes also is important because these landscapes have high biological potential to support 

waterfowl broods (Walker et al. 2013a) and their survival (Krapu et al. 2000) and are considered 

highly productive areas (Greenwood et al. 1995, Sovada et al. 2000, Phillips et al. 2003). 

Waterfowl nest success in landscapes with <40% grassland composition is highly variable and has 

been shown to be positively influenced by the annual abundance of wetlands (Walker et al. 2013b) and 

negatively by predator abundance (Sargeant et al. 1993) and the proportion of cropland (Drever et al. 

2007, Devries and Armstrong 2011, Bloom et al. 2013). Loss of grassland and wetland habitat to 

intensive agriculture forces ducks to nest in remaining fragmented and isolated upland patches of 

upland habitat where predation rates by red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and other mesopredators can be high 

(Sovada et al. 2000, Phillips et al. 2003). In the absence of suitable upland habitat, ducks will nest in 

residual cover in croplands, but nest success tends to be low (0.3 to 17 %; Higgins et al. 1977, 

Cowardin et al. 1985, Klett et al. 1988) due to direct losses to agricultural equipment or predation. For 

example, from 1966 to 1984, Klett et al. (1988) found that 51-57% of northern pintail nests were 

located in cropland in the PPR, but only 5% of nests were successful. Managers can offset the impacts 

to nest success by controlling predators within individual upland patches (Beuchamp et al. 1996, 

Pieron and Rohwer 2010), but these activities are costly, time intensive, and result in negligible 

increases in waterfowl recruitment (Amundson et al. 2012). Therefore, wetland protection in 

landscapes dominated by row crop agriculture may be the best conservation option to prevent wetlands 

from being filled or drained (Fargione et al. 2009, Rashford et al. 2011) and to support the carrying 

capacity for breeding waterfowl populations in the PPR (Reynolds et al. 2006). 

Influence of Predator Communities on Waterfowl Production—Predation is a primary factor 

limiting both hen and nest survival (Sargeant and Raveling 1992, Sovada et al. 2001, Horn et al. 2005, 

Walker et al. 2013b), but variation in predation rates are related to changes in predator community 

composition that occur with the amount of grassland on the landscape (Horn et al. 2005). Nesting 

migratory birds are impacted by changes in predator community composition that occurs at ≈50% 

grassland on the landscape (Horn et al. 2005). Intact grasslands tend to be dominated by coyotes 

(Canis latrans) compared to areas with abundant cropland and scattered small isolated blocks of 

grasslands that contain abundant mesopredators such as red fox, raccoon (Procyon lotor), and striped 

skunk (Mephitis mephitis) (Sargeant et al. 1987, Sovada et al. 1995, Horn et al. 2005). Meso-predator 

populations coincide with increasing fragmentation of grasslands (Cowardin et al. 1983, Phillips et al. 

2003) and negatively affect recruitment of breeding duck populations (Sargeant et al. 1984, Sargeant 

et al. 1993). Nest success of waterfowl is positively correlated with presence of coyotes (Sovada et al. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

85
1995, Sovada et al. 2000) because they displace red fox to the periphery of their home ranges 

(Sargeant et al. 1987) where coyote activity is lower (Sovada et al. 2000). 

Coyote home ranges also tend to be centered on large roadless blocks of grassland devoid of 

human activity (Sargeant et al. 1987) where duck nest success is typically high (Sovada et al. 2000, 

Reynolds et al. 2001) and predator foraging efficiency is diluted (Phillips et al. 2003). Conversely, 

duck nest success tends to be low in cropland-dominated landscapes because nesting females are 

exposed to high levels of predation (Sovada et al. 2000) resulting from saturation of red fox and 

abundant skunk in areas with many agricultural–wetland edges (Phillips et al. 2003). However, 

increased production can occur in low grassland landscapes when fox succumb to sarcoptic mange 

(Sacroptes scabiei) or skunk contract rabies (Charlton et al. 1991). For example, Pieron and Rohwer 

(2010) reported high duck nest success (36.6 to 71.8%) on study sites with ≤40% grassland which was 

attributed to a reduction in red fox from a sarcoptic mange outbreak and an influx in coyotes. For a 

more complete review of the influence of predators on waterfowl production, see Sovada et al. (2005).

Importance of Intact Grasslands to Grassland Songbirds.—The loss of vast expanses of 

grasslands in North America has resulted in population declines for many species of grasslanddependent songbirds (Murphy 2003, Peterjohn 2003, Brennan and Kuvlesky 2005, Askins et al. 2007). 

Remaining grasslands may function differently in terms of meeting grassland songbird life history 

requirements depending on the presence of suitable habitat on the landscape (configuration and quality 

of habitat) (Cunningham and Johnson 2006). Many species of grassland songbirds are considered to be 

area-sensitive because they depend on large expanses of intact grassland to persist (Johnson and Igl 

2001, Bakker et al. 2002) and respond negatively to small grassland patches (Johnson and Temple 

1986, Winter et al. 2006). Protection of large intact grasslands also is important because nest success 

of grassland birds is positively influenced by the amount of grass in the landscape (Herkert et al. 

2003). Thus, Stephens et al. (2003) suggested that prioritizing conservation in contiguous grasslands to 

maximize nest success of migratory birds.

Several studies have found that grassland songbirds respond to landscape features from 400 to 

1600 m or more (Bergin et al. 2000, Soderstrom and Part 2000, Ribic and Sample 2001, Bakker et al. 

2002, Johnson et al. 2010). Grassland songbird populations also are highly influenced by 

environmental variation (Igl and Johnson 1997) and interannual variation in nest success (George et al. 

1992, Davis 2003). Density of grassland songbird species also has been shown to be positively 

influenced by the size of grassland patches on the landscape (Johnson and Igl 2001, Winter et al. 

2006). Therefore, we investigated the effect that the amount of cropland (inverse of grassland) in the 

landscape had on the density of 10 common grassland songbird species using empirical spatial models 

developed in the PPR (Doherty et al., unpublished data). Five songbird species exhibited a positive 

attraction to landscapes with <50% cropland as their densities were 10 to >200% higher than mean 

population density levels (Figure 4-8). Although songbird density does not necessarily equate to high 

reproductive success (Vickery et al. 1992, Hughes et al. 1999), we hypothesize that protecting intact 

landscapes with ≥60% grassland remaining will likely afford area-sensitive grassland songbirds the 

highest probability to find suitable habitat for their life-history requirements. As expected, other 

wetland-dependent songbirds such as sedge wren and Le Conte’s sparrow and grassland generalist 

songbirds such as Savannah sparrow were not influenced by the amount of cropland (Figure 4-9).

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

86
Figure 4-8. Documented relationships between bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), claycolored sparrow (Spizella pallida), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), 

Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii), and chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus) 

populations and the proportion of cropland within a 1–mile radius within U.S. Prairie 

Pothole Region of USFWS Region 6.

Figure 4-9. Documented relationships between horned lark, LeConte’s sparrow 

(Ammodramus leconteii), Savanna sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), and sedge wren 

(Cistothorus platensis) populations and the proportion of cropland within a 1–mile radius 

within U.S. Prairie Pothole Region of USFWS Region 6. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

87
Figures 4-8 to 4-10 represent a Biological Currency Index in which a value of 1.0 represents the 

mean density across the entire region (dark grey dashed line). For example, a value of 1.25 and 0.75 

(light grey dashed lines) equate to a 25% increase and a 25% decrease in grassland bird densities 

respectively. Vertical dotted lines represent reference lines for the proportion of cropland. The 

Biological Currency Index was created by dividing predicted bird population densities by the mean 

grassland bird density for each species across the entire U.S. PPR in USFWS Region 6. Spatial models 

that were sampled to graphically show biological relationships were estimated using zero-inflated 

Poisson models on 3,154 call points collected during 2003–2006. Curves were generated using a 

Lowess smoothing function on 50,000 sample points in which we sampled both grassland bird 

population data and habitat characteristics in a Geographic Information System 

Importance of Intact Grassland to Other Migratory Birds.—We also assessed patterns of 

American bittern, black tern, marbled godwit, and northern harrier relative probability of occurrence in 

North Dakota to determine if patterns of cropland avoidance were consistent with those of waterfowl 

and passerine species. These species all respond negatively to the amount of cropland on the landscape 

as they are ~35 to 300% higher than the mean population levels as the amount of cropland decreased 

on the landscape (Figure 4-10). These results support research that has linked the amount of grassland 

in the landscape to the presence of American bittern (USFWS HAPET, Bismarck, North Dakota, 

unpublished data), black tern (Naugle 2004), marbled godwit (Niemuth et al. 2009), and northern 

harrier (Niemuth et al. 2005). Even wetland-dependent species such as black tern benefit from 

protection of landscapes with intact grasslands because wetlands in these landscapes typically have not 

been drained (Naugle 2004). Landscapes with <50% grassland remaining are also less likely to be 

occupied by nesting black terns in available wetlands (Naugle 2004). These nongame birds showed 

similar responses relative to mean population levels of waterfowl and grassland songbirds. In fact, we 

observed a consistent transition in migratory bird densities between 40 and 60% cropland, which 

supported the hypothesized grassland thresholds used in the SHC conservation design. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

88
Figure 4-10. Documented relationships between American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), 

black tern (Chlidonias niger), marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa), and northern harrier (Circus 

cyaneus) bird populations and the proportion of cropland within a 1–mile radius within 

U.S. Prairie Pothole Region of USFWS Region 6.

Thus, conservation of grasslands and wetlands in landscapes with ≥40% grassland cover (10.4 km2

area) and high concentrations of breeding waterfowl pairs (≥60 pairs mi2

) appear to be zones of high 

biological importance to waterfowl and other migratory bird species that depend on intact grasslands 

(i.e., >60% grassland in 10.4 km2

 area) to maintain their populations in the PPR. Additionally, 

protection of remaining wetlands in cropland-dominated landscapes (i.e., <40% grassland) and high 

breeding duck pairs will continue to be an effective strategy for the Service to support the carrying 

capacity of waterfowl (Doherty et al., In Press) and other wetland dependent migratory birds (Niemuth 

et al. 2006). Cropland dominated landscapes with high densities of wetlands also are critically 

important to protect as they support pulses in waterfowl populations that occur during wet years 

(Walker et al. 2013b). 

4.5 Goals and Objectives: Landscape-scale 

Conservation Delivery Goals and Objectives

The District has developed specific goals, sub-goals, and objectives that are linked to the SHC 

conservation design to improve the biological return of conservation actions. Each objective was 

developed to help staff target conservation treatments such as acquisition, enhancement, and 

management within different landscape classes (1A to 5) (Figure 4-1). The landscape classes do not 

represent priority order from 1A to 5, rather each class may have a different set of conservation 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

89
treatments (acquisition, enhancement, management) that can be used by managers to contribute 

to the waterfowl population objectives of the SHC conservation design while benefitting other 

priority ROC.

GOAL 1—LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION

Maximize the contribution of the District to the sustainability of waterfowl and other migratory 

bird populations in the PPR through implementation of strategic habitat conservation that targets 

conservation delivery within landscapes having the highest biological potential to maximize waterfowl 

carrying capacity, nest success, and brood occupancy, while sustaining contiguous portions of the 

mixed-grass prairie ecosystem for the benefit of the ROC and associated native wildlife and plant 

communities. 

OBJECTIVE 1.1 CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

Over the next 9 years, continue to secure protected status on 100% of wetlands offered by willing 

landowners in wetland priority zones as identified in the North Dakota WMD CCP (USFWS 2008a) in 

the District that support ≥25 breeding duck pairs per square mile (1A to 4C landscapes) to contribute 

to maximizing the current carrying capacity for waterfowl and other wetland-dependent migratory bird 

populations in the Prairie Pothole Region. 

Rationale:

Because extensive wetland losses have occurred in the PPR in recent years (Oslund et al. 2010, 

Unpublished data, Loesch et al., Bismarck, North Dakota, Doherty et al. 2013, Johnston 2013) due to 

increases in row crop agricultural production (Fargione et al. 2009), the highest-priority conservation 

treatment under the SHC conservation design is to conserve at-risk, high-density wetland communities 

that occur in cropland-dominated landscapes (e.g., 4A) because they support potential carrying 

capacity and pulses in waterfowl production that coincide with high spring pond density (Walker et al. 

2013b). Because breeding waterfowl are highly dependent on wetlands to successfully reproduce in 

the PPR (Stewart and Kantrud 1973, Krapu et al. 1983, Johnson and Grier 1988, Loesch et al. 2012, 

Walker et al. 2013b), protection of a diversity of wetland types across a wide geographic area is 

critical to support base waterfowl population levels (Doherty et al., In Press) and pulses in waterfowl 

production (Walker et al. 2013b). Wetland and grassland easements are the most cost-effective means 

to conserve important habitats at the landscape scale that support waterfowl populations the U.S. PPR. 

Although the USFWS and PPJV partners protect approximately 53,800 ha of wetland habitat on an 

annual basis in the PPR, only 34% of all wetlands had protected status as of 2010 (Doherty et al. 

2013). Current conservation goals identified by the PPJV (0.57 million ha of wetlands, 4.2 million ha 

of grassland (Ringelman et al. 2005) may not be attainable unless current wetland and grassland loss 

rates decrease through implementation of conservation-based public policy, funding levels remain 

high (e.g., fiscal year 2014) and increase concomitantly with land values, and landowner interest and 

acceptance of the easement program remains high (Doherty et al. 2013). From 2001–2010, wetland 

losses varied annually between 0.05–0.57% (Loesch et al., unpublished data, Oslund et al. 2010), 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

90
which may not appear to be significant, but the cumulative effects of annual, incremental wetland 

losses through time results in dramatic losses (Doherty et al. 2013). For example, a constant loss rate 

of 0.57% in the future would result in all wetlands either being protected or drained in the year 2111 

(letter B in Figure 4-11). Thus, if wetland loss rates accelerate beyond existing levels, even greater 

funding levels than those allocated to the PPR in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 will be needed to protect 

wetlands, with help from remaining willing landowners before they are drained.

Figure 4-11. Percent of 2006 wetland area protected within the PPJV and 200 year 

projections of wetland protection and wetland loss.

Area is in thousands of hectares. Asterisk represents multiplication.

Projected yearly conservation areas in Figure 4-11 are based upon an annualization of actual area 

protected by PPJV partners during 2001–2010. Doherty et al. (2013) applied a constant loss rate 

derived from published literature and a USFWS study specific to the PPJV region to project annual 

wetland losses. Intersection points are labeled to illustrate potential future conservation outcomes. 

The Kulm WMD SHC conservation design does not deviate from the existing wetland priority 

acquisition zone developed by the USFWS (USFWS 2008a). All future wetland acquisitions would 

focus on the following criteria: 

• wetlands that are not protected

• capable of supporting ≥ 25 breeding duck pairs per square mile 

• embedded in cropland or associated with a grassland easement 

• seasonal and temporary basins with the greatest risk of drainage or filling 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

91
• semipermanent and permanent wetlands ≤ 1 acre in size 

• other semipermanent wetlands <25 acres in size

Focusing wetland protection in cropland-dominated landscapes is critical to maintain the potential 

carrying capacity for breeding waterfowl in the PPR (Reynolds et al. 2006, Walker et al. 2013b) and 

ensure that sufficient wetland densities exist in wet years to positively affect nest success (Walker et 

al. 2013b), re-nesting propensity (Krapu et al. 1983, Cowardin et al. 1985), brood occupancy (Walker 

et al. 2013a), and brood survival (Krapu et al. 2006, Amundson and Arnold 2011, Amundson et al. 

2012). The combination of these components can lead to substantial pulses in population. A high 

proportion of breeding waterfowl consistently utilize landscapes with <40% grassland cover because 

wetland availability remains high in many portions of the PPR dominated by agriculture (Loesch et al. 

2012). The majority of these wetlands are temporary and seasonal basins which are preferred habitat 

by wetland-dependent wildlife because they tend to warm early in the spring and produce critical food 

resources (i.e., aquatic invertebrates and carbohydrate-rich plant seeds) (Swanson et al. 1974, Euliss et 

al. 1999, Krapu et al. 2004c) that nesting female waterfowl rely on to optimize body condition (Pietz 

et al. 2000). The Service is actively protecting wetlands embedded in cropland because they are 

vulnerable to drainage at higher loss rates (i.e., 96% of all wetland basins drained from 1997–2009 

were temporarily flooded or farmed wetlands) (Dahl 2014) than in grassland dominated landscapes. 

Therefore, staff at Kulm WMD will continue to use the process for evaluating and protecting wetlands 

identified in the North Dakota WMD CCP. Emphasis will be placed on at-risk wetlands located in 

landscapes with ≥60 breeding duck pairs per square mile (1A, 1B, 4A) because high wetland density 

areas are critical to waterfowl populations.

OBJECTIVE 1.2 CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

Over the next 9 years, as funding sources become available, secure protected status on 100% of 

grasslands offered by willing landowners in grassland priority zones, as identified in the North Dakota 

WMD CCP (USFWS 2008a), in the District. Also, focus grassland protection in landscapes that have 

the highest potential to maximize waterfowl production (1A, 1B, 4A), support high brood occupancy 

rates for waterfowl, and maintain densities of ROC above mean population levels. 

Rationale: 

The importance of intact grasslands to migratory birds was thoroughly discussed in Section 4.4. 

Clearly, the conservation of remaining grasslands in landscapes with ≥60 breeding duck pairs per 

square mile (1A, 1B, and 4A) are critical for breeding waterfowl (Greenwood et al. 1995, Reynolds et 

al. 2001, Horn et al. 2005, Stephens et al. 2005, Walker et al. 2013a). Grassland easement acquisition 

in landscapes with >25 pairs/mi2

 (USFWS 2008a) is necessary to support waterfowl population goals 

identified by the PPJV (Ringelman et al. 2005). The grassland easement acquisition strategy also is 

designed to benefit threatened or endangered species and grassland-dependent migratory birds. 

Because limited resources are available to purchase grassland easements in the District, staff would 

focus acquisition only in the highest priority zones (USFWS 2008a) unless additional funding 

becomes available. Consequently, failure to sufficiently protect contiguous expanses of grasslands in 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

92
the PPR will likely result in continued declines for many grassland songbirds (Brennan and Kuvlesky 

2005, Askins et al. 2007, Sauer and Link 2011), increased nest depredation from mesopredators 

(Sargeant et al. 1993, Phillips et al. 2003), increased susceptibility to climate change (Hannah and 

Hansen 2005, Mawdsley et al. 2009), and further losses in ecosystem services such soil erosion, water 

quality, and flood retention (Gleason et al. 2008). Thus, the USFWS aims to protect remaining 

unprotected grasslands in the least amount of time possible because 68 to 139 years likely remain 

before all grasslands are either protected or converted (Figure 4-12) (Doherty et al. 2013). 

Figure 4-12. Percent of grass cover protected within the PPJV and 200 year projections of 

grassland protection and grassland loss. Asterisk represents multiplication.

Projected yearly conservation areas in Figure 4-12 are based upon an annualization of actual area 

protected by PPJV partners during 2001–2010. Doherty et al. (2013) applied a constant loss rate 

derived from published literature and a USFWS study specific to the PPJV region to project annual 

grassland losses. Intersection points are labeled to illustrate potential future conservation outcomes. 

The District intends to secure protected status on 100% of priority, “at-risk” grasslands offered by 

willing landowners as fund sources become available. At-risk grasslands are those having sufficient 

soil quality for crop production (e.g., soil land capability classes 1-4 in Figure 4-13). The Kulm WMD 

SHC conservation design does not deviate from the existing priority zones for grassland easement 

protection (USFWS 2008a). However, priority grasslands identified using the existing grassland 

easement evaluation criteria also will be initially targeted for protection in 1A, 1B, and 4A landscapes 

because these areas are important to contribute to the SHC population objectives. Therefore, staff at 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

93
Kulm WMD considered these landscapes as zones of highest biological potential (e.g., biological 

benefits/acre). Focusing acquisition on areas with the high production potential (1A, 1B, and 4A 

landscapes) allows the District to maximize conservation benefits for waterfowl and other migratory 

birds using limited funds available for securing grassland easements in North Dakota.

Figure 4-13. An index of potential grassland conversion for Kulm Wetland Management 

District based on Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) data for belowground soil productivity.

Non-irrigated soil land capability classes 1-4 in Figure 4-13 are generally considered suitable for 

crop production, classes 5-6 have severe limitations for crop production, and classes 7-8 have extreme 

limitations that make them unsuitable to crop production. 

OBJECTIVE 1.3 CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

By 2017, contact 100% of landowners located in 1A to 4C landscapes within the District to 

determine their interest in obtaining a wetland and grassland conservation easement, conduct 100% of 

easement evaluations within 6 months of determining individual landowner interest, and submit 100% 

of completed evaluations to the USFWS Region 6 Division of Realty for further evaluation to ensure 

that all potential conservation easements are purchased from willing landowners in a reasonable 

amount of time. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

94
Rationale:

Staff at Kulm WMD have identified completing an inventory of potential landowner interest in the 

USFWS easement program as the highest-priority task within the next 3 years. As of October 2013, 

staff had completed a 2-year inventory of landowner interest in Dickey and LaMoure Counties, which 

resulted in several thousand acres of wetland and grassland habitat being protected in perpetuity. The 

majority of these counties are located in 4A landscapes within the Drift Prairie physiographic region 

where nearly all wetlands were considered to be at risk of being drained. By completing these counties 

first, staff protected a large proportion of the most at-risk wetlands in the District. However, future 

wetland losses on unprotected lands (>50% of wetlands in the District) could significantly reduce the 

potential of District to annually recruit an average of ~396,000 ducks (mean recruitment for 5 primary 

dabbler species from 1987–2009 (Unpublished data, USFWS HAPET, Bismarck, North Dakota) into 

the fall flight. Because the rate of wetland losses appears to be accelerating in recent years, it is 

imperative that the District complete this inventory of landowner interest before additional habitat is 

lost. It is anticipated that contacting the remaining landowners in Logan and McIntosh counties will 

take approximately 3 years at current staffing levels. 

Protecting 100% of the wetlands offered by willing landowners is critical to building the base of 

protected lands within the PPR to support stable breeding waterfowl carrying capacity levels. The 

process used to inventory, evaluate, and submit potential easements to the Region 6 Division of Realty 

for an entire county takes an exorbitant amount of time. Staff at Kulm WMD will continue to promptly 

conduct and submit easement evaluations to ensure that landowners have the opportunity to consider 

an easement offer before their interest in the program changes. This process takes less than 1 month to 

complete if conducted before crops are planted in the spring or after they are harvested in the fall. 

However, some evaluations may require up to 6 months to complete if interest is determined early in 

the winter (when snow covers the ground and the easement evaluation cannot be conducted) or after 

the first week of June when crop heights typically limit the observations of wetlands. 

Future interest in the USFWS easement program may be challenged by the increasing world 

demand for agricultural production (Lutz et al. 2001), decreasing enrollment in conservation programs 

such as Conservation Reserve Program, and insufficient funding levels that do not increase according 

to land values (Doherty et al. 2013). Thus, completing this inventory is the most important populationlevel conservation work that the USFWS can conduct in the near future (i.e., ≤5 years) in the U.S. PPR 

because of the long-term benefits that limited-interest conservation easements provide to migratory 

birds and the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem. 

OBJECTIVE 1.4 FEE-TITLE WATERFOWL PRODUCTION AREAS

During the next 9 years, target 80% of all habitat management activities on 136 WPAs located in 

1A [n = 61], 1B [n = 72], 2A [n = 1], 2B [n = 2], 3A, and 3B landscapes that support ≥25 duck pairs 

per square mile and contain ≥40% grass cover within a 10.4 km2

 area that that yield ≥15-20% 

waterfowl nest success. Managers aim to provide diverse, heterogeneous nesting habitat that meets the 

habitat requirements of waterfowl (Anas spp.) and other ROC, including grasshopper sparrow, claycolored sparrow, bobolink, marbled godwit, and northern harrier. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

95
Rationale:

The Service has developed a science-driven SHC approach aimed at using innovative science to 

focus conservation at landscapes scales using defensible, transparent, and replicable approaches that 

accounts for the complexity within ecosystems to achieve predicted biological outcomes necessary to 

sustain wildlife populations (USFWS 2006b). Staff developed an SHC conservation design (Figure 4-

1) to target conservation delivery across a range of landscape types (1A to 4C) to achieve the highest 

benefits to waterfowl and other migratory bird populations while contributing to maintaining the 

ecological function within the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem. Staff identified WPAs in 1A to 3B 

landscapes as having high biological potential to support a long-term average nest success rate of 15–

20% (Cowardin et al. 1985), maintain high waterfowl brood occupancy and survival, specifically 1A 

and 1B WPAs, (Krapu et al. 2006, Walker et al. 2013a), and benefit non-waterfowl ROC populations. 

The District will attempt to maximize habitat suitability and ecosystem services (Werling et al. 

2014) to the extent possible on individual fee-title WPAs by focusing 80% of management activities 

on WPAs located in 1A to 3B landscapes. Priority management activities include: providing suitable 

vegetation structure for ROCs, reconstructing former seeded introduced grasslands to diverse native 

vegetation, and restoring native prairie. Implementation of this SHC approach should improve the 

District’s management efficiency across a network of 201 WPAs with a finite set of resources. The 

expected gain in efficiency using this SHC approach would result from using a targeted landscape 

conservation approach to achieve a measurable population response (e.g., nest success, brood 

occupancy, and density of ROC) along with scientifically-based habitat objectives that are focused on 

meeting the habitat requirements of ROCs at local scales (e.g., individual habitat types on WPAs). 

OBJECTIVE 1.5 FEE-TITLE WATERFOWL PRODUCTION AREAS

During the next 9 years, target 20% of all habitat management activities on 64 WPAs located in 

4A [n = 51], 4B [n = 10], and 4C [n = 3] landscapes that support ≥25 duck pairs per square mile and 

contain <40% grass cover within a 10.4 km2 area to maximize upland nesting waterfowl (Anas spp.) 

nest success and benefit other habitat-generalist migratory birds like Savannah sparrow and sedge 

wren.

Rationale:

Landscapes dominated by cropland that contain abundant wetlands are critical conservation areas 

because they support high carrying capacity levels for waterfowl populations (Reynolds et al. 2006) 

and pulses in waterfowl populations during wet years (Walker et al. 2013b). Nest success is highly 

variable in these landscapes (i.e., 4A to 4C) and has been attributed to fluctuations in wetland 

conditions (Walker et al. 2013b), amount of cropland (Drever et al. 2007, Devries and Armstrong 

2011, Bloom et al. 2013), and abundance of mesopredators (Sovada et al. 2000, Phillips et al. 2003). 

Periods of high nest success that occur in agricultural landscapes when predators such as red fox are 

absent (Pieron and Rohwer 2010) or when predators are removed from nesting areas (Garrettson and 

Rohwer 2001, Chodachek and Chamberlain 2006) may not necessarily result in increased recruitment 

because duckling survival is often low (Amundson and Arnold 2011). Nonetheless, maintaining tall, 

dense habitat in these landscapes on WPAs affords waterfowl the best opportunity to successfully nest 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

96
(Duebbert and Kantrud 1974). Therefore, targeting 20% of management activities on WPAs located in 

4A to 4C landscapes will allow managers to maintain tall, dense stands of vegetation required by 

nesting waterfowl, while benefiting other migratory bird species such as western meadowlark, 

Savanna sparrow, sedge wren, or Le Conte’s sparrow with limited management treatments 

implemented to remove excessive litter and maintain grassland stand vigor. 

OBJECTIVE 1.6PRIVATE LANDS

By 2015, partner with private landowners to annually establish a minimum of 20 rotational 

grazing systems on grassland tracts (≥160 acres) within 1A and 1B landscapes to improve nesting 

conditions for waterfowl (Anas sp.) and other ROC such as clay-colored sparrow, bobolink, 

grasshopper sparrow, and northern harrier. 

Rationale:

Much of privately owned native grasslands in the District are intensely grazed from May through 

October each year. Although some grassland birds such as chestnut-collared longspur, horned lark, 

upland sandpiper, marbled godwit, and willet respond positively to these season-long grazing systems, 

breeding bird densities are highest in lightly to moderately grazed pastures in the Missouri Coteau 

(Salo et al. 2004). Overgrazing pastures on private lands also negatively affects waterfowl nest success 

(Bloom et al. 2013), attractiveness to waterfowl (Gilbert et al. 1996, Fondell and Ball 2004), and the 

production of most upland nesting migratory birds (Kirsch et al. 1978). Cattle ranchers also can 

benefit from less-intense grazing systems because livestock average daily weight gain and body 

condition have been shown to be higher in lightly to moderately grazed rotational systems (Salo et al. 

2004). Plant community composition also shifts to a Kentucky bluegrass-dominated community in 

overgrazed mixed-grass prairies, which decreases livestock production potential unless more moderate 

grazing strategies are implemented (Patton et al. 2007). As pastures become increasingly invaded by 

exotic grasses, reproductive success for grassland birds such as chestnut-colored longspur can be 

reduced compared to more diverse native prairies (Lloyd and Martin 2005). 

Bird response to differing grazing intensities is a function of the residual vegetation structure 

(height–density and presence of a litter layer) that birds select to meet their nesting requirements 

(Kantrud and Higgins 1992, Salo et al. 2004). Rotational grazing strategies such as the twice-over 

rotational systems that delay grazing until after June 1 can allow up to 50 percent of ducks to initiate 

nests before grazing begins, while increasing beef production that is beneficial to cattle ranchers 

(Barker et al. 1990). Light to moderate stocking rates (animal unit months [AUM]/ha) that utilize 35-

50% of standing forage each year have been shown to produce average late June vegetation structure 

consisting of 45-50 cm visual obstruction readings (VOR), vegetation heights of 48-53 cm, and litter 

depths of 4.6-5.3 cm in the Missouri Coteau near Kulm WMD (Salo et al. 2004). This strategy of 

grazing after June 1 with light to moderate stocking rates should provide a late May average 

vegetation structure of 20 cm VOR and 28 cm vegetation height that positively affect waterfowl nest 

density and success (Bloom et al. 2013). 

By improving habitat structure on private lands in 1A and 1B landscapes that have high 

production potential for waterfowl and other migratory birds, the District will maximize the potential 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

97
of these grasslands to benefit migratory bird populations. The District will work with the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program to administer available programs. Implementation of prescribed grazing 

systems other than season-long grazing on private lands is important to increase vegetation structure, 

temporarily prevent native rangeland from conversion, and sustain the ecological benefits that these 

grasslands provide to migratory birds and their habitats. 

The District will initially target rotational grazing systems on grasslands in 1A or 1B landscapes 

that meet the following criteria in descending order:

1. located on unprotected grasslands at high risk of conversion; 

2. located on existing grassland easements;

3. located adjacent to WPAs or within the 10.4 km2

 area surrounding the WPA. 

OBJECTIVE 1.7ADAPTIVE LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION

At 5-year intervals, update the District’s SHC conservation design to incorporate changes in 

landscape types that coincide with changes in land use trends and/or ROC habitat requirements to 

continue to adaptively deliver conservation in areas having the greatest biological potential to benefit 

resources of concern.

Rationale:

Grassland habitat within the Missouri Coteau of North and South Dakota was converted at a rate 

of 0.4% annually (36,540 hectares) from 1989 to 2003 (Stephens et al. 2008) and 1.33% across the 

entire U.S. PPR from 1979 to 1997 (Rashford et al. 2011). If commodity prices continue to remain 

high, grassland losses will likely continue at or above this rate in the PPR (Rashford et al. 2011). More 

than 70% of all CRP contracts are also set to expire in the U.S. PPR by the end of 2017 (Figure 4-5) 

(Doherty et al. 2013) which will significantly alter the extent of remaining grassland occurring in the 

USFWS Dakotas Zone (Figure 4-14). For example, we evaluated the extent of 40% grass landscapes 

in the NWRS Dakotas Zone during 3 time periods: 2005 (48%) when CRP acreage was near an alltime high, the 2012 extent (30%), and the potential 2018 extent (24%), which excluded expiring CRP 

contracts between 2013 and 2018 and showed that from 2005 to 2018, the extent of 40% grass 

landscapes decreased by 50% in the USFWS Dakotas Zone (Figure 4-15). We could not account for 

future losses in native grasslands in our 2018 map of 40% grasslands, but we anticipate that these 

losses would lower the 2018 extent of 40% grasslands well below the 24% area that we estimated. We 

realize that the 2018 extent is a hypothetical example of how the landscape could change if CRP 

contracts are not renewed and that the differences in landcover sources affects accuracy of 

interpretation. However, given recent trends in the conversion of grasslands to cropland (Fargione et 

al. 2009, Doherty et al. 2013, Wright and Wimberly 2013, Johnston 2014) and recent data showing 

that 51.5% of CRP grasslands were lost in North Dakota alone from 2007–2013 (USDA Farm Service 

Agency 2014), it is likely that the amount of CRP on the landscape will approach record lows by 2018. 

This could negatively affect waterfowl populations in the PPR as CRP increases attractiveness to 

settling waterfowl (Shaffer and Wangler 2013) and increases in waterfowl production (i.e., 25.7 

million ducks produced from 1992-2003 attributed to CRP, Reynolds 2005). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

98
Figure 4-14. Coarse-scale change in 40% grassland area using a 10.4 km2 moving window 

analysis from 2005 to 2012 and potential change in 40% grassland by 2018 if all expiring 

conservation reserve program (CRP) lands are not re-enrolled in the USFWS Dakotas Zone.

For 2005, percent grassland was generated using USFWS Habitat and Population Evaluation Team landcover derived from 2003-2005 

imagery for disturbed and undisturbed grasslands. For 2012, percent grassland was generated using the National Agricultural Statistics 

Service NASS CDL derived from 2012 satellite imagery; grassland was classified as all native grassland, grass/pasture, grass/hay, and 

pasture/hay classes. For 2018, percent grassland was generated using the 2012 NASS CDL layer and by removing all CRP grasslands with 

expiring contracts from 2012-2017.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

99
If grassland conversion rates continue at rates at or above those estimated by Rashford et al. 

(2011), resource agencies (e.g., USFWS and its partners) that conserve grasslands will only have until 

2082 before all grassland is either converted or protected with only 37% of the 2006 grassland extent 

being protected in perpetuity (Doherty et al. 2013). Likewise, wetland drainage will continue to 

increase across the PPR if grasslands are converted for agricultural purposes (Johnston 2013). Thus, it 

will be important for the District to review and update the SHC conservation design to account for 

these potential future changes and continue to deliver conservation in landscapes having the highest 

biological returns (USFWS 2006b) for waterfowl and other ROC populations.

4.6 Local-scale Conservation Delivery Goals and 

Objectives 

The District developed specific goals, sub-goals, and objectives linked to the SHC conservation 

design to improve the biological return of conservation actions. At the local scale, staff will focus on 

the management of fee-title WPAs to provide quality nesting cover for waterfowl and other migratory 

birds within the various landscape classes (1A to 5) identified under the SHC conservation design. 

The classes do not represent priority order from 1A to 5, rather each class may have a different 

set of conservation treatments that can be used by managers to contribute to the waterfowl 

population objectives of the SHC conservation design while benefitting other priority ROC.

SUB-GOAL 2—NATIVE OR RECONSTRUCTED PRAIRIE

Maximize native vegetation diversity and composition on individual tracts of native sod and 

reconstructed native prairie on WPAs using adaptive management to provide heterogeneous vegetation 

structure required by upland-nesting resources of concern (ROC) and contribute to biological integrity, 

diversity, and enhancement (BIDEH) within the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem. 

OBJECTIVE 2.1 NATIVE PRAIRIE

Over 9 years, restore 391 acres of native prairie on 9 Native Prairie Adaptive Management study 

units using the full adaptive management process to apply the appropriate and precise disturbances 

recommended in each management year (September 1 to August 31), optimally increasing native plant 

frequency by an average of ≥1 to 5% during any 5-year interval, to strengthen resistance to invasion 

by exotic cool-season grasses, improve habitat condition for migratory birds and other prairie-obligate 

species (e.g., pollinators), and enhance ecological services like BIDEH on WPAs in the study. 

Rationale:

The District aims to continually improve the native plant community towards the potential historic 

climax plant community (HCPC) state to increase resistance to invasion by exotic cool-season grasses, 

improve habitat condition for migratory birds and other prairie obligate species (e.g., pollinators), and 

enhance ecological services such as BIDEH on individual WPAs included in the study. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

100
Restoring plant community composition on remnant native prairie tracts occurring on fee-title 

WPAs is important to maintain terrestrial ecological processes such as net primary productivity 

(Tilman and Downing 1994, Tilman et al. 1996), resistance to invasion by exotic species (Hopper et 

al. 2005), root decomposition (Madritch and Hunter 2002), and nutrient cycling (Hobbie 1992) that 

provide stability to biotic communities. Loss of species richness is correlated with declines in 

ecosystem services (Werling et al. 2014) such as reduced plant production and nutrient retention, 

resilience to environmental fluctuation (e.g., drought), and susceptibility to invasion by undesirable 

species (Hooper et al. 2005). Because native plant composition and diversity strongly influence 

ecosystem processes (Tilman et al. 1997, Werling et al. 2014) and future adaptability to climate 

change (Craine et al. 2013), a primary goal of the Service is to restore native prairies to support 

diverse assemblages of native wildlife and plant communities within the mixed-grass prairie 

ecosystem. However, native prairie diversity and composition on Service-owned WPAs has been 

severely degraded due to decades of rest (Murphy and Grant 2005, Grant et al. 2009). Therefore, the 

Service has identified a subset (N = 120 units) of remaining native prairie tracts for inclusion in 

NPAM, a large-scale, long-term adaptive monitoring effort aimed at restoring native prairie on WPAs 

across the USFWS Region 3 and 6 portions of the U.S. PPR. The impetus for this project resulted 

from research conducted by Murphy and Grant (2005) that showed that Service-owned native prairies 

were highly invaded by smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and 

continued degradation of native prairies could be expected unless intensive restoration occurred. 

The Service has collaborated with the USGS to develop a model to guide the adaptive restoration 

process through NPAM (USFWS 2011c, Gannon et al. 2013). Output from the model is used to guide 

management decisions about defoliation actions at the management unit level based on the current 

vegetation composition of each unit. The decision framework was designed to operate adaptively, in 

which experiences from past management actions are formally recorded and interpreted to improve the 

quality of decision making today. This approach to decision making coincides with a framework for 

adaptive management developed by the Department of the Interior (Williams et al. 2009). 

Kulm WMD is an active cooperator in the NPAM project. Staff is committed to annual 

implementation of NPAM management recommendations on the 9 NPAM units in the District for the 

next 9 years. However, the District typically only burns ~5 management units per year due to a lack of 

resources available to conduct prescribed fires. The District’s small staff size trained in prescribed firefighting (five permanent staff) and fluctuation in budgets in the coming years will continue to 

challenge implementation of a sufficient number of prescribed fires in the District.

OBJECTIVE 2.2NATIVE PRAIRIE

Over the next 9 years, restore or maintain native prairie community assemblage on native prairie 

occurring on WPAs located in 1A to 3B landscapes using appropriate and precise disturbance in each 

management year (September 1 to August 31) to provide suitable nesting habitat for waterfowl and 

other migratory birds while shifting the existing native plant community towards the potential historic 

climax plant community state for specific ecological sites and enhancing BIDEH on individual WPAs. 

Specific management thresholds include: 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

101
• Intensely manage tracts with 25 to 55% native vegetation remaining to increase native 

plant vigor, density, and seedling recruitment and prevent further degradation within 

ecological sites.

• Actively manage tracts with >55% native vegetation remaining to maintain or enhance 

native plant communities on ecological sites.

• Manage tracts with <25% native vegetation remaining exclusively as nesting habitat 

for waterfowl and other ROCs. 

Rationale:

Targeting restoration in landscapes (i.e., 1A to 3B) that best resemble historic ecosystem structure 

and composition may allow restored sites to function optimally (Suding 2011). And, by focusing 

restorations in landscapes with more contiguous grasslands (i.e., 1A to 3B), success of restorations is 

likely to be higher because of increased native plant dispersal, immigration, and colonization from 

adjacent native pastures (Primack 2002, Cully et al. 2003). Restoring native grasslands in 1A to 3B 

landscapes also is critical to improve habitat quality for nesting ROCs that depend on intact grasslands 

to meet their fitness requirements (Lloyd and Martin 2005). The District realizes that the local, sitelevel tradeoffs of restoring native plant communities using intense treatments may temporarily reduce 

available nesting habitat for ROCs that require moderate to tall vegetation structure. However, the 

expected long-term gains in ecological services (i.e., greater biodiversity of multiple taxa) provided by 

functional native plant communities (Tilman et al. 1997, Craine et al. 2012, Rowe and Holland 2013, 

Werling et al. 2014) should increase habitat suitability for nesting ROC.

Establishing degradation thresholds is an important part of allocating restoration efforts when 

resources are limited (Bestelmeyer 2006). Although restoration of ecological sites to a historical 

benchmark may not be realistic, restoring the structure and function of a desired plant community state 

within ecological sites is a reasonable alternative (Monaco et al. 2012). Therefore, the District will use 

NRCS state-and-transition models (STM) and active monitoring to determine the plant community 

state on specific ecological sites and apply specific management treatments (principally grazing and/or 

prescribed fire) to shift the plant community back towards the HCPC. An STM describes the 

ecological dynamics that influence each plant community state (boxes), transitional pathways (solid or 

dashed arrows), and management treatments (bold letters) that influence transition between states. 

Ecological sites have unique physical characteristics (e.g., soil properties, slope) that produce distinct 

plant communities (Sedivec and Printz 2012). Plant species composition and biomass production also 

vary among ecological sites due to differences in soil, water, and topographic conditions (Sedivec et 

al. 1991). For example, restoration of a loamy ecological site in the Central Dark Brown Glaciated 

Plains major land resource area (MLRA) 53B, from a western wheatgrass/green needlegrass/Kentucky 

bluegrass (community phase 2.2 in Figure 4-15) towards the HCPC will require frequent and precisely 

timed grazing and burning to reduce litter buildup, increase tiller stimulation, and improve sunlight 

penetration to the soil surface (Printz et al. 2012a). Thus, the use of STM as a monitoring tool can be 

an effective way to interpret the ecological dynamics of a management unit in response to various 

disturbance regimes and predict plant community response (Sedivec and Printz 2012). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

102
Figure 4-15. State and transition model (STM) for a loamy ecological site in Central Dark 

Brown Glaciated Plains major land resource area #053B.

(Printz et al. 2012a). 

The District regularly monitors plant community composition on native prairie tracts ≥5 acres 

using the belt-transect method (Grant et al. 2004) on WPAs throughout the District. The information 

derived from these surveys provides an index of the composition of the remaining native plant 

community. Rather than complete intensive vegetation monitoring using quadrats and identifying 

individual species, the belt-transect method allows the observer to classify segments along transects 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

103
into plant groups (listed in Grant et al. 2004) based on the dominant species present. Summarizing by 

plant groups allows managers to efficiently characterize the composition of native prairies and deliver 

appropriate management treatments. Classification of each native prairie into a degradation threshold 

(i.e., <25%, 25-55%, >55%) will be based on the frequency of native-dominated vegetation (plant 

groups 41-43, 46, 48, 49, 53, 63, and 76 [Grant et al. 2004]). 

By incorporating STM with monitoring data collected on a regular basis, the District can 

adaptively manage native prairie tracts in 1A to 3B landscapes that are either at risk of losing the 

integrity of the remaining plant community (i.e., 40% native dominated plant composition) or have 

high potential to increase native vegetation through active restoration (i.e., >55% native dominated 

plant composition). The District will target intense restoration efforts based on a threshold of 40% 

native plant composition which appears to be ecologically important to the potential of a site to be 

restored. Preliminary studies indicate that this threshold may occur when Kentucky bluegrass exceeds 

30% of the plant community and native grasses represent less than 40% of the plant community 

composition. 

The District has added a ±15% standard error around the 40% threshold to target intense 

restoration efforts on all tracts with 25–55% native vegetation remaining.

Native Prairie Tracts having 25-55% Native Vegetation Remaining

The District will intensely restore tracts with 25-55% native vegetation remaining because these 

sites are on the verge of becoming unrestorable based on the 40% native plant composition threshold. 

Once prairies are invaded by Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome, these species will continue to 

displace the remaining native prairie community (Murphy and Grant 2005, Grant et al. 2009, Dekeyser 

et al. 2013) by forming shallow, dense root masses and numerous reproductive tillers (Bonos and 

Murphy 1999) and by modifying soil conditions (Vinton and Goergen 2006, Jordan et al. 2008). This 

results in reduced structural heterogeneity (Hendrickson and Lund 2010) of habitat that is attractive to 

a wide array of upland nesting migratory birds (Salo et al. 2004, Fuhlendorf et al. 2006, Coppedge et 

al. 2008, Bloom et al. 2013) and lower reproductive success in grassland obligate songbirds (Lloyd 

and Martin 2005) and other native prairie species (Rowe and Holland 2013). 

To increase the native vegetation on these tracts, frequent, precisely timed defoliation (i.e., 4 out 

of every 5 years) treatments such as prescribed burning and grazing will be required during the spring 

management window (May 1 to June 15) (USFWS 2011c). Applying management actions based on 

differences in plant morphology (Kentucky bluegrass vs. smooth brome) and phenological cues (Table 

4-2) will be critical to shift plant communities towards the desired state. For example, timing 

defoliation of smooth brome during the 5-leaf stage and from stem elongation to initial development 

of the inflorescence can reduce its abundance (Wilson and Stubbendieck 1997, DiTomaso et al. 2006, 

Mousel and Smart 2007). Repeated grazing of smooth brome also prevents the development of 

damaging soil conditions (i.e., increased soil nitrogen) (Vinton and Goergen 2006) that enable this 

plant to dominate ecological sites (Dekeyser et al. 2009). Similarly, Kentucky bluegrass can be 

reduced by intensive early season grazing (Hanson et al. 2010) or spring burning (Towne and Kemp 

2008). However, improperly timed defoliation such as summer grazing can lead to increases in 

Kentucky bluegrass (Murphy and Grant 2005, Patton et al. 2011). Ideally, a combination of spring 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

104
burning with frequent early season grazing would be used to reduce invasive cool-season grasses 

(Dekeyser et al. 2013) on these tracts. (See Chapter 5 for specific strategies and prescriptions).

Table 4-2. Predicted phenological cues for conducting defoliation of native prairie during 

the spring management window in the grassland systems in the Prairie Pothole Range. 

Within Window Outside Window

>50% of smooth brome has at least 5 leaves >50% of smooth brome has fewer than 5 leaves 

And (before window)

<50% of smooth brome has visible inflorescences Or

>50% of smooth brome inflorescences are visible or 

passed (after window)

Source: (USFWS 2011c).

Native prairie tracts having >55% native vegetation remaining

These tracts could require more maintenance-level disturbance (i.e., spring burn every 3-4 years 

and/or periodic grazing) as the plant community becomes more representative of the HCPC state. 

Disturbance frequency on these tracts also may mirror the historic disturbance return interval for 

mixed-grass prairies (Wright and Bailey 1982, Collins and Gibson 1990, Bragg 1995). The NPAM 

study considers a prairie to be restored when >75% of native-dominant species occur within a specific 

tract (USFWS 2011c). The criteria of a >75% native dominant species is hypothesized as a threshold 

where a native prairie unit can be managed using periodic defoliation without further degradation. 

Because prairies are dynamic and evolved with frequent disturbance (Severson and Hull Sieg 2006), 

the District may utilize different defoliation intervals and intensities to reduce any further loss of 

native vegetation on ecological sites (based on STM and remaining percentage of native-dominated 

vegetation; i.e., plant groups 41-43, 46, 48, 49, 53, 63, and 76 [Grant et al. 2004]). For example, a 

sandy ecological site having lower soil moisture and ~50% native vegetation may not require as 

frequent or intense of defoliation treatments as a mid-slope loamy ecological site having moderate soil 

moisture and a similar degree of native vegetation to prevent further degradation of the community 

(see Dekeyser et al. 2009). Loamy sites are the most common ecological site in the District and tend to 

be dominated by Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome (Dekeyser et al. 2009) when soil moisture is 

high (Stevens 1950, Dekeyser et al. 2013). Thus, adaptive management will be a key step to 

controlling invasive cool-season grasses and restoring BIDEH on Service-owned native prairies 

(Gannon et al. 2010).

The District will actively monitor these tracts and incorporate new science as it becomes available 

that identifies causal mechanisms for reducing invasion of cool-season grasses. This iterative process 

should improve the effectiveness of future restoration strategies outlined in this HMP. In all cases, the 

highest priority for the District is to provide suitable nesting habitat for waterfowl and other ROCs 

during the long-term process (i.e., 30–50 years; Grant et al. 2009) of restoring native prairie. Thus, it 

will be critical for staff to consider the conditions of grassland tracts near native prairie tracts actively 

being restored to formulate management prescriptions. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

105
Native prairie tracts having <25% native vegetation remaining

Without regular management, Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome may completely dominate 

tracts and cause restoration to be unlikely (Murphy and Grant 2005). Native prairie tracts with <25% 

native vegetation remaining (15% below the 40% native vegetation threshold for maintaining a native 

plant community) will be managed exclusively as nesting habitat for waterfowl and other migratory 

birds. These tracts will still require periodic defoliation to prevent excessive accumulation of litter and 

to maintain stand vigor (Naugle et al. 2000a). Managing these tracts every 3–4 years will provide a 

mosaic of vegetation structure across years as visual obstruction typically peaks 2–3 years postmanagement and litter depths tend to be low 3 years post-management, but increases thereafter 

(Naugle et al. 2000a, Devries and Armstrong 2011). At the tract level, nesting waterfowl should 

respond positively 2-4 years post-management because vegetation structure should achieve the 20 cm 

of vegetation density and 28 cm in vegetation height shown to positively influence nest survival 

(Bloom et al. 2013). Grassland songbird densities (i.e., clay-colored sparrow, grasshopper sparrow) 

also should be highest when vegetation density exceeds 25 cm (based on visual obstruction reading; 

Robel et al. 1970) and vegetation height exceeds 28 cm (i.e., 2–4 years post-management) during the 

breeding season (typically late May to early July) in south-central North Dakota (Kantrud and Higgins 

1992, Salo et al. 2004). Whereas, marbled godwit, chestnut-collared longspur, upland sandpiper, and 

willet should respond positively to vegetation structure from 0–1-years post-management (Ryan et al. 

1984, Sedevic 1994, Gratto-Trevor 2000). However, additional research and/or monitoring are needed 

to determine if grasslands dominated by exotic grasses significantly affect the density, nesting success, 

and recruitment of waterfowl and other ROCs.

OBJECTIVE 2.3NATIVE PRAIRIE

Over the next 9 years, maintain or enhance native prairie community assemblage on native prairie 

occurring on WPAs located in 4A to 4C landscapes using appropriate and precise disturbance in each 

management year (September 1 to August 31) to provide nesting habitat for waterfowl and other 

migratory birds while preventing further degradation within the existing native plant community state 

for specific ecological sites. Specific management criteria include:

• Focus intense management on tracts with 25 to 55% native vegetation remaining to 

increase native plant vigor, density, and seedling recruitment and prevent further 

degradation within ecological sites. 

• Focus active management on tracts with >55% native vegetation remaining to 

maintain or enhance native plant communities on ecological sites.

• Manage tracts with <25% native vegetation remaining exclusively as nesting habitat 

for waterfowl and other generalist migratory birds.

Rationale:

Restoration of native prairie on WPAs located in highly fragmented landscapes (i.e., 4A to 4C) is 

likely to have fewer overall biological benefits to ROC when embedded in cropland-dominated 

landscapes (Figures 4-8, 4-9, 4-11) (Sovada et al. 2000, Bloom et al. 2013). Nonetheless, land use 

patterns could change in the future (i.e., return of large scale CRP lands) and restoration of these tracts 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

106
could increase facilitation of ecosystem services (Werling et al. 2014) or improve resistance to 

invasion by non-desirable species (e.g., exotic grasses, noxious weeds). For example, Werling et al. 

(2014) documented that native grasslands in cropland-dominated landscapes were important to the 

conservation of migratory birds, pollination, pest suppression, and methane consumption. Yet, native 

prairie tracts located in 4A to 4C landscapes may be more difficult to restore due to a lack of native 

plant dispersal, immigration, and colonization from adjacent native pastures (Primack 2002, Cully et 

al. 2003). Because available staff time and management resources (e.g., prescribed fire) are expected 

to be limited during the 9 year duration of this HMP, the District will allocate the majority of 

restoration effort to 1A to 3B WPAs where the biological potential to support ROC populations is 

higher. 

These WPAs tend to be occupied by high densities of nesting waterfowl that can be productive in 

years when wetlands are abundant (Higgins 1977, Walker et al. 2013b). However, area-sensitive 

grassland songbirds (Johnson and Igl 2001, Bakker et al. 2002) would likely occur at low densities in 

cropland-dominated landscapes (Figure 4-9) even if they are restored and these sites may act as 

population sinks (Schrott et al. 2005, Fletcher et al. 2006, Winter et al. 2006). As resources allow, the 

District will attempt to maintain or enhance existing native prairie communities through targeted 

management using the decision rules described under Objective 2.2. At minimum, managers will 

attempt to provide moderate to dense vegetation structure (≥20 cm of horizontal vegetation cover 

density, vegetation height of ≥28 cm) by late May in 3 of 4 management years on tracts with limited 

opportunities for restoration (<25% native plant composition) to benefit nesting waterfowl (Bloom et 

al. 2013). This approach assumes that the optimal management strategy for these highly degraded 

tracts may be to maximize vegetation height-density with limited management effort to benefit nesting 

waterfowl.

OBJECTIVE 2.4RECONSTRUCTED PRAIRIE

During the next 9 years, maintain ≥75% native plant composition and diversity representative of 

stable plant communities on ecological sites on all established (typically 3–7 years after initial 

seeding) reconstructed prairie tracts on WPAs using active management to provide attractive 

heterogeneous nesting habitat for waterfowl and other ROCs while contributing to BIDEH within the 

mixed-grass prairie ecosystem.

Prairie reconstruction is defined as the seeding of a native herbaceous seed mixture that comprises 

multiple prairie species including grasses, forbs, and small shrubs on previously cultivated lands 

(USFWS 2011c). This definition differs from prairie restoration which focuses on utilizing 

management treatments (e.g. prescribed burning and grazing) to increase native plant composition on 

native sod (i.e. no cultivation history). 

Rationale:

Reconstructing prairie on WPAs that were formerly cultivated land provides an opportunity to 

create high-quality heterogeneous nesting habitat for migratory birds (see Salo et al. 2004, Fuhlendorf 

et al. 2006, Bloom et al. 2013) that is more sustainable and resistant to invasion by exotic grasses and 

noxious weeds (Berger 1993, Cramer 1991, Jacobs and Sheley 1999). Active and aggressive postDraft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

107
establishment management (typically 3–7 years after initial seeding depending upon environmental 

and site conditions) will be critical to maintain ≥75% native plant composition and diversity on these 

sites. Because of the significant investment in time and resources that these reconstructions require, 

the District will actively manage these sites to limit invasion from exotic grasses and noxious weeds 

post-establishment following the management criteria in Native Prairie Objective 2.2, while 

considering the habitat needs of nesting migratory birds. For example, post-establishment management 

(when native vegetation composition and diversity should exceed 75%) will focus on removing excess 

litter accumulation that negatively affects waterfowl production (Naugle et al. 2000a), maintaining 

grassland structure and vigor (Higgins and Barker 1982), increasing native species retention and 

belowground root and rhizome biomass of seeded plants (Seastedt and Ramundo 1990). 

During the next 9 years, the District will primarily target reconstruction on WPAs located in 1A to 

3B landscapes that have the highest biological potential to achieve the SHC populations goals (i.e., 15-

20% waterfowl nest success, support waterfowl brood success, attract high densities of breeding 

ROCs). Tracts targeted for reconstruction generally consist of old (>15 year) seeded introduced 

grassland (i.e., DNC consisting of intermediate wheatgrass [Thinopyrum intermedium], tall wheatgrass 

[T. ponticum], and alfalfa [Medicago sativa] or sweetclover [Melilotus officinalis]) or low-diversity 

seeded native vegetation that are heavily invaded by Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, and noxious 

weeds. To restore plant community function to these degraded grasslands, the District will reconstruct 

tracts using seed mixes that are representative of the HCPC for ecological sites to improve the 

likelihood of successful establishment. Sedivec and Printz (2012) outline potential plant communities 

for ecological sites within MLRA such as 53B (Missouri Coteau) in the Dakotas. Specific ecological 

site descriptions (ESDs) contain the best available information that describes potential species 

dominance and community composition targets that managers can use to create site-appropriate seed 

mixes (Sedivec and Printz 2012). When feasible, the District would use sculpted seedings (prescriptive 

seeding using different seed mixes in correlation with variation in ecological sites) to reconstruct 

individual tracts with multiple ecological sites (Jacobson et al. 1994). In some cases, variation between 

ecological sites in plant communities may not be significant and managers may create seed mixes that 

capture the variation between adjacent sites to simplify seeding. 

Managers also may choose to prioritize reconstructions on sites where invasion by problematic 

noxious weeds (i.e., leafy spurge or yellow toadflax) dominate grasslands. In addition to monitoring, 

the District also will rely on information from spatial models that predict high suitability for individual 

noxious weeds. For example, District staff worked with Region 6 Invasive Species staff to create 

habitat suitability models for yellow toadflax (Figure 4-16) and leafy spurge. Managers will 

incorporate these suitability models to target reconstructions on WPAs with high biological potential 

to benefit ROC and high probability of invasion by leafy spurge and/or yellow toadflax. By increasing 

competition using native plant species that are functionally similar to noxious weeds (Norland et al. 

2013), the District could prevent invasions on WPAs that may have occurred if they were not 

reconstructed (see Pokorny et al. 2005, Biondini 2007). Therefore, the District will consider 

reconstructing prairies on sites dominated by highly invasive noxious weeds using functionally similar 

native species on a case-by-case basis.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

108
Figure 4-16. Predicted yellow toadflax suitability model relative to Waterfowl Production 

Areas within Kulm Wetland Management District.

SUB-GOAL 3—SEEDED INTRODUCED GRASSLANDS

Provide suitable nesting habitat on existing seeded introduced grasslands to maximize waterfowl 

(Anas spp.) nest success and occupancy by ROC on WPAs and reconstruct seeded introduced 

grasslands on WPAs located in 1A to 3B landscapes throughout the District to diverse native 

vegetation to benefit upland nesting ROCs and enhance ecological services within the mixed-grass 

prairie ecosystem.

OBJECTIVE 3.1 SEEDED INTRODUCED GRASSLANDS

Over the next 9 years, reconstruct an average of 1,000 acres of seeded introduced grasslands on 

1A to 3C WPAs at 5-year intervals using functionally diverse seed mixtures (approximately 50% 

grasses [minimum of 9 species] and 50% forbs [minimum of 10 species] by weight) that are 

representative of a stable plant community on ecological sites post-establishment (typically 3–7 years) 

while providing heterogeneous nesting habitat for upland nesting ROC including waterfowl (Anas

spp.), clay-colored sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, and northern harrier. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

109
Rationale:

Reconstruction of seeded introduced grasslands is designed to re-create the diversity and function 

of stable native plant communities on WPAs within the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem. Currently, the 

District spends the majority of noxious weed control efforts on seeded introduced grasslands which 

detracts from other high priority management activities such as constructing fence infrastructure 

around 1A and 1B WPAs to implement grazing systems or collecting local phenotype native seeds on 

other WPAs to improve diversity on future prairie reconstructions. Therefore, the District has set a 

realistic target of reconstructing an average of 200 acres per year on WPAs located in 1A to 3B 

landscapes during the next 9 years. 

Seeded introduced grasslands provide tall, dense nesting cover that is attractive to waterfowl 

(Duebbert and Frank 1984, Higgins and Barker 1982, Lokemoen 1984). However, these grasslands 

have a limited lifespan (7 to 15 years), are highly susceptible to invasion by noxious weeds, and they 

lack heterogeneous vegetation structure preferred by many migratory birds (Salo et al. 2004, 

Fuhlendorf et al. 2006). Therefore, the District intends on using species-rich seed mixtures (Guo et al. 

2006, Larson 2011) on WPAs located in 1A to 3B landscapes to reduce weed invasion on seeded 

grasslands (Carpinelli 2001, Pokorny 2002, Blumenthal et al. 2003, Sheley and Half 2006), increase 

grassland sustainability (Berger 1993, Cramer 1991, Jacobs and Sheley 1999), support animal food 

webs (Rowe and Holland 2013), and attract a wide range of migratory birds (e.g., ROCs) and other 

prairie obligate species (Werling et al. 2014). 

The District will use functionally diverse seed mixes (Levang-Brilz and Biondini 2002, Pokorny et 

al. 2005, Biondini 2007) representative of the potential HCPC on ecological sites (Sedivec and Printz 

2012) consisting of a minimum of 9 grasses and 10 forbs (approximately 50% grasses and 50% forbs 

by weight [i.e., 4 lbs. grasses & 4 lbs. forbs per acre]) because this has been shown to provide higher 

plant diversity retention, higher resistance to invasion by exotic grasses and noxious weeds, and 

increased sustainability over time (Larson 2011). District reconstructions would then be within the 

range of 16 to 32 species considered the saturation rate for most seedings (Guo et al. 2006). Sheley 

and Half (2006) also indicate that seeding a wide range of forbs also improves niche occupancy and 

survival of forbs. Use of diverse seed mixes also ensures a well-developed root system which 

increases the vigor of the belowground community to compete against invasive grasses (Guo et al. 

2006). Thus, the goal of choosing many species from several functional groups is to increase aboveand below-ground competition against invasion by undesirable species by occupying niches with 

functionally similar species (i.e., similar nutrient requirements and morphological traits; Carpellini 

2001, Pokorny et al. 2005, Norland et al. 2013). 

The USFWS also has begun to use “spiked” seed mixes that contain 3–5 forb species that are 

additive to the typical diverse seed mix and are functionally similar to Canada thistle (Cirsium 

arvense) to reduce invasion following seeding (Norland et al. 2013). Their results indicate that diverse, 

spiked seedings improved competition between native plants and undesirable weeds and significantly 

reduced infestation 1-2 years post-seeding. This approach appears to be promising when 900 to 3,000 

seeds/m2

 cover the reconstruction site compared to sites having 300 seeds/m2. Selecting a combination 

of several forb species to “spike” such as common yarrow (Achillea millefolium; 2,852,000 seeds/lb.), 

hoary vervain (Verbena stricta; 512,000 seeds/lb) black-eyed susan (Rudbeckia hirta; 1,600,000 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

110
seeds/lb), plains coreopsis (Coreopsis palmate; 1,650,000 seeds/lb), purple prairie clover (Dalea 

purpurea; 290,000 seeds/lb), and maximilian sunflower (Helianthus maximiliani; 250,000 seeds/lb) 

has reduced invasion by Canada thistle. 

These reconstructed prairies will provide more permanent vegetation cover post-establishment, 

and when actively managed, will increase available staff time to conduct other priority activities such 

as easement acquisition and enforcement, developing partnerships with private landowners, and 

improving infrastructure on WPAs for enhanced management. 

OBJECTIVE 3.2 SEEDED INTRODUCED GRASSLANDS

Over the next 9 years, provide moderate to tall nesting habitat consisting of a minimum of ≥20 cm 

of horizontal vegetation cover density and average vegetation height of ≥28 cm by late May on seeded 

introduced grasslands in ≥2 of 4 management years prior to initiation of reconstruction to diverse 

native vegetation on WPAs located in 1A to 3B landscapes. This would be done to maximize nest 

success of upland nesting waterfowl (Anas spp.) and other grassland-obligate migratory birds. 

Rationale:

The process of reconstructing prairie on seeded introduced grasslands on WPAs located in 1A to 

3B landscapes is expected to be completed in phases over the course of ~49 years. The District will 

progressively reconstruct grasslands in 1A to 3B landscapes across all WPAs in the District. Thus, 

many WPAs in 1B to 3B landscapes will need to remain in seeded introduced grassland cover for ≥10 

years before reconstruction is initiated. Because these grasslands occur in landscapes with high 

amounts of grassland cover, they are likely to be occupied by many ROC if a range of cover is 

provided on an annual basis. For example, Davis et al. (2013) found that grassland specialist species 

such as Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) and Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) occupied 

seeded introduced grasslands even when they were surrounded by native tracts. They also found that 

bobolinks were most common in seeded introduced grasslands occurring in intact native grassland 

dominated landscapes (i.e., 1A to 3B). Therefore, maintaining tracts of seeded introduced grassland in 

grassland-dominated landscapes where migratory bird densities are high should provide nesting 

habitat for most ROC even if habitat quality is lower (Lloyd and Martin 2005) prior to reconstruction. 

Although most of these seeded introduced grasslands are degraded by exotic grass species, 

waterfowl nest success should be moderate to high in these landscapes 2–4 years post-management 

when vegetation density and height are optimal and litter depths are not excessive (Naugle et al. 

2000a, Devries and Armstrong 2011, Bloom et al. 2013). However, nest success in DNC fields 

averaged 12% in nesting studies conducted from 1966 to 1984, which indicates that these fields may 

be below the 15–20% nest success level required to sustain waterfowl populations during the longterm (Klett et al. 1988). Nonetheless, removing excessive litter is important otherwise these grasslands 

can function as prey reservoirs (abundant Microtus spp.) that attract predators and negatively affect 

waterfowl nest success (Voorhees and Cassel 1980, Norrdahl and Korpimaki 2000, Devries and 

Armstrong 2011). Thus, Naugle et al. (2000b) recommended that managers use litter depth to 

determine when to treat grasslands given that management intervals of once every 3-4 years were 

effective at reducing excessive litter accumulation (i.e., <10 cm), maintaining grassland stand vigor, 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

111
and supporting waterfowl production in native and seeded introduced grasslands (Voorhees and Cassel 

1980, Higgins 1986, Higgins et al. 1992, Kruse and Bowen 1996). Annual differences in climatic 

variation (e.g., precipitation, temperature) and differences in soil moisture, soil type, and geomorphic 

position on ecological sites (Sedivec and Printz 2012) also should be considered to determine 

appropriate management treatment timing, intensity, duration, and frequency. Nonetheless, achieving 

20 cm of horizontal vegetation cover density and vegetation height of 28 cm to maximize waterfowl 

nest success (Bloom et al. 2013) by mid-May should be attainable if these grasslands are managed 

once every 3–4 years.

OBJECTIVE 3.3 SEEDED INTRODUCED GRASSLANDS

Over the next 9 years, opportunistically manage seeded introduced grasslands on 4A to 4C WPAs 

to provide moderate to tall vegetation structure consisting of a minimum of ≥20 cm of horizontal 

vegetation cover density and average vegetation height of ≥28 cm by late-May in 3 of 4 management 

years to maximize nest success of upland nesting waterfowl (Anas spp.) and other grassland-generalist 

migratory birds such as Savannah sparrow, western meadowlark, and sedge wren. 

Rationale:

Reconstruction of seeded introduced grassland on WPAs located in 4A to 4C landscapes will not 

occur during the next 9 years because the District will be focusing staff time and resources on 

reconstructions in 1A to 3B landscapes that have higher biological potential to achieve the SHC 

population goals. Existing seeded introduced grasslands will be opportunistically managed to promote 

waterfowl nest success and occupancy by grassland generalist birds that are less sensitive to 

differences in landscape structure (Johnson and Igl 2001, Davis et al. 2006, Koper and Schmiegelow 

2006). The District will attempt to follow management criteria described under Seeded Introduced 

Grasslands Objective 3.2. Management, including haying, grazing, or burning, may occur 

opportunistically on these WPAs. However, opportunities to graze these WPAs may be limited since 

1) currently few private landowners maintain cattle herds in cropland-dominated landscapes; 2) most 

landowner would not be willing to move cattle long distances to implement rotational grazing systems 

on these WPAs; and 3) sufficient infrastructure to implement rotational grazing systems does not 

presently exist on most of these WPAs. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

112
CHAPTER 5 

Conservation Strategies

This chapter provides an overview of how the District intends to achieve objectives described in 

Chapter 4. Because wetland management districts (WMDs) administer landscape conservation using 

conservation easements, enhancement and restoration of habitat on private lands via the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program, and fee title management of waterfowl production areas (WPAs), this 

chapter integrates strategies aimed at maximizing the production of waterfowl and other resources of 

concern (ROC) at multiple scales (landscape to local). Habitat conservation on WMDs must integrate 

the role of the surrounding landscape to ensure that the establishing purposes of producing waterfowl 

while benefiting other migratory birds are met. Therefore, staff developed strategies and prescriptions 

that contribute to these purposes as part of a larger SHC approach outlined in Chapter 4:

• Strategies – specific techniques (i.e., prescribed fire or grazing) used to protect, manage, 

or enhance habitat to achieve objectives.

• Prescriptions – specific details describing how strategies will be implemented based on 

timing, frequency, intensity and location.

Ultimately, the District intends to use the SHC conservation design to target conservation delivery 

in areas with highest biological potential to contribute to the sustainability of migratory bird 

populations in the PPR. The strategies and prescriptions included in this HMP are linked to biological 

potential of different landscapes to achieve the SHC population goals and objectives that were 

identified by extensive review of relevant scientific literature, consultation with subject matter experts, 

and from evaluation of individual migratory bird species–habitat population models. Managers may 

need to modify actual prescriptions on fee title lands based on inter-annual variation in environmental 

conditions (e.g., precipitation, temperature) that influence changes in migratory bird distribution. 

5.1 Conservation Units

The SHC design described in Chapter 4 has identified a range of landscape types (1A to 5; Figure 

4-1) that can be used to maximize the contribution of the District to support the carrying capacity and 

production of waterfowl and other migratory birds with a limited set of resources. Conservation 

delivery during the next 15 years will follow specific objectives that relate the potential of each 

landscape type (1A to 5) to contribute to the SHC conservation design. The District’s SHC design

focuses conservation delivery at landscape and local scales using the following conservation units: 

1. landscape types 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5. 

2. individual grassland tracts or wetland basins on private lands.

3. waterfowl production areas (N = 201). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

113
At the largest scale, conservation units such as 1A landscapes under the SHC conservation design

have the highest potential to support all population objectives (i.e., 15–20% nest success rates required 

for waterfowl population stability (Cowardin et al. 1985); contribute to waterfowl carrying capacity; 

high occupancy by waterfowl broods (Walker et al. 2013a); and attract high densities of uplandnesting ROCs. Whereas, landscape type 5 (<25 duck pairs/mi) has the lowest potential to attract and 

support waterfowl populations because these landscapes have low wetland densities. The classes do 

not represent priority order from 1A to 5, rather each class may have a different set of 

conservation treatments that can be used by managers to contribute to the waterfowl population 

objectives of the SHC conservation design while benefitting other priority ROC. Thus, utilization 

of landscape types as conservation units to target conservation delivery provides an effective, 

biologically-based means for landscape conservation on WMDs. 

The District also has selected objectives and strategies that contribute to the goals of the SHC 

conservation design on private lands. As a conservation unit, acquiring conservation easements and 

restoring and enhancing habitat on private lands has the highest potential to support waterfowl and 

ROC and maintain existing ecosystem services because the majority of wetlands (>50%) and 

grasslands (>90%) in the District are privately owned. It is essential that the District continue to 

acquire these habitats under the USFWS easement program and work with private landowners to 

implement rotational grazing systems or restore wetland basins under the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program in 1A to 4C landscapes to successfully implement SHC. 

Staff decided not to reference individual management units on WPAs in this HMP (i.e., Figure 2-

3). Rather, staff will develop individual WPA management plans that utilize the objectives and 

strategies identified in this HMP to select prescriptions based on habitat conditions occurring on 

individual WPAs. Management prescriptions will be adjusted as necessary on an annual basis to 

coincide with changes in environmental conditions. 

The potential for fee title WPAs to contribute to the goals and objectives of the SHC conservation 

design largely depends on landscape type. Staff have intentionally selected strategies that can differ 

between landscape types to ensure that management of WPAs meets the habitat requirements of ROC. 

For example, a WPA located in a 4A landscape is highly attractive to waterfowl (Loesch et al. 2012) 

where production can be high in wet years (Walker et al. 2013b), but grassland-obligate migratory bird 

densities are low (Unpublished data, USFWS PPJV, Bismarck, North Dakota). Thus, managers in 4A 

landscapes could focus on wetland protection, maintaining tall, dense cover for waterfowl on WPAs, 

and restoring wetland basins on private lands. By incorporating realistic and strategic conservation 

targets, the District has selected appropriate strategies to support migratory bird populations on private 

lands and fee title WPAs across a range of landscape types. 

5.2 Landscape-scale Conservation Strategies and 

Prescriptions 

This section provides a listing of the HMP sub-goals and objectives with selected strategies that 

managers may use to deliver conservation at landscape scales. These strategies and prescriptions 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

114
represent a comprehensive approach to implementation of the landscape conservation approach 

implemented under the SHC conservation design. For each objective, a list of potential management 

strategies is listed and these should be considered as treatment options that can be used collectively or 

individually to achieve or contribute to the objective.

The District will incorporate new strategies as new scientific information is obtained through 

adaptive management and assumption-based monitoring and research or from relevant research studies 

conducted in the PPR. This iterative SHC approach is designed as a decision support tool to improve 

landscape-scale conservation on WMDs during the current climate of lean budgets and rapid 

conversion of wetland and grassland habitat. Specific prescriptions that coincide with the 

implementation of inventory and monitoring strategies will be identified in a step down Inventory and 

Monitoring Plan. 

GOAL 1—LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION

Maximize the contribution of the District to the sustainability of waterfowl and other migratory 

bird populations in the PPR through implementation of strategic habitat conservation that targets 

conservation delivery within landscapes having the highest biological potential to maximize waterfowl 

carrying capacity, nest success, and brood occupancy, while sustaining contiguous portions of the 

mixed-grass prairie ecosystem for the benefit of the ROC and associated native wildlife and plant 

communities. 

OBJECTIVE 1.1 CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

Over the next 9 years, continue to secure protected status on 100% of wetlands offered by willing 

landowners in wetland priority zones as identified in the North Dakota WMD CCP (USFWS 2008a) in 

the District that support ≥25 breeding duck pairs per square mile (1A to 4C landscapes) to contribute 

to maximizing the current carrying capacity for waterfowl and other wetland-dependent migratory bird 

populations in the Prairie Pothole Region. 

Conservation Strategies and Prescriptions

• Utilize the evaluation criteria for wetland easements as identified in the CCP (USFWS 

2008a) to determine acquisition priority. 

• Ensure that all at-risk wetlands in landscapes having ≥60 breeding duck pairs per square 

mile (1A, 1B, 4A landscapes) are protected with help from willing landowners because 

these wetland dense landscapes are critically important to support pulses in waterfowl 

productivity (Walker et al. 2013b), brood occupancy (Walker et al. 2013a), and brood 

survival (Krapu et al. 2006, Amundson and Arnold 2011, Amundson et al. 2012). 

• Contact landowners who were not interested in the wetland easement program during the 

initial inventory via mass mailings and phone calls at 5-year intervals or sooner if land use 

trends change.

• Continue to focus on protecting wetlands located in cropland in 1A to 4C landscapes to 

protect basins at highest risk of being drained. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

115
• Continue to partner with Ducks Unlimited and other organizations to co-locate staff within 

the District that work with private landowners to protect, enhance, or restore important 

wetland habitats.

Inventory and Monitoring Strategies

• Annually evaluate landownership of unprotected wetlands by monitoring land sales in 

each county in the District and contacting all new landowners to determine their interest in 

the wetland easement program.

• By 2015, complete the inventory of potential landowner interest in the wetland easement 

program in 1A to 4C landscapes in the District. 

• Annually monitor all wetland easements in the District to ensure that they are protected 

under the provisions of the conservation easement contracts (See wetland in easements 

Objective 2 in North Dakota WMD CCP (USFWS 2008a) (Appendix D). 

OBJECTIVE 1.2 CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

Over the next 9 years, as funding sources become available, secure protected status on 100% of 

grasslands offered by willing landowners in grassland priority zones, as identified in the North Dakota 

WMD CCP (USFWS 2008a), in the District. Also, focus grassland protection in landscapes that have 

the highest potential to maximize waterfowl production (1A, 1B, 4A), support high brood occupancy 

rates for waterfowl, and maintain densities of ROC above mean population levels.

Conservation Strategies and Prescriptions

• Because grassland easement funding resources are limited, initially protect at-risk 

grasslands in priority 1A zones identified in the grassland easement evaluation criteria 

(USFWS 2008) and in 1A, 1B, and 4A landscapes identified in the SHC conservation 

design (Figure 4-1) because these areas have the highest potential to contribute to the SHC 

waterfowl population objectives. 

• Protect all wetlands within the boundaries of any grassland easement purchased from 

willing landowners in the District.

• Through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, develop partnerships with private 

landowners who may not be enrolled in the grassland easement program to increase their 

likelihood of protecting their land from conversion with a perpetual grassland easement. 

• Contact landowners who were not interested in the grassland easement program during the 

initial inventory via mass mailings and phone calls at 5-year intervals or sooner if land use 

trends change.

• To maintain productivity of fee title WPAs, protect all wetlands and grasslands within a 

10.4 km2 area surrounding each WPA in 1A and 1B landscapes because these landscapes 

have the highest probability of achieving the goals of the SHC approach. In 2014, 

resources available for grassland easement acquisition are extremely limited in North 

Dakota. Therefore, the District must strategically purchase grassland easements in 

landscapes where the biological benefits would be highest to upland nesting migratory 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

116
birds. This strategy does not supersede acquisition of grasslands with higher breeding 

pairs located independently of WPAs. 

Inventory and Monitoring Strategies

• Annually evaluate landownership of unprotected grasslands by monitoring land sales in 

each county in the District and contact all new landowners to determine their interest in 

the grassland easement program.

• By 2017, complete the inventory of potential landowner interest in the grassland easement 

program in 1A, 1B, and 4A landscapes. 

OBJECTIVE 1.3 CONSERVATION EASEMENTS 

By 2017, contact 100% of landowners located in 1A to 4C landscapes within the District to 

determine their interest in obtaining a wetland and grassland conservation easement, conduct 100% of 

easement evaluations within 6 months of determining individual landowner interest, and submit 100% 

of completed evaluations within 2 months to the USFWS Region 6 Division of Realty for further 

evaluation to ensure that all potential conservation easements are purchased from willing landowners 

in a reasonable amount of time.

Conservation Strategies and Prescriptions

• Allocate all available staff resources to complete this wetland and grassland conservation 

easement inventory by 2017. 

• Contact landowners who were not interested in the wetland and grassland easement 

program during the initial inventory via mass mailings and phone calls at 5-year intervals 

or sooner if land use trends change.

• Continue to use the existing system to determine landowner interest in the District until 

the inventory is completed. Staff will utilize a 3-step process to determine landowner 

interest: 1) send mass mailings to all landowners having unprotected wetlands, 2) contact 

each individual landowner by phone to determine their interest, and 3) send final notice 

letter to landowners who did not respond to the initial letter or to phone calls. 

• Conduct easement evaluations immediately after crops are harvested in the fall and after 

the snow melts in the spring to ensure that all evaluations are completed within 6 months 

of determining landowner interest in the easement program. 

• Continue to work closely with the Region 6 Division of Realty to ensure that all submitted 

easement evaluations and associated documents are efficiently processed. This strategy is 

necessary because landowners may change their interest in the easement program if 

easements are not purchased in a timely manner.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

117
Inventory and Monitoring Strategies

• Annually evaluate landownership of unprotected wetlands and grasslands by monitoring 

land sales in each county in the District and contact all new landowners to determine their 

interest in the grassland easement program.

• Annually contact landowners on recently converted grasslands to determine their interest 

in the wetland easement program. Some landowners may be willing to protect wetlands on 

their land even if the adjacent uplands were converted for agricultural purposes. This 

strategy could be the last attempt by the Service to protect wetlands before they are 

drained. 

OBJECTIVE 1.4 FEE-TITLE WATERFOWL PRODUCTION AREAS

During the next 9 years, target 80% of all habitat management activities on 136 WPAs located in 

1A [n = 61], 1B [n = 72], 2A [n = 1], 2B [n = 2], 3A, and 3B landscapes that support ≥25 duck pairs 

per square mile and contain ≥40% grass cover within a 10.4 km2

 area that that yield ≥15-20% 

waterfowl nest success. Managers aim to provide diverse, heterogeneous nesting habitat that meets the 

habitat requirements of waterfowl (Anas spp.) and other ROC, including grasshopper sparrow, claycolored sparrow, bobolink, marbled godwit, and northern harrier. 

Conservation Strategies and Prescriptions

Staff would use assumption-based research and outcome-based monitoring to measure the 

biological return achieved from this SHC conservation design. Specific actions include: 

• Test assumptions used in the SHC conservation design.

• Evaluate habitat responses to conservation actions.

• Evaluate migratory bird responses to conservation actions.

• Iteratively adapt the SHC conservation design as new scientific information is obtained.

• Develop annual work plans that allocate 80% of all management activities (i.e., native 

prairie restoration or reconstruction, prescribed fire and grazing) on WPAs in 1A to 3B 

landscapes.

• Utilize the principles of adaptive management and SHC to integrate new scientific 

findings into applied habitat management on WPAs located in 1A to 3B landscapes. 

• By 2018, develop 5-year individual management plans for all WPAs located in 1A to 3B 

landscapes to increase the efficiency and continuity of restoration, reconstruction, and 

enhancement activities in the District.

• Continue to develop partnerships with private landowner cooperators to deliver precisely 

timed defoliation treatments that meet the goals and objectives outlined in this plan. For 

example, development of 5-year agreements would likely increase the commitment of 

cooperators to the terms of individual WPA plans because they could better anticipate 

their grazing needs within their operations compared to annual agreements. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

118
• Focus the majority of noxious weed control efforts in 1A to 3B landscapes to limit further 

degradation of grasslands that are actively being enhanced, reconstructed, and/or restored 

using specific management treatments.

Inventory and Monitoring Strategies

• Test the assumptions of the SHC conservation design using focused research, inventories, 

or monitoring to adaptively administer conservation within the District. Ensure that all 

studies are sufficient in time and space to account for variation between landscape types.

• Monitor the effectiveness of management treatments to restore, enhance, or maintain 

grassland plant communities for the benefit of migratory bird populations. Monitoring 

should account for inter-annual variation in environmental conditions to determine the 

appropriate frequency, timing, and intensity of defoliation treatments. Monitoring is aimed 

at determining increasing or decreasing trends in native plant communities and the degree 

of invasion by Kentucky bluegrass or smooth brome. 

• Monitor the biological response (i.e., reproductive success, density) of waterfowl and 

other migratory birds (e.g., ROCs) to management treatments aimed at providing suitable 

nesting habitat across the range of landscape types to determine their effectiveness to 

contribute to the goals and objectives of the SHC approach. 

• By 2015, complete an accurate spatial inventory of individual habitat types (native prairie, 

reconstructed prairie, or seeded introduced native) to improve the efficiency of 

management that coincides with habitat types described in this HMP. This information 

also is important to create an effective biological program centered on these habitat types 

and to aid the Wildlife Biologist in the development of future research, inventories, and 

monitoring on WPAs. There are inconsistencies in existing spatial layers. Therefore, a 

comparative analysis of Resource Inventory Planning (RIP) cards recorded from 

approximately 1970 to 1985, the national vegetation classification system (NVCS) 

geospatial layer, evidence from each WPA management file, field verification, and 

institutional knowledge from managers is needed to create accurate spatial layers that can 

better inform management.

• By 2018, complete an inventory of native prairie ecological sites on WPAs to determine 

their plant community state. Variation within ecological sites can be determined using 

state-and-transition models. Information from these models can be used by managers to 

select management actions to restore the observed plant community (see Sedivec and 

Printz 2012). 

• Monitor the effectiveness of management treatments to influence change in plant 

community state on ecological sites (Sedivec and Printz 2012). 

• Develop focused research that evaluates potential variation in reproductive success and 

density of migratory birds that may occur across plant community states (see state-andtransition models; Sedivec and Printz 2012). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

119
OBJECTIVE 1.5 FEE-TITLE WATERFOWL PRODUCTION AREAS

During the next 9 years, target 20% of all habitat management activities on 64 WPAs located in 

4A [n = 51], 4B [n = 10], and 4C [n = 3] landscapes that support ≥25 duck pairs per square mile and 

contain <40% grass cover within a 10.4 km2 area to maximize upland nesting waterfowl (Anas spp.) 

nest success and benefit other habitat generalist migratory birds such as Savannah sparrow and sedge 

wren. 

Conservation Strategies and Prescriptions

• Focus management on WPAs located in 4A to 4C landscapes on maintaining dense stands 

of moderate to tall grassland cover through litter reduction management treatments at 

approximately 4-year intervals to benefit nesting waterfowl (Naugle et al. 2000a, Devries 

and Armstrong 2011, Bloom et al. 2013). Periodic defoliation and removal of excess litter 

is important to limit overabundance of prey species that attract nest predators and to 

maintain grassland stand vigor (Norrdahl and Korpimaki 2000, Higgins et al. 1992, 

Devries and Armstrong 2011). 

• Utilize the principles of adaptive management and SHC to integrate new scientific 

findings into applied habitat management on WPAs located in 4A to 4C landscapes. 

• Develop annual work plans that allocate 20% of all management activities (i.e., native 

prairie restoration or reconstruction, prescribed fire and grazing) on WPAs in 4A to 4C 

landscapes.

• By 2020, develop 5-year individual management plans for all WPAs located in 4A to 4C 

landscapes to increase the efficiency and continuity of restoration, reconstruction, and 

enhancement activities in the District.

• Conduct litter reduction management treatments (e.g., haying or fall prescribed fires) after 

August 1 to ensure that nesting migratory birds such as waterfowl, sedge wren, and 

Savannah sparrow are not adversely affected by management treatments.

• Conduct light to moderate grazing treatments to provide suitable habitat for most uplandnesting migratory birds (Salo et al. 2004) using rotational systems after June 1 to allow 

50% of waterfowl to initiate nesting without disturbance by livestock (Barker et al. 1990). 

Range utilization under rotational grazing systems should not exceed 50% for most 

grassland birds (Salo et al. 2004) and 50–60% for waterfowl to ensure that suitable 

residual cover exists the following spring for early nesting ducks (e.g., northern pintail, 

mallard) (Barker et al. 1990). 

• Continue to develop partnerships with private landowner cooperators to deliver precisely 

timed defoliation treatments such as grazing or haying that meet the objectives identified 

in this plan. 

• Target available staff time and resources for controlling noxious weeds to highly invasive 

species (e.g., yellow toadflax, leafy spurge) occurring as new or small (<0.5 ac) 

infestations to prevent further degradation of grasslands. Managers will use their 

discretion to determine actual impacts to habitat and surrounding lands of limiting weed 

control on 4A to 4C WPAs. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

120
Inventory and Monitoring Strategies

• Test the assumptions of the SHC conservation design using focused research, inventories, 

or monitoring to adaptively administer conservation within the District. Ensure that all 

studies are sufficient in time and space to account for variation between landscape types 

and years.

• Monitor the effectiveness of management treatments to restore, enhance, or maintain 

grassland plant communities for the benefit of migratory bird populations.

• Monitor litter accumulation on 4A to 4C WPAs at 4-year intervals to determine if 

management is required to maintain grassland stand vigor. 

• Monitor the effectiveness of different grazing or haying treatments to remove litter and 

improve grassland vigor on 4A to 4C WPAs. 

• By 2015, complete an accurate spatial inventory of individual habitat types (native prairie, 

reconstructed prairie, or seeded introduced native) to improve the efficiency of 

management and to aid the Wildlife Biologist in the development of future research, 

inventories, and monitoring on 4A to 4C WPAs. 

• By 2020, complete an inventory of native prairie ecological sites on 4A to 4C WPAs to 

determine their plant community state. Variation within ecological sites can be determined 

using state-and-transition models. Information from these models can be used by 

managers to determine management actions to restore the observed plant community (see 

Sedivec and Printz 2012). 

• Monitor the effects of land use change on migratory bird populations in landscapes that 

transition from 1B to 4A. 

OBJECTIVE 1.6PARTNERSHIPS ON PRIVATE LANDS

By 2015, partner with private landowners to annually establish a minimum of 20 rotational 

grazing systems on grassland tracts (≥160 acres) within 1A and 1B landscapes under the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program to improve nesting conditions for waterfowl (Anas sp.) and other ROC 

such as clay-colored sparrow, bobolink, grasshopper sparrow, and northern harrier. 

Conservation Strategies and Prescriptions

• The District will initially target rotational grazing systems on grasslands in 1A or 1B 

landscapes that meet the following criteria in descending order:

1. Located on unprotected grasslands at high risk of conversion. 

2. Located on existing grassland easements.

3. Located adjacent to WPAs or within the 10.4 km2 area surrounding the WPA. 

• By 2018, contact all private landowners with grassland easements and develop rotational 

grazing system agreements with willing landowners through the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program that improve the habitat structure of grasslands on private lands during 

the nesting season for waterfowl and other migratory birds. 

• Develop similar agreements with private landowners not enrolled in the grassland 

easement program to maintain grassland status and improve habitat structure for nesting 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

121
migratory birds. Progressively contact landowners in 1A to 4C landscapes with 

unprotected, at-risk grasslands (Figure 4-13). 

• Increase the availability of moderate to tall vegetation structure that is preferred by most 

nesting migratory birds (Barker et al. 1990, Salo et al. 2004, Bloom et al. 2013) within a 

10.4 km2 area surrounding each 1A to 3B WPA by developing rotational grazing systems 

on private lands. Secondary benefits of implementing rotational grazing systems on 

adjacent private lands also may include decreases in invasion by Kentucky bluegrass or 

smooth brome (Dekeyser et al. 2013), improved beef production for ranchers compared to 

rested or overgrazed pastures (Patton et al. 2007), and improved ecological services due to 

enhanced range condition (Bloom et al. 2013, Werling et al. 2014). 

• Inform private landowners interested in obtaining a grassland easement offer of the 

benefits of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program such as increased beef production 

and higher suitability to wildlife (Barker et al. 1990, Salo et al. 2004). 

Inventory and Monitoring Strategies

• Monitor the implementation of rotational grazing systems along with utilization rates on 

private lands that are intended to improve habitat structure for the benefit of migratory 

bird populations.

• Conduct research to determine the biological response (i.e., density, nest density, nest 

success) of waterfowl and other migratory birds to different grazing systems on public and 

private lands. 

• Annually evaluate landownership of unprotected grasslands by monitoring land sales in 

each county in the District and contact all new landowners to determine their interest in 

the grassland easement program and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. 

OBJECTIVE 1.7ADAPTIVE LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION

At 5-year intervals, update the District’s SHC conservation design to incorporate changes in 

landscape types that coincide with changes in land use trends and factors influencing the production of 

waterfowl and other migratory birds as part of an adaptive approach to deliver conservation in areas 

having the greatest biological potential to benefit resources of concern.

Conservation Strategies and Prescriptions

• Incorporate significant scientific advances in waterfowl ecology into future iterations of 

the SHC conservation design. 

• Collaborate with USFWS HAPET and PPJV staff and other waterfowl ecologists to 

develop future iterations of the SHC conservation design. 

Inventory and Monitoring Strategies

Incorporate findings from assumption-driven research, inventories, and monitoring activities 

designed to test the assumptions of the SHC conservation design into the goals and objectives in this 

plan. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

122
5.3 Local-scale Management Strategies and

Prescriptions 

SUB-GOAL 2—NATIVE OR RECONSTRUCTED PRAIRIE

Maximize native vegetation diversity and composition on individual tracts of native sod and 

reconstructed native prairie on WPAs using adaptive management to provide heterogeneous vegetation 

structure required by upland-nesting resources of concern (ROC) and contribute to biological integrity, 

diversity, and enhancement (BIDEH) within the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem.

OBJECTIVE 2.1NATIVE PRAIRIE

Over the next 9 years, restore 391 acres of native prairie occurring on 9 Native Prairie Adaptive 

Management study units using the full adaptive management process to apply appropriate and precise 

disturbance as recommended in each management year (September 1 to August 31), optimally 

increasing native plant frequency by an average of ≥1 to 5% during any 5-year interval, to increase 

resistance to invasion by exotic cool-season grasses, improve habitat condition for migratory birds and 

other prairie obligate species (e.g., pollinators), and enhance ecological services such as BIDEH on 

individual WPAs included in the study.

Management Strategies and Prescriptions

• Follow recommended management strategies and prescriptions for the duration of the 

NPAM effort to ensure that information used to test a priori restoration models is accurate.

• Conduct the majority of management treatments within NPAM-designated spring 

defoliation window (Table 4-2) (USFWS 2011c). 

• Prioritize the limited availability of prescribed fire to NPAM units within the District. 

Applying prescribed fire on NPAM units is important to determine if restoration efforts 

are achieving desired results. Because NPAM units are managed using an intense 

restoration approach under an established adaptive framework, the District has the best 

opportunity to adapt restoration efforts on the remainder of native prairie tracts on WPAs 

using information obtained during this study. 

Inventory and Monitoring Strategies

• Annually monitor native prairie composition on NPAM units using existing protocols 

(USFWS 2011c) to inform models designed to improve our understanding of factors 

influencing native prairie restoration. 

• Collect inventories of additional biotic and abiotic datasets to include in NPAM models. 

OBJECTIVE 2.2NATIVE PRAIRIE

Over the next 9 years, restore or maintain native prairie community assemblage on native prairie 

occurring on WPAs located in 1A to 3B landscapes using appropriate and precise disturbance in each 

management year (September 1 to August 31) to provide suitable nesting habitat for waterfowl and 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

123
other migratory birds while shifting the existing native plant community towards the potential historic 

climax plant community state for specific ecological sites and enhancing BIDEH on individual WPAs. 

Specific management thresholds include:

• Intensely manage tracts with 25 to 55% native vegetation remaining to increase native 

plant vigor, density, and seedling recruitment and prevent further degradation within 

ecological sites. (Option A);

• Actively manage tracts with >55% native vegetation remaining to maintain or enhance 

native plant communities on ecological sites. (Option B);

• Manage tracts with <25% native vegetation remaining exclusively as nesting habitat for 

waterfowl and other ROCs. (Option C). 

The following management strategies and prescriptions provide managers with a range of 

management treatments that are designed to benefit upland nesting migratory birds while attempting to 

restore native prairie communities. Managers can select the appropriate strategies to manage native 

prairie based on the amount of native vegetation remaining and community phase on ecological sites 

under options A, B, or C. Using this approach, managers realize that specific short-term tradeoffs exist 

when selecting a specific strategy over another because of the need to restore highly degraded native 

prairie communities (Murphy and Grant 2005, Grant et al. 2009) while providing vegetation structure 

preferred by most breeding migratory birds (Barker et al. 1990, Salo et al. 2004, Naugle et al. 2000a, 

Bloom et al. 2013). For example, intensely managing tracts to restore a degraded tract under Option A 

may require defoliation in ≥4 of 5 years and would result in short vegetation structure that is preferred 

by fewer upland nesting migratory birds (Kirsch et al. 1978, Kantrud and Higgins 1992, Salo et al. 

2004, Fuhlendorf et al. 2006). However, there is a dire need to restore highly degraded native prairie 

(Grant et al. 2009) because exotic cool-season grasses can completely dominate native prairie sites 

causing restoration to be unlikely (Murphy and Grant 2005). Because restoration of native prairie 

tracts is a long-term process (i.e., 30–50 years [Grant et al. 2009]), staff have decided to use a hybrid 

approach for restoring prairie while providing suitable habitat for waterfowl production to meet the 

establishing purposes of the District. Restoration of native plant communities is important to attract 

diverse assemblages of birds (Murphy and Sondreal 2003), improve floristic composition (Murphy 

and Grant 2005), prevent further losses in ecosystem services (Hobbie 1992, Hooper et al. 2005, 

Jordan et al. 2008, Werling et al. 2014) and best enable mixed-grass prairies to respond to climate 

change (Craine et al. 2012). 

Management Strategies and Prescriptions

• Utilize appropriate defoliation treatments for Options A, B, and C to provide a range of 

habitat structure to meet the needs for nesting ROC:

o Waterfowl – provide 20 cm of vegetation density based on visual obstruction and 

28 cm in vegetation height by late May to positively influence nest survival 

(Bloom et al. 2013). Option B, C. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

124
a. Defoliate vegetation using an intense grazing or fire treatment every 3–4 

years to remove litter and maintain grassland vigor (Naugle et al. 2000a). 

b. If more frequent defoliation is desired (i.e., Option B), grazing regimes 

that utilize 50–60% of vegetation should ensure that suitable residual 

cover exists the following spring for early nesting ducks (e.g., northern 

pintail, mallard; Barker et al. 1990). 

c. Integrate prescribed fire as resources allow to enhance vegetation 

structure, but not more than twice during any 5 year period. Option B, C. 

o For marbled godwit, chestnut-collared longspur, willet and other migratory birds 

that prefer short vegetation structure, provide suitable nesting cover consisting of 

~7 to 22 cm vegetation density and 17 to 27 cm in vegetation height (Kantrud and 

Higgins 1992, Salo et al. 2004) by late May each year. Option A, B, C. 

a. Defoliate vegetation using heavy to extreme grazing intensities utilizing 

65–80% of vegetation in any year (Salo et al. 2004). 

b. Integrate prescribed fire as resources allow in ≤3 of 5 years. 

o For clay-colored sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, American bittern, 

northern harrier, and other migratory birds that prefer moderate to tall vegetation 

structure – provide suitable nesting cover of ≥25 cm vegetation density and ≥28 

cm vegetation height (Kantrud and Higgins 1992, Salo et al. 2004) by early June. 

Option B, C. 

a. Defoliate vegetation using light to moderate grazing intensities that utilize 

35–50% of vegetation in any year to provide nesting habitat for most nongame, mixed-grass prairie bird species (Salo et al. 2004). 

b. Integrate prescribed fire as resources allow, but not more than twice 

during any 5- year period. 

• Improve native plant communities within ecological sites towards the historic climax plant 

community (HCPC) using information derived from state-and-transition [STM] models 

and appropriate defoliation treatments. Option A, B. 

o By 2018, complete an inventory of native prairie ecological sites on WPAs to 

determine their plant community state. Variation within ecological sites can be 

determined using state-and-transition models. Information from these models can 

be used by managers to select management actions to restore the observed plant 

community (see Sedivec and Printz 2012). 

• Modify the frequency, duration, and intensity of defoliation treatments based on native 

plant composition, STM of ecological site, and with annual fluctuations in environmental 

conditions (e.g., temperature, precipitation, soil moisture) that affect plant community 

phenology and vigor. Option A, B, C. 

• Prevent build-up of litter with regular defoliation treatments (primarily grazing and fire) 

on sites dominated by exotic cool-season grasses to aid restoration efforts (Option A, B) 

and maintain vigor of grassland structure to benefit nesting migratory birds (Option B, C). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

125
o Prevent litter accumulation on Kentucky bluegrass dominated sites to maintain 

water movement between the plant community and the soil (Weaver and Rowland 

1952) and to maintain soil conditions necessary for seedling germination by 

native forbs (Bosy and Reader 1995). Option A, B. 

o Prevent litter accumulation in smooth brome dominated sites to reduce the rate of 

smooth brome decomposition that alters soil nitrogen levels and proliferates its 

persistence (Vinton and Goergen 2006, Jordan et al. 2008). Option A, B. 

o Reduce litter accumulation using a defoliation treatment a minimum of once every 

3–4 years in mixed-grass prairies to maintain grassland vigor and support the 

production of waterfowl and other migratory birds (Voorhees and Cassel 1980, 

Higgins 1986, Higgins et al. 1992, Kruse and Bowen 1996, Naugle et al. 2000a). 

Option B, C.

• Opportunistically apply prescribed fire to disturb invasive grasses such as Kentucky 

bluegrass or smooth brome (Option A, B), provide heterogeneous structure (Option B, C), 

and reduce litter accumulation (Option A, B, C). 

o Annually prioritize fire management on Option A or B native tracts over C tracts.

Utilization of fire as a restoration tool is a higher priority than for litter reduction 

because several options (grazing or haying) exist to reduce litter.

a. As fire resources allow, maintain a minimum of a 5-year fire interval 

similar to that which evolved with mixed-grass prairies (Bragg 1995). 

Option A, B, C. 

o Vary the timing of fires on restored sites (>75% native vegetation composition) to 

increase plant species richness on native prairie. For example, the use of summer 

fires on restored sites has been shown to improve species richness and diversity 

(Towne and Kemp 2008). Improving species richness and diversity should lead to 

heterogeneous vegetation structure preferred by migratory birds (Salo et al. 2004, 

Fuhlendorf et al. 2006, Coppedge et al. 2008, Bloom et al. 2013). Option B. 

o Combine spring or fall burning with intensive spring grazing to reduce exotic 

cool-season grasses (Smart et al. 2010). Option A, B. 

o Utilize prescribed fire as a tool to disturb Kentucky bluegrass: Option A, B.

a. Conduct prescribed burns during the spring (i.e., late April to mid-May) 

during tiller elongation (Grace et al. 2001) to reduce the frequency of 

Kentucky bluegrass (Knops 2006, Engle and Bultsma 1984, Hendrickson 

and Lund 2010). 

1. Burning may be conducted later in May on dry sites (Zedler and 

Loucks 1969) or during drought years to damage Kentucky 

bluegrass (Engle and Bultsma 1984, Nagle et al. 1994). 

2. Conduct burning when Kentucky bluegrass is 4–6 inches of 

height to reduce its composition in native prairies (Svedarsky et 

al. 1986). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

126
b. Conduct annual or biennial spring burning to decrease cover of Kentucky 

bluegrass (Knops 2006). 

o Utilize prescribed fire as a tool to disturb smooth brome: Option A, B. 

a. Conduct prescribed burns during tiller elongation (i.e., mid-May to early 

June) during the 4- to 5-leaf stage to reduce the density of smooth brome 

(Willson 1991, Willson and Stubbendieck 2000). 

b. Conduct repeated spring burns to decrease the presence of smooth brome 

(Willson and Stubbendieck 1997, 2000, Stacy et al. 2005). 

c. Avoid burning in early spring (April to early May) because smooth brome 

may increase due to increased light reaching growing leaves when litter is 

removed from the burn (Higgins et al. 1989, Willson and Stubbendieck 

2000). 

d. Avoid burning until the subsequent year if tiller inflorescences are present 

(Willson and Stubbendieck 2000). 

• Apply prescribed grazing on native grassland tracts to disturb invasive grasses such as 

Kentucky bluegrass or smooth brome (Option A, B), provide heterogeneous structure 

(Option B, C), or reduce litter accumulation (Option A, B, C). 

o Utilize patch-burn-graze systems as a restoration tool as fire management 

resources allow. For example, light stocking rates and a 3-year burn rotation can 

be used to promote structural diversity and increase forb abundance on sites where 

native composition is high (>60%) because cattle will selectively consume grasses 

(Helzer 2011). Option A, B. 

o Delay grazing until after June 1 each year using stocking rates that utilize 20–50% 

of standing forage to reduce litter accumulation and provide a mosaic of intrafield vegetation structure preferred by most migratory birds for nesting (Barker et 

al. 1990, Salo et al. 2004, Bloom et al. 2013). Option B, C. 

o Utilize grazing as a tool to suppress invasion of Kentucky bluegrass. Option A, B. 

a. Conduct intensive early season grazing to damage Kentucky bluegrass 

(Hanson et al. 2010). Option A, B.

b. Avoid the use of summer grazing on sites where Kentucky bluegrass is 

prevalent to prevent further invasion (Murphy and Grant 2005, Patton et 

al. 2011). Option A, B. 

o Utilize grazing as a tool to suppress invasion of smooth brome. Option A, B. 

a. Intensely graze pastures from tiller elongation (mid- to late May) through 

boot stages (early June) to stress growth and development of smooth 

brome (Helzer 2011, Murphy and Grant 2005, Stacy et al. 2005, Mousel 

and Smart 2007). Option A, B. This strategy is designed to remove 

actively growing points (tiller) and leaf material to damage the plant 

(Mousel and Smart 2007). 

b. Conduct repeated annual spring grazing of smooth brome as this strategy 

has been shown to be effective at controlling smooth brome without 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

127
harming desirable native plants on mixed-grass prairies (Stacy et al. 

2005). Option A, B. 

o Maintain idle cover in ≥2 of 4 years on sites dominated by ≥95% exotic grasses to 

benefit waterfowl as nesting densities have been shown to be 1.6 times greater on 

idle versus grazed sites during a 7-year study in the Missouri Coteau (Barker et al. 

1990). Option C. 

• On a limited basis, work with private landowners (cooperators) to remove excessive litter 

accumulation after August 1 via haying and raking when options for rotational grazing 

systems may not exist. Haying also can be conducted on sites with excessive noxious 

weed invasions to suppress further spread on native prairie tracts. Option A, B, C. 

• Progressively remove trees from 1A to 4C WPAs to reduce further encroachment and 

remove raptor perching sites and raccoon den sites that attract predators and negatively 

affect upland nesting birds. Option A, B, C.

Inventory and Monitoring Strategies 

• Conduct research on the response of ROCs and other native wildlife species within the 

hypothesized native prairie plant community thresholds (<25%, 25-45%, >55% native 

prairie dominated composition [plant groups 41-43, 46, 48, 49, 53, 63, and 76] [Grant et 

al. 2004]) and across various landscape types (1A to 4C). Option A, B, C. 

• Monitor native prairie plant communities to determine if changes occur between plant 

community phases on ecological sites at a minimum of once every three (Option A, B) to 

five (C) years to adjust management prescriptions as necessary to maintain desired habitat 

conditions. 

• Monitor the effectiveness of management treatments to influence change in plant 

community state on ecological sites (Sedivec and Printz 2012). Develop focused research 

that evaluates potential variation in reproductive success and density of migratory birds 

that may occur across plant community states (see state-and-transition models). Option A, 

B, C.

• By 2018, complete an inventory of floristic quality using common metrics (i.e., ShannonWiener index of diversity, coefficient of conservatism, floristic quality index, native 

species composition) on ecological sites to determine if there have been changes in native 

plant diversity and density over time on actively and intensely managed sites (i.e., 

Whittaker 1967, Whittaker 1975, Swink and Wilhelm 1994, Taft et al. 2006, Sivicek and 

Taft 2011). Option A, B. 

• Monitor the response of native prairie communities to defoliation treatments (i.e., grazing, 

fire) and adjust management prescriptions (timing, frequency, and intensity) or identified 

thresholds using an adaptive management approach (Gannon et al. 2010). Option A, B, C. 

o Monitor grass utilization rates to determine effectiveness of grazing treatments 

(see Johnson et al. 1994). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

128
o Monitor the effectiveness of prescribed fires based on area burned, fire intensity, 

litter consumption and impact to Kentucky bluegrass duff in relation to weather 

conditions during the fire. 

• Evaluate soil moisture prior to conducting prescribed burns because Kentucky bluegrass 

control is strongly related to soil moisture conditions (Anderson 1965, Zedler and Loucks 

1969). Option A, B. 

• As resources allow, incorporate monitoring of abiotic variables (soil condition, 

precipitation, nutrient profile, etc.) on tracts being restored (Option A, B) to investigate 

causal mechanisms that may influence invasion by exotic grasses.

• Conduct research on the efficacy of over-seeding native grasses and forbs into a range of 

degraded native prairie sites. Option C. 

• Conduct research on the timing of exotic versus native cool-season grass emergence 

during the spring (late March to May). This information is important to determine if there 

is a window in early spring when exotic grasses are emerging, but native grasses are still 

dormant. Option A, B. C. 

OBJECTIVE 2.3NATIVE PRAIRIE

Over the next 9 years, maintain or enhance native prairie community assemblage on native prairie 

occurring on WPAs located in 4A to 4C landscapes using appropriate and precise disturbance in each 

management year (September 1 to August 31) to provide nesting habitat for waterfowl and other 

migratory birds while preventing further degradation within the existing native plant community state 

for specific ecological sites. Specific management criteria include: 

• Intensely manage tracts with 25 to 55% native vegetation remaining to increase native 

plant vigor, density, and seedling recruitment and prevent further degradation within 

ecological sites. (Option A).

• Actively manage tracts with >55% native vegetation remaining to maintain or enhance 

native plant communities on ecological sites. (Option B).

• Manage tracts with <25% native vegetation remaining exclusively as nesting habitat for 

waterfowl and other generalist migratory birds. (Option C). 

Management Strategies and Prescriptions

Opportunistically utilize strategies and prescriptions identified in Objective 2.2 – Options A, B, 

and C. 

Inventory and Monitoring Strategies 

• Monitor the response of ROCs and other native wildlife species within the hypothesized 

native prairie thresholds (<25%, 25-55%, >55% native prairie dominated composition in 

plant groups 41-43, 46, 48, 49, 53, 63, and 76 [Grant et al. 2004]) and in various landscape 

types (1A to 4C). Option A, B. C.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

129
• Monitor native prairie plant community phase and litter accumulation on ecological sites 

at a minimum of once every three years (Option A, B) and as resources allow (C) to adjust 

management prescriptions as necessary to maintain habitat quality.

• As resources allow, monitor the response of native prairie communities to defoliation 

treatments (i.e., grazing, fire) and adjust management prescriptions (timing, frequency, 

and intensity) or identified thresholds using an adaptive management approach (Gannon et 

al. 2010, USFWS 2011c). Option A, B, C. 

o Monitor grass utilization rates to determine effectiveness of grazing treatments 

(see Johnson et al. 1994). 

o Monitor the effectiveness of all prescribed fires based on fire coverage, fire 

intensity, litter consumption, impact to Kentucky bluegrass duff in conjunction 

with phenological stages of exotic grasses and weather conditions during the fire. 

• Conduct research on the efficacy of over-seeding native grasses and forbs into a range of 

degraded native prairie sites. Option C. 

• Conduct research on the timing of exotic versus native cool-season grass emergence 

during the spring (late March to May). This information is important to determine if there 

is a window in early spring when exotic grasses are emerging, but native grasses are still 

dormant. Option A, B. C. 

o Conduct research on the efficacy of different herbicides to restore highly degraded 

native grasslands. Option C.

OBJECTIVE 2.4RECONSTRUCTED PRAIRIE

Over the next 9 years, maintain ≥75% native plant composition and diversity representative of 

stable plant communities on ecological sites on all established (typically 3–7 years after initial 

seeding) reconstructed prairie tracts on WPAs using active management to provide attractive 

heterogeneous nesting habitat for waterfowl and other ROCs while contributing to BIDEH within the 

mixed-grass prairie ecosystem.

Management Strategies and Prescriptions

• Utilize strategies and prescriptions identified under Option A and B in Objective 2.2 when 

reconstructions become established. Because significant resources are invested in each 

reconstructed prairie, managers will utilize all available resources to maintain ≥75% 

native plant composition and diversity on these sites post-establishment.

• Re-initiate reconstruction on ecological sites when ≤30% of the seeded native plant 

community composition remains because native species on these tracts may not be 

sustainable if they function similar to degraded native prairies (see rationale for Objective 

2.2). Occasionally, reconstructions fail for a variety of reasons (e.g., weather, soil 

conditions, planting techniques, etc.) and managers will need to start the reconstruction 

process over in these cases.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

130
Inventory and Monitoring Strategies 

• Annually and progressively allocate management to native prairie reconstructions on 1A 

to 4C WPAs. 

• Monitor the response of ROCs and other wildlife species on established reconstructed 

prairies to estimate trends in reproductive success, species density, and nest density across 

the range of landscape types (1A to 4C). 

• Monitor the state (composition and diversity) of established reconstructed prairies and 

litter accumulation within ecological sites at a minimum of once every 3 years and adjust 

management prescriptions as necessary to maintain habitat quality.

• By 2018, develop an inventory of floristic quality using common metrics (i.e., ShannonWiener index of diversity, coefficient of conservatism, floristic quality index, native 

species vs. exotic species density) on reconstruction sites to determine changes in native 

plant diversity, density, and retention over time (Whittaker 1975, Swink and Wilhelm 

1994, Taft et al. 2006, Sivicek and Taft 2011). 

• Monitor vegetation structure and composition on reconstructed prairies following 

defoliation treatments (i.e., grazing, fire, haying) and adjust management prescriptions 

(timing, frequency, and intensity) to meet the habitat requirements of ROC. 

o Monitor grass utilization rates to determine effectiveness of grazing treatments 

(see Johnson et al. 1994). 

o Monitor the effectiveness of all prescribed fires based on fire coverage, fire 

intensity, litter consumption, and weather conditions during the fire. 

o Monitor the effectiveness of haying or haying/raking treatments to remove litter. 

• Incorporate monitoring of abiotic variables (soil condition, precipitation, nutrient profile, 

etc.) on reconstructed grasslands to evaluate causal mechanisms that may influence the 

potential for invasion by exotic grasses.

• Conduct research on the efficacy of over-seeding native grasses and forbs into 

reconstructed sites with ≤75% native plant community composition. 

SUB-GOAL 3—SEEDED INTRODUCED GRASSLANDS SUB-GOAL

Provide suitable nesting habitat on existing seeded introduced grasslands to maximize waterfowl 

(Anas spp.) nest success and occupancy by ROC on WPAs and reconstruct seeded introduced 

grasslands on WPAs located in 1A to 3B landscapes throughout the District to diverse native 

vegetation to benefit upland nesting ROCs and enhance ecological services within the mixed-grass 

prairie ecosystem.

OBJECTIVE 3.1 SEEDED INTRODUCED GRASSLANDS

Over the next 9 years, reconstruct an average of 1,000 acres of seeded introduced grasslands on 

1A to 3C WPAs at 5-year intervals using functionally diverse seed mixtures (approximately 50% 

grasses [minimum of 9 species] and 50% forbs [minimum of 10 species] by weight) that are 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

131
representative of a stable plant community on ecological sites post-establishment (typically 3–7 years) 

while providing heterogeneous nesting habitat for upland nesting ROC including waterfowl (Anas

spp.), clay-colored sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, and northern harrier. 

Management Strategies and Prescriptions

• Progressively reconstruct grasslands beginning with 1A WPAs [N = 81] and then on 1B to 

3B WPAs [N = 61] to benefit waterfowl and other migratory birds. 

• Review Herbaceous Vegetation Establishment Guidelines (USDA NRCS 2010a) to 

determine the appropriate reconstruction methods and seeding dates within Major 

Resource Land Areas

• Ensure that sites targeted for reconstruction undergo adequate seedbed preparation to limit 

invasion from noxious weeds and/or exotic grasses. 

o Develop 3–5 year cooperative farming agreements with local farmers to prepare 

the seedbed. The timeline for seedbed preparation typically includes: 

a. In the fall before row crop planting - herbicide and then till the site in the 

fall to allow frost to kill existing vegetation during the winter (Schramm 

1990). 

b. A variable length farming agreement depends on the severity of weed 

infestation. 

c. Collect soil samples and test for nitrogen and phosphorus levels to ensure 

that the site is ready for seeding to native plants. If necessary, extend 

farming agreements to improve soil conditions. 

o On sites with high erosion potential, alternative methods such as no-till or 

chemical fallow may be required to prepare the seedbed. 

• Use a minimum of 9 grasses and 10 forbs in the seed mix on all sites (Larson 2011). This 

combination has been shown to be effective using broadcast plantings during the dormant 

period (November to early April) in North Dakota. 

o Use ecological site descriptions (Sedivec and Printz 2012) to determine the 

appropriate species to include in the seed mix on a particular site.

a. Utilize sculptured seed mixes when multiple ecological sites occur on 

individual WPAs (Jacobson et al. 1994, Sedivec and Prinz 2012). 

o Use a 60:40 or 50:50 grass to forb ratio in the seed mix by weight (Smith et al. 

2010, Larson 2011). 

o Use local ecotype seeds that are representative of species endemic to the mixedgrass prairie.

o Increase grass seed by 25% to compensate for seed loss in dormant season 

plantings (Henderson and Kern 1999).

o Select individual plant species to include in the seed mix that contribute to 

heterogeneous vegetation structure required to attract a diverse assemblage of 

migratory birds by considering plant growth form, height, canopy, and food 

production potential (Laubhan et al. 2006). 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

132
o Adapt seed mix to capture variation in site topography. For example, seed mixes 

on sites with south-facing hill slopes should include more xeric species adapted to 

drier conditions, while low areas (e.g., drainages) should include more mesic 

species that can tolerate higher soil moisture and lower soil temperatures 

(Laubhan et al. 2012). 

o As resources allow, increase the number of forb species (~20-30 species [Guo et 

al. 2006, Larson 2011] in the seed mix to attempt to match variable conditions that 

occur between years and within sites to increase resistance to invasion by noxious 

weeds (Sheley and Half 2006). 

o As resources allow, use spiked forb seed mixes (100–300 seeds/ft2) to reduce the 

invasion of Canada thistle (Norland et al. 2013) and other common weeds postseeding. 

o Include a minimum of 3-4 functional groups (see Levang-Brilz and Biodini 2002, 

Piper and Pimm 2002, Biondini 2007) in the seed mix to increase the resistance to 

invasion by exotic grasses and noxious weeds (Biondini 2007, Biondini et al. 

2011). 

• Invasive species control should be considered during development of the seed mix by 

selecting functionally similar, highly competitive native plants (Pokorny et al. 2005, 

Sheley and Half 2006, Biondini 2007). However, the following strategies may be used: 

o On a case-by-case basis, mowing can be used in the first and second year to 

reduce annual weeds and allow for sufficient light to increase germination of 

native forbs (Williams et al. 2007). Mowing is typically conducted before weed 

seed becomes viable leaving 8–10” of stubble over the course of multiple 

occasions (USDA NRCS 2010a). 

o On a limited basis, precise spot-treatments of herbicide could be used to remove 

highly invasive noxious weeds (e.g., yellow toadflax). 

o Biological control agents (i.e., flea beetles Apthona spp. for leafy spurge) should 

be used over herbicide treatments if available. 

• Conduct a prescribed burn during the third or fourth year following seeding (Rowe 2010). 

Adjust timing of the burn as necessary to improve vigor of the stand. For example, early 

spring burns encourage cool-season grasses, while late spring burns encourage growth of 

warm-season grasses (Higgins et al. 1989, Willson and Stubbendieck 2000). 

• A graze in year 4 or 5, depending on the condition of stand, can be used to defoliate, 

reduce litter accumulation and maintain stand vigor. 

• Once established, manage reconstructions using similar strategies and prescriptions as 

identified under Options A and B in Objective 2.2. 

Inventory and Monitoring Strategies 

• Prior to establishment:

o Monitor noxious weed infestation until the site is established. 

o Monitor the effectiveness of releases of biological control agents.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

133
o Monitor the effectiveness of defoliation treatments (burning, grazing, mowing) to 

maintain grassland stand quality.

• Post-establishment:

o Utilize inventory and monitoring strategies listed under Options A and B in 

Objective 2.2 and under Objective 2.4. 

OBJECTIVE 3.2 SEEDED INTRODUCED GRASSLANDS

Over the next 9 years, provide moderate to tall nesting habitat consisting of a minimum of ≥20 cm 

of horizontal vegetation cover density and average vegetation height of ≥28 cm by late May on seeded 

introduced grasslands in ≥2 of 4 management years prior to initiation of reconstruction to diverse 

native vegetation on WPAs located in 1A to 3B landscapes. This would be done to maximize nest 

success of upland nesting waterfowl (Anas spp.) and other grassland-obligate migratory birds. 

Management Strategies and Prescriptions

• Prior to reconstruction of DNC fields to diverse native stands, utilize appropriate 

defoliation treatments to provide a range of habitat structure to meet the needs for nesting 

ROC:

o Waterfowl – provide 20 cm of vegetation density based on visual obstruction and 

28 cm in vegetation height in late May to positively influence nest survival 

(Bloom et al. 2013). 

a. Maintain idle grasslands in 3 of 4 management years to increase both 

waterfowl nest survival and nest density (Bloom et al. 2013). 

b. Defoliate vegetation using grazing or fire once every 3–4 years to remove 

litter and maintain grassland vigor (Naugle et al. 2000a). Removal of litter 

is important to prevent increases in small mammals that attract nest 

predators (Voorhees and Cassel (1980) and support the production of 

waterfowl and other migratory birds (Higgins 1986, Higgins et al. 1992, 

Kruse and Bowen 1996, Naugle et al. 2000a). 

c. Conduct grazing after the waterfowl breeding season is complete to 

ensure that suitable nesting habitat exists (Bloom et al. 2013) based on the 

desired vegetation structure in this objective.

d. If more frequent defoliation is desired, light to moderate grazing regimes 

that utilize 20–35% of vegetation could be conducted in any year to 

provide nesting habitat for most ROC (Salo et al. 2004) and minimize 

impacts to waterfowl nest survival and nest density (Bloom et al. 2013).

e. Haying treatments that utilize a rake implement also are effective to 

remove litter build-up. 

f. Integrate prescribed fire as resources allow to improve habitat condition, 

but not more than twice during any 5-year period. 

o For marbled godwit, chestnut-collared longspur, willet and other migratory birds 

that prefer short vegetation structure, provide suitable nesting cover consisting of 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

134
~7 to 22 cm vegetation density and 17 to 27 cm in vegetation height by mid-May 

each year (Kantrud and Higgins 1992, Salo et al. 2004). 

a. Defoliate vegetation using heavy to extreme grazing intensities utilizing 

65–80% of vegetation (Salo et al. 2004). 

b. Integrate prescribed fire as resources allow in ≥1 of 4 years. 

o For clay-colored sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, northern harrier and 

other migratory birds that also prefer moderate to tall vegetation structure – 

provide suitable nesting cover of ≥25 cm vegetation density and ≥28 cm 

vegetation height by June 1 (Kantrud and Higgins 1992, Salo et al. 2004). 

a. Maintain idle grass cover in 3 of 4 management years to provide suitable 

nesting habitat for these ROC. 

b. Defoliate vegetation using light to moderate grazing intensities that utilize 

35–50% of vegetation in any year to provide nesting habitat for most nongame mixed-grass prairie bird species (Salo et al. 2004).

c. Integrate prescribed fire as resources allow, but not more than once during 

any 5-year period.

• Progressively reconstruct seeded introduced grasslands using diverse native mixes 

beginning with 1A WPAs [N = 61] and then on 1B to 3B WPAs [N = 75] to benefit 

waterfowl and other migratory birds as described in Objective 3.1. 

Inventory and Monitoring Strategies 

• Annually and progressively allocate management to DNC grasslands on 1A to 3B WPAs. 

• Monitor the effectiveness of management treatments to influence desired changes in plant 

community physiognomy (vegetation structure [based on visual obstruction reading and 

vegetation height] and litter accumulation) on DNC fields at a minimum of once every 

four years and adjust management prescriptions (timing, frequency, and intensity) as 

necessary to maintain habitat quality.

• Monitor the response of ROCs and other wildlife species on DNC fields to estimate trends 

in reproductive success, species density, and nest density across the range of landscape 

types (1A to 4C). 

OBJECTIVE 3.3 SEEDED INTRODUCED GRASSLANDS

Over the next 9 years, opportunistically manage seeded introduced grasslands on 4A to 4C WPAs 

to provide moderate to tall vegetation structure consisting of a minimum of ≥20 cm of horizontal 

vegetation cover density and average vegetation height of ≥28 cm by late-May in 3 of 4 management 

years to maximize nest success of upland nesting waterfowl (Anas spp.) and other grassland-generalist 

migratory birds such as Savannah sparrow, western meadowlark, and sedge wren. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

135
Management Strategies and Prescriptions

• Opportunistically utilize strategies and prescriptions identified in Objective 3.2 to provide 

suitable nesting habitat for upland-nesting waterfowl and grassland-generalist migratory 

bird species.

• Progressively reconstruct grasslands using diverse native mixes following the completion 

of reconstruction on 1A to 3B WPAs beginning with 4A WPAs and then 4B to 4C WPAs 

to benefit waterfowl and other migratory birds as described in Objective 3.1. 

Inventory and Monitoring Strategies 

• Annually and progressively allocate management to DNC grasslands on 4A to 4C WPAs. 

• Monitor the effectiveness of management treatments to influence desired changes in plant 

community physiognomy (vegetation structure [based on visual obstruction reading and 

vegetation height] and litter accumulation) on DNC fields at a minimum of once every 

four years and adjust management prescriptions (timing, frequency, and intensity) as 

necessary to maintain habitat quality.

• Monitor the response of ROCs and other wildlife species on DNC fields to estimate trends 

in reproductive success, species density, and nest density across the range of landscape 

types (1A to 4C). 

5.4 Adaptive Management

Species–habitat relationships at landscape- and local-levels were used to develop specific goals 

and habitat objectives for the priority ROCs that are detailed in Chapter 4. Development of these 

objectives was based on published scientific evidence including a set of assumptions and limitations 

that may influence the ability of the District to achieve desired biological outcomes. Making informed 

management decisions also can be difficult without long-term data collection because the desired 

response may be influenced by natural variability (Lyons et al. 2008). Therefore, the District will use 

adaptive management practices (Williams et al. 2009) to evaluate and apply findings from research 

and inventory and monitoring efforts to work towards achieving habitat objectives. Adaptive 

management is an iterative decision making process associated with actions or decisions that recur 

over time (i.e., actions taken early on may result in learning that improves the management later). 

Monitoring is an integral part of adaptive management as it reduces uncertainties and provides 

feedback as decisions are made or actions are taken (Williams et al. 2009). Adaptive management 

requires using the current state of knowledge about a system to make predictions on one or more of the 

possible outcomes resulting from management actions. 

Adaptive management is not a “trial and error” process, rather, it is a deliberate process of 

predicting, monitoring, learning, and adjusting future management actions based on new information. 

Successful implementation of adaptive management requires three attributes: collaboration with 

partners, practical and informative decision framework components, and a sustained commitment to 

the process (Moore et al. 2010). Internal and external partnerships with multiple partners are utilized to 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

136
address habitat management issues in the PPR. The District is building the components of sciencedriven adaptive management through development of this HMP, applying predictive models 

developed by HAPET and the PPJV, and implementing an inventory and monitoring program, through 

which data will provide the feedback loop necessary to update and improve management decisions. 

5.5 Inventory and Monitoring

A detailed inventory and monitoring plan (IMP) also will step down from the conservation goals 

and objectives identified in this HMP and the CCP (USFWS 2008). It will focus on measuring the 

progress of the District’s conservation efforts, in conjunction with conservation efforts at larger scales 

(i.e., USFWS Dakotas Zone), and inform the adaptive management process to ensure that conservation 

is targeted in landscapes that achieve the greatest biological outcomes for waterfowl and associated 

ROCs. 

Implementation of the IMP will allow the District to evaluate management outcomes and adapt 

future treatments to achieve higher biological outcomes. Specifically, management activities where we 

anticipate the strongest ongoing need to integrate new science using adaptive management to improve 

conservation delivery include: 

• smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass control/eradication on WPAs; 

• native prairie reconstruction on WPAs; 

• noxious weed species control on WPAs. 

Many factors outside of the control of management (i.e., continued conversion of habitat, 

environmental variation, emergence of new invasive species) could affect the ability of the District to 

achieve desired goals and objectives. These factors are uncertainties in the adaptive management 

process that may be able to be addressed and reduced through monitoring to improve management 

decisions (Williams et al. 2009) or increased conservation action. Nonetheless, this HMP provides a 

framework for efficient, transparent, and defensible conservation delivery during the next 9 years.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

137
Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

138
APPENDIX A 

List of Preparers and Reviewers

List of Preparers

Author’s name Position Work unit

Chris Swanson Wildlife Biologist Kulm WMD (Kulm, North Dakota)

Michael Erickson Project Leader Kulm WMD (Kulm, North Dakota)

Wayne Henderson Deputy Project Leader Kulm WMD (Kulm, North Dakota)

Krista Lundgren Wildlife Refuge Specialist Kulm WMD (Kulm, North Dakota)

Cami Dixon Zone Refuge Biologist Chase Lake WMD (Woodworth, North 

Dakota.)

Soch Lor* Regional Inventory and 

Monitoring (I&M) Coordinator

Regional Office (Lakewood, Colorado)

Kevin Doherty** Science Coordinator Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (Bismarck,

North Dakota)

Chuck Loesch Wildlife Biologist Region 6 HAPET (Bismarck, North Dakota)

Jennifer Zorn I&M GIS and Database Manager Lostwood NWR (Kenmare, North Dakota)

Lindy Garner Regional Invasive Species

Coordinator

Benton Lake NWR (Great Falls, Montana)

Mitchell Werner Writer-editor Regional Office (Lakewood, Colorado)

*Present location: USFWS, Anchorage, Alaska. **Present location: USFWS, Lakewood, Colorado.

List of Reviewers

Reviewer’s name Position Work unit

Bernie Peterson Zone Refuge Supervisor Regional Office (Lakewood, Colorado)

Chuck Loesch Wildlife Biologist HAPET (Bismarck, North Dakota)

Neal Niemuth Integrated Bird Scientist HAPET (Bismarck, North Dakota)

Mike Estey Wildlife Biologist HAPET (Hartford, Kansas)

Jeffery Gleason Fish and Wildlife Biologist Alabama Ecological Services (Daphne, 

Alabama)

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

139
Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

140
APPENDIX B

Environmental Assessment

Kulm Wetland Management District – Habitat Management Plan

Dickey, LaMoure, Logan, and McIntosh counties, North Dakota

1.0 Introduction

This EA documents the purpose of and the issues, alternatives, and analysis associated with implementation 

of a HMP for the Kulm WMD.

The EA provides a comparison of two alternatives: (1) not implementing a habitat management plan for the 

District (no action) and (2) implementation of the habitat management plan for the District (proposed action). This 

represents the full range of alternatives and evaluates potential effects on resources protected by the Refuge and 

associated cultural, socioeconomic, and aesthetic resources that may be affected during implementation of the 

habitat management plan. 

1.1 Kulm Wetland Management District

The District was established in 1971 to conserve habitat for the benefit of waterfowl and other migratory 

birds. The District primarily protects wetland and grassland habitat in perpetuity on 126,519 acres of wetland 

easements and 61,029 acres of grassland easements. These conservation easements are purchased voluntarily from 

willing landowners to conserve important habitats to meet the breeding requirements for waterfowl and other 

migratory birds. The District also manages a total of 45,402 acres distributed over 201 individual fee title WPAs. 

The Service purchased conservation easements and WPAs with funds generated primarily from the sale of federal 

Duck Stamps to provide habitat for waterfowl production. By administering these conservation lands, the District 

contributes to a much larger network of Districts and national wildlife refuges (Refuges) that collectively function 

to support migratory bird populations, ecosystem services, and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System in the PPR (Figure 1). 

1.2 Background 

The HMP is a step-down management plan of the North Dakota Wetland Management Districts CCP that was 

approved in 2008 (USFWS 2008a). The intent of the HMP is to provide additional details regarding specific 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

141
strategies and implementation schedules for meeting goals and objectives set forth in the CCP until 2023 when the 

next CCP is scheduled to be completed. In addition, an HMP provides an opportunity to evaluate the applicability 

of goals and objectives previously established in the CCP and determine if changes are required based on 

available data and other information. HMPs are dynamic documents that are modified using an adaptive 

management process that is based on monitoring progress toward achieving goals and objectives. In addition, the 

HMP is evaluated when a district considers revisions to the CCP (at least every 15 years) or at 5-year intervals 

using a peer review process (USFWS 2002). 

Section 4(a) and 4(b) of the Improvement Act directs the Secretary, when administering the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and health of the System are maintained for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans...” The Improvement Act clearly mandates the use of 

sound professional judgment when determining the relationships between Refuge purposes and BIDEH. Further, 

the BIDEH policy (USFWS 2001a) clearly emphasizes management that restores historical ecosystem processes 

and functions as they are directly related to biological integrity and health. Collectively, these mandates instruct 

Refuge Managers to evaluate the potential to restore BIDEH when critical elements have been lost or severely 

degraded. The District HMP plays a key role in this process by strategically protecting remaining function of the 

mixed-grass prairie ecosystem and to what degree they can be conserved for waterfowl and other migratory bird 

populations. 

1.3 Proposed Action 

The Service began development of this HMP in 2011. The proposed action is to implement the HMP for the 

District using the principles of strategic habitat conservation (SHC) and adaptive management. The scope of this 

HMP is to: 

1. Identify important resources of management concern on the District.

2. Develop goals and objectives that, once achieved, will ensure perpetuation of those resources.

3. Identify conservation strategies necessary to attain stated goals and objectives.

4. Identify appropriate monitoring strategies to measure progress toward achieving goals and objectives. 

Further, the Service would implement the goals, objectives, and strategies included in this HMP using 

strategic habitat conservation and adaptive management techniques to target resource allocation in landscapes 

where biological potential is the highest to support waterfowl carrying capacity, waterfowl production, and meet 

the habitat requirements of wetland- and grassland-dependent migratory birds. This includes protection and 

acquisition of conservation easements, enhancement and restoration of wetland and grassland on private lands 

under the USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, restoration of native mixed-grass prairie and 

reconstruction of non-native grasslands to diverse native stands on fee title WPAs, and management of plant 

community composition and structure on fee title WPAs. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

142
1.4 Decisions to Be Made

Based on the analysis provided in this final EA, the Service will make two decisions:

1. Determine whether the Service should implement a habitat management plan for the Kulm Wetland 

Management District, in accordance with its planning policy. 

2. If yes, determine whether the selected alternative will have a significant impact on the quality of the human 

environment. This decision is required by the NEPA. If the quality of the human environment would not be 

affected, a “finding of no significant impact” will be signed and will be made available to the public. If the 

preferred alternative would have a significant impact, an environmental impact statement will be prepared 

to further address those impacts.

1.5 Relation to Statutes, Regulations, and Other Plans

The District was established in 1971 as part of the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program under the authority 

of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934 (“Duck Stamp Act”) as amended by Public 

Law 85-585 in August 1958. This legislation allowed for the acquisition of WPAs and conservation easements for 

waterfowl production. The purposes of the District were established by the following legal authorities:

1. Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act 16 USC 718(c) – “As waterfowl production areas subject to all 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act...except the inviolate sanctuary provisions.” 

2. Migratory Bird Conservation Act 16 USC 715(d) – “For any other management purposes, for 

migratory birds.”

A December 2006 memorandum from Region 6 Assistant Regional Director Richard A. Coleman further 

reaffirmed the purpose of all Region 6 Districts – “to assure the long-term viability of the breeding waterfowl 

population and production through the acquisition and management of waterfowl production areas, while 

considering the needs of other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife.” 

Conservation Easements

The legal authority for the Service to acquire conservation easements to protect grasslands and wetlands is 

granted under the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act 16 USC 718d(c), the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, (16 

U.S.C. 742a-742j), the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, (16 U.S.C. 3901), the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act [16 U.S.C. 4601-9(a)(1)], and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 

4401 - 4412). 

Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) conservation easements in the District were not acquired as part of 

the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program. FmHA easements were established “for conservation purposes” by the 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

143
U.S. Farm Service Agency under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Act of 1981 and 1985 (7 U.S.C. 331 and 335), 

Executive Orders 11990 and 11988, and Section 1314 of the 1985 Food Security Act.

Waterfowl Production Areas 

Waterfowl production areas are public lands bought by the federal government for increasing the production 

of migratory birds, especially waterfowl. These lands are owned in fee title whereby the federal government holds 

ownership of the land on behalf of the American public. Money to buy WPAs generally comes from the public 

purchase of federal Duck Stamps. All WPAs are administered by Service staff within an administrative boundary 

that defines the geographical extent of the District. WPAs are open to the public for hunting, fishing, bird 

watching, trapping, hiking and most other non-motorized and non-commercial outdoor recreation.

Wildlife Development Areas

Wildlife Development Area were purchased in fee title by the Bureau of Reclamation as part of North 

Dakota’s Garrison Diversion Unit. WDAs were transferred to the Service through a memorandum of agreement 

between the Service, Bureau of Reclamation and the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. The District 

manages the Pilgrims Rest WDA, a 640 acre unit, similar to WPAs to benefit waterfowl and other migratory 

birds.

Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges

The District has three limited-interest Refuges that were established in 1939 “as a refuge and breeding ground 

for migratory birds and other wildlife” by Executive Orders 8162 ([Bone Hill NWR; 640 acres] and [Maple River 

NWR; 712 acres]) and 8117 (Dakota Lake NWR; 2,799 acres). 

Additional relevant statutes, regulations, and/or plans follow: 

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA (42 USC 4321-4370f) requires federal agencies to examine the environmental impact of their actions, 

incorporate environmental information, and utilize public participation, as appropriate, in the planning and 

implementation of their actions. NEPA compliance is required only when a federal agency takes an action. 

• The HMP is a step-down management plan from the North Dakota Wetland Management Districts CCP 

(USFWS 2008a). 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as Amended 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to assess the effects 

of an undertaking on historical and cultural resource sites. This is accomplished by inventorying proposed 

disturbance areas or the area of potential effect (APE), evaluating site importance and eligibility to the NRHP, 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

144
assessing the effect of the undertaking on NRHP-eligible sites, and consulting with appropriate historic 

preservation agencies. Compliance with Section 106 of NHPA was followed for the disturbance activities 

described in this EA.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470aa-470mm) and amendments provide for 

the protection of archaeological resources on public and Native American lands and provide for exchange of 

information between governmental entities and academic or private archaeological researchers. An archaeological 

resource under this act is defined as material remains of past human life or activities that are of archaeological 

interest and includes but is not limited to pottery, basketry, bottles, weapons, tools, structures, rock paintings or 

carvings, intaglios, graves, and human skeletal materials.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

The MBTA (16 USC 703-712) implements various treaties between the United States and other nations of the 

MBTA, and provides for the protection of migratory birds and specifies penalties for harming or unlawfully 

killing migratory birds.

Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531-1544) provides for the protection of endangered and threatened 

species and the habitats upon which they depend. Section 7 of the act requires federal agencies to consult with the 

Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce in cases where the agencies’ action may affect a listed 

species, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 

habitat for these species. Where federally listed threatened or endangered species occur in the District, the Service 

applies the management goals and strategies outlined in the following species recovery plans:

• Piping plovers (Charadrius melodus), a threatened species, have been documented in Logan and 

McIntosh Counties on both public and private lands. The District contains designated critical habitat in 

these counties (Figure 2) and follows the Piping Plover Recovery Plan for the Northern Great Plains 

(USFWS 1988) and the Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Piping Plovers Breeding on the Great Lakes and 

Northern Great Plains of the U.S. (USFWS 1994). 

• The District lies within the eastern edge of the migration pathway for the endangered whooping crane 

(Grus americana). Recovery of this species is guided by the International Whooping Crane Recovery 

Plan (Canadian Wildlife Service and USFWS 2007). Whooping cranes are considered rare migrants to the 

District. The District consults the Whooping Crane Contingency Plan (USFWS 2001b) for appropriate 

actions when dealing with a confirmed observation of whooping cranes. 

• Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) is considered a candidate species whose breeding range includes the 

District. A Sprague’s Pipit Conservation Plan provides information on their life-history and outlines goals 

to maintain or increase their current population size and viability throughout their distribution (Jones 

2010). A step-down document, Management Strategy and Guidelines for Sprague’s Pipit on U.S. Fish and 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

145
Wildlife Service Lands in Region 6, offers recommendations for identifying and managing Serviceowned prairies, especially in cases where the site-specific occurrence of pipit has yet to be determined, or 

they are known to occur (USFWS 2011a). 

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan

The PPJV was established under the framework of the NAWMP. The PPJV Implementation Plan provides a 

conservation framework for all migratory birds in the Prairie Pothole Region (Ringelman et al. 2005). The plan 

incorporates stepped-down objectives for waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds and landbirds with conservation 

measures that focus on sustaining migratory bird populations at objective levels through targeted wetland and 

grassland protection, restoration and enhancement programs. 

Land Protection Plan for the Dakota Grasslands Conservation Area 

The majority of the District is included in the proposed DGCA which aims to protect wetlands and grasslands 

within the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem of North Dakota and South Dakota. The purpose of the DGCA is to 

provide for the long-term viability of breeding waterfowl populations through the conservation of existing 

habitats while considering the needs of other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other 

wildlife. The DGCA follows the goals and objectives outlined in the PPJV plan and aims to conserve all 

migratory birds through the permanent protection of wetland and grassland habitat through conservation 

easements purchased from willing sellers (USFWS 2011b). If implemented, the DGCA would be to conserve 

240,000 acres of wetlands and 1.7 million acres of grassland. At current acquisition rates, the goal for the 

proposed DGCA would be achieved within 30 years. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans 

The North Dakota Wetland Management District CCPs (USFWS 2006, USFWS 2008a) provide broad 

guidance on the stewardship of District lands and related management activities for a period of 15 years. The 

CCPs identified the role that the District has in supporting the NWRS mission and specific goals and objectives 

were developed to provide a framework for managing District resources. This HMP is a step-down management 

plan from the District CCPs that will integrate and refine the CCP goals and objectives and provide specific 

management strategies that are consistent with purposes of the District and the overall mission of the NWRS. 

2.0 Description of Alternatives

This section describes the two alternatives identified for this project:

• no-action alternative

• proposed action, giving the Service the authority to implement a habitat management plan for the Kulm 

Wetland Management District

These alternatives were developed according to NEPA §102(2)(E) requirements to “study, develop, and 

describe appropriate alternatives to recommend courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

146
conflicts concerning alternatives uses of available resources.” The alternatives consider the effects of planned 

habitat management activities within the Kulm Wetland Management District.

In addition, alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study are briefly discussed. 

2.1 Alternative A – (no action) 

The Service would continue with its management of the District in accordance with the goals and objectives 

outlined in the North Dakota Wetland Management Districts CCP (USFWS 2008a). 

2.2 Alternative B – (proposed action)

The Service would implement the goals, objectives, and strategies included in this HMP using strategic 

habitat conservation and adaptive management techniques to target resource allocation in landscapes where 

biological potential is the highest to support waterfowl carrying capacity, waterfowl production, and meet the 

habitat requirements of wetland- and grassland-dependent migratory birds. This includes protection and 

acquisition of conservation easements, enhancement and restoration of wetland and grassland on private lands 

under the USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, restoration of native mixed-grass prairie and 

reconstruction of non-native grasslands to diverse native stands on fee title WPAs, and management of plant 

community composition and structure on fee title WPAs.

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis

The HMP is a step-down management plan. There was little controversy associated with the direction 

outlined in the North Dakota Wetland Management Districts CCP (USFWS 2008a) and there were no additional 

alternatives considered in this analysis.

3.0 Affected Environment

Please see a discussion of the resources and affected environment in Chapters 2 and 3 of the HMP in this 

volume. 

4.0 Environmental Consequences 

For alternatives A and B described in section 2, the following narrative documents the analysis of any 

significant environmental effects expected to occur from implementing each of the alternatives. For the purposes 

of this EA, the Service analyzed the potential effects of implementing each alternative on all resources protected 

by the Refuge, including the following: 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

147
4.1 Effects on the Physical Environment

The estimated effects of each alternative on mineral, soil, and water resources, and on the Service’s ability to 

address climate change, are described below. 

Alternative A

The land surface of District has been shaped largely by glacial processes which formed the Missouri Coteau 

Slope, Missouri Coteau, and Glaciated Plains physiographic regions. Historically, this ecosystem was 

characterized by a mosaic of mixed-grass prairie and wetlands that remained largely undisturbed until the onset of 

European settlement and the initial conversion of native prairie for low-intensity agriculture during the 1880’s 

(Severson and Hull Sieg 2006). However, extensive conversion of wetlands (Oslund et al. 2010, Doherty et al. 

2013, Johnston 2013, Dahl 2014) and grasslands (Stephens et al. 2008, Fargione et al. 2009, Rashford et al. 2011, 

Doherty et al. 2013, Wright and Wimberly 2013, Johnston 2014) for agricultural use has resulted in vast losses in 

habitat that migratory birds rely on for nesting. Under alternative A, the Service would continue with its 

management of the District in accordance with the goals and objectives outlined in its CCP and in accordance 

with relevant policies.

Alternative B

Implementation of the HMP includes several steps that are considered beneficial to the soils and water 

resources of the Refuge. Protection of wetland and grassland habitats through the USFWS easement program 

contributes to maintaining important ecological services, restoration and enhancement of wetlands and grasslands 

under the USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, and restoration of native plant communities on fee title 

WPAs will have beneficial effects on soils and water quality on the District. In addition, the combination of 

maintaining intact landscapes under these USFWS programs and restoring native plant communities will support 

the future resiliency of the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem to potential effects from climate change to benefit 

wildlife populations within the District. 

4.2 Effects on the Biological Environment

This section describes the likely effects of the project on the selected priority species and their habitats.

Alternative A

The Service administers a network of conservation easement and fee title WPA lands to benefit waterfowl and 

other migratory birds during their breeding period. Under alternative A, the Service would continue to implement 

conservation delivery within the District in accordance with the goals and objectives outlined in the North Dakota 

Wetland Management District CCP (USFWS 2008a). The CCP provides broad conservation strategies for 

wetland and grassland easement acquisition, restoration of native prairie, reconstruction of former cropland using 

native grasses and forbs, and limited application of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to enhance and 

restore habitat on private lands. Under alternative A, the Service would not implement the strategic habitat

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

148
conservation based conservation design described in the HMP. Although significant conservation gains have been 

attained under the CCP, the more-refined conservation approach outlined in the HMP provides a solid foundation 

for resource allocation within specific landscapes that would increase benefits to waterfowl and other migratory 

birds.

Under alternative A, the Service will continue to manage and restore grasslands and control noxious weeds on 

fee title WPAs, but at lower levels than identified in the HMP. The Service also would continue to focus 

reconstruction of seeded introduced grasslands (grasslands on former cropland) broadly across all WPAs under 

this alternative. 

The HMP fully describes the importance of strategically allocating resources in important landscapes to 

protect important breeding habitats for waterfowl and other migratory birds. Under alternative A, the Service 

would not explicitly tie goals, objectives, and strategies to population objectives identified in the HMP that are 

designed to contribute to the stability of waterfowl populations in the Prairie Pothole Region. 

Alternative B

This HMP represents the biological planning and conservation design phases of SHC that identified the 

potential of the landscape to contribute to the carrying capacity and production of waterfowl and other migratory 

birds, while protecting functional portions of the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem. Staff selected a set of species 

considered as priority resources of concern (Table 3-1) to guide conservation delivery within Kulm WMD that is 

primarily focused on waterfowl conservation, but has significant benefits to other migratory bird populations. 

The proposed action would implement an SHC approach to achieve the highest landscape-scale biological 

outcomes for the selected resources of concern through focused conservation delivery. To increase biological 

return under this approach, the Service would use a landscape classification index (Figure 4-1) to implement 

specific conservation treatments (Table 4-2) that are tied to the following population objectives: 

1) Target wetland conservation in landscapes that support ≥25 breeding duck pairs/mi2 to maximize carrying 

capacity levels for breeding waterfowl (Anas spp.) and contribute to stable populations within the Prairie 

Pothole Region. 

2) Target grassland conservation in landscapes that support ≥60 breeding duck pairs/mi2

 (Anas spp.) and 

nest success levels above population maintenance levels (≥15–20% nest success) (Cowardin et al. 1985) 

to maximize waterfowl production and contribute to stable populations within the Prairie Pothole Region; 

3) Increase habitat protection in landscapes that support high brood occupancy rates (Walker et al. 2013) 

characterized by high densities of small- to mid-size wetland basins and a high proportion of grassland 

within a 10.4 km2 area to maintain waterfowl recruitment potential within the Prairie Pothole Region;

4) Target habitat conservation in landscapes that support densities above mean population levels for priority 

wetland- and grassland-dependent migratory bird species identified in this HMP.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

149
By integrating population goals with conservation treatments under the SHC conservation design, the District 

aims to improve the efficiency of conservation delivery at multiple scales (landscape to local) to meet the 

requirements of resources of concern and the establishing purposes of the District. Furthermore, linking each 

conservation treatment to individual goals, objectives, and strategies provided a highly detailed approach for 

integrated conservation of wetland and grassland easements, restoration and enhancement of private lands under 

the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Service Program, and management of fee title WPAs as described in this HMP. 

This comprehensive approach to conservation is based on the potential contribution of Kulm WMD to migratory 

bird populations within the Prairie Pothole Region. This SHC conservation design will allow staff to work more 

efficiently given limited availability of resources while improving the transparency and accountability of our 

actions. 

Lastly, implementation of the HMP would benefit piping plover, whooping crane, and Sprague’s pipit to the 

extent possible within the District by securing important wetland and grassland habitats in perpetuity. 

4.3 Effects on Cultural Resources

The estimated effects of each alternative on cultural resources are described below.

Alternative A

No effect. Under alternative A, the Service would continue with its management of the District in accordance 

with the goals and objectives outlined in its CCP (USFWS 2008a) and in accordance with the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 and Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. 

Alternative B

No effect. Under alternative B, the Service would implement the HMP in accordance with the goals and 

objectives outlined in its CCP (USFWS 2008a) and in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 and Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. The HMP does not include activities that will impact 

cultural or historic sites on lands administered by the District. 

4.6 Effects on Socioeconomic Environment 

This section describes the estimated effects of the alternatives on land use, ecosystem services, land 

ownership, and the regional economy. 

Alternative A

No effect. Similar to most of eastern North Dakota, the District is located in a rural agriculturally based region 

with a low human population density that generally does not exceed five people per square mile (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2010). Under alternative A, the Service would continue with its management of the District in accordance 

with the goals and objectives outlined in its CCP with little to no effect on the local economy.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

150
Alternative B

Implementation of the HMP provides the opportunity to clearly identify habitat conservation goals and 

objectives for the District. Implementation of alternative B will not only provide increased habitat quality for 

wildlife, but will enhance opportunities for the public to pursue wildlife-dependent recreation on the District. 

These increases are important to neighboring rural communities, but they are not a significant impact to the 

regional economy of south-central North Dakota. 

4.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

Any commitments of resources that may be irreversible or irretrievable because of carrying out alternatives A 

or B are described below. 

Alternative A

There would be no additional commitment of resources by the Service if alternative A were selected. The 

Service could still exercise its existing authority to manage the District in accordance with the CCP (USFWS 

2008a). 

Alternative B

Implementation of the HMP would not, of itself, constitute an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 

resources. The implementation of habitat management activities and appropriate monitoring of these actions 

would represent a minor increase in overall Service administrative costs to the District.

4.8 Cumulative Impacts

As defined by NEPA regulations, a cumulative impact on the environment “results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 

what agency or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). The following describes the past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions related to the proposed HMP. A discussion follows regarding the cumulative 

impacts of these actions in combination with the actions of alternatives A and B.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

The Service completed its CCP in 2008 (USFWS 2008a) which provided broad guidance on the stewardship 

of District lands and related management activities for a period of 15 years. In addition, the Service will release an 

Inventory and Monitoring Plan that steps-down from the HMP that will inform the adaptive management process 

based on the contribution of the District to the selected resources of concern. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

151
Alternative A

Under alternative A, there would be no cumulative impacts on the environment since the Service would not 

undertake any of the habitat conservation activities included in the HMP. 

Alternative B

This HMP provides a strategic plan for consistently and effectively protecting, acquiring, enhancing, 

restoring, and managing wetland and grassland habitat for the resources of concern on the District. Conservation 

delivery at the scale of the District is often incorrectly considered as independent of those occurring in the mixedgrass prairie ecosystem. Instead, these actions contribute to a much larger network of Districts and national 

wildlife refuges located in the Prairie Pothole Region that collectively function to support migratory bird 

populations, ecosystem services, and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The goals, objectives, 

and strategies outlined in the HMP do have a positive impact on waterfowl and other migratory bird populations 

at larger scales, but the cumulative impacts of these actions are not considered significant. 

5.0 Coordination and Environmental Review

This section describes how the Service coordinated with others and conducted environmental reviews of 

various aspects of the project proposal and analysis. Additional coordination and review would be needed to carry 

out the proposed action, if selected. 

5.1 Agency Coordination 

The Service coordinated internally in the development of this EA. District staff conducted the analysis and 

prepared this document, as well as the HMP. An intra-service Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation will 

be conducted to evaluate the potential finding of “May affect but not likely to affect” ESA protected or candidate 

species (Appendix A). Staff from the Region 6 HAPET and I&M Initiative also assisted with the development of 

resources of concern and specific habitat management activities. The Region 6 regional archeologist has also 

reviewed this plan (see Appendix B). 

5.2 National Environmental Policy Act 

The Service conducted this environmental analysis under the authority of and in compliance with NEPA, 

which requires an evaluation of reasonable alternatives that will meet stated objectives, and an assessment of the 

possible effects on the natural and human environment. 

5.3 Environmental Assessment

This EA will be the basis for determining whether the implementation of the proposed action would constitute 

a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the natural and human environments. NEPA planning 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

152
for this EA involved other government agencies and the public in the identification of issues and alternatives for 

the proposed project.

5.4 Distribution and Availability

The Service will make the draft EA (with the associated HMP in the same volume) to the project mailing list, 

which includes Federal, State, and local agencies; nongovernmental organizations; and interested individuals. 

Copies can be requested from the District office in Kulm, North Dakota. 

6.0 References

Canadian Wildlife Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. International recovery plan for the whooping 

crane. Ottawa: Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Dahl, T. E. 2014. Status and trends of prairie wetlands in the United States 1997 to 2009. U.S. Department of the 

Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Washington, D.C. 

Doherty, K. E., A. J. Ryba, C. L. Stemler, N. D. Niemuth, W. A. Meeks. 2013. Conservation planning in an era of 

change: state of the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:546-563. 

Fargione, J. E., T. R. Cooper, D. J. Flaspohler, J. Hill, C. Lehman, T. McCoy, S. McLeod, E. J. Nelson, K. S. 

Oberhauser, and D. Tilman. 2009. Bioenergy and wildlife: threats and opportunities for grassland 

conservation. Bioscience 59:767-777. 

Johnston, C. A. 2013. Wetland losses due to row crop expansion in the Dakota Prairie Pothole Region. Wetlands 

33:175-182. 

_____. 2014. Agricultural expansion: land use shell game in the U.S. Northern Plains. Landscape Ecology 29:81-

95. 

Jones, S. L. 2010. Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Oslund, F. T., R. R. Johnson, and D. R. Hertel. 2010. Assessing Wetland Changes in the Prairie Pothole Region of 

Minnesota From 1980 to 2007. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 1:131-135. 

Rashford, B., S. J. A. Walker, and C. T. Bastian. 2011. Economics of grassland conversion to cropland in the 

Prairie Pothole Region. Conservation Biology 25:276-284. 

Ringelman, J. K. 2005. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture implementation plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Bismarck, North Dakota.

Severson, K. E., and C. Hull Sieg. 2006. The nature of eastern North Dakota: Pre-1880 historical ecology. North 

Dakota Institute for Regional Studies, North Dakota State University, Fargo.

Stephens, S. E., J. A. Walker, D. R. Blunck, A. Jayaraman, D. E. Naugle, J. K. Ringelman, A. J. Smith. 2008. 

Predicting risk of habitat conversion in native temperate grasslands. Conservation Biology 22: 1320-

1330. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

153
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 Census population profile maps. 

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/2010_census_profile_maps/census_profile_2010_main.html

Accessed online 7 September 2011. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Draft revised recovery plan for piping plovers breeding on the 

Great Lakes and northern Great Plains of the U.S. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

_____. 2001a. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health policy, 601 FW 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Natural Resources, Washington, D.C. 

_____. 2001b. 2000-2001 contingency plan: federal-state cooperative protection of whooping cranes [unpublished 

report]. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

_____. 2002. Habitat management plans policy, 620 FW 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Conservation Planning and Policy, Washington, D.C. 

_____. 2006. Comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment: North Dakota limited-interest 

National Wildlife Refuges. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, 

Lakewood, Colorado. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/planning/States/North%20Dakota/NorthDakota.htm

_____. 2008. Comprehensive conservation plan: North Dakota Wetland Management Districts. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, Colorado. Available online at 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/planning/States/North%20Dakota/NorthDakota.htm

_____. 2011a. Management strategy and guidelines for Sprague’s pipit on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands in 

Region 6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood, Colorado, 80228. 

_____. 2011b. Environmental assessment and land protection plan: Dakota Grasslands Conservation Area. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region, Lakewood, Colorado. 

Wright, C. K., and M. C. Wimberly. 2013. Recent land use change in the Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands 

and wetlands. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, In press.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

154
APPENDIX C

Scoping Notice

Kulm Wetland Management District – Habitat Management Plan

Dickey, LaMoure, Logan, and McIntosh counties, North Dakota

November 3, 2014 

For Immediate Release Contact: Michael Erickson (701) 647-2866 

 Chris Swanson (701) 647-2866 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TO ANNOUCE PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE PREPARATION 

OF THE DRAFT KULM WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces the completion of a draft Habitat Management Plan 

and Environmental Assessment for Kulm Wetland Management District on November 3, 2014. The Kulm 

Wetland Management District (District) was established in 1971 to conserve habitat for the benefit of waterfowl 

and other migratory birds. 

The purpose of this announcement is to solicit concerns and issues for the Service to consider on this Habitat 

Management Plan for Kulm Wetland Management District that steps-down from the North Dakota Wetland 

Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan that was approved in 2008 which is available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/planning/ccp/nd/wmd/wmd.html. The draft Habitat Management Plan can 

be viewed at http://www.fws.gov/refuge/kulm_wmd/. 

The Service proposes to implement the goals, objectives, and strategies included in this Habitat Management 

Plan to target resource allocation in landscapes where biological potential is the highest to support waterfowl 

carrying capacity, waterfowl production, and meet the habitat requirements of wetland- and grassland-dependent 

migratory birds. This includes protection and acquisition of conservation easements, enhancement and restoration 

of wetland and grassland on private lands under the USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, restoration 

of native mixed-grass prairie and reconstruction of non-native grasslands to diverse native stands on fee title 

WPAs, and management of plant community composition and structure on fee title WPAs. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

155
If you would like to comment on this Habitat Management Plan for Kulm Wetland Management District, 

send your comments via email to kulmwetlands@fws.gov or fax at (701) 647-2221. Comments during this 

scoping period will be accepted until Wednesday, December 3, 2014. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing 

fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 150 

million acre National Wildlife Refuge System which encompasses 562 National Wildlife Refuges and 38 Wetland 

Management Districts and other special management areas. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and 

restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands and helps foreign and Native American tribal governments with their conservation 

efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance program, which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on 

fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

156
APPENDIX D

List of Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan Goals and Objectives

2008 North Dakota Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan

The following list is a compilation of all of the Goals and Objectives described in the CCP for North Dakota 

Wetland Management Districts that pertain to Kulm Wetland Management District. They are listed here primarily 

for reference, to give the reader a sense of the broad conservation guidance described in the CCP. The majority of 

these goals and objectives step down to the HMP management goals and objectives described in this plan. The 

difference is that the HMP goals and objectives will tie the habitat needs of the Resources of Concern at 

landscape- and local-scales. 

A. Habitat and Wildlife Goal:

1. Protect, restore and enhance the ecological diversity of grasslands and wetlands of the North 

Dakota Prairie Pothole Region. Contribute to the production and growth of the continental 

waterfowl populations to meet the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

Also support healthy populations of other migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

species, and other wildlife. 

B. Habitat and Wildlife Objectives:

1. Wetlands in Easements – Objective 1 – During the 15 years after CCP approval, secure 

protected status on 40,000 wetland acres, with efforts focused on unprotected temporary and 

seasonal basins that are partially or totally embedded in cropland and that occur in areas that 

support ≥25 breeding duck pairs per square mile.

2. Wetland in Easements – Objective 2 – Over a 15-year period, through active monitoring and 

law enforcement, protect all wetland areas under perpetual Service easement according to the 

provisions of the conservation easement contracts.

3. Uplands in Easements – Objective 1 – Over a 15-year period, secure protected status on 

425,000 acres of grassland. Focus on grasslands ≥55 acres located in areas that support ≥25 

breeding duck pairs per square mile.

4. Uplands in Easements – Objective 2 – Over a 15-year period, protect all grassland areas 

under perpetual Service easement according to the provisions of the conservation easement 

contracts.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

157
5. Developed Wetlands in WPAs – Objective 1 – Provide between 30% and 70% coverage of 

emergent vegetation (over water) on average, over 11 of 15 years. 

6. Developed Wetlands in WPAs – Objective 2 – Within 10 years of the CCP approval, 

establish a monitoring plan for high-priority WPAs for water quality, aquatic invertebrates, 

and emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation.

7. Undeveloped Wetlands in WPAs – Objective 1 – Over a 15-year period, restore at least 100 

acres of degraded (drained, filled, leveled, cattail-choked, and contaminated) wetlands for 

increased water-holding capacity and improved wetland function on fee title lands.

8. Native Prairie in WPAs – Objective 1 – Within 2 years of CCP approval, each district will 

identify native prairie tracts and establish permanent vegetation monitoring transects to 

collect baseline floristic composition data.

9. Native Prairie in WPAs – Objective 2 – Within 2 years of completing the basic inventory of 

native grasslands (objective 1, above), each district will (1) develop a specific and detailed 

method to prioritize native prairie units, (2) develop detailed objectives describing the desired 

vegetation conditions in these prairies, and (3) carry out the appropriate management 

strategies necessary to achieve these conditions.

10. Native Prairie in WPAs – Objective 3 – Each district will identify native prairie units that are 

of high and low priority for native prairie restoration, as described in objective 2. Manage 

low-priority native prairie tracts to provide a mosaic of vegetative structure across a broad 

landscape to satisfy the habitat needs of grassland-dependent bird species, primarily 

waterfowl: a minimum of 40% in a high visual obstruction reading (VOR) category (>8 

inches), a minimum of 25% in a medium VOR category (4–8 inches), and a minimum of 5% 

in a low VOR category (<4 inches).

11. Invasive Plants – Objective 1 – Within 1 year after CCP approval, develop an IPM plan for 

control of invasive plants, including noxious weeds. 

12. Invasive Plants – Objective 2 – Within 5 years of CCP approval, establish a baseline 

inventory of all invasive plants, including noxious weeds, on Service lands. 

13. Invasive Plants – Objective 3 – Carry out measures to reduce and control 50% of invasive 

plants, including noxious weeds, on priority WPAs by 15 years after CCP approval. 

14. Old Cropland in WPAs – Objective 1 – In an attempt to restore grasslands that resemble presettlement conditions, over the next 15 years reseed at least 10,000 acres to native herbaceous 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

158
mixtures in priority WPAs that, 10 years post establishment, will be comprised of >60% 

native grasses and forbs.

15. Dense Nesting Cover in WPAs – Objective 1 – Over 15 years, continue to use other options 

for grassland cover (such as DNC and tame grass) on old cropland WPAs to address sitespecific migratory bird cover. Carry out appropriate management that maintains this cover at 

a minimum of every 4–7 years.

16. Invasive and Planted Woody Vegetation in WPAs – Objective 1 – Over a 15-year period, 

eliminate >50 acres of invasive or planted woody vegetation that are >3.28 feet tall at type 1–

3 core area WPAs and >25 acres at noncore area WPAs.

17. Threatened and Endangered Species, Whooping Crane – Objective 1 – Over a 15-year period, 

annually inform the public of migrant whooping cranes stopping in the districts, in an effort 

to reduce the risk of an accidental shooting or other disturbances. 

18. Predator Management in WPAs – Objective 1 – Annually use at least one predator 

management technique that, in areas where carried out, will achieve a Mayfield nest success 

of >40% for waterfowl, to help increase recruitment of ground-nesting birds at WPAs in 

cropland-dominated areas of North Dakota. 

C. Monitoring and Research Goal: 

1. Use science, monitoring, and applied research to advance the understanding of the Prairie 

Pothole Region and management within the North Dakota wetland management districts. 

D. Monitoring and Research Objectives:

1. Monitoring and Research – Objective 1 – Within 2 years of CCP approval, establish 

permanent vegetation monitoring transects to collect baseline floristic composition data for 

all major plant communities in all districts.

2. Monitoring and Research – Objective 2 – Within 2 years of gathering baseline floristic 

composition data, each district will complete a habitat management plan.

3. Monitoring and Research – Objective 3 – Within 1 year of CCP approval, identify and 

prioritize research needs required to meet the goals and objectives.

4. Monitoring and Research – Objective 4 – Over the 15-year life of the CCP, begin at least one 

monitoring or research project every 2 years that integrates needs identified in Monitoring 

and Research Objective 3, to increase knowledge about effectiveness of techniques to achieve 

habitat and wildlife goals and objectives.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

159
E. Cultural Resources Goal:

1. Identify and evaluate cultural resources in the North Dakota wetland management districts 

that are on Service-owned lands or are affected by Service undertakings. Protect resources 

determined to be significant and, when appropriate, interpret resources to connect staff, 

visitors, and communities to the area’s past.

F. Cultural Resources Objectives:

1. Cultural Resources – Objective 1 – Avoid, or when necessary mitigate, adverse effects to 

significant cultural resources in compliance with section 106 of the NHPA, at all times. 

2. Cultural Resources – Objective 2 – Always successfully integrate the process for section 106 

of the NHPA into all applicable district projects by notifying the Service’s cultural resources 

staff early in the planning process and, whenever possible, completing the review without 

delay to the project.

G. Visitor Services Goal:

1. Provide visitors with quality opportunities to enjoy hunting, fishing, trapping, and other 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation on Service-owned lands and expand their 

knowledge and appreciation of the prairie landscape and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System.

H. Visitor Services Objectives:

1. Hunting – Objective 1 – At WPAs and WDAs, throughout the life of the plan, maintain a 

good-quality experience for hunters of waterfowl and other resident species. Continue to 

provide information about public opportunities for hunting, in accordance with state and 

federal regulations. 

2. Fishing – Objective 1 – Throughout the life of this plan, provide access to open-water and 

ice-fishing opportunities at the districts.

3. Wildlife Observation and Photography – Objective 1 – Throughout the life of the CCP, 

provide opportunities for wildlife observation and photography and increase awareness of 

observation and photography opportunities. 

4. Environmental Education and Interpretation – Objective 1 – Throughout the life of the CCP, 

develop exhibits, pamphlets, and expanded programming where appropriate to promote 

public awareness of and advocacy for the Refuge System, district resources, and management 

activities that conserve habitat and wildlife.

5. Visitor Services Facilities – Objective 1 – Identify locations for other visitor contact stations 

at the districts within 3 years of CCP approval.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

160
6. Trapping – Objective 1 – Throughout the life of this plan, provide trapping opportunities at 

the districts at the current level.

I. Partnerships Goal: 

1. A diverse network of partners joins with the North Dakota wetland management districts to 

support research; protect, restore, and enhance habitat; and foster awareness and appreciation 

of the prairie landscape.

J. Partnerships Objective:

1. Partnerships – Objective 1 – Join a wide range of partners to support and promote awareness 

of the Refuge System and foster an appreciation of the grassland, prairie pothole ecosystem.

K. Operations Goal:

1. Effectively employ staff, partnerships, and volunteers and secure adequate funding in support 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System’s mission.

L. Operations Objective:

1. Staff and Volunteers – Objective 1 – Within 3 years of CCP approval, identify strategic 

locations to station outdoor recreation planners to coordinate programming among North 

Dakota’s wetland management districts and national wildlife refuges. Throughout the life of 

the plan, as needed, increase law enforcement staff to oversee the expanded programs and to 

work with NDGF. Throughout the life of the plan, recruit volunteers to support annual events, 

visitor services, and biological, maintenance, and administrative programs.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

161
Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

162
APPENDIX E

2012 Landscape Classification Index 

for Waterfowl Production Areas

Kulm Wetland Management District – Habitat Management Plan

Dickey, LaMoure, Logan, and McIntosh counties, North Dakota

2012 Landscape classification index for waterfowl production areas. 

Waterfowl 

production Area 

County Acres Duck pairs Grassland 

category 

2012 landscape 

class

Opp Logan 80.8 145 >60 1A

Werth Logan/McIntosh 786.7 139 >60 1A

Lazy M Dickey 1756.7 139 >60 1A

Hoffman McIntosh 159.6 138 >60 1A

Karius Logan 76.3 135 >60 1A

Bollinger McIntosh 120.7 130 >60 1A

Zigenhagel McIntosh 591.1 129 >60 1A

North Muonio Logan 64.5 128 >60 1A

Grabau Estate Logan 40.0 127 >60 1A

Buchholz Logan 100.4 126 >60 1A

Lehr Logan 67.2 122 >60 1A

Baltzer Logan 781.4 118 >60 1A

Ulmer McIntosh 49.6 117 >60 1A

LSB Dickey 272.0 115 >60 1A

Wic McIntosh 222.9 114 >60 1A

Jones McIntosh 79.9 113 >60 1A

North Brinkman Logan 309.9 113 >60 1A

Mundt Lake Logan 673.0 113 >60 1A

Knecht Logan 484.4 111 >60 1A

Knopp Dickey 119.6 111 >60 1A

Moldenhauer Logan 599.7 111 >60 1A

Zahn Dickey 64.9 109 >60 1A

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

163
2012 Landscape classification index for waterfowl production areas. 

Waterfowl 

production Area

County Acres Duck pairs Grassland 

category

2012 landscape 

class

Rutschke Dickey 202.9 109 >60 1A

Brunner Logan 154.5 109 >60 1A

Kautz Logan 802.2 108 >60 1A

Kauk Logan 145.4 108 >60 1A

Kappes McIntosh 212.3 107 >60 1A

Rienke Dickey 286.6 107 >60 1A

Erlenbusch Dickey 386.8 107 >60 1A

Kempf McIntosh 648.3 106 >60 1A

Sperling Logan 81.2 106 >60 1A

Larson Logan 1380.3 105 >60 1A

Dalke McIntosh 247.8 103 >60 1A

Schopp McIntosh 158.8 103 >60 1A

Heinrich McIntosh 89.3 102 >60 1A

Geiszler McIntosh 581.5 101 >60 1A

Jenner McIntosh 310.6 99 >60 1A

Sukut Logan 200.4 97 >60 1A

Coldwater McIntosh 107.6 96 >60 1A

Wigeon McIntosh 239.7 95 >60 1A

Camp Lake McIntosh 40.3 95 >60 1A

Roesler Lake Logan 1214.3 91 >60 1A

Lux McIntosh 123.2 90 >60 1A

Ernst Dickey 642.0 88 >60 1A

Ehley McIntosh 139.3 86 >60 1A

North Rutschke Dickey 20.1 86 >60 1A

Betsch McIntosh 56.8 86 >60 1A

McIntosh PDL 1b McIntosh 14.5 85 >60 1A

Brinkman McIntosh 1243.9 80 >60 1A

West Schneider McIntosh 159.5 79 >60 1A

Fandrich Logan 39.3 77 >60 1A

Marzolf McIntosh 160.1 76 >60 1A

Krueger Logan 480.8 75 >60 1A

Eszlinger McIntosh 514.9 74 >60 1A

Mcintosh PDL 1c McIntosh 0.0 72 >60 1A

Boschee Logan 473.6 72 >60 1A

Barr Logan 313.3 71 >60 1A

Todd Lamoure 160.0 71 >60 1A

Kisselberry McIntosh 649.1 65 >60 1A

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

164
2012 Landscape classification index for waterfowl production areas. 

Waterfowl County Acres Duck pairs Grassland 2012 landscape 

production Area category class

McIntosh PDL 1 McIntosh 0.2 60 >60 1A

Mcintosh PDL 1a McIntosh 0.3 60 >60 1A

Pintail McIntosh 79.2 156 >40 1B

Ruff McIntosh 160.8 151 >40 1B

Kosanke Logan 143.3 146 >40 1B

George McIntosh 130.4 141 >40 1B

Kroll Logan 337.7 140 >40 1B

Miller Logan 160.6 136 >40 1B

Hehn Logan 152.6 135 >40 1B

Mayer Logan 316.8 133 >40 1B

Logan PDL 1b Logan 40.1 130 >40 1B

Hochhalter Logan 88.8 125 >40 1B

West Kusler Logan 40.0 124 >40 1B

Dewald McIntosh 160.6 123 >40 1B

Klein McIntosh 299.7 119 >40 1B

Mund McIntosh 591.6 117 >40 1B

Maiss McIntosh 50.0 117 >40 1B

Sarkinen Logan 86.6 117 >40 1B

North Nitschke Logan 80.4 115 >40 1B

North Wentz Logan 19.9 115 >40 1B

Grabau Logan 8.0 111 >40 1B

Graham Dickey 304.8 110 >40 1B

West Wishek McIntosh/Dickey 269.0 109 >40 1B

Wishek Dickey 246.8 109 >40 1B

Muonio Logan 280.2 108 >40 1B

McIntosh PDL 1g McIntosh 39.3 107 >40 1B

West Dewald McIntosh 103.7 106 >40 1B

Ketterling Logan 82.5 106 >40 1B

Hille Dickey 620.7 105 >40 1B

McIntosh PDL 1f McIntosh 120.4 102 >40 1B

Kvigne Dickey 81.9 101 >40 1B

Schmidt Logan 146.3 99 >40 1B

Klettke Dickey 226.6 99 >40 1B

Schneider Dickey 157.6 96 >40 1B

Lepp Logan 31.3 93 >40 1B

Quashnick Dickey 40.0 93 >40 1B

Bertsch McIntosh 320.1 93 >40 1B

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

165
2012 Landscape classification index for waterfowl production areas. 

Waterfowl 

production Area

County Acres Duck pairs Grassland 

category

2012 landscape 

class

Young Dickey 322.3 93 >40 1B

Logan PDL 1g Logan 79.8 91 >40 1B

Haberman Lamoure 81.3 91 >40 1B

Stone McIntosh 49.3 90 >40 1B

Hildebrand McIntosh 161.3 90 >40 1B

Logan PDL 1e Logan 80.2 90 >40 1B

Clay Dickey 39.6 89 >40 1B

Schumacher McIntosh 55.2 89 >40 1B

Enger Dickey 327.8 88 >40 1B

Brummond Dickey 64.7 88 >40 1B

Weisz McIntosh 277.9 88 >40 1B

Logan PDL 1f Logan 162.9 88 >40 1B

Bender McIntosh 424.2 88 >40 1B

Logan PDL 1d Logan 79.0 87 >40 1B

Sackmann McIntosh 249.0 87 >40 1B

Goehring McIntosh 19.6 86 >40 1B

Dallman Logan 48.3 85 >40 1B

Edna McIntosh 26.7 84 >40 1B

Klipfel McIntosh 180.7 83 >40 1B

Logan PDL 1a Logan 119.2 82 >40 1B

Neu McIntosh 127.5 79 >40 1B

Fey McIntosh 180.6 78 >40 1B

Pfeifle McIntosh 344.5 78 >40 1B

Iszler Logan 10.7 78 >40 1B

Salzer McIntosh 201.2 77 >40 1B

Spitzer Logan 182.8 77 >40 1B

Koepplin McIntosh 294.0 77 >40 1B

Green Lake McIntosh 32.8 76 >40 1B

Ham McIntosh 61.0 75 >40 1B

Nitschke McIntosh 237.7 74 >40 1B

Henne Lamoure 39.7 71 >40 1B

Malm Lamoure 322.5 71 >40 1B

Lippert McIntosh 19.5 70 >40 1B

McIntosh PDL 1e McIntosh 39.6 70 >40 1B

North Henne Lamoure 23.2 69 >40 1B

Kessel McIntosh 162.1 69 >40 1B

Denning McIntosh 808.6 68 >40 1B

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

166
2012 Landscape classification index for waterfowl production areas. 

Waterfowl County Acres Duck pairs Grassland 2012 landscape 

production Area category class

Thurn McIntosh 321.9 50 >60 2A

Rothfusz McIntosh 79.8 51 >40 2B

Meidinger McIntosh 329.8 44 >40 2B

Wentz Logan 681.5 146 <40 4A

Provost Dickey 36.0 131 <40 4A

Kusler Logan 55.3 126 <40 4A

Liechty Lamoure 81.0 120 <40 4A

Vasvick Dickey 33.5 115 <40 4A

Koskiniemi Logan 221.2 112 <40 4A

West Holmes Dickey 24.0 111 <40 4A

Burkhardt Dickey 39.8 107 <40 4A

Shock Lamoure 80.0 107 <40 4A

Holmes Dickey 32.0 106 <40 4A

Hamann Dickey 106.2 105 <40 4A

Kramlich McIntosh 159.5 102 <40 4A

White Dickey 155.5 102 <40 4A

Redlin Dickey 356.0 101 <40 4A

Bjornstad Dickey 38.3 101 <40 4A

Lundgren Lamoure 161.7 100 <40 4A

Olson Lamoure 241.2 100 <40 4A

Patzer Lamoure 123.2 99 <40 4A

Grunneich Dickey 560.4 98 <40 4A

Herman Dickey 171.3 96 <40 4A

Lee Dickey 796.1 95 <40 4A

Gackle Lamoure 320.6 94 <40 4A

Logan County Logan 39.6 92 <40 4A

Bovey McIntosh 359.7 89 <40 4A

Dittus Lamoure 39.9 88 <40 4A

Carlson Lamoure 242.4 87 <40 4A

Scaup Dickey 98.6 86 <40 4A

Heine Dickey 159.6 86 <40 4A

Borth Lamoure 162.2 86 <40 4A

Raatz Lamoure 20.0 85 <40 4A

Marek Dickey 228.8 84 <40 4A

Schmidt Lamoure 220.5 81 <40 4A

Kannowski Lamoure 212.6 81 <40 4A

German Dickey 210.8 80 <40 4A

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

167
2012 Landscape classification index for waterfowl production areas. 

Waterfowl County Acres Duck pairs Grassland 2012 landscape 

production Area category class

Nelson Lamoure 82.5 78 <40 4A

Enzinger Lamoure 165.0 78 <40 4A

Wetzel Lamoure 37.2 77 <40 4A

Laney Lamoure 244.1 77 <40 4A

Cornell Lamoure 319.6 72 <40 4A

Retzlaff Dickey 79.1 72 <40 4A

Grady Dickey 68.2 71 <40 4A

Hauser Dickey 32.3 70 <40 4A

Domine Lamoure 32.0 69 <40 4A

Lahlum Lamoure 87.6 69 <40 4A

Knutson Lamoure 214.1 68 <40 4A

Pilgrims Rest Lamoure 643.0 68 <40 4A

Barton Dickey 75.4 67 <40 4A

Allison Lamoure 319.2 66 <40 4A

Wolf McIntosh 1365.6 65 <40 4A

Maple River Dickey 413.7 64 <40 4A

Leisikow Lamoure 80.8 61 <40 4A

Schnabel McIntosh 39.8 59 <40 4B

Kaseman McIntosh 40.2 59 <40 4B

Kessel Lamoure 40.1 58 <40 4B

Jackson Lamoure 72.1 57 <40 4B

Berlin Church McIntosh 1110.6 55 <40 4B

Wendt Lamoure 49.9 54 <40 4B

Lake McIntosh 79.4 51 <40 4B

Roth McIntosh 152.7 49 <40 4B

Hickey Lamoure 30.8 48 <40 4B

Moch Lamoure 20.8 44 <40 4B

Linnard Lamoure 60.0 35 <40 4C

Musland Lamoure 27.6 32 <40 4C

Straham Lamoure 90.6 29 <40 4C

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

168
Literature Cited

Afton, A. D., and S. L. Paulus. 1992. Incubation and brood care. Pages 62-108 in B. D. J. Batt, A. D. 

Afton, M. G. Anderson, C. D. Ankney, D. H. Johnson, J. A. Kadlec, and G. L. Krapu, editors. 

Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Amundson, C. L., and T. W. Arnold. 2011. The role of predator removal, density-dependence, and 

environmental factors on mallard duckling survival in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 75:1330-1339. 

_____., M. R. Pieron, T. W. Arnold, and L. A. Beaudoin. 2012. The effects of predator removal on 

mallard production and population change in northeastern North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 77:143-152. 

Anderson, K. L. 1965. Time of burning as it affects soil moisture in an ordinary upland bluestem 

prairie in the Flint Hills. Journal of Range Management 18:311-316. 

Askins, R. A., F. Chávez-Ramírez, B. C. Dale, C. A. Haas, J. R. Herkert, F. L. Knopf, and P. D. 

Vickery. 2007. Conservation of Grassland Birds in North America: Understanding Ecological 

Processes in Different Regions: "Report of the AOU Committee on Conservation". 

Ornithological Monographs:iii-46. 

Bakker, K. K., D. E. Naugle, and K. F. Higgins. 2002. Incorporating landscape attributes into models 

for migratory grassland bird conservation. Conservation Biology 16:1638-1646. 

Barker, W. T., K. K. Sedivec, T. A. Messmer, K. F. Higgins, and D. R. Hertel. 1990. Effects of 

specialized grazing systems on waterfowl production in south-central North Dakota. 

Transactions of the 55th Annual North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 

Denver, Colorado. 

Batt, B. D. J., M. G. Anderson, C. D. Anderson, and F. D. Caswell. 1989. The use of prairie potholes 

by North American ducks. Pages 204–227 in A. van der Valk, editor. Northern Prairie 

Wetlands. Iowa State University, Ames, USA.

Berger, J. J. 1993. Ecological restoration and nonindigenous plant species: a review. Restoration 

Ecology 1:74-82. 

Bergin, T. M., L. B. Best, K. E. Freemark, and K. J. Koehler. 2000. Effects of landscape structure on 

nest predation in roadsides of a Midwestern agroecosystem: a multiscale analysis. Landscape 

Ecology 15:131–143. 

Bestelmeyer, B. T. 2006. Threshold concepts and their use in rangeland management and restoration: 

The good, the bad, and the insidious. Restoration Ecology 14:325-329. 

Beauchamp, W. D. 1996. Long term declines in nest success of prairie ducks. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 60:247-257. 

Beyersbergen, G. W., N. D. Niemuth, and M. R. Norton. 2004. Northern prairie and parkland 

waterbird conservation plan. A plan associated with the Waterbird Conservation for the 

Americas initiative. Published by the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture, Denver, Colorado. 

http://www.waterbirdconservation.org/northern_prairie_parklands.html Accessed online 30 

August 2011. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

169
Biondini, M. E., J. E. Norland, and C. E. Grygiel. 2011. Plant richness-biomass relationships in 

restored Northern Great Plains grasslands (USA). International Journal of Ecology 2011:1-13. 

_____. 2007. Plant diversity, production, stability, and susceptibility to invasion in restored northern 

tall grass prairies (United States). Restoration Ecology 15:77-87. 

Black, S. H., N. Hodges, M. Vaughn, and M. Shepherd. 2007. Pollinators in natural areas: a primer on 

habitat management. Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. http://www.xerces.org/wpcontent/uploads/2008/11/pollinators_in_natural_areas_xerces_society.pdf. Accessed online 8 

May 2012. 

Bloom, P. M., D. W. Howerter, R. B. Emery, and L. M. Armstrong. 2013. Relationships between 

grazing and waterfowl production in the Canadian Prairies. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management 77:534-544. 

Bluemle, J. P. 1975. Guide to the geology of south-central North Dakota. North Dakota 

Geological Survey Educational Series 6. 

Blumenthal, D. M., N. R. Jordan, and E. L. Svenson. 2003. Weed control as a rationale for restoration: 

the example of tallgrass prairie. Conservation Ecology 7:6.

Bock, C. E., V. A. Saab, T. D. Rich, and D. S. Dobkin. 1993. Effects of livestock grazing on 

Neotropical migratory landbirds in western North America. Pages 296-309 in D. M. Finch and 

P. W. Stangel, editors. Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-229. 

Bollinger, E. K. 1998. Breeding dispersion and reproductive success of bobolinks in an agricultural 

landscape. Dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 

_____. 1991. Conservation of grassland birds in agricultural areas. Pages 279-287 in D. J. Decker, M. 

E. Krasny, G. R. Goff, C. R. Smith, and D. W. Gross, editors. Challenges in the conservation 

of biological resources. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Bonos, S. A., and J. A. Murphy. 1999. Growth response and performance of Kentucky bluegrass under 

summer stress. Crop Science 39:770-774. 

Bosy, J. L., and R. J. Reader. 1995. Mechanisms underlying the suppression of forb seeding 

emergence by grass (Poa pratensis) litter. Functional Ecology 9:635-639. 

Bragg, T. B. 1995. The physical environment of Great Plains grasslands. Pages 49-81 in A. Joern and 

K.A. Keeler, editors. The Changing Prairie: North American Grasslands. Oxford University 

Press, New York, New York.

Bragg, T. B., and A. A. Steuter. 1996. Mixed-grass prairies of the North American Great Plains. Pages 

53-66 in F. B. Samson and F. L. Knopf, editors. Prairie conservation: preserving North 

America's most endangered ecosystem. Island Press, Covelo, California.

Brennan, L. A., and W. P. Kuvlesky, Jr. 2005. North American Grassland Birds: An Unfolding 

Conservation Crisis? The Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1-13. 

Brown, M., and J. J. Dinsmore. 1986. Implications of marsh size and isolation for marsh bird 

management. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:392-397. 

Bryce, S., J. M. Omernik, D. E. Pater, M. Ulmer, J. Schaar, J. Freeouf, R. Johnson, P. Kuck, and S. H. 

Azevedo. 1998. Ecoregions of North Dakota and South Dakota. Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

170
Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat 

/ndsdeco/index.htm Accessed online 7 March 2012. 

Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, eds. 2001. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation 

Plan, 2nd ed. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. 

http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/USShorebird/PlanDocuments.htm Accessed 1 

September 2011. 

Canadian Wildlife Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. International recovery plan for 

the whooping crane. Ottawa: Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW), and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Carpinelli, M. F. 2001. Designing weed-resistant plant communities by maximizing niche occupation 

and resource capture. Dissertation, Montana State University, Bozeman. 

Charlton, K. M., W. A. Webster, and G. A. Casey. 1991. Skunk rabies. Pages 307-324 in G. M. Baer, 

editor. The natural history of rabies. Second edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. 

Cherney, J., and D. J. R. Cherney. 2011. Smooth bromegrass. Cornell University Cooperative 

Extension Grass Information Sheet Series, Information Sheet 10. 

Chodachek, K. D., and M. J. Chamberlain. 2006. Effects of predator removal on upland nesting ducks 

in North Dakota grassland fragments. Prairie Naturalist 38:25-37. 

Christensen, S. D., C. V. Ransom, K. A. Edvarchuk, and V. Philip Rasmussen. 2011. Efficiency and 

accuracy of wildland weed mapping methods. Invasive Plant Science and Management 4:458-

465. 

Chura, N. J. 1961. Food availability and preference of juvenile mallards. Transactions of the North 

American Wildlife Conference 26:121-134. 

Clark, R. J. 1972. Observations of nesting marsh hawks in Manitoba. Blue Jay 30:43-48. 

Clayton, L. 1962. Glacial geology of Logan and McIntosh counties, North Dakota. North Dakota 

Geological Survey Bulletin 37.

Collins, S. L. and S. M. Barber. 1985. Effects of disturbance on diversity in mixed-grass prairie. 

Vegetation 64:87-94. 

Collins, S. L. and D. J. Gibson. 1990. Effects of fire on community structure in tall-grass and mixedgrass prairie. Pages 81-98 in S.L. Collins and L.L. Wallace, editors. Fire in North American 

Tallgrass Prairies. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Conner, R., A. Seidl, L. VanTassell, and N. Wilkins. 2001. U.S. grasslands and related resources: An 

economic and biological trends assessment. Texas Cooperative Extension Reports and 

Publications. 

Coppedge, B. R., S. D. Fuhlendorf, W. C. Harrell, and D. M. Engle. 2008. Avian community response 

to vegetation and structural features in grasslands managed with fire and grazing. Biological 

Conservation 141:1196-1203. 

Cowardin, L. M., D. S. Gilmer, and C. W. Shaiffer. 1985. Mallard recruitment in the 

agricultural environment of North Dakota. Wildlife Monographs 92:3-37. 

______. M., T. L. Shaffer, and P. M. Arnold. 1995. Evaluation of duck habitat and estimation of duck 

population sizes with a remote-sensing based system. National Biological Service, Biological 

Science Report 2.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

171
Cox, R. R., Jr., M. A. Hanson, C. C. Roy, N. H. Euliss, Jr., D. H. Johnson, and M. G. Butler. 1998. 

Mallard duckling growth and survival in relation to aquatic invertebrates. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 62:124-133. 

Craine, J. M., T. W. Ocheltree, J. B. Nippert, E. G. Towne, A. M. Skibbe, S. W. Kembel, and J. E. 

Fargione. 2013. Global diversity of drought tolerance and grassland climate-change resilience. 

Nature Climate Change 3:63-67. 

Crall, A. W., C. S. Jarnevich, and B. Panke. 2013. Using habitat suitability models to target invasive 

plant species surveys. Ecological Applications 23:60-72. 

Cramer, C. 1991. Tougher than weeds – native prairie plants, better management trim roadside 

spraying 90%. The New Farm 13:37-39. 

Cully, A. C., J. F. Cully, Jr., and R. D. Hiebert. 2003. Invasion of exotic plant species in tallgrass 

prairie fragments. Conservation Biology 17:990-998. 

Cunningham, M. and D. H. Johnson. 2006. Proximate and landscape factors influence grassland bird 

distributions. Ecological Applications 16: 1062-1075. 

Dahl, T. E. 2014. Status and trends of prairie wetlands in the United States 1997 to 2009. U.S. 

Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Washington, D.C. 

Davis, S. K. 2003. Habitat selection and demography of mixed-grass prairie songbirds in a 

fragmented landscape. Dissertation, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, 

Canada.

_____. 2004. Area sensitivity in grassland passerines: effects of patch size, patch shape, and 

vegetation structure on bird abundance and occurrence in southern Saskatchewan. Auk 

121:1130-1145. 

_____., R. M. Brigham, T. L. Shaffer, and P. C. James. 2006. Mixed-grass prairie passerines exhibit 

weak and variable responses to patch size. Auk 123:807-821. 

_____., R. J. Fisher, S. L. Skinner, T. L. Shaffer, and R. M. Brigham. 2013. Songbird abundance in 

native and planted grassland varies with type and amount of grassland in the surrounding 

landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 77:908-919. 

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, M. P. Nenneman, and B. R. 

Euliss. 2001. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Marbled Godwit. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota. 

_____., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, M. P. Nenneman, and B. R. Euliss. 

2002. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Northern Harrier. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota. 

_____., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, M. P. Nenneman, and B. R. Euliss. 

2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: clay-colored sparrow. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota. 

Dekeyser, E. S., G. Clambey, K. Krabbenhoft, and J. Ostendorf. 2009. Are changes in species 

composition on central North Dakota rangelands due to non-use management? Rangelands 

31:16-19. 

_____., M. Meehan, G. Clambey, and K. Krabbenhoft. 2013. Cool season invasive grasses in Northern 

Great Plains natural areas. Natural Areas Journal 33:81-90. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

172
Devries, J. H. and L. M. Armstrong. 2011. Impact of management treatments on waterfowl use of 

dense nesting cover in the Canadian Parklands. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:1340-

1349. 

DiTomaso, J. M., M. L. Brooks, E. B. Allen, R. Minnich, P. M. Rice, and G. B. Kyser. 2006. Control 

of invasive species with prescribed burning. Weed Technology 20:535- 548. 

_____., G. B. Kyser, S. R. Oneto, R. G. Wilson, S. B. Orloff, L. W. Anderson, S. D. Wright, J. A. 

Roncoroni, T. L. Miller, T. S. Prather, C. Ransom, K. G. Beck, C. Duncan, K. A. Wilson, and 

J. J. Mann. 2013. Weed control in natural areas in the western United States. Weed Research 

and Information Center, University of California, Davis.

Doherty, K. E., A. J. Ryba, C. L. Stemler, N. D. Niemuth, W. A. Meeks. 2013. Conservation planning 

in an era of change: state of the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:546-

563. 

Doherty, K. E., J. Walker, J. H. Devries, J. S. Evans, and D. W. Howerter. In Review. Towards 

coherent spatial conservation planning for breeding ducks across the U.S. and Canadian 

border. 

Drever, M. C., T. D. Nudds, and R. G. Clark. 2007. Agricultural policy and nest success of prairie 

ducks in Canada and the United States. Avian Conservation and Ecology 2:5. 

_____., A. Wins-Purdy, T. D. Nudds, and R. G. Clark. 2004. Decline of duck nest success revisited: 

relationships with predators and wetlands in dynamic prairie environments. The Auk 121:497-

508. 

Duebbert, H. F. and A. M. Frank. 1984. Value of prairie wetlands to duck broods. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 12:27-34. 

_____., E. T. Jacobson, K. F. Higgins, and E. B, Podoll. 1981. Establishment of seeded grassland for 

wildlife habitat in the Prairie Pothole Region. Special Scientific Report – Wildlife No. 234. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

_____., and H. A. Kantrud. 1974. Upland duck nesting related to land use and predator reduction. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 38:257-265. 

Dunn, E. H., and D. J. Agro. 1995. Black tern (Chlidonias niger). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The 

birds of North America, No. 147. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania; The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Ellis-Felege, S. N., C. S. Dixon, and S. D. Wilson. 2013. Impacts and management of invasive coolseason grasses in the North Great Plains: Challenges and opportunities for wildlife. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 37:510-516. 

Engle, D. M., and P. M. Bultsma. 1984. Burning of northern mixed prairie during drought. Journal of 

Range Management 37:398-401. 

Esler, D. and J. B. Grand. 1994. The role of nutrient reserves for clutch formation by northern pintails 

in Alaska. Condor 96:422-432. 

Euliss, N. H., and D. M. Mushet. 1999. Water-level fluctuation in wetlands as a function of landscape 

condition in the Prairie Pothole Region. Wetlands 16:587–593. 

_____., D. A. Wrubleski, and D. M. Mushet. 1999. Wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region: 

invertebrates species composition, ecology, and management. Pages 471-514 in D. P. Batzer, 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

173
R. B. Rader and S. A. Wissinger, editors. Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands of North 

America: ecology and management. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 

_____., L. M. Smith, D. A. Wilcox, and B. A. Browne. 2008. Linking ecosystem processes with 

wetland management goals: charting a course for a sustainable future. Wetlands 28:553-562. 

Fargione, J. E., T. R. Cooper, D. J. Flaspohler, J. Hill, C. Lehman, T. McCoy, S. McLeod, E. J. 

Nelson, K. S. Oberhauser, and D. Tilman. 2009. Bioenergy and wildlife: threats and 

opportunities for grassland conservation. Bioscience 59:767-777. 

Fitzgerald, J. A., D. N. Pashley, and B. Pardo. 1999. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for the 

mixed-grass prairie (physiographic area 37). Version 1.0. 

Fletcher, R. J. Jr., and R. R. Koford. 2002. Habitat and landscape associations of breeding birds in 

native and restored grasslands. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:1001-1022. 

Fondell, T. F., and I. J. Ball. 2004. Density and success of bird nests relative to grazing on western 

Montana grasslands. Biological Conservation 117:203-213. 

Fontaine, J. J., K. L. Decker, S. Skagen, and C. van Riper. 2009. Spatial and temporal variation in 

climate change: a bird’s eye view. Climate Change 97:305-311. 

Frawley, B. J., and L. B. Best. 1991. Effects of mowing on breeding bird abundance and species 

composition in alfalfa fields. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:135-142. 

Fredrickson, L. H. and F. A. Reid. 1986. Wetland and riparian habitats: a nongame management 

overview. Pages 59-96 in Management of nongame wildlife in the Midwest: a developing art, 

J. B. Hale, L. B. Best, and R. L. Clawson, editors. Proceeding and Symposia of the 47th 

Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Fuhlendorf, S. D., W.C. Harrell, D.M. Engle, R.G. Hamilton, C.A. Davis, and D.M. Leslie. 2006. 

Should heterogeneity be the basis for conservation? grassland bird response to fire and 

grazing. Ecological Applications 16: 1706-1716. 

Gannon, J. J., C. T. Moore, T. L. Shaffer, and B. Flanders-Wanner. 2010. An adaptive approach to 

invasive plant management on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-owned native prairies in the 

Prairie Pothole Region: decision support under uncertainty. 22nd North American Prairie 

Conference. 

Gannon, J. J., T. L. Shaffer, and C. T. Moore. 2013. Native prairie adaptive management: a multi 

region adaptive approach to invasive plant management on Fish and Wildlife Service owned 

native prairies. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013-1279. 

Garrettson, P. R., and F. C. Rohwer. 2001. Effects of mammalian predator removal on production of 

upland-nesting ducks in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:398-405. 

George, T. L., A. C. Fowler, R. L. Knight, and L. C. McEvan. 1992. Impacts of a severe drought on 

grassland birds in western North Dakota. Ecological Applications 2:275-284. 

Gilbert, D. W., D. R. Anderson, J. K. Ringelman, and M. R. Szymczak. 1996. Response of 

nesting ducks to habitat and management on the Monte Vista National Wildlife 

Refuge, Colorado. Wildlife Monographs 131:3-44. 

Gleason, R. A., N. H. Euliss, Jr., R. L. McDougal, K. E. Kermes, E. N. Steadman, and J. A. Harju. 

2005. Potential of restored prairie wetlands in the glaciated North American prairie to 

sequester atmospheric carbon. Energy and Environmental Research Center, University of 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

174
North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota, USA. http://library.nprwc.cr.usgs.gov 

/diglib/npwrc/npwrc1544.pdf Accessed online 12 January 2011.

_____., N. H. Euliss, Jr., B. A. Tangen, M. K. Laubhan, and B. A. Browne. 2011. USDA conservation 

program and practice effects on wetland ecosystem services in the Prairie Pothole Region. 

Ecological Applications 21:65-81. 

Grace, J. B., M. D. Smith, S. L. Grace, S. L. Collins, and T. J. Stohlgren. 2001. Interactions between 

fire and invasive plants in temperate grasslands of North America. Proceeding of the Invasive 

species Workshop: the Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Fire 

Conference 2000: First National Congress of Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management 

Publication No. 11:40-65. 

Grant, T.A., B. Flanders-Wanner, T.L. Shaffer, R.K. Murphy, and G.A. Knutsen. 2009. An emerging 

crisis across northern prairie refuges: prevalence of invasive plants and a plan for adaptive 

management. Ecological Restoration 27:58-65. 

_____., E. M. Madden, R. K. Murphy, K. A. Smith, and M. P. Nenneman. 2004. Monitoring native 

prairie vegetation: the belt transect method. Ecological Restoration 22: 106-112. 

_____., E. M. Madden, T. L. Shaffer, and J. S Dockins. 2010. Effects of prescribed fire on vegetation 

and passerine birds in northern mixed-grass prairie. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 

1841-1851. 

Gratto-Trevor, C. L. 2000. Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds 

of North America, No. 492. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Greenwood, R. J, A. B. Sargeant, D. H. Johnson, L. M Cowardin, T. L. Schaffer. 1995. Factors 

associated with duck nest success in the Prairie Pothole Region of Canada. Wildlife 

Monographs 128:1-57. 

Guo, Q., T. Shaffer, and T. Buhl. 2006. Community maturity, species saturation, and the variant 

diversity-productivity relationships in grasslands. Ecological Letters 9: 1284-1292. 

Guyette, R.P.; M.C. Stambaugh; D.C. Dey; and R.Muzika. 2012. Predicting Fire Frequency with 

Chemistry and Climate. Ecosystems 15: 332-335.

Hagen, S., P. Isakson, S. Dyke. 2005. North Dakota Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 

North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Bismarck, North Dakota.

Hannah, L, and L. Hansen. 2005. Climate change and biodiversity. Pages 329-341 in T. N. Lovejoy 

and L. Hannah, editors. Yale University Press, New Haven Connecticut. 

Hanson, R., T. Christner, S. Clay, D. Clay, S. Smart, and E. Mousel. 2010. Spring burning and 

rotational grazing effects on cool and warm season grasses in eastern South Dakota. Abstract: 

Society for Range Management 63rd Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado. 

Helzer, C. 2010. The ecology and management of prairies in the central United States. University of 

Iowa Press, Iowa City.

_____. 2011. Patch-burn grazing for biological diversity. Unpublished report, The Nature 

Conservancy, Nebraska.

Henderson, K. and C. Kern. 1999. Integrated roadside vegetation management technical manual. 

University of Iowa Press, Cedar Falls.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

175
Hendrickson, J. R., and C. Lund. 2010. Plant community and target species affect responses to 

restoration strategies. Rangeland Ecology and Management 63:435–442. 

Herkert, J. R., D. L. Reinking, D. A. Wiedenfeld, M. Winter, J. L. Zimmerman, W. E. Jensen, E. J. 

Finck, R. R. Koford, D. H. Wolfe, S. K. Sherrod, M. A. Jenkins, J. Faaborg, and S. K. 

Robinson. 2003. Effects of prairie fragmentation on nest success of breeding birds in the 

midcontinental United States. Conservation Biology 17:587–594. 

Herkert, J. R., S. A. Simpson, R. L. Westemeier, T. L. Esker, and J. W. Walk. 1999. Response of 

northern harriers and short-eared owls to grassland management in Illinois. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 63:517-523. 

Higgins, K. F. 1977. Duck nesting in intensively farmed areas of North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 41:232-242. 

_____. 1986. A comparison of burn season effects on nesting birds in North Dakota mixed-grass 

prairie. Prairie Naturalist 18:219-228. 

_____. and W. T. Barker. 1982. Changes in vegetation structure in seeded nesting cover in the Prairie 

Pothole Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Science Report – Wildlife 242. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. 

_____., L. M. Kirsch, A. T. Klett, and H. W. Miller. 1992. Waterfowl production on the Woodworth 

Station in south-central North Dakota, 1965-1981. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource 

Publication 180.

_____., A. D. Kruse, and J. L. Piehl. 1989. Prescribed burning guidelines in the Northern Great Plains. 

Extension Circular EC-760. South Dakota State University Cooperative Extension Service, 

Brookings. 

_____., D. E. Naugle, and K. J. Forman. 2002. A case study of changing land use practices in the 

northern Great Plains, U.S.A: An uncertain future for waterbird conservation. Waterbirds 

25:42-50. 

High Plains Regional Climate Center. 2011. Historical climate data summaries. 

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/data/historical/ Accessed online 5 October 2011. 

Hobbie, S. E. 1992. Effects of plant species on nutrient cycling. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 

7:336-399. 

Hoekman, S. T., L. S. Mills, D. W. Howerter, J. H. Devries, and I. J. Ball. 2002. Sensitivity of the life 

cycle of midcontinent mallards. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:883-900. 

Holecheck, J. L., H. Gomez, F. Molinar, and D. Galt. 1999. Grazing studies: what we’ve learned. 

Rangelands 21:12-16. 

Horn, D. J., M. L. Phillips, R. R. Koford, W. R. Clark, M. A. Sovada, and R. J. Greenwood. 2005. 

Landscape composition, patch size, and distance to edges: interactions affecting duck 

reproductive success 15:1367-1376. 

Hooper, D. U., F. S. Chapin, III, J. J. Ewel, A. Hector, P. Inchausti, S. Lavorel, J. H. Lawton, D. M. 

Lodge, M. Loreau, S. Naeem, B. Schmid, H. Setala, A. J. Symstad, J. Vandermeer, and D. A. 

Wardle. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current 

knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75:3-35. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

176
Hubbard, D. E. 1988. Glaciated prairie wetland functions and values: a synthesis of the literature. 

Biological Report 88(43). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA. 

Hughes, J. P., R. J. Robel, K. E. Kemp, and J. L. Zimmerman. 1999. Effects of habitat on dickcissel 

abundance and nest success in Conservation Reserve Program fields in Kansas. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 63:523-529. 

Howerter, D. W., M. G. Anderson, J. H. Devries, B. L. Joynt, L. M. Armstrong, R. B. Emery, and T. 

W. Arnold. 2014. Variation in mallard vital rates in Canadian aspen parklands: The Prairie 

Habitat Joint Venture assessment. Wildlife Monographs 188:1-37. 

Igl, L. D. and D. H. Johnson. 1997. Changes in breeding bird populations in North Dakota: 1967 to 

1992-93. The Auk 114:74-92. 

Jacobs, J. S., and R. L. Sheley. 1999. Competition and niche portioning among Pseudoroegneria 

spicata, Hedysarum boreale, and Centaurea maculosa. Great Basin Naturalist 59:175-181. 

Jacobson, E. T., D. B. Wark, R. G. Arnott, R. J. Haas, and D. A. Tober. 1994. Sculptured seeding, an 

ecological approach to revegetation. Restoration and Management Notes 12:1. University of 

Wisconsin Press.

Johnson, D. H., and J. W. Grier. 1988. Determinants of breeding distributions of ducks. Wildlife 

Monographs 100:3-37. 

_____. and L. D. Igl. 2001. Area requirements of grassland birds: a regional perspective. The Auk 

118:24-34. 

_____., and M. D. Schwartz. 1993. The Conservation Reserve Program: habitat for grassland birds. 

Great Plains Research 3:273-295. 

_____., and S. A. Temple. 1986. Assessing habitat quality for birds nesting in fragmented tallgrass 

prairies. Pages 245-249 in J. Verner, M. L. Morrison, and C. J. Ralph, editors. Wildlife 2000: 

modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, 

Madison, USA. 

Johnson, J. R., G. W. Reeves, D. W. Schmidt, and J. L. Skoberg. 1994. Estimating grass utilization 

using photographic guides. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, 

South Dakota State University, Brookings. 

Johnson, R. R, C. K. Baxter, and M. E. Estey. 2009. An emerging agency-based approach to 

conserving populations through Strategic Habitat Conservation. Pages 201-224 in J. J. 

Millspaugh, and F. R. Thompson, III, editors. Models for planning wildlife conservation in 

large landscapes. Elsevier Science, San Diego, California, USA.

_____., D. A. Granfors, N. D. Niemuth, M. E. Estey, and R. E. Reynolds. 2010. Delineating grassland 

bird conservation areas in the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. Journal of Fish and Wildlife 

Management 1:38-42. 

Johnson W. 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 55:863-872. 

_____., B. Werner, G. R. Guntenspergen, R. A. Voldseth, B. Millett, D. E. Naugle, M. Tulbure, R. 

Carroll, J. Tracy, and C. Olawsky. 2010. Prairie wetland complexes as landscape functional 

units in a changing climate. Bioscience 60:128-140. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

177
Johnston, C. A. 2013. Wetland losses due to row crop expansion in the Dakota Prairie Pothole Region. 

Wetlands 33:175-182. 

_____. 2014. Agricultural expansion: land use shell game in the U.S. Northern Plains. Landscape 

Ecology 29:81-95. 

Jones, S. L. 2010. Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan. U.S. Department of Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Jordan, N. R., D. L. Larson, and S. C. Huerd. 2008. Soil modification by invasive plants: effects on 

native and invasive species of mixed grass prairies. Biological Invasions 10:177–190. 

Kantrud, H. A. 1981. Grazing intensity effects on the breeding avifauna of North Dakota native 

grasslands. Canadian Field-Naturalist 92:383-386. 

_____., and K. F. Higgins. 1992. Nest and nest site characteristics of some ground-nesting, nonpasserine birds of northern grasslands. Prairie Naturalist 24:67-84. 

_____., and R. L. Kologiski. 1982. Effects of soils and grazing on breeding birds of 

uncultivated upland grasslands of the northern Great Plains. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Wildlife Research Report 15, Washington, D. C. 

_____., G. L. Krapu, and G. A. Swanson. 1989. Prairie basin wetlands of the Dakotas: a community 

profile. Biological Report 85. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA. 

_____., and R. A. Stewart. 1984. Ecological distribution and crude density of breeding birds on prairie 

wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:426-437. 

Kaufman, D. W., E. J. Finck, and G. A. Kaufman. 1990. Small mammals and grassland fires. Pages 

46-80 in S. L. Collins and L. L. Wallace, editors. Fire in North American tallgrass prairies. 

University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Kiesecker, J. M., J. S. Evans, J. Fargione, K. Doherty, K. R. Foresman, T. H. Kunz, D. Naugle, N. P. 

Nibbelink, and N. D. Niemuth. 2011. Win-win for wind and wildlife: A vision to facilitate 

sustainable development. PloS One 6:1-8. 

Kirby, R. E., J. K. Ringelman, D. R. Anderson, R. S. Sodja. 1992. Grazing on national wildlife 

refuges: do the needs outweigh the problems? Pages 611-626 in Transactions of the 57th North 

American Wildlife & Natural Resources Conference. 

Kirsch, L. M., H. F. Duebbert, and A. D. Kruse. 1978. Grazing and haying effects on habitats of 

upland nesting birds. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource 

Conference 43:486-497. 

Klett. T., T. L. Shaffer, and D. H. Johnson. 1988. Duck nest success in the Prairie Pothole Region. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 52:431-440. 

Knapton, R. W. 1978. Breeding ecology of clay-colored sparrow. Living Bird 17: 137-158. 

Knievel, D. P., A. V. A. Jacques, and D. Smith. 1971. Influence of growth stage and stubble height on 

herbage yields and persistence of smooth bromegrass and timothy. Journal of Agronomy 

63:430-434. 

Knopf, F. L. 1996. – birds. Pages 135-148 in F. B. Samson and F. L. Knopf, editors. Prairie 

conservation: preserving North America’s most endangered ecosystem. Island Press, 

Washington, D.C., USA. 

Knops, J. M. H. 2006. Fire does not alter vegetation in infertile prairie. Oecologia 150:477-483. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

178
Knutsen, G. A., and N. H. Euliss, Jr. 2001. Wetland restoration in the Prairie Pothole Region of North 

America: a literature review. Biological Science Report 2001-0006. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Reston, Virginia, USA.

Koper, N., and F. K. A. Schmiegelow. 2007. Does management for duck productivity affect songbird 

nesting success? Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2249-2257. 

Krapu, G. L. 1974. Feeding ecology of pintail hens during reproduction. Auk 91:29-38. 

_____. 1981. The role of nutrient reserves in mallard reproduction. Auk 98:278-290. 

_____., D. A. Brandt, and J. A. Beiser. 2001. Factors associated with autumn rearing of duck broods in 

temperate North America. Wildfowl 52:145-158. 

_____., P. J. Pietz, D. A. Brandt, and R. R. Cox, Jr. 2004a. Does presence of permanent fresh water 

affect recruitment in prairie-nesting dabbling ducks? Journal of Wildlife Management 68:332-

341. 

_____., and K. J. Reinecke. 1992. Foraging ecology and nutrition. Pages 1-29 in B. D. J. Batt, A. D. 

Afton, M. G. Anderson, C. D. Ankney, D. H. Johnson, J. A. Kadlec, and G. L. Krapu, editors. 

Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

_____., A. T. Klett, and D. G. Jorde. 1983. The effect of variable spring conditions on mallard 

reproduction. Auk 100:689-698. 

_____., P. J. Pietz, D. A. Brandt, and R. R. Cox, Jr. 2000. Factors limiting mallard brood survival in 

prairie pothole landscapes. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:553-561. 

_____., P. J. Pietz, D. A. Brandt, and R. R. Cox, Jr. 2006. Mallard brood movements, wetland use, and 

duckling survival during and following a prairie drought. Journal of Wildlife Management 

70:1436-1444. 

_____., R. E. Reynolds, G. A. Sargeant, and R. W. Renner. 2004b. Patterns of clutch size variation in 

a guild of temperate-nesting dabbling ducks. Auk 121:695-706. 

Kruse, A. D., and B. S. Bowen. 1996. Effects of grazing and burning on densities and habitats of 

breeding ducks in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:233-246. 

Kushlan, J. A., M. J. Steinkamp, K. C. Parsons, J. Capp, M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. 

Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, 

R. Paul, R. Phillips, J. E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, 

Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

Lambeck, R. J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation 

Biology 16:849-857. 

Larkin, D. J., M. J. Freyman, S. C. Lishawa, P. Geddes, N. C. Tuchman. 2012. Mechanisms of 

dominance by the invasive hybrid cattail Typha x glauca. Biological Invasions 14:65-77. 

Larson, T. K. 2011. Prairie restoration outcomes in the northern tallgrass and mixed grass prairie ecoregion. Thesis, North Dakota State University, Fargo. 

Laubhan, M. K., B. Flanders-Wanner, and R. A. Laubhan. 2012. A conceptual approach to evaluating 

grassland restoration potential on Huron Wetland Management District, South Dakota. U.S. 

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication 

FWS/BTP-R6016-2012, Washington, D.C. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

179
_____., R. A. Gleason, N. H. Euliss, Jr., G. A. Knutsen, and R. A. Laubhan. 2006. A preliminary 

biological assessment of Long Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, North Dakota, USA. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication 

FWS/BTP-R6006-2006, Washington, D.C. 

Leman, C. A., and M. K. Clausen. 1984. The effects of mowing on the rodent community of a native 

tallgrass prairie in eastern Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist 16:5-10. 

Levang-Brilz, N., and M. E. Biondini. 2002. Growth rate, root development, and nutrient uptake of 55 

plant species from the Great Plains grasslands, U.S.A. Plant Ecology 165:117-144. 

Lloyd, J. D., and T. E. Martin. 2005. Reproductive success of chestnut-collared longspurs in native 

and exotic grassland. Condor 107:363-374. 

Livezey, B. C. 1981. Duck nesting in retired croplands at Horicon National Wildlife Refuge, 

Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management. 45:27-37. 

Loesch, C. R., R. E. Reynolds, and L. T. Hansen. 2012. An assessment of re-directing breeding 

waterfowl conservation relative to predictions of climate change. Journal of Fish and Wildlife 

Management 3:1-22. 

_____., R. Reynolds, S. Stephens, and N. Niemuth. Unpublished data. Drainage Impacts to Prairie 

Pothole Region Wetlands in North and South Dakota. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & Ducks 

Unlimited, Bismarck, ND.

Lokemoen, J. T. 1984. Examining economic efficiency of management practices that enhance 

waterfowl production. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource 

Conference 49: 584-607. 

_____., H. F. Duebbert, and D. E. Sharp. 1990. Homing and reproductive habitat of mallards, 

gadwalls, and blue-winged teal. Wildlife Monographs 106:3-28. 

Lutz, W., W. Sanderson, and S. Scherbob. 2001. The end of world population growth. Nature 

412:543-645. 

Lym, R. G, and A. J. Travnicek. 2010. Identification and Control of invasive troublesome weeds in 

North Dakota. North Dakota State University Extension Service.

Lyons, J. E., M. C. Runge, H. P. Laskowski, and W. L. Kendall. 2008. Monitoring in the context of 

structured decision-making and adaptive management. Journal of Wildlife Management 

72:1683-1692. 

Maczko, K, and L. Hidinger. 2008. Sustainable rangelands ecosystem goods and services. Sustainable 

Rangelands Roundtable Monograph No. 3. 

Madden, E. M. 1996. Passerine communities and bird-habitat relationships on prescribe-burned, 

mixed-grass prairie in North Dakota. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman. 

_____., A. J. Hansen, and R. K. Murphy. 1999. Influence of prescribed fire history on habitat and 

abundance of passerine birds in northern mixed-grass prairie. Canadian Field-Naturalist 

113:627-640. 

Madritch, M. D., and M. D. Hunter. 2002. Phenotypic diversity influences ecosystem functioning in an 

oak sandhills community. Oecologia 121:564-573. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

180
Maher, W. J. 1973. Matador Project: Birds I. Population dynamics. Canadian Committee for the 

International Biological Programme, Matador Project, Technical Report 34. University of 

Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.

Manci, K. M. and D. H. Rusch. 1988. Indices to distribution and abundance of some inconspicuous 

waterbirds at Horicon Marsh. Journal of Field Ornithology 59:67-75. 

Martin, Stephen G. and Thomas A. Gavin. 1995. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), The Birds of 

North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. http://bna.birds 

.cornell.edu/bna/species/176doi:10.2173/bna.176. Accessed online 3 February 2014.

Mawdsley, J. R., R. O’Malley, and D. S. Ojima. 2009. A review of climate-change adaptation 

strategies for wildlife management and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 

23:1080-1089. 

Maxwell, B. D., E. Lehnhoff, and L. J. Rew. 2009. The rationale for monitoring invasive plant 

populations as a crucial step for management. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2:1-9. 

Martz, G. F. 1967. Effects of nesting cover removal on breeding puddle ducks. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 31:236-247. 

Meretsky, V., R. Fischman, J. Karr, D. Ashe, J. Scott, R. Noss, and R. Schroeder. 2006. New 

directions in conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. BioScience. 56:135-143. 

Monaco, T. A., T. A. Jones, and T. L. Thurow. 2012. Identifying rangeland restoration targets: an 

appraisal of challenges and opportunities. Rangeland Ecology and Management 65:599-605. 

Moore, C. T., E. V. Lonsdorf, M. G. Knutson, H. P. Laskowski, and S. K. Lor. 2010. Adaptive 

management in the U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System: Science-management partnerships 

for conservation delivery. Journal of Environmental Management 92:1395-1402. 

Mousel, E. M., and A. J. Smart. 2007. Managing smooth bromegrass pastures in South Dakota. South 

Dakota State University Cooperative Extension Service Extension Extra 2062:1-3. 

Murphy, M. T. 2003. Avian population trends within the evolving agricultural landscape of eastern 

and central United States. Auk 120:20-34. 

Murphy, R. K., and T. A. Grant. 2005. Land management history and floristics in mixed-grass prairie, 

North Dakota, USA. Natural Areas Journal 25:351-358. 

Murphy, R. K., T. A. Grant, and E. M. Madden. 2005. Prescribed fire for fuel reduction in northern 

mixed grass prairie: influence on habitat and population dynamics of indigenous wildlife. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior-National Wildlife Refuge System, 

northwestern and north central North Dakota, USA. 

_____., and M. L. Sondreal. 2003. Breeding bird abundance and habitat along the Des Lacs River 

valley, North Dakota. Blue Jay 61:82-94. 

National Wildlife Federation. 2001. The American prairie: going, going, gone? A Status Report on the 

American Prairie. National Wildlife Federation.

Nagle, H. G., R. A. Nicholson, and A. A. Steuter. 1994. Management effects on Willa Cather Prairie 

after 17 years. Prairie Naturalist 26:241-250. 

Naugle, D. E. 2004. Black Tern (Chlidonias niger surinamensis): a technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp 

/assessments/blacktern.pdf . Accessed online 6 March 2013.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

181
_____., K. F. Higgins, and K. K. Bakker. 2000a. A synthesis of the effects of upland management 

practices on waterfowl and other birds in the Northern Great Plains of the U.S. and Canada. 

University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, College of Natural Resources, Wildlife Technical 

Report 1. 

_____., K. F. Higgins, M. E. Estey, R. R. Johnson, and S. M. Nusser. 2000b. Local and landscapelevel factors influencing black tern habitat suitability. Journal of Wildlife Management 

64:253-260. 

_____., K. F. Higgins, and S. M. Nusser. 1999b. Effects of woody vegetation on prairie wetland birds. 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 113:487-492. 

_____., K. F. Higgins, S. M. Nusser, and W. C. Johnson. 1999a. Scale-dependent habitat use in three 

species of prairie wetland birds. Landscape Ecology 14:267-276. 

_____., R. R. Johnson, and K. F. Higgins. 2001. A landscape approach to conserving wetland bird 

habitat in the Prairie Pothole Region of eastern South Dakota. Wetlands 21:1-17. 

Niemuth, N. D., M. E. Estey, R. E. Reynolds, and C. R. Loesch. 2005. Developing spatially explicit 

habitat models for grassland bird conservation planning in the Prairie Pothole Region of North 

Dakota. Pages 469 – 477 in C. J. Ralph and T. D. Rich, editors. Bird conservation 

implementation and integration in the Americas. Proceedings of the 3rd International Partners 

in Flight Conference 2002. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, PSWGTR-191, Albany, California, USA. 

_____., M. E. Estey, R. E. Reynolds, C. R. Loesch, and W. A. Meeks. 2006. Use of wetlands by 

spring-migrant shorebirds in agricultural landscapes of North Dakota’s Drift Prairie. Wetlands 

26:30-39. 

_____., K. K. Fleming, and R. E. Reynolds. 2014. Waterfowl conservation in the US Prairie Pothole 

Region: confronting the complexities of climate change. PLOS One 9:1-9. 

_____., R. E. Reynolds, D. A. Granfors, R. R. Johnson, B. Wangler, and M. E. Estey. 2009. 

Landscape-level planning for conservation of wetland birds in the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. 

Pages 533-560 in J. J. Millspaugh and F. R. Thompson, III, editors. Models for planning 

wildlife conservation in large landscapes. Academic Press, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA.

_____. and J. W. Solberg. 2003. Response of waterbirds to number of wetlands in the Prairie Pothole 

Region of North Dakota, USA. Waterbirds 26:233-238. 

_____., B. Wangler, and R. E. Reynolds. 2010. Spatial and temporal variation in wet area of wetlands 

in the Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota and South Dakota. Wetlands 30:1053-1064. 

Noon, B. R., K. S. McKelvery, and B. G. Dickson. 2009. Multispecies conservation planning on U.S. 

federal lands. Pages 51-84 in J. J. Millspaugh and F. R. Thompson, III, editors. Models for 

planning wildlife conservation in large landscapes. Academic Press, Burlington, 

Massachusetts, USA.

Norland, J, S. Fasching, C. Dixon, K. Askerooth, K. Kelsey, and G. Wang. 2013. Reduced 

establishment of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) using functionally similar native forbs. 

Ecological Restoration 31:143-146. 

Norrdahl, K., and E. Korpimaki. 2000. Do predators limit the abundance of alternative prey? 

Experiments with vole-eating avian and mammalian predators. Oikos 91:528-540. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

182
Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map supplement): Annals of the 

Association of American Geographers 77:118-125. 

_____. 1995. Ecoregions-a framework for environmental management Pages 49-62 in W. S. Davis, 

and T. P. Simon, editors. Biological assessment and criteria-tools for water resource planning 

and decision making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers. 

Oslund, F. T., R. R. Johnson, and D. R. Hertel. 2010. Assessing Wetland Changes in the Prairie 

Pothole Region of Minnesota From 1980 to 2007. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 

1:131-135. 

Patton, B. D., P. Nyren, G. Mantz, and A. Nyren. 2011. Long-term grazing intensity research in the 

Missouri Coteau of North Dakota. http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/centralgrasslandsrec/long-termecological-research. Accessed online 11 April 2013.

_____., X. Dong, P. E. Nyren, and A. Nyren. 2007. Effects of grazing intensity, precipitation, and 

temperature on forage production. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60:656-665. 

Paulson, G. M., and D. Smith. 1969. Organic reserves, axillary bud activity, and herbage yields of 

smooth bromegrass as influenced by time of cutting, nitrogen fixation, and shading. Crop 

Science 9:529-534. 

Peterjohn, B. G. 2003. Agricultural landscapes: can they support healthy bird populations as well as 

farm products? Auk 120:14-19. 

Phillips, M. L., W. R. Clark, M. A. Sovada, D. J. Horn, R. R. Koford, and R. J. Greenwood. 2003. 

Predator selection of prairie landscape features and its relation to duck nest success. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 67:104-115. 

Pieron, M. R., and F. C. Rohwer. 2010. Effects of large-scale predator reduction on nest success of 

upland nesting ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:124-132. 

Pietz, P. J., G. L. Krapu, D. A. Buhl, and D. A. Brandt. 2000. Effects of water conditions on clutch 

size, egg volume, and hatchling mass of mallards and gadwalls in the Prairie Pothole Region. 

Condor 102:936-940. 

Piper, J. K. and S. L. Pimm. 2002. The creation of diverse prairie-like communities. Community 

Ecology 3:205-216. 

Pokorny, M. L., R. I. Sheley, C. A. Zabinski, R .E. Engel, T. J. Svejcar, and J. J. Borkowski. 2005. 

Plant functional group diversity as a mechanism for invasion resistance. Restoration Ecology 

13:448-459. 

Primack, R. B. 2002. Essentials of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, 

Massachusetts. 

Printz, J. L., L. Voigt, S. Boltz, and J. Forman. 2012a. Loamy ecological site description 

R053BY011ND for the Central Dark Brown Glaciated Plains major land resource area 053B. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, North Dakota. 

______., L. Voigt, S. Boltz, and J. Forman. 2012b. Loamy ecological site description R055BY064ND 

for the Central Black Glaciated Plains major land resource area 055B. Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, North Dakota.

Quamen, F. R. 2007. A landscape approach to grassland bird conservation in the Prairie Pothole 

Region of the Northern Great Plains. Dissertation, University of Montana, Missoula.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

183
Rashford, B., S. J. A. Walker, and C. T. Bastian. 2011. Economics of grassland conversion to cropland 

in the Prairie Pothole Region. Conservation Biology 25:276-284. 

Reynolds, J. H., and D. Smith. 1962. Trend of carbohydrate reserves in alfalfa, smooth bromegrass, 

and timothy grown under various cutting schedules. Crop Science 2:333-336. 

Reynolds, R. E. 2005. The Conservation Reserve Program and duck production in the United States’ 

Prairie Pothole Region. Pages 144-148 in A. W. Allen and M. W. Vandever, editors. The 

Conservation Reserve Program – planting for the future: proceedings of a national 

conferences. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Scientific 

Investigations Report 2005-5145, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

_____, C. R. Loesch, B. Wangler and T. L. Shaffer. 2007. Waterfowl response to the Conservation 

Reserve Program and Swampbuster Provision in the Prairie Pothole Region, 1992-2004. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismarck, ND. ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/nri/ceap 

/duck_report.pdf Accessed online 7 February 2013. 

_____., T. L. Shaffer, C. R. Loesch, and R. R. Cox, Jr. 2006. The farm bill and duck production in the 

Prairie Pothole Region: Increasing the benefits. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:963-974. 

_____., T. L. Shaffer, R. W. Renner, W. E. Newton, and B. D. J. Batt. 2001. Impact of the 

Conservation Reserve Program on duck recruitment in the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 65:765-780. 

Ribic, C. A., R. R. Koford, J. R. Herkert, D. H. Johnson, N. D. Niemuth, D. Naugle, K. K. Bakker, 

D.W. Sample, and R.B. Renfrew. 2009. Area sensitivity in North American grassland birds: 

patterns and processes. The Auk 126: 233-244.

Ribic, C. A., and D. W. Sample. 2001. Associations of grassland birds with landscape factors in 

southern Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 147:315-325. 

Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, 

D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. 

Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. 

C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell 

Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Partners in Flight website. 

http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/ Accessed 1 September 2011. 

Richkus, K. D. 2002. Northern pintail nest site selection, nest success, renesting ecology, and survival 

in the intensively farmed prairies of southern Saskatchewan: an evaluation of the ecological 

trap hypothesis. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Ringelman, J. K. 2005. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture implementation plan. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismarck, North Dakota.

Robel, R. J., J. N. Briggs, A. D. Dayton, and L. C. Hulbert. 1970. Relationships between visual 

obstruction measurements and weight of grassland vegetation. Journal of Range Management 

23:295–297. 

Rohwer, F. C., W. P. Johnson and E. R. Loos. 2002. Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors), The Birds of 

North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/625 Accessed 

online 3 Jan 2012. 

Rowe, H. 2010. Tricks of the trade: techniques and opinions from 38 experts in tallgrass prairie 

restorations. Restoration Ecology 19:253-262. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

184
Rowe, H. I., and J. D. Holland. 2013. High plant richness in prairie reconstructions support diverse 

leafhopper communities. Restoration Ecology 21:174-180. 

Rotella, J. J., and J. T. Ratti. 1992. Mallard brood survival and wetland habitat conditions in 

southwestern Manitoba. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:499-507 

Ryan, M. R. 1982. Marbled Godwit habitat selection in the northern prairie region. Dissertation, Iowa 

State University, Ames.

_____., R. B. Renken, and J. J. Dinsmore. 1984. Marbled Godwit habitat selection in the northern 

prairie region. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:1206-1218. 

Salo, E. D., K. F. Higgins, B. D. Patton, K. K. Bakker, W. T. Barker, B. Kreft, and P. E. Nyren. 2004. 

Grazing intensity effects on vegetation, livestock and non-game birds in North Dakota mixedgrass prairie. Proceedings of the 19th North American Prairie Conference, Madison, 

Wisconsin. 

Samson, F.B. and F.L. Knopf. 1994. Prairie conservation in North America. Bioscience 44:418-421. 

Sargeant, A. B., S. H. Allen, and J. O. Hastings. 1987. Spatial relations between sympatric coyotes and 

red foxes in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:285-293. 

_____., R. J. Greenwood, M. A. Sovada, and T. L. Shaffer. 1993. Distribution and abundance of 

predators that affect duck production in the Prairie Pothole Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Resource Publication 194. 

_____., and D. G. Raveling. 1992. Mortality during the breeding season. Pages 396-422. in B. D. J. 

Batt, A. D. Afton, M. G. Anderson, C. D. Ankney, D. H. Johnson, J. A. Kadlec, and G. L. 

Krapu, editors. Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. University of Minnesota 

Press, Minneapolis. 

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2014. The 

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2012. Version 02.19.2014

USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland.

Sauer, J. R., and W. A. Link. 2011. Analysis of the North American Breeding Bird Survey using 

hierarchical models. Auk 128:87-98. 

Schacht, W. and J. Stubbendieck. 1985. Prescribed burning in the Loess Hills mixed prairie of 

southern Nebraska. Journal of Range Management 38:47-51. 

Schneider, N. A. 1998. Passerine use of grasslands managed with two grazing regimes on the Missouri 

Coteau in North Dakota. Thesis, South Dakota State University, Brookings. 

Schramm, P. 1990. Prairie restoration: a 25-year perspective on establishment and management. 

Proceedings of the 12th North American Prairie Conference, Cedar Falls, Iowa.

Schrott, G. R., K. A. With, and A. W. King. 2005. Demographic limitations on the ability of habitat 

restoration to rescue declining populations. Conservation Biology 19:1181-1193. 

Scott, J. M., T. Loveland, K. Gergely, J. Strittholt, and N. Staus. 2004. National Wildlife Refuge 

System: ecological context and integrity. Natural Areas Journal 44:1041-1066. 

Seabloom, E. W., and A. G. van der Valk. 2003. Plant diversity, composition, and invasion of restored 

and natural prairie pothole wetlands: implications for restoration. Wetlands 23:1-12. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

185
Seastedt, T. R., and R. A. Ramundo. 1990. The influence of fire on belowground processes of tallgrass 

prairie. Pages 99-117 in S. L. Collins and L. L. Wallace, editors. Fire in North American 

tallgrass prairies. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Sedivec, K. K. 1994. Grazing treatment effects on habitat use of upland nesting birds on native 

rangeland. Dissertation, North Dakota State University, Fargo. 

_____., and J. L. Printz. 2012. Ecological sites of North Dakota: a pictorial guide of ecological sites 

common to North Dakota. North Dakota State University Extension Service, Fargo. 

Severson, K. E., and C. Hull Sieg. 2006. The nature of eastern North Dakota: Pre-1880 historical 

ecology. North Dakota Institute for Regional Studies, North Dakota State University, Fargo. 

Shaffer, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, A. L. Zimmerman, and B. R. 

Euliss. 2006a. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Bobolink. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota.

_____., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, M. P. Nenneman, and B. R. Euliss. 

2006b. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Grasshopper Sparrow. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota.

_____., C. M. Goldade, M. F. Dinkins, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, and B. R. Euliss. 2003. Brownheaded Cowbirds in grasslands: their habitats, hosts, and response to management. Prairie 

Naturalist 35:146-186. 

Shaffer, T. L., and B. Wangler. 2013. Did the Conservation Reserve Program affect settling patterns of 

breeding ducks? Proceedings of the 6th North American Duck Symposium, Memphis, 

Tennessee.

Sheley, R. L. and M. L. Half. 2006. Enhancing native forb establishment and persistence using a rich 

seed mixture. Restoration Ecology 12:627-635. 

Shutler, D., A. Mullie, and R. G. Clark. 2000. Bird communities of prairie uplands and wetlands in 

relation to farming practices in Saskatchewan. Conservation Biology 14:1441-1451. 

Simberloff, D. 2003. Eradication–preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Science 51:247-253. 

Sivicek, V., and J. B. Taft. 2011. Functional group density as an index for assessing floristic integrity 

in tallgrass prairie. Ecological Indicators 11:1251-1258. 

Skagen, S. K., and G. Thompson. 2000. Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes regional shorebird 

conservation plan. Version 1.0. http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/USShorebird.htm Accessed 

online 1 September 2011. 

Skinner, S. P., and R. G. Clark. 2008. Relationships between duck and grassland bird relative 

abundance and species richness in southern Saskatchewan. Avian Conservation and Ecology 

3. 

Smart, A., E. Mousel, S. Clay, and D. Clay. 2010. Effects of burning, intensive clipping, and late 

season nitrogen application in the northern tallgrass prairie. 63rd Annual Meeting, Society for 

Range Management, Denver, Colorado.

Smith, D., D. Williams, G. Houseal, and K. Henderson. 2010. The Tallgrass Prairie Center guide to 

prairie restoration and reconstruction in the Upper Midwest, University of Iowa Press, Iowa 

City.

Smith, R. L. 1963. Some ecological notes on the Grasshopper Sparrow. Wilson Bulletin 75:159-165. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

186
Soderstrom, B., and T. Part. 2000. Influence of landscape scale on farmland birds breeding in seminatural pastures. Conservation Biology 14:522-533. 

Sorenson, L. G., R. Goldberg, T. L. Root, and M. G. Anderson. 1998. Potential effects of global 

warming on waterfowl populations breeding in the northern Great Plains. Climate Change 

40:343-369. 

Sovada, M. A., R. M. Anthony, and B. D. J. Batt. 2001. Predation on waterfowl in arctic tundra and 

prairie breeding areas: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:6-15. 

_____., M. J. Burns, and J. E. Austin. 2005. Predation of waterfowl in breeding areas. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota.

_____., A. B. Sargeant, and J. W. Grier. 1995. Differential effects of coyotes and red foxes on duck 

nest success. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:1-9. 

_____., M. C. Zicus, R. J. Greenwood, D. P. Dave, 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 64:820-831. 

Stacy, M. D., B. L. Perryman, P. D. Stahl, and M. A. Smith. 2005. Brome control and microbial 

inoculation effects in reclaimed cool-season grasslands. Rangeland Ecology and Management 

58:161-166. 

Stephens, S. E., D. N. Koons, J. J. Rotella, and D. W. Willey. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation 

on avian nest success: a review of the evidence at multiple spatial scales. Biological 

Conservation 115:101-110. 

_____., J. J. Rotella, M. S. Lindberg, M. L. Taper, and J. K. Ringelman. 2005. Duck nest survival in 

the Missouri Coteau of North Dakota: landscape effects at multiple scales. Ecological 

Applications 15:2137-2149. 

_____., J. A. Walker, D. R. Blunck, A. Jayaraman, D. E. Naugle, J. K. Ringelman, A. J. Smith. 2008. 

Predicting risk of habitat conversion in native temperate grasslands. Conservation Biology 22: 

1320-1330. 

Stevens, O. A. 1950. Handbook of North Dakota plants. North Dakota Institute for Regional Studies, 

Fargo.

Stewart, R. E. 1975. Breeding birds of North Dakota. Tri-College Center for Environmental Studies, 

Fargo, North Dakota. 

Stewart, R. E., and H. A. Kantrud. 1973. Ecological distribution of breeding waterfowl populations in 

North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 37:39-50. 

_____. and H. A. Kantrud. 1984. Ecological distribution and crude density of breeding birds on prairie 

wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:426-437. 

Sutherland, J. E. 1987. The predation ecology of the Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus hudsonius) on 

Mallard Island, North Dakota. Thesis, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. 

Stohlgren, T. J., and J. L. Schnase. 2006. Risk analysis for biological hazards: What we need to know 

about invasive species. Risk Analysis 26:163-173. 

Suding, K. N. 2011. Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and opportunities 

ahead. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 42:465-487. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

187
Svedarsky, W. D., P. E. Buckley, and T. A. Fairo. 1986. The effect of 13 years of annual burning on 

an aspen-prairie ecotone in northwestern Minnesota. Pages 118-122 in G. K. Clambey, and R. 

H. Pemble, editors. Proceedings of the 9th Annual North American Prairie Conference, 

Moorhead, Minnesota.

Swanson, D. L., and J. S. Palmer. 2009. Spring migration phenology of birds in the northern prairie 

region is correlated with local climate change. Journal of Field Ornithology 80:351-363. 

Swanson, G. A., and H. F. Duebbert. 1989. Wetland habitats of waterfowl in the Prairie Pothole 

Region. Pages 228-267 in van der Valk, editor. Northern Prairie Wetlands, Iowa State 

University, Ames.

_____., M. I. Meyer, and J. R. Serie. 1974. Feeding ecology of breeding Blue- winged Teal. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 38:396-407. 

Swink, F., and G. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region, 4th edition. Indiana Academy of 

Science, Indianapolis.

Taft, J. B., C. Hauser, and K. R. Robertson. 2006. Estimating floristic integrity in tallgrass prairie. 

Biological Conservation 131:42-51. 

Tangen, B. A. and R. A. Gleason. 2008. Reduction in sedimentation and nutrient loading in Gleason. 

Pages 38-43 in R. A., Laubhan, M. K., and N. H. Euliss, N. H, editors. Ecosystem services 

derived from wetland conservation practices in the United States Prairie Pothole Region with 

an emphasis on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve and Wetlands 

Reserve Programs: U.S. Geological Professional Paper 1745. 

Tilman, D., and J. A. Downing. 1994. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 367:363-365. 

_____., J. Knops, D. Wedin, P. Reich, M. Ritchie, and E. Siemann. 1997. The influence of functional 

diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 277:1300-1302. 

_____., D. Wedin, and J. Knops. 1996. Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in 

grassland ecosystems. Nature 379:718-720. 

Towne, E. G., and K. E. Kemp. 2008. Long-term response patterns of tallgrass prairie to frequent 

summer burning. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61:509-520. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 Census population profile maps. 

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/2010_census_profile_maps/census_profile_2010_mai

n.html Accessed online 7 September 2011. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency. 2014. Changes in CRP acreage from 

2007 to October 2013 by state. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject

=copr&topic=crp-st Accessed online 16 April 2014.

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010a. Herbaceous vegetation establishment guide. 

North Dakota. 

_____. 2010b. Conservation practice standard: wetland restoration. National Habitat Conservation 

Plan, Code 657. 

_____. 2011a. Eight-digit hydrologic unit boundaries. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs 

/detail/?ss=16&navtype=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&cid=nrcs143_013731&navid=1201200000

00000&pnavid=120000000000000&position=Not%20Yet%20Determined.Html&ttype=detail

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

188
&pname=8-Digit%20Hydrologic%20Unit%20Boundaries%20%7C%20NRCS Accessed 

online 28 September 2011. 

_____. 2011b. Natural Resource Conservation Service climate data. 

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/support/climate/ Accessed online 6 October 2011. 

_____. 2011c. PRISM. http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/climate/prism.html Accessed online 5 October 

2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior and Environment Canada. 2012. North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan 2012: People conserving waterfowl and wetlands. U.S. Department of the 

Interior and Environment Canada, Washington, D.C., USA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Level III ecoregions of the continental United States 

(revision of Omernik, 1987): Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNational Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Map M-1, various scales.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Draft revised recovery plan for piping plovers 

breeding on the Great Lakes and northern Great Plains of the U.S. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

_____. 1988. Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains Piping Plover Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, St. Paul, Minnesota.

_____. 2001a. 2000-2001 contingency plan: federal-state cooperative protection of whooping cranes 

[unpublished report]. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico. 

_____. 2001b. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health policy, 601 FW 3. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Natural Resources, Washington, D.C. 

_____. 2002. Habitat management plans policy, 620 FW 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Conservation Planning and Policy, Washington, D.C. 

_____. 2003. The national strategy for management of invasive species. Fulfilling the Promise, 

National Invasive Species Management Strategy Team.

_____. 2004. A blueprint for the future of migratory birds: Migratory bird program strategic plan 

2004-2014. 

_____. 2006a. Comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment: North Dakota 

limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Division 

of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, Colorado. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/mountain 

-prairie/planning/States/North%20Dakota/NorthDakota.htm

_____. 2006b. Strategic habitat conservation: A report from the National Ecological Assessment 

Team. 

_____. 2008a. Comprehensive conservation plan: North Dakota Wetland Management Districts. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, Colorado. 

Available online at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/planning/States/North%20Dakota 

/NorthDakota.htm

_____. 2008b. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Available 

online at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

189
_____. 2008c. Strategic habitat conservation: a guide to implementing the technical elements of 

strategic habitat conservation (version 1.0). Report from the National Technical Assistance 

Team.

_____. 2010b. Integrated Pest Management policy, 569 FW 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Division of Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C. 

_____. 2010a. LCC Information Bulletin #1 – Form and Function, Office of the Science Advisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. 8pp. 

_____. 2011a. Management strategy and guidelines for Sprague’s pipit on U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service lands in Region 6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood, Colorado, 80228. 

_____. 2011b. Environmental assessment and land protection plan: Dakota Grasslands Conservation 

Area. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region, 

Lakewood, Colorado. 

_____. 2011c. Native prairie adaptive management protocol notebook. Version 22 December 2011. 

_____. 2012. Draft guidance on selecting species for design of landscape-scale conservation. 

Unpublished Report. July 20, 2012. 

Van Horne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 47:893-901. 

van der Kamp, G. W., J. Stolte, and R. G. Clark. 1999. Drying out of small prairie wetlands after 

conversion of their catchments from cultivation to permanent brome grass. Hydrological 

Sciences Journal 44:387–397. 

Vickery, P. D., M. L. Hunter, and J. V. Wells. 1992. Is density an indicator of breeding success? Auk 

109:706-710. 

Vinton, M. A., and E. M. Goergen. 2006. Plant-soil-feedbacks contribute to the persistence of Bromus 

inermis in tallgrass prairie. Ecosystems 9:967-976. 

Voorhees, L. D., and J. F. Cassel. 1980. Highway right-of-way: mowing versus succession as related 

to duck nesting. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:155-163. 

Walker, J., J. J. Rotella, J. H. Schmidt, C. R. Loesch, R. E. Reynolds, M. S. Lindberg, J. K. 

Ringelman, and S. E. Stephens. 2013a. Distribution of duck broods relative to habitat 

characteristics in the Prairie Pothole Region. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:1-13. 

_____., J. J. Rotella, S. E. Stephens, M. S. Lindberg, J. K. Ringelman, C. Hunter, and A. J. Smith. 

2013b. Time-lagged variation in pond density and primary productivity affects duck nest 

survival in the Prairie Pothole Region. Ecological Applications 23:1061-1074. 

Weaver, J. E., and N. W. Rowland. 1952. Effects of excessive natural mulch on development, yield, 

and structure of native grassland. Botanical Gazette 114:1-19. 

Werling, B. P., T. L. Dickson, R. Isaacs, H. Gaines, C. Gratton, K. L. Gross, H. Liere, C. M. 

Malmstrom, T. D. Meehan, L. Ruan, B. A. Robertson, G. P. Robertson, T. M. Schmidt, A. C. 

Schrotenboer, T. K. Teal, J. K. Wilson, and D. A. Landis. 2014. Perennial grasslands enhance 

biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services in bioenergy landscapes. Proceedings of the 

Natural Academy of Sciences 111:1652-1657. 

Whittaker, R. H. 1967. Gradient analysis of vegetation. Biological Review 42:207-264. 

_____. 1975. Communities and ecosystems. 2nd edition. Macmillan, New York.

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

190
Wiens, J. A., N. C. Stenseth, B. Van Horne, and R. Anker Ims. 1993. Ecological mechanism and 

landscape ecology. Oikos 66:369-380. 

Wilcox, A. H. 1907. A pioneer history of Becker County, Minnesota. Pioneer Press Company, St. 

Paul, Minnesota.

Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department 

of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

Willson, G. D. 1991. Morphological characteristics of smooth brome to determine a prescribed burn 

date. Pages 113-116 in D. D. Smith and C. A. Jacobs, editors. Proceedings of the 12th North 

American Prairie Conference, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls.

_____. and J. Stubbendieck. 1996. Suppression of smooth brome by atrazine, mowing, and fire. Prairie 

Naturalist 28:13-20. 

_____. and J. Stubbendieck. 1997. Fire effects on four growth stages of smooth brome (Bromus 

inermis Leyss.) Natural Area Journal 17: 306-312. 

_____., and J. Stubbendieck. 2000. A provisional model for smooth brome management in degraded 

tallgrass prairie. Ecological Restoration 18:34-38. 

Winter, M., D. H. Johnson, J. A. Shaffer, T. M. Donovan, and W. D. Svedarsky. 2006. Patch size and 

landscape effects on density and nesting success of grassland birds. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 70:158-172. 

Winter, M., D. H. Johnson, J. A. Shaffer, and W. D. Svedarsky. 2004. Nesting biology of three 

grassland passerines in the northern tallgrass prairie. Wilson Bulletin 116:211-223. 

Winter, M., J. A. Shaffer, and D. H. Johnson. 2005. Variability in vegetation effects on density and 

nesting success of grassland birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:185-197. 

Winter, T. C. 2000. The vulnerability of wetlands to climate change: a hydrologic landscape 

perspective. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36:305-311. 

Wright, C. K., and M. C. Wimberly. 2013. Recent land use change in the Western Corn Belt threatens 

grasslands and wetlands. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, In press.

Wright, H. A. and A. W. Bailey. 1982. Fire Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. 

Zedler, J., and O. L. Loucks. 1969. Differential burning response of Poa pratensis fields and 

Andropogon scoparius in central Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 81:341-352 

Zimmerman, A. L., J. A. Dechant, D. H. Johnson, C. M. Goldade, B. E. Jamison, and B. R. Euliss. 

2002. Effects of management practices on wetland birds: black tern. Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota.

Zimpfer, N. L., G. S. Zimmerman, E. D. Silverman, and M. D. Koneff. 2009. Trends in breeding duck 

populations, 1955 – 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, Laurel, Maryland. 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

191
 

Draft Kulm Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

192