Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
 

September 2008 

Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Arrowwood Wetland Management District 

Audubon Wetland Management District 

Chase Lake Wetland Management District 

Crosby Wetland Management District 

Devils Lake Wetland Management District 

J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District 

Kulm Wetland Management District 

Lostwood Wetland Management District 

Valley City Wetland Management District 

and 

Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region 

Division of Refuge Planning 

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 

Lakewood, CO 80228 

303/236 8145 

Approved by 

Steve Guertin 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, CO 

Date 

 

 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Submitted by 

Kim Hanson 

Project Leader 

Date 

Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(Arrowwood, Chase Lake, and Valley City wetland 

management districts) 

Pingree, ND 

Lloyd Jones 

Project Leader 

Date 

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(Audubon Wetland Management District) 

Coleharbor, ND 

Roger Hollevoet 

Project Leader 

Date 

Devils Lake Wetland Management District Complex 

Devils Lake, ND 

Kelly Hogan 

Project Leader 

Date 

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District) 

Upham, ND 

Michael Erickson 

Project Leader 

Date 

Kulm Wetland Management District 

Kulm, ND 

David Gillund 

Project Leader 

Date 

Lostwood Wetland Management District Complex 

(Crosby and Lostwood wetland management districts) 

Kenmare, ND 

Concurred with by 

Richard A. Coleman, PhD 

Assistant Regional Director, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, CO 

Paul Cornes 

Refuge Supervisor 

Date 

Date 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 

Contents
 

Abbreviations ...................................................................................ix
 

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xi
 

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
 

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan ............................................................... 1
 

1.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
 

1.3 National and Regional Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
 

1.4 District Contributions to National and Regional Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 

1.5 Ecosystem Description and Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 

1.6 Planning Process ........................................................................... 8
 

2 The Districts................................................................................ 13
 

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
 

2.2 Special Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 

2.3 Purposes ................................................................................. 20
 

2.4 Vision.................................................................................... 21
 

2.5 Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
 

2.6 Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
 

3 District Resources and Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

3.1 Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

3.2 Biological Resources....................................................................... 40
 

3.3 Cultural Resources ........................................................................ 53
 

3.4 Visitor Services ........................................................................... 54
 

3.5 Partnerships.............................................................................. 55
 

3.6 Socioeconomic Environment ................................................................ 56
 

3.7 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
 

4 Management Direction...................................................................... 59
 

4.1 Management Focus........................................................................ 59
 

4.2 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
 

Habitat and Wildlife Goal........................................................................ 60 


Monitoring and Research Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 


Cultural Resources Goal......................................................................... 91
 

Visitor Services Goal ........................................................................... 91
 

Partnerships Goal ............................................................................. 95
 

Operations Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
 

4.3 Funding and Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
 

4.4 Step-down Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
 

4.5 Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
 

4.6 Plan Amendment and Revision............................................................. 101
 

Glossary ..................................................................................... 103
 
Appendixes
 

Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
 

Appendix B—Preparers and Contributors...................................................... 121
 

Appendix C—Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
 

Appendix D—Section 7 Biological Evaluation ................................................... 129
 

Appendix E—Environmental Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 


Appendix F—Compatibility Determinations for Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses, Grazing,
 

Haying, and Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
 

Appendix G—Fire Management Program for Wetland Management Districts within the Eastern
 

North Dakota Fire District ................................................................... 145
 

Appendix H—Fire Management Program for Wetland Management Districts within the Western 


North Dakota Fire District ................................................................... 149
 

Appendix I—Bird Species of the Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
 

Appendix J—Primary and Secondary Bird Species of the North Dakota Prairie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
 

Appendix K—Evaluation Criteria for Easements................................................ 163
 

Appendix L—North Dakota’s Threatened and Endangered Species................................ 169
 

Appendix M—Priority-setting Example for Native Prairie Portions of Fee-title Lands............... 171
 

Bibliography ................................................................................. 173
 

vi Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 
Figures

 1 Vicinity map of the nine districts, North Dakota ................................................ 2


 2 Map of the bird conservation regions of North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6


 3 Ecosystem map for region 6 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service................................. 9


 4 Steps in the planning process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10


 5 Map of the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States and Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15


 6 Map of the physiographic regions in the nine districts, North Dakota............................. 26


 7 Map of the level 4 ecoregions in the nine districts, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28


 8 Map of the predicted duck-pair concentrations in the nine districts, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47


 9 Map of the grassland bird conservation area matrix for the nine districts, North Dakota ............ 49
 

10 Map of the seven-county core area for piping plover in North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
 

11 Map of the whooping crane sightings in the nine districts, North Dakota.......................... 52
 

12 Map of the wetland priority zones in the nine districts, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
 

13 Evaluation criteria for wetland easements .................................................... 62
 

14 Map of the grassland priority zones in the nine districts, North Dakota ........................... 66
 

15 Evaluation criteria for grassland easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
 

16 The adaptive management process. ......................................................... 101
 

Tables

 1 Planning Process Summary for the Nine Districts, North Dakota................................ 11


 2 Ecoregions in the Nine Districts, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


 3 Water Rights for Audubon Wetland Management District, North Dakota......................... 35


 4 Water Rights for Chase Lake Wetland Management District, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37


 5 Water Rights for Devils Lake Wetland Management District, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38


 6 Water Rights for J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District, North Dakota.................... 39


 7 Water Rights for Valley City Wetland Management District, North Dakota ....................... 39


 8 Prairie Decline in North Dakota............................................................. 40


 9 State-listed Noxious Weeds Found at Waterfowl Production Areas in North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
 

10 Step-down Management Plans for Arrowwood Wetland Management District, North Dakota . . . . . . . 97
 

11 Step-down Management Plans for Audubon Wetland Management District, North Dakota.......... 98
 

12 Step-down Management Plans for Chase Lake Wetland Management District, North Dakota . . . . . . . 98
 

13 Step-down Management Plans for Crosby Wetland Management District, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 99
 

14 Step-down Management Plans for Devils Lake Wetland Management District, North Dakota . . . . . . . 99
 

15 Step-down Management Plans for J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District, North Dakota.... 100
 

16 Step-down Management Plans for Kulm Wetland Management District, North Dakota ............ 100
 

17 Step-down Management Plans for Lostwood Wetland Management District, North Dakota . . . . . . . . 100
 

18 Step-down Management Plans for Valley City Wetland Management District, North Dakota ....... 100
 

 vii 

Abbreviations
 

Administration Act National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

BCR bird conservation region 

CCP comprehensive conservation plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CWCS comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy 

CWD chronic wasting disease 

district wetland management district 

DNC dense nesting cover 

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

EA environmental assessment 

EO executive order 

FmHA Farmers Home Administration 

FMP fire management plan 

FTE full-time equivalent 

GIS geographic information system 

gpm gallons per minute 

GPS global positioning system 

GS general schedule (employment) 

HAPET Habitat and Population Evaluation Team 

HPAI highly pathogenic avian influenza 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

IPM integrated pest management 

ISST invasive species strike team 

NABCI North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

NAWCA North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

ND North Dakota 

NDGF North Dakota Game and Fish Department 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

PIF Partners in Flight program 

PL public law 

PPJV Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 

RAPP Refuge Annual Performance Plan 

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation 

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System 

region 6 Mountain-Prairie Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
x Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

RLGIS refuge lands geographic information system 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

SWG State Wildlife Grant 

USC United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VOR visual obstruction reading 

WDA wildlife development area 

WG wage grade (employment) 

WMD wetland management district 

WPA waterfowl production area 

WUI wildland–urban interface 
 

 

 

Summary
 USFWS 

Blue-winged teal nest within the uplands in district lands. 

This is a summary of the comprehensive conservation 

plan for nine of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

wetland management districts in North Dakota: 

QQ Arrowwood 

Audubon 

Chase Lake 

Crosby 

Devils Lake 

J. Clark Salyer 

Kulm 

Lostwood 

Valley City 

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to develop a comprehensive conservation 

plan by 2012 for each wetland management district. 

In September 2008, the Service approved the plan 

for the nine wetland management districts, which 

will guide management for the next 15 years. 

The Districts 

A wetland management district provides oversight 

for all of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s small 

land tracts in a multicounty area. 

The nine wetland management districts manage 1,208 

waterfowl production areas, tens of thousands of 

conservation easements, and 37 wildlife development 

areas in 34 counties. These district lands, totaling 

1,125,084 acres, are part of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, a network of lands set aside to 

conserve fish and wildlife and their habitat. 

The prairies of North Dakota have become an 

ecological treasure of biological importance for 

birds. The prairie potholes 

of North Dakota support 

a wide diversity of wildlife, 

but they are most famous 

for their role in waterfowl 

production. Complexes 

of wetlands scattered 

throughout the nine wetland 

management districts attract 

abundant numbers of 

breeding duck pairs. 

waterfowl and other migratory 
 

 

 

 

 

xii Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Planning Process and 

Main Issues 

The planning process began in February 2007 with 

the issuing of a notice of intent in the Federal Register. 

The Service finalized the comprehensive conservation 

plan in September 2008. The district staffs and the 

public identified the primary issues for the districts, 

which the plan addresses; these issues are summarized 

below. 

Wetland and Upland Habitats 

All districts have a primary purpose to provide 

optimal habitat conditions for the needs of a suite of 

waterfowl and other migratory birds and, to a lesser 

extent, native, resident wildlife. 

inVasiVe plants 

Nonnative grasses and forbs and potentially invasive, 

native, woody species substantially diminish the 

quality and suitability of upland habitat for many 

native wildlife species. 

energy deVelopment 

Impacts to the districts’ waterfowl production areas 

from oil and gas development include salt water 

contamination, wetlands filling, and road development. 

Wind power has an unknown effect on bird species 

and needs evaluation. 

prairie ConVersion 

The loss of native prairie is occurring at an alarming 

rate. Restoration and management needs to be part 

of the districts’ plan. 

Wildlife management 

Threatened and endangered species, predators, and 

wildlife disease are mounting issues for each district. 

Visitor serViCes 

A growing demand for public recreation in North 

Dakota and the nation makes hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation primary issues of 

interest. 

operations 

The efficient use of staff, partnerships, volunteers, 

and funding—through effective communication and 

innovation—will support each of the districts. 

monitoring and researCH 

The Service needs basic data about recruitment, 

mortality, and habitat use for representative groups 

of species. It is important to collect and analyze 

this data on a regular basis so the Service can make 

appropriate decisions about the habitats on which 

these species depend. 

Hillebrand/USFWS Steve 

The whooping crane is an endangered species. 

Vision statement 

Wetland management districts conserve an 


important network of public and private 


wetland and upland habitat in North Dakota. 


This network preserves the integrity of the 


historical and vital resting and breeding 


grounds of North America’s 


migratory waterfowl. 


As part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 


these lands benefit ducks, other migratory birds, 


threatened and endangered species, and 


resident wildlife. 


The responsible management and protection 


of this expanding network requires adequate 


funding, dedicated personnel, and 


successful partnerships. 


District communities and visitors value 


grasslands and marshes as a beneficial and 


important component of a diverse, healthy, 


and productive prairie landscape. 


Current and future generations enjoy wildlife-


dependent uses of these lands and partners, 


especially waterfowl hunters, actively support 


and encourage the districts’ habitat
 

conservation programs.
 
Summary xiii 

goals 

The Service developed goals to meet the vision. 

Habitat and Wildlife Goal 

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 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. 

Monitoring and Research Goal 

Use science, monitoring, and applied research to 

advance the understanding of the Prairie Pothole 

Region and management within the North Dakota 

wetland management districts. 

Cultural Resources Goal 

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. 

Visitor Services Goal 

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. 

Partnerships Goal 

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. 

Operations Goal 

Effectively employ staff, partnerships, and volunteers 

and secure adequate funding in support of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System’s mission. 

Management Direction 

Management objectives for habitat types are based 

on the habitat preferences of groups of target species 

such as waterfowl, migratory shorebirds, grassland 

birds, and threatened and endangered species. 

The Service will focus on high- and medium-priority 

tracts. District staffs will carry out compatible 

techniques to enhance production of targeted 

migratory bird populations. 

The district staffs will expand existing environmental 

education and visitor services programs, with 

additional waterfowl emphases. 

The Service proposes, at a future date, (1) one new 

administration and visitor center facility each for 

Audubon and Kulm wetland management districts, 

and (2) one new visitor contact station each for 

Arrowwood, Devils Lake, Lostwood, and Valley City 

wetland management districts. 

 

 

 

1 Introduction
 © Craig Bihrle 

Mallards are one of the common waterfowl species on district lands. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

developed this comprehensive conservation plan 

(CCP) to provide the foundation for the management 

and use of nine wetland management districts 

(districts) in North Dakota (see figure 1, vicinity 

map): 

QQ Arrowwood Wetland Management District 

Audubon Wetland Management District 

Chase Lake Wetland Management District 

Crosby Wetland Management District 

Devils Lake Wetland Management District 

J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District 

Kulm Wetland Management District 

Lostwood Wetland Management District 

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

Wildlife is the first priority in district management, 

and the Service allows and encourages public use 

(wildlife-dependent recreation) as long as it is 

compatible with the districts’ purposes. “Chapter 4, 

Management Direction” specifies the actions 

necessary to achieve the purposes and vision for the 

nine wetland management districts. 

Based on the results of public involvement and 

an environmental analysis, the Service’s region 6 

director made the decision on September 30, 2008, 

to implement this CCP to guide the nine districts for 

the next 15 years. 

The Service developed the CCP in compliance with 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) and Part 602 

(National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of “The 

Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” 

The actions described within this CCP meet the 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA). Compliance with the NEPA 

included the involvement of the public. The planning 

process and public involvement are described in 

section 1.6, “The Planning Process.” 

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan 

The purpose of this CCP is to identify the role that 

the districts play in support of the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) 

and to provide long-term guidance for management 

of districts programs and activities. 
2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the nine districts, North Dakota. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1—Introduction 3 

The CCP is needed 

to communicate with the public and other 

partners in efforts to carry out the mission 

of the Refuge System; 

to provide a clear statement of direction for 

management of the districts; 

to provide neighbors, visitors, and government 

officials with an understanding of the Service’s 

management actions on and around the 

districts; 

to ensure that the Service’s management 

actions are consistent with the mandates of 

the Improvement Act; 

to ensure that management of the districts is 

consistent with federal, state, and county plans; 

to provide a basis for development of budget 

requests for the districts’ operation, maintenance, 

and capital improvement needs. 

Sustaining the nation’s fish and wildlife resources 

is a task that can be accomplished only through the 

combined efforts of governments, businesses, and 

private citizens. 

1.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the Refuge System 

The Service is the principal federal agency responsible 

for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Refuge 

System is one of the Service’s major programs. 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, working with others, is to conserve, 

protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and 

their habitats for the continuing benefit 

of the American people. 

U.s. fisH and Wildlife serViCe 

Over a century ago, America’s fish and wildlife 

resources were declining at an alarming rate. 

Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and 

angling groups joined together to restore and sustain 

America’s national wildlife heritage. This was the 

genesis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Today, the Service enforces federal wildlife laws, 

manages migratory bird populations, restores 

nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores 

vital wildlife habitat, protects and recovers 

endangered species, and helps other governments 

with conservation efforts. In addition, the Service 

administers a federal aid program that distributes 

hundreds of millions of dollars to states for fish and 

wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter education, 

and related programs across America. 

serViCe aCtiVities in nortH dakota 

Service activities in North Dakota contribute to the 

state’s economy, ecosystems, and education programs. 

The following list describes the Service’s presence 

and activities: 

QQ	 Employed 169 people in North Dakota. 

Assisted by 539 volunteers who donated more 

than 10,200 hours with Service projects. 

Managed two national fish hatcheries and one 

fish and wildlife management assistance office. 

Managed 65 national wildlife refuges totaling 

343,145 acres (0.8% of the state). 

Managed 11 wetland management districts. 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

— 	 284,660 acres of fee waterfowl production 

areas (WPAs) (0.6% of the state) 

1,080,636 wetland acres under various leases 

or conservation easements (2.4% of the state) 

— 	 

QQ	 Hosted more than 385,300 annual visitors to 

Service-managed lands. 

— 	 166,908 hunting visits 

59,500 fishing visits 

26,346 photography visits 

— 	 

— 	 

QQ	 Provided $3.8 million to North Dakota Game 

and Fish (NDGF) for sport fish restoration and 

$3.9 million for wildlife restoration and hunter 

education. 

Helped private landowners restore, create, and 

enhance more than 214,000 acres on 8,400 sites 

and restore 17 miles of river since 1987 through 

the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. 

Employed 11 Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program biologists. 

Paid North Dakota counties $435,325 under the 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (money used for 

schools and roads). 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

national Wildlife refUge system 

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated 

the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the nation’s 

first wildlife refuge for the protection of brown 

pelicans and other native, nesting birds. This was the 

first time the federal government set aside land for 

wildlife. This small but significant designation was 

the beginning of the Refuge System. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

One hundred years later, the Refuge System has 

become the largest collection of lands in the world 

specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing more 

than 96 million acres within 546 refuges and more than 

3,000 small areas for waterfowl breeding and nesting. 

Today, there is at least one refuge in every state 

including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

In 1997, the Improvement Act established a clear 

mission for the Refuge System. 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System is to administer a national network 

of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and, where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

The Improvement Act states that each national 

wildlife refuge (that is, each unit of the Refuge System, 

which includes wetland management districts) shall 

be managed 

to fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

to fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge 

and district; 

to consider the needs of fish and wildlife first; 

to fulfill the requirement of developing a CCP for 

each unit of the Refuge System and fully involve 

the public in the preparation of these plans; 

to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health of the Refuge System; 

to recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation 

activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation are legitimate and 

priority public uses; 

to retain the authority of refuge managers to 

determine compatible public uses. 

In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, the 

habitat and wildlife vision for each unit of the Refuge 

System stresses the following principles: 

QQ	 Wildlife comes first. 

Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are 

vital concepts in refuge and district management. 

Habitats must be healthy. 

Growth of refuges and districts must be strategic. 

The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat 

management with broad participation from others. 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

Following passage of the Improvement Act, the 

Service immediately began to carry out the direction 

of the new legislation, including preparation of 

CCPs for all national wildlife refuges and wetland 

management districts. Consistent with the 

Improvement Act, the Service prepares all CCPs in 

conjunction with public involvement. Each refuge 

and each district is required to complete its CCP 

within the 15-year schedule (by 2012). 

people and tHe refUge system 

The nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes to 

the quality of American lives and is an integral part 

of the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places 

have always given 

people special 

opportunities to 

have fun, relax, 

and appreciate 

the natural world. 

Whether through 

bird watching, 

fishing, hunting, 

photography, or 

other wildlife 

pursuits, wildlife 

recreation contributes millions of dollars to local 

economies. In 2002, approximately 35.5 million people 

visited the Refuge System, mostly to observe wildlife 

in their natural habitats. Visitors are most often 

accommodated through nature trails, auto tours, 

interpretive programs, and hunting and fishing 

opportunities. Significant economic benefits are 

generated in the local communities that surround 

refuges and wetland management districts. Economists 

report that Refuge System visitors contribute more 

than $792 million annually to local economies. 

1.3 National and Regional Mandates 

Refuge System units are managed to achieve the 

mission and goals of the Refuge System, along with 

the designated purpose of the refuges and districts 

(as described in establishing legislation, executive 

orders, or other establishing documents). Key concepts 

and guidance of the Refuge System are in the Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration 

Act), Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFRs), “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,” and 

the Improvement Act. 

The Improvement Act amends the Administration 

Act by providing a unifying mission for the Refuge 

System, a new process for determining compatible 

public uses on refuges and districts, and a requirement 

that each refuge and district be managed under a CCP. 

The Improvement Act states that wildlife conservation 

is the priority for Refuge System lands and that the 

Secretary of the Interior will ensure that the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge 

lands are maintained. Each refuge and district must 

be managed to fulfill the Refuge System’s mission 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and the specific purposes for which it was established. 

The Improvement Act requires the Service to monitor 

the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in 

each refuge and district. 

A detailed description of these and other laws and 

executive orders that may affect the CCP or the 

Service’s implementation of the CCP is in appendix A. 

Service policies on planning and day-to-day management 

of refuges and districts are in the “Refuge System 

Manual” and “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” 

1.4 District Contributions to 

National and Regional Plans 

The nine North Dakota districts contribute to the 

conservation efforts described in this section. 

fUlfilling tHe promise 

A 1999 report, “Fulfilling the Promise, The National 

Wildlife Refuge System” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service [USFWS] 1999), is the culmination of a 

yearlong process by teams of Service employees to 

evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. This report 

was the focus of the first national Refuge System 

conference (in 1998)—attended by refuge managers, 

other Service employees, and representatives from 

leading conservation organizations. 

The report contains 42 recommendations packaged 

with three vision statements dealing with habitat and 

wildlife, people, and leadership. This CCP deals with 

all three of these major topics. The planning team 

looked to the recommendations in the document for 

guidance during CCP planning. 

bird ConserVation 

“All-bird” conservation planning in North America 

is being achieved through the North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative (NABCI). Started in 1999, 

the NABCI committee is a coalition of government 

agencies, private organizations, and bird initiatives 

in the United States working to advance integrated 

bird conservation based on sound science and costeffective management that will benefit all birds in all 

habitats. Conservation of all birds is being accomplished 

under four planning initiatives: the North American 

Landbird Conservation Plan (Partners in Flight), 

the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, the North 

American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

partners in fligHt 

The Partners in Flight program (PIF) began in 1990 

with the recognition of declining population levels of 

many migratory bird species. The challenge, according 

to the program, is managing human population growth 

while maintaining functional natural ecosystems. To 

Chapter 1—Introduction 5 

meet this challenge, PIF worked to identify priority, 

land bird species and habitat types. PIF activity has 

resulted in 52 bird conservation plans covering the 

continental United States. 

The primary goal of PIF is to provide for the longterm health of the bird life of this continent. The first 

priority is to prevent the rarest species from going 

extinct. The second priority is to prevent uncommon 

species from descending into threatened status. The 

third priority is to “keep common birds common.” 

PIF splits North America into seven avifaunal biomes 

(birds of an ecological regional area) and 37 bird 

conservation regions (BCRs) for planning purposes 

(see figure 2, map of BCRs). The nine wetland 

management districts are within the “prairie avifaunal 

biome” in BCR 11, the Prairie Pothole Region. 

BCR 11 is the most important waterfowl production 

area on the North American continent, despite 

extensive wetland drainage and tillage of native 

grasslands. The density of breeding dabbling ducks 

commonly exceeds 100 pairs per square mile in some 

areas during years with favorable wetland conditions. 

The area comprises the core of the breeding range of 

most dabbling duck and several diving duck species. 

BCR 11 provides critical breeding and migration 

habitat for more than 200 other bird species, including 

such species of concern as Franklin’s gull and yellow 

rail and a threatened species, the piping plover. In 

addition, Baird’s sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, chestnutcollared longspur, Wilson’s phalarope, marbled godwit, 

and American avocet are among the many priority 

nonwaterfowl species that breed in BCR 11. According 

to the NABCI, wetland areas also provide key spring 

migration sites for Hudsonian godwit, American 

golden-plover, white-rumped sandpiper, and buffbreasted sandpiper. 

PIF conservation priorities in the prairie avifaunal 

biome focus on protection of remaining prairies, 

management of existing grasslands with fire and 

grazing, and control of invasive plants including 

woody plant encroachment. 

© Bob Gress 

The chestnut-collared longspur breeds in BCR 11. 
 

 

 

 

6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Figure 2. Map of the bird conservation regions of North America. 

nortH ameriCan WaterfoWl 

management plan 

Written in 1986, the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan envisioned a 15-year effort to 

achieve landscape conditions that could sustain 

waterfowl populations. Specific objectives of the plan 

are to increase and restore duck populations to the 

average levels of the 1970s—62 million breeding 

ducks and a fall flight of 100 million birds. 

By 1985, waterfowl populations had plummeted to 

record lows. Habitat that waterfowl depend on was 

disappearing at a rate of 60 acres per hour. Recognizing 

the importance of waterfowl and wetlands to North 

Americans and the need for international cooperation 

to help in the recovery of a shared resource, the 

United States and Canada governments developed 

a strategy to restore waterfowl populations through 

habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. 

Mexico became a signatory to the plan in 1994. 

The plan is innovative because of its international 

scope, plus its implementation at the regional level. 

Its success depends on the strength of partnerships 

called “joint ventures,” which involve federal, state, 

provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; 

conservation organizations; and individual citizens. 

Joint ventures are regional, self-directed partnerships 

that carry out science-based conservation through 

community participation. Joint ventures develop 

implementation plans that focus on areas of concern 

identified in the plan. 

The North Dakota districts lie within the Prairie 

Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV), which covers the 

Prairie Pothole Region of Montana, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa. Established 

in 1987, the PPJV is one of the original six priority 

joint ventures under the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan. The joint venture protects, 

restores, and enhances high-priority wetland and 

grassland habitat to help sustain populations of 

waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, and prairie 

land birds. The PPJV includes one-third (100,000 

square miles) of North America’s Prairie Pothole 

Region. The remaining 200,000 acres is located in 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1—Introduction 7 

the Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, 

and Alberta. This unique area contains millions of 

depressional wetlands (“potholes”) that constitute 

one of the richest wetland systems in the world. 

These glacially formed prairie potholes and their 

surrounding grasslands are highly productive and 

support an incredible diversity of bird life. 

ppJV implementation plan 

The Prairie Pothole Region remains the most important 

waterfowl-producing region on the continent, generating 

more than half of North America’s ducks. Nearly 15% 

of the continental waterfowl population comes from 

the PPJV region (Montana, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa). As many as 10 million 

ducks and 2 million geese use the PPJV region during 

migration or for nesting. The wetlands and associated 

grassland habitat in the PPJV region provide breeding 

habitat to more than 200 species of migratory birds. 

Bald eagles, peregrine falcons, whooping cranes, 

piping plovers, and interior least terns frequent the 

PPJV region during migration and breeding periods. 

The PPJV implementation plan was prepared in 

2005 and outlines the mission, goals, objectives, and 

strategies for joint venture activities. Individual 

state action groups and steering committees prepared 

state action plans that “stepped down” joint venture 

activities to the state and local level. 

The goal of the PPJV is to increase waterfowl 

populations through habitat conservation projects 

that improve natural diversity across the prairie 

pothole landscape of the United States. The joint 

venture attempts to carry out landscape-level habitat 

projects so that waterfowl populations increase 

during the wet years and stabilize under moderate 

conditions. Since little can be done to stabilize the 

breeding populations across the Prairie Pothole Region 

during extended drought, joint venture strategies 

are designed to carry out actions that take advantage 

of years when precipitation is at least normal. 

reCoVery plans for federally listed 

tHreatened or endangered speCies 

Where federally listed threatened or endangered 

species occur at the nine districts, the Service will 

follow the management goals and strategies in the 

species recovery plans. The list of threatened or 

endangered species that occur at the districts will 

change as species are listed or delisted, or as listed 

species are discovered on district lands. 

The districts are 

these species: 

following the recovery plans for 

QQ	 Piping plovers (threatened) in the northern 


Great Plains (USFWS 1994a).
 

Whooping crane (endangered) (USFWS 1994b). 

Interior least tern (endangered) (USFWS 1990). 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ Western prairie fringed orchid (threatened) 

(USFWS 1996). 

USFWS 

The piping plover is a threatened species that uses 

district shorelines for feeding and nesting. 

state CompreHensiVe Wildlife 

ConserVation strategy 

Over the past several decades, documented declines 

of wildlife populations have occurred nationwide. 

Congress created the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) 

program in 2001. This program provides states and 

territories with federal dollars to support conservation 

aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming 

endangered and in need of protection under the 

Endangered Species Act. The SWG program 

represents an ambitious endeavor to take an active 

hand in keeping species from becoming threatened or 

endangered in the future. 

According to the SWG program, each state, territory, 

and the District of Columbia must complete a 

comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (CWCS) 

by October 1, 2005 to receive future funding. 

These strategies will help define an integrated approach 

to the stewardship of all wildlife species, with 

additional emphasis on species of concern and habitats 

at risk. The goal is to shift focus from single-species 

management and highly specialized individual efforts 

to a geographically based, landscape-oriented, fish and 

wildlife conservation effort. The Service approves 

these plans and administers SWG program funding. 

North Dakota’s CWCS is a strategic vision with the 

goal of preserving the state’s wildlife diversity. It is 

intended to identify species of greatest conservation 

need, provide fundamental background information, 

strategic guidance, and a framework for developing 

and coordinating conservation actions to safeguard 

all fish and wildlife resources. 

The state of North Dakota has taken a landscape 

approach to conservation planning, which has numerous 

advantages. It allows the state to link species requiring 

conservation to a key landscape and habitat, often 

within a specific geographic area. This approach also 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

provides a comprehensive listing of all other fish and 

wildlife using the landscape, while providing relative 

plant and soil conditions applicable to the landscape. 

A landscape approach helps to identify corresponding 

conservation actions needed across the landscape, 

along with the potential partners who are or could be 

addressing them. Three tools are used to identify 

landscape components: land cover information, 

ecoregions, and statistical models. Ecoregions were 

defined based on general similarity of geology, 

physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, 

wildlife, and hydrology. The CWCS recognizes four 

ecoregions commonly referred to as the Red River 

Valley, Drift Prairie, Missouri Coteau, and Missouri 

Slope. 

The CWCS identified conservation problems 

encountered in North Dakota that apply to all four of 

the ecoregions. Direct loss of habitat is a key issue 

because very little, native, tall-grass prairie remains 

in the state. The conservation action will be to protect 

native tall-grass prairie where possible. 

Habitat fragmentation is occurring throughout the 

state due to construction of roads, shelterbelts, and 

agricultural practices. Actions will include the removal 

of dilapidated shelterbelts or stands of trees within 

grasslands. Habitat degradation occurring from 

improper grazing practices and loss of the historical 

fire regime can be fixed by using grazing systems to 

benefit tall-grass species and promoting the use of 

fire. Other actions include extending the time between 

haying and grazing, promoting mid-term required 

management, and providing incentives to defer or 

idle cutting of tame grass (cultivated, nonnative grass 

such as smooth brome). Invasive plants, including 

noxious weeds such as leafy spurge, will be controlled 

through biological and chemical methods. 

The CWCS for the state of North Dakota was reviewed 

and information was used during development of the 

CCP. Carrying out CCP habitat goals and objectives 

will support the goals and objectives of the CWCS. 

1.5 Ecosystem Description and 

Threats 

The Service has adopted watersheds as the basic 

building blocks for carrying out ecosystem conservation. 

The districts span two Service-designated ecosystems 

—the Missouri River main stem ecosystem and the 

Hudson Bay ecosystem—with the majority falling 

within the former (see figure 3, ecosystem map). 

Major threats identified for these ecosystems include 

native prairie conversion to cropland, expansion of 

invasive plant species, and wetland drainage and 

degradation. The districts play a major role in 

(1) continued leadership and support of regional 

initiatives such as the PPJV, and (2) continued support 

of conservation partners including the NDGF and 

private organizations such as Ducks Unlimited. In 

addition, the Service is continually working with 

private landowners through the Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program to restore and improve 

grassland and wetland habitats on private lands. 

1.6 Planning Process 

This CCP for the districts is intended to comply 

with the Improvement Act, the NEPA, and the 

implementation regulations of the acts. 

The Service issued its Refuge System planning policy 

in 2000. This policy established requirements and 

guidance for refuge and district plans—including 

CCPs and step-down management plans—to ensure 

that planning efforts comply with the Improvement 

Act. The planning policy identified several steps of 

the CCP and environmental analysis process (see 

figure 4, steps in the planning process). Table 1 

summarizes accomplishment of the main planning 

steps for this CCP effort. 

The Service began the “preplanning” process in 

August 2006. The planning team was Service personnel 

from the affected North Dakota districts; the regional 

divisions of refuge planning, realty, and visitor services; 

and the NDGF (see appendix B for a list of preparers 

and contributors). During preplanning, the team 

developed a mailing list, internal issues, and a special 

qualities list. The planning team identified current 

district program status, compiled and analyzed 

relevant data, and determined the purposes of the 

districts. 

A notice of intent to prepare the CCP was published 

in the Federal Register on February 28, 2007. 

The Service complied with the NEPA through public 

involvement (see appendix C). 

sCoping 

The notice of intent started scoping for the CCP. 

Scoping is the process of obtaining information from 

the public for input into the planning process. 

The Service received 46 written comments throughout 

the scoping process. The public identified issues 

about the districts (see chapter 2, “2.6 Planning 

Issues”). In addition, over the course of preplanning 

and scoping, the planning team collected available 

information about the resources of the districts and 

surrounding areas (see “Chapter 3, District Resources 

and Description”). 

draft plan 

The Service considered all input during development 

of the draft CCP and EA. This included changes to 

the districts’ current management that were suggested 

by the public and other groups. The planning process 

ensures that issues with the greatest effect on the 

districts are resolved or given priority. 
Chapter 1—Introduction 9 

Figure 3. Ecosystem map for region 6 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Planning Process 

and 

Compliance with the 

National Environmental 

Policy Act 

3. Draft Vision Statement 

and Goals 

Determine Substantive 

Issues 

4. Develop and Analyze 

Alternatives 

Create a reasonable range 

of alternatives including 

a “no-action” alternative. 

1. Preplanning

 Plan the plan. 2. Initiate Public 

Involvement 

and Scoping 

Involve the public. 

8. Review and Revise 

Plan 

Public involvement when 

applicable. 

7. Implement Plan 

Monitor and Evaluate 

Public involvement when 

applicable. 

6. Prepare and Adopt

Final Plan 

Respond to public comments. 

Select preferred alternative. 

➠ ➠

➠

➠

➠

➠

➠

5. Prepare Draft Plan and

National Environmental 

Policy Act Document ➠

Public comment and 

review. 

Figure 4. Steps in the planning process. 

10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

After scoping and detailed analysis, the planning 

team developed three management alternatives that 

best addressed the issues. The Service identified 

alternative B as the proposed action. 

On August 19, 2008, the Service published a notice 

of availability announcing that the draft CCP and 

environmental assessment (EA) document was 

available for a 30-day public review. A summary of 

written comments gathered during the review period, 

along with the Service’s responses, is in appendix C. 

final plan 

After an analysis of the public comments, the Service’s 

region 6 director selected alternative B as the preferred 

alternative. Subsequently, the planning team produced 

this final CCP, based on the draft CCP with minor 

changes. The biological evaluation for the final CCP 

determined that there would likely be no adverse effect 

on threatened or endangered species or critical habitats 

as a result of the actions of the CCP (see appendix D). 

The regional director approved the final CCP in 

September 2008 after a “finding of no significant impact” 

(see appendix E, “Environmental Compliance”). 

“Chapter 4, Management Direction” outlines the longterm guidance for management decisions; sets forth 

objectives and strategies to accomplish district 

purposes and meet goals; and identifies the Service’s 

best estimate of future needs. The CCP details 

program levels that are sometimes substantially 

above current budget allocations and, as such, are 

primarily for Service strategic planning purposes. 

pUbliC Coordination 

A mailing list of more than 1,025 names included 

private citizens; local, regional, and state government 

representatives and legislators; other federal agencies; 

and interested organizations (see appendix C). 

In April 2007, the first planning update was sent to 

everyone on the mailing list. The update provided 

information about the planning process for the districts, 

along with an invitation to public scoping meetings. 

A comment form and postage-paid envelope gave the 

public an opportunity to easily provide comments. In 

addition, the local media announced the public meetings. 

The Service held public scoping meetings during 

March–April 2007 (see table 1 for details). Each 

attendee received a comment form to submit 

comments or questions in writing. 
 

Chapter 1—Introduction 11 

Table 1. Planning Process Summary for the Nine Districts, North Dakota.

 Date Event Outcome 

Initial meeting with 

May 2006 North Dakota project CCP overview. 

leaders. 

August 2006 Meeting with district 

staffs and field review. 

Planning team was finalized; biological and visitor 

services issues were reviewed. 

December 2006 

Kick off meeting, initial 

development of vision and 

goals. 

District purposes were identified; initial issues and 

qualities list was developed; mailing list was started; 

biological and mapping needs were identified; and public 

scoping was planned. 

February 2007 Public notice of intent to 

prepare a CCP. Notice was published in the Federal Register. 

March 2007 

Initial public contact 

through mailing of the 

first planning update. 

Public opportunity was offered (to learn about the CCP 

and provide comments); planning update described the 

CCP process and provided comment forms and postagepaid envelopes mailed. 

March–April 2007 Six public meetings. Public opportunity was offered (to learn about the CCP 

and provide comments). 

March–April 2007 Alternatives development. Alternatives for district management were developed 

and drafted by the planning team. 

February–August 

2007 

Development of biological 

objectives. 

Objectives and strategies were developed and drafted 

by the planning team for the biological aspects of district 

management. 

June–July 2007 Development of visitor 

services objectives. 

Objectives and strategies were developed and drafted 

by the planning team for the visitor services at the 

districts. 

April 2008 Internal review of the 

draft plan. Draft plan was reviewed by the Service’s regional staff. 

August 2008 Draft plan release for 

public review. 

Revised draft plan was published for review by the 

public. 

September 2008 Nine public meetings. Presented the draft CCP and EA and collected public 

comments. 

September 2008 Final plan approval. Regional director signed the “finding of no significant 

impact” and approved the final plan. 

state Coordination 

On September 12, 2006, an invitation letter to 

participate in the CCP process was sent by the 

Service’s region 6 director to the director of the 

NDGF. Two representatives from the NDGF were 

part of the CCP planning team. Local NDGF wildlife 

managers and the district staffs maintain excellent 

and ongoing working relations, which preceded the 

start of the CCP process. 

The NDGF’s mission is to “protect, conserve, and 

enhance fish and wildlife populations and their 

habitats for sustained public consumptive and 
12 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

nonconsumptive uses.” The NDGF is responsible for 

managing natural resource lands owned by the state, 

in addition to enforcement responsibilities for the 

state’s migratory birds and endangered species. The 

state manages more than 78,000 acres in support of 

wildlife, recreation, and fisheries. 

tribal Coordination 

On October 19, 2006, the Service’s region 6 director 

sent a letter to six Native American tribal governments 

in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota: 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate 

Spirit Lake Tribal Council 

Standing Rock Sioux 

Three Affiliated Tribes 

White Earth Band of Chippewa 

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa 

With information about the upcoming CCP, the letter 

invited tribal recipients to serve on the planning team. 

None of the tribes expressed interest in participating 

in the process. 

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ
 

 

2 The Districts
 USFWS 

The Service purchases waterfowl production areas with Duck Stamp dollars to protect habitat for waterfowl. 

A wetland management district provides oversight 

for all of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s small 

land tracts in a multicounty area. The nine districts 

manage 1,208 waterfowl production areas (232,509 

acres), ten of thousands of conservation easements, 

and 50 wildlife development areas (18,540 acres) in 

34 counties in North Dakota. These district lands 

(totaling 1,125,084 acres) are part of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, a network of lands set aside 

to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitat. 

QQ	 The Service bought these WPAs with funds 

generated from the sale of federal Duck Stamps 

to protect and restore waterfowl habitat. 

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) 

bought the wildlife development areas (WDAs) 

as part of North Dakota’s Garrison Diversion 

Unit. Developed for wildlife by restoring drained 

wetlands and planting cropland acres to grass, 

the Service manages these areas primarily for 

the production of migratory birds. 

The conservation easements are on private lands 

where landowners have sold some of their 

property rights to the Service for protection and 

restoration of wildlife habitat. 

QQ	 

QQ	 

This chapter describes the history, special values, 

purposes, vision, goals, and planning issues for the 

nine North Dakota wetland management districts. 

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, 

and Management History 

The nine districts were established in the early 1960s, 

with the major objectives of wetland preservation, 

waterfowl and wildlife production, and maintenance 

of breeding grounds for migratory birds. The districts 

also provide a northern staging area and habitat for 

migration. 

Habitat proteCtion 

The Service manages the WPAs for the benefit of 

waterfowl, other migratory birds, threatened and 

endangered species, and resident wildlife. 

The districts protect habitat primarily with two tools— 

WPAs and conservation easements, which are described 

below. On May 5, 1960, the Service bought the first 

WPA (212 acres in LaMoure County) within the ninedistrict geographic area. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

QQ WPAs are public lands bought by the federal 

government for increasing the production of 

migratory birds, especially waterfowl. The 

purchase of land is also known as “ownership in 

fee title,” where the federal government holds 

ownership of land on behalf of the American 

public. Money to buy WPA lands generally comes 

from the public purchase of a federal Duck Stamp. 

This important program is to ensure the long-term 

protection of waterfowl and other migratorybird-breeding habitat that is located primarily 

in the Prairie Pothole Region of the northern 

Great Plains. All WPAs are within districts 

managed by Service staff. WPAs are open to 

the public for hunting, fishing, bird watching, 

trapping, hiking and most other nonmotorized 

and noncommercial outdoor recreation. 

(Recreational trapping is an activity that has 

been authorized by 50 CFR, part 31.16.) 

Conservation easements are acquired to protect 

migratory bird species habitat on private land. 

Typically used where fee acquisition is not 

desirable or needed, perpetual easements are 

bought from willing landowners within a wetland 

management district. Conservation easements 

have several advantages over the outright 

purchase of lands by the Service. First, they 

are more cost-effective, both in terms of initial 

purchase, and in long-term management 

responsibilities. While conservation easement 

contracts do require attentive enforcement to 

ensure their integrity, they do not carry the 

other burdens of ownership; for example, 

maintenance of facilities such as fences and signs, 

control of invasive plants, and mowing of ditches. 

Second, the operator owns and manages the land 

in much the same way as it was before the 

conservation easement purchase. This is because 

the program was developed and carried out by 

managers, biologists, and realty specialists with 

an interest in protecting resources at the 

landscape scale while minimally affecting, 

and even complementing, other agricultural 

practices. Therefore, a single-habitat conservation 

easement is often referred to as either a “wetland 

easement” or a “grassland easement.” 

Conservation easements generally prohibit 

the cultivation of grassland habitat, while still 

permitting the landowner traditional grazing 

uses. A wetland easement generally prohibits 

draining, burning, and leveling. 

QQ

The federal Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 

finances the habitat protection programs—WPAs 

and conservation easements. The Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund provides the U.S. Department of 

Interior (DOI) with monies to acquire migratory bird 

habitat. The 1958 amendment to the Duck Stamp Act 

authorized the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program 

and provided for the acquisition of WPAs in addition 

to the previously authorized habitats. Receipts from 

the sale of the Duck Stamp are used to acquire habitat 

under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(16 USC 715). The purpose of this important program 

is to ensure the long-term protection of waterfowl 

and other migratory bird breeding habitat that is 

located primarily in the Prairie Pothole Region of 

the northern Great Plains (see figure 5, map of the 

Prairie Pothole Region). The Service’s perpetual 

conservation easements are key components of the 

Small Wetlands Acquisition Program; these easements, 

together with WPAs, have contributed greatly to 

the conservation and maintenance of prairie-nesting 

migratory birds. 

The legislation authorizing the use of Duck Stamp 

money for wetland easement acquisitions through the 

Small Wetlands Acquisition Program required state 

approval. In North Dakota, approvals have been 

granted over time on a county-by-county basis. Soon 

after the passage of the 1958 amendment to the Duck 

Stamp Act, a team of Service biologists evaluated 

wetland habitats in North Dakota and made 

recommendations on the number of acres that should 

be protected in each county north and east of the 

Missouri River and two counties to the south and west. 

The original plan was for the state of North Dakota 

to protect half of these acres and for the Service to 

protect the other half with easements. The Service, 

therefore, proposed an acreage figure for each county 

based on this assumption. The state approved these 

figures, which became the respective “caps” for 

number of wetland acres that could be covered by 

Service easements in each county, even though they 

represented only half of what the Service recommended 

should actually be protected. In some counties, these 

caps have been met and no additional wetland 

easements can be bought with Duck Stamp funds 

without further approval from the governor; however, 

easements can be bought with non-Duck Stamp 

funds. To keep track of the number of acres bought 

in each county, the Service created and maintained 

easement summaries, which identify the number of 

wetland acres for which landowners were paid. 

WDAs are another means through which the districts 

conserve habitat. Reclamation bought valuable wetland 

habitat and transferred these lands to the Service for 

management to offset habitat losses resulting from 

the development of the Garrison Diversion Project in 

western North Dakota. Through a memorandum of 

agreement between the Service, Reclamation, and 

NDGF, the Service manages these lands as part of 

the Refuge System within wetland management 

districts for migratory birds, particularly waterfowl. 

There are 37 WDAs (19,829 acres) scattered across 

North Dakota. The management of and regulations 

for public use at WDAs are similar to that for WPAs. 

There are other conservation easements administered 

by the districts, but these were not acquired through 

the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program. The most 

common of these are Farmers Home Administration 

conservation easements—“FmHA easements” (also 

known as RECD [Rural Economic and Community 
Chapter 2—The Districts 15
 

Figure 5. Map of the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States and Canada. 
16 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Development] easements, Farm Service Agency 

“Ag-Credit easements,” and U.S. Department 

of Agriculture [USDA] conservation easements, 

depending on the status of the USDA program 

responsible for these properties at the time they were 

in federal inventory). The 1985 Farm Bill Consolidated 

Farm and Rural Development Act was the initial 

authorization for FmHA easements. The Farmers 

Home Administration was given authority to establish 

easements for conservation, recreation, and wildlife 

purposes on properties that were foreclosed on by the 

federal government (“inventory” properties), and the 

Service was designated easement manager for those 

easements worthy of inclusion into the Refuge System. 

The Farmers Home Administration’s inventory lands 

were inspected for wetlands and identified similarly 

as if the Service were to accept wetlands for its Small 

Wetlands Acquisition Program. However, protection 

of wetlands, floodplains, and their watersheds, along 

with historical and cultural resources (that is, “Native 

Tree Claims”) required a variety of provisions and 

restrictions in these conservation easements. The 

quitclaim deed that was prepared when the inventory 

lands were sold outlined these provisions—rights 

reserved by the Service are listed in the “Covenants 

by the Landowner” and vary from easement to 

easement. 

distriCt desCriptions 

The nine wetland management districts are home 

for all waterfowl species found in the Prairie Pothole 

Region (see figure 1, vicinity map, in chapter 1). The 

nine districts manage approximately 1,146,322 acres. 

Below is a brief description for each of the nine districts. 

Arrowwood Wetland Management District 

QQ Foster and Eddy counties 

Headquarters—Pingree, North Dakota 

Part of the Arrowwood National Wildlife 


Refuge Complex
 

All district lands—25,199 acres 

QQ

QQ	 

QQ

— 28 WPAs: 6,144 acres 

wetland easements: 18,639 acres 

grassland easements: 0 acres 

FmHA easements: 416 acres 

WDAs: 0 acres 

—

—

—

—

The district, in east-central North Dakota, was 

established in 1961 as a breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife. Wildlife species often observed 

at the WPAs include waterfowl, upland game birds, 

songbirds, birds of prey, deer, and numerous furbearers. 

The WPAs offer many opportunities for wildlife 

observation, hiking, hunting, photography, winter 

sports (cross-country skiing), and education and 

interpretation for organized groups. 

Audubon Wetland Management District 

QQ McLean, Ward, and Sheridan counties 

Headquarters—Coleharbor, North Dakota 

Part of the Audubon Wetland Management 


District Complex
 

QQ

QQ

QQ All district lands—188,751 acres 

— 101 WPAs: 18,584 acres 

wetland easements: 95,061 acres 

grassland easements: 55,022 acres 

FmHA easements: 7,400 acres 

20 WDAs: 12,684 acres 

—

—

—

—

The district includes WPAs and WDAs. Reclamation 

developed these WDAs for wildlife by restoring 

drained wetlands and planting cropland acres to grass. 

The WDAs were transferred to the Service to be 

managed primarily for the production of migratory 

birds and for public use. 

All public lands managed as the Audubon Wetland 

Management District contain wetland and grassland 

habitat for waterfowl, other migratory birds, and 

many other species of wildlife. Rotational grazing, 

haying, and prescribed burning are common techniques 

used to improve and maintain grasslands for nesting 

birds. These public lands help sustain North America’s 

waterfowl populations by providing secure wetland 

and grassland habitats. 

USFWS 

American white pelicans rest at Chase Lake Wetland 

Management District. 

Chase Lake Wetland Management District 

QQ Stutsman and Wells counties 

Headquarters—Woodworth, North Dakota 

Part of the Arrowwood National Wildlife 


Refuge Complex
 

All district lands—111,680 acres 

QQ

QQ	 

QQ

— 129 WPAs: 35,473 acres 

wetland easements: 56,057 acres 

grassland easements: 14,812 acres 

—

—
— FmHA easements: 1,608 acres 

— 5 WDAs: 3,730 acres 

Located in the Prairie Pothole Region of the United 

States, the district and surrounding area provide 

breeding and resting habitat for more than 293 bird 

species. The district is comprised of native prairie, 

dense nesting cover, and an amazing density of 

wetlands. The majority of this land has not been 

altered since Euro-American settlement times. 

The WPAs, purchased since 1960, have been used by 

researchers to provide important information about 

waterfowl and wetland densities. The diversity and 

abundance of wildife species at these WPAs provide 

excellent opportunities for outdoor recreation such 

as hunting, trapping, and wildlife observation. 

Crosby Wetland Management District 

QQ Burke, Divide, and Williams counties 

QQ Headquarters—Crosby, North Dakota 

Chapter 2—The Districts 17 

QQ	 Part of the Lostwood Wetland Management 


District Complex
 

QQ All district lands—114,552 acres 

— 99 WPAs: 18,730 acres 

wetland easements: 70,019 acres 

grassland easements: 25,083 acres 

FmHA easements: 720 acres 

WDAs: 0 acres 

—

—

—

—

Wetlands and grasslands have been preserved on 

private property by the purchase of easements from 

landowners who have agreed not to drain, fill, or burn 

their wetlands, or to till their grasslands. Several 

hundred easement contracts protect wetlands and 

native grasslands. 

The district, located in northwestern North Dakota, 

shares a border with Canada and the state of Montana. 

This area is known as one of the finest nesting and 

breeding sites for hundreds of species of birds. 

Devils Lake Wetland Management District 

QQ Benson, Cavalier, Grand Forks, Nelson, Pembina, 

Ramsey, Towner, and Walsh counties 

Headquarters—Devils Lake, North Dakota 

Part of the Devils Lake Wetland Management 

District Complex 

All district lands—210,717 acres 

QQ

QQ

QQ

— 257 WPAs: 48,885 acres 

wetland easements: 150,182 acres 

grassland easements: 4,264 acres 

FmHA easements: 4,606 acres 

11 WDAs: 2,780 acres 

—

—

—

—

The district primarily provides wetland areas needed 

by waterfowl in the spring and summer for nesting 

and feeding. Primary objectives of the Devils Lake 

Wetland Management District are wetland habitat 

preservation and improvement, waterfowl and wildlife 

production, maintenance of migration habitat, and 

provision of winter cover for resident wildlife. 

Devils Lake Wetland Management District is home 

for all waterfowl species found in the Prairie Pothole 

Region. Mallard, gadwall, and blue-winged teal are 

the most abundant ducks. Giant Canada geese have 

been reintroduced and efforts are underway to expand 

the range of this historically important species. 

Spectacular concentrations of migratory birds gather 

in the district each spring and fall including snow 

geese, whose vast numbers are a magnificent sight. 

The WPAs also provide habitat for white-tailed deer, 

pheasant, turkey, sharp-tailed grouse, Hungarian 

partridge, and occasional moose. 

© Bob Gress 

Baird’s sparrow. 

© Bob Gress	 

Birding groups nationwide know North Dakota as the 

best area for opportunities to view the unique Baird’s 

sparrow and Sprague’s pipit (above). 
18 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

The WPAs provide many opportunities for yearround outdoor enjoyment including hunting, trapping, 

wildlife observation, photography, and environmental 

study. 

J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District 

QQ	 Bottineau, Kenville, McHenry, Pierce, and 


Rolette counties
 

Headquarters—Upham, North Dakota 

Part of the J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management 

District Complex 

All district lands—197,691 acres 

QQ

QQ	 

QQ

— 127 WPAs: 27,332 acres 

wetland easements: 135,321 acres 

grassland easements: 28,065 acres 

FmHA easements: 6,973 acres 

WDAs: 0 acres 

—

—

—

—

The district’s lands are important feeding and resting 

areas for hundreds of thousands of waterfowl that 

annually migrate through the Central Flyway. The 

district has developed into one of the most important 

duck production areas in the United States. 

The district has become a favorite spot for birds of all 

descriptions to stop on their migrations north and south. 

Gadwall, blue-winged teal, mallard, and Canada goose 

are the most numerous nesting waterfowl. Many species 

of shorebirds and grebes, American white pelican, 

sandhill crane, lark bunting, longspurs, and sparrows— 

including Baird’s and Le Conte’s—are among the birds 

that take summer residence at the district. Managing 

upland areas for waterfowl nesting habitat has also 

benefited upland game birds. The sharp-tailed grouse, 

ring-necked pheasant, gray partridge, ruffed grouse, 

and wild turkey are all occupants of the district. 

Kulm Wetland Management District 

QQ Dickey, LaMoure, Logan, and McIntosh counties 

Headquarters—Kulm, North Dakota 

Part of the Kulm Wetland Management District 

Complex 

QQ

QQ	 

QQ All district lands—200,712 acres 

— 231 WPAs: 44,739 acres 

wetland easements: 112,692 acres 

grassland easements: 38,251 acres 

FmHA easements: 4,390 acres 

1 WDA: 640 acres 

—

—

—

—

In the heart of the Prairie Pothole Region of the 

United States, the district is in southeastern North 

Dakota. Glacial action molded the landscape of the 

area, leaving a wealth of wetlands. Vegetation that 

developed on the glacially scoured area and glacial 

end moraine hills represents a transition between 

tall-grass and short-grass prairie. Bison, waterfowl, 

and early native people thrived. 

The James River, running through the eastern part 

of the district, forms a major migration corridor for 

numerous species of migratory birds. Although highly 

altered following the influx of European immigrants, 

the area retains many of its wetlands and numerous 

acres of native grass. A wide variety of migratory 

birds uses the district for breeding grounds, nest 

sites, and migration rest stops. Preservation and 

management of the migratory bird resource is the 

primary duty of the district. 

Lostwood Wetland Management District 

QQ Mountrail County 

Headquarters—Kenmare, North Dakota 

Part of the Lostwood Wetland Management 


District Complex
 

All district lands—84,145 acres 

QQ

QQ	 

QQ

— 56 WPAs: 12,506 acres 

wetland easements: 35,000 acres 

grassland easements: 36,034 acres 

FmHA easements: 605 acres 

WDAs: 0 acres 

—

—

—

—

The district is located in northwestern North Dakota 

and extends from eastern Burke County, north to the 

Canadian border, west to the Montana line, and south 

to Lake Sakakawea. A variety of wildland habitats 

are present ranging from (1) prairie creeks and rivers 

to rolling hills covered with native prairie grasses and 

dotted with numerous wetlands, and (2) flat croplands 

to gradual slopes leading downward toward Lake 

Sakakawea and the rough breaks and bluffs that 

border this impoundment in the Missouri River system. 

The WPAs in the district provide more than 2,700 acres 

of prairie grasses, wildflowers, and wetlands habitat 

as a great opportunities for hunting, trapping, and 

wildlife observation within the coteau (hilly upland) 

prairie. 

Valley City Wetland Management District 

QQ Barnes, Cass, Griggs, Steele, and Traill counties 

Headquarters—Valley City, North Dakota 

Part of the Arrowwood Wetland Management 

District Complex 

All district lands: 61,218 acres 

QQ

QQ	 

QQ

— 82 WPAs: 17,653 acres 

wetland easements: 41,583 acres 

grassland easements: 0 acres 

FmHA easements: 1,982 acres 

WDAs: 0 acres 

—

—

—

—
Chapter 2—The Districts 19 

The district is located in east-central North Dakota. 

The eastern one-third of the district is located in the 

Red River Valley. This area, characterized by flat, 

intensively farmed lands, was once the lake bed of 

Glacial Lake Agassiz. The remaining two-thirds of the 

district is part of the glaciated Prairie Pothole Region 

known as the Drift Prairie. The area is characterized 

by a gentle and smooth rolling topography with 

numerous wetlands, ranging from under an acre to 

several hundred acres. The district staff promotes 

conservation farming and ranching practices, protects 

unique prairie ecosystems, increases waterfowl and 

other prairie wildlife species, and provides consumptive 

and nonconsumptive public use. 

distriCt information sUmmary 

Mallard, gadwall, and blue-winged teal are the most 

abundant ducks, with several other species of diving 

and dabbling ducks common to the districts. Giant 

Canada geese have been reintroduced and efforts 

are underway to expand the range of this historically 

important species. Spectacular concentrations of 

waterfowl and other migratory birds gather in the 

districts each spring and fall, including snow geese, 

whose vast numbers are a magnificent sight. 

In addition, WPAs provide habitat for many resident 

species of wildlife including white-tailed deer, pheasants, 

turkeys, and sharp-tailed grouse. Creating habitat 

diversity and managing wildlife cover in WPAs result 

in an increase in wildlife abundance, an important 

objective of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The districts use many management practices to 

benefit waterfowl. These techniques include 

construction of nesting structures, creation and 

restoration of wetlands, management of water levels 

in wetlands, establishment of winter food plots, 

management of nesting cover, prescribed burning, 

haying and grazing (see appendix F), and law 

enforcement. These techniques enhance and create a 

diversity of habitats that are used by many wildlife 

species. 

2.2 Special Values 

Early in the planning process, the planning team and 

public identified the outstanding qualities of the nine 

wetland management districts. District qualities are 

the characteristics and features of each district that 

make it special, valuable for wildlife, and worthy of 

Refuge System status. It was important to identify 

the special values of each district to recognize its 

worth and to ensure that the special values of the 

districts are preserved, protected, and enhanced 

through the planning process. District qualities can 

be unique biological values, as well as something as 

simple as “a quiet place to see a variety of birds and 

enjoy nature.” 

The following summarizes the qualities that make the 

districts unique and valued: 

QQ The districts have a very high density of wetlands 

for waterfowl and migratory birds. 

USFWS 

District staffs work with private landowners to protect wetland habitat under easement. 
20 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

USFWS 

District habitats are essential to breeding waterfowl populations. 

QQ	 Very large blocks of intact native prairie 

ecosystem are protected through the districts’ 

conservation easements and fee ownership. 

The districts provide protected and managed 

wetlands and uplands for breeding and staging 

habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds during 

migration within the Central Flyway. 

Visitors can find diverse and abundant 


possibilities for public use at the districts.
 

The districts provide for quality environmental 

education. 

The districts provide for the protection of 

breeding areas for endangered species such as 

the piping plover. 

The districts protect and manage unique 

landscapes such as the deciduous forest of the 

Turtle Mountains. 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

2.3 Purposes 

The districts were designated as part of the Small 

Wetlands Acquisition Program in the 1950s to save 

wetlands from various threats, particularly drainage. 

The passage of Public Law 85-585 in August 1958 

amended the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 

Stamp Act of 1934 (“Duck Stamp Act”) and allowed 

for the acquisition of waterfowl production areas and 

conservation easements for waterfowl production. 

The main authorities in establishment of the districts 

follow: 

QQ 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.” 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act 16 USC 

715d—“For any other management purposes, 

for migratory birds.” 

QQ	 

The districts are “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” (memorandum from Region 6 

Assistant Regional Director Richard A. Coleman, 

December 2006). This purpose statement was developed 

for all region 6 wetland management districts. The 

districts provide a northern staging area and habitat 

for migration. 

For this CCP, the Service has combined the nine 

districts for evaluation as a group and program. The 

purposes and management capabilities and challenges 

are similar for the nine districts. 

All nine districts were established under two 

authorities—the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act 

of March 16, 1934, and the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act of February 18, 1929: 

QQ	 The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act (“Duck 

Stamp Act”) provides for the conservation, 

protection, and propagation of native species of 

fish and wildlife, including migratory birds that 

are threatened with extinction. 

The Migratory Bird Conservation Act works 

toward meeting the obligations of the United 

States under the migratory bird treaty with 

Great Britain by the following: 

QQ	 
Chapter 2—The Districts 21 

— 	 Lessening the dangers threatening migratory 

game birds from drainage and other causes. 

The acquisition of areas of land and water 

to furnish in perpetuity reservations for the 

adequate protection of such birds. 

Authorizing appropriations for the 

establishment of such areas, their maintenance 

and improvement, and for other purposes. 

— 	 

— 	 

2.4 Vision 

At the beginning of the planning process, the Service 

developed a vision for the districts. The vision describes 

the focus of district management, including what will 

be different in the future, and is the essence of what 

the Service is trying to accomplish by the end of the 15­

year CCP period. The vision for the districts follows. 

Wetland management districts conserve an 


important network of public and private 


wetland and upland habitat in North Dakota. 


This network preserves the integrity of the 


historical and vital resting and breeding 


grounds of North America’s 


migratory waterfowl. 


As part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 


these lands benefit ducks, other migratory birds, 


threatened and endangered species, and 


resident wildlife. 


The responsible management and protection 


of this expanding network requires adequate 


funding, dedicated personnel, and 


successful partnerships. 


District communities and visitors value 


grasslands and marshes as a beneficial and 


important component of a diverse, healthy, 


and productive prairie landscape. 


Current and future generations enjoy wildlife-


dependent uses of these lands and partners, 


especially waterfowl hunters, actively support 


and encourage the districts’ habitat 


conservation programs.
 

2.5 Goals 

The Service developed six goals for the districts based 

on the Improvement Act and information developed 

during planning. The goals direct work toward 

achieving the vision and purposes of the districts and 

outline approaches for managing district resources. 

Habitat and Wildlife goal 

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 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. 

monitoring and researCH goal 

Use science, monitoring, and applied research to 

advance the understanding of the Prairie Pothole 

Region and management within the North Dakota 

wetland management districts. 

CUltUral resoUrCes goal 

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. 

Visitor serViCes goal 

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. 

partnersHips goal 

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. 

operations goal 

Effectively employ staff, partnerships, and volunteers 

and secure adequate funding in support of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System’s mission. 

2.6 Planning Issues 

Several key issues were identified following the 

analysis of comments collected from Service staff 

and the public and a review of the requirements of 

the Improvement Act and the NEPA. Substantive 

comments (those that could be addressed within the 

authority and management capabilities of the Service) 

were considered during the formulation of the 

alternatives for future management. Summaries of 

these key issues are below. 
22 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Wetland and Upland Habitats 

All of the districts have a primary purpose to provide 

optimal habitat conditions for the needs of a suite of 

waterfowl and other migratory birds and, to a lesser 

extent, native resident wildlife. Aggressive management 

of wetland and upland habitats must be conducted 

to achieve goals and objectives. Wetland and upland 

habitats need to be protected and enhanced through 

management. Habitat protection needs to be evaluated 

through a priority system so that different means of 

protection, through either fee title or conservation 

easement, can be evaluated. 

Invasive Plants 

The districts include uplands, which were previously 

farmed. Farmed uplands have since been restored to 

mixes of tame and native grasses and are interspersed 

with native uplands, the bulk of which have the native 

vegetation character but are compromised by invading 

species. The primary invasive plants are leafy spurge, 

Canada thistle, and absinth wormwood. Kentucky 

bluegrass and smooth brome are primary invasive 

grass species. These nonnative grasses and forbs, and 

potentially invasive native woody species, substantially 

diminish the quality and suitability of upland habitat 

for many native wildlife species. Western snowberry 

and silverberry are native shrubs that have greatly 

expanded their coverage in some areas where natural 

regimes of fire and grazing have been altered. 

Al Schneider/USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database 

Canada thistle is one of the invasive plants that are 

troublesome on district lands. 

Energy Development 

While the Service works to minimize the negative 

effects of energy development, the demand for energy 

is an increasing factor in habitat quality and preservation 

at the districts. The production of biofuels, coal, oil, 

gas, and wind energy has the potential to impact 

effectiveness of many district programs. The Service 

supports research that helps to understand the effects 

on wildlife of such energy projects as wind towers 

and conversion of grassland to cropland to support 

production of ethanol. It is a high priority for the 

Service to work in partnership with conservation and 

agricultural groups to support conservation programs 

such as the following: federal Farm Bill legislation, 

NDGF projects, water quality and watershed projects, 

and private conservation efforts. 

The physical structure of wind power turbines has 

unknown effects on birds. Through studies and 

analysis, the Service is currently evaluating wind 

towers to determine their effect on wildlife. In 

addition, it is unknown if wind power will affect 

the potential for future habitat protection through 

conservation easements. 

The Service needs to evaluate oil and gas development. 

Effects on some district lands—including salt-water 

contamination, filling of wetlands, and road development 

—have increased as increasing exploration takes 

place in North Dakota. 

Prairie Conversion 

The loss of native prairie is occurring at an alarming 

rate. Prairie is being converted for corn production to 

produce ethanol, which also has additional needs for 

irrigation water. An active role by the agricultural 

community, in partnership with conservation groups, 

needs to be taken to protect the federal Farm 

Bill and its conservation provisions, such as the 

Conservation Reserve Program and “Swampbuster” 

and “Sod Saver” provisions in the 1985 Farm Bill 

(amended 1990, 1996, 2002). 

Wildlife management 

Threatened and endangered species, predators, and 

wildlife disease are issues for the districts. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

The piper plover is a federally listed, threatened, 

shorebird. Breeding piping plovers occur in small 

numbers on numerous alkali wetlands in the Audubon, 

Crosby, and Lostwood wetland management districts. 

Endangered whooping cranes can be observed in the 

marshes across the districts. The primary issues related 

to these and other species of concern center on the 
 

 

 

Chapter 2—The Districts 23 

following: (1) monitoring populations; (2) monitoring 

habitat use; (3) identifying, securing, and maintaining 

essential habitat; and (4) developing habitat conditions 

in areas with potential for these species and that 

will promote increased recruitment or population 

protection to secure and increase their populations. 

Predator Management 

Several species including red fox, coyote, striped 

skunk, Franklin’s ground squirrel, mink, badger, and 

raccoon are found at higher than historical levels due 

to modifications of habitat and other factors. These 

species can adversely affect—primarily by predation 

on nests of grassland-nesting bird species—waterfowl 

and other migratory bird populations and reduce the 

likelihood of reaching wildlife population goals and 

objectives. The woody vegetation has a negative 

influence on grassland songbirds because it provides 

habitat for predators and attracts forest-edge bird 

species that may displace grassland species. 

Wildlife Disease 

The districts administer migratory bird programs 

and have the lead role in addressing wildlife and, in 

particular, bird disease issues. Wetland management 

districts in North Dakota have a history of botulism 

outbreaks. Success in combating botulism occurs at 

the expense of other resources. There is the ongoing 

issue of striking a balance between providing optimal 

habitats, maintaining other district programs, and 

managing botulism. 

Visitor serViCes 

Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation are 

uses currently authorized on lands administered by 

the districts. A growing demand for public recreation 

in North Dakota and the nation makes these six 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses, as specified in 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act, a primary issue of interest. Some of the commenting 

public wants more opportunity to participate in not 

only the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses, but 

also in trapping. 

operations 

Funding and staff are not sufficient to fulfill the 

purposes and meet the goals of the districts. 

Identification of priorities and direction of resources 

efficiently will always be an issue for the districts. 

The Service’s staff needs to identify and describe 

unfunded needs to be able to compete effectively for 

additional money from within the Service and from 

partners and other sources. District facilities need 

to be evaluated and upgraded. 

monitoring and researCH 

Monitoring habitat and wildlife populations is an 

essential element in achieving the primary goals 

and objectives of the districts. Basic data about 

recruitment, mortality, and habitat use for a 

representative group of species must be collected 

and analyzed on a regular basis to make appropriate 

decisions that affect the habitats these species 

depend on. The use of the districts as a research field 

station could make valuable strides in development 

of new directions in management and expansion of 

the knowledge of field biologists. 

 

 

 

 

3 District Resources and Description
 USFWS 

Sunrise over a Wells County wetland. 

The nine wetland management districts manage 

thousands of noncontiguous tracts of federal land 

totaling 1,125,084 acres. These lands include 1,208 

WPAs, 37 WDAs, and tens of thousands of conservation 

easements. 

This chapter describes the physical environment and 

biological resources of these district lands. In addition, 

this chapter addresses the fire and grazing history, 

cultural resources, visitor services, socioeconomic 

environment, and operations of the districts. 

3.1 Physical Environment 

The districts are primarily east and north of the 

Missouri River, from the Canadian border south to the 

state line of South Dakota. Because districts cover 

such a large geographic area, the physical environment 

and biological resources are described in terms of 

physiographic region (or level 3 and level 4 ecoregions) 

(Bryce et al. 1996) in which each district is located. 

Five physiographic regions occur in the nine-district 

area: Red River Valley, Glaciated Plains, Turtle 

Mountains, Missouri Coteau, and Coteau Slope 

(see figure 6, map of physiographic regions). These 

physiographic regions correspond closely to the level 3 

ecoregions described below with the exception of the 

Turtle Mountains, which is described as a level 4 

ecoregion. 

The prairies of North Dakota have become an 

ecological treasure of biological importance for 

waterfowl and other migratory birds. The prairie 

potholes of North Dakota and South Dakota support 

a wide diversity of wildlife, but they are most famous 

for their role in waterfowl production. Although the 

Prairie Pothole Region occupies only 10% of North 

America’s waterfowl-breeding range, it produces 

approximately 50% of the continent’s waterfowl 

population. 

Complexes of wetlands scattered throughout the 

wetland management districts attract breeding duck 

pairs. While semipermanent and permanent wetlands 

provide brood-rearing habitat and migratory stopover 

habitat, respectively, it is the smaller temporary and 

seasonal wetlands that draw breeding duck pairs to 

the North Dakota prairies and other parts of the 

Prairie Pothole Region. 

global Warming 

The DOI issued an order in January 2001 requiring 

federal agencies under its direction that have land 

management responsibilities to consider potential 

climate change effects as part of long-range planning 

endeavors. 

The U.S. Department of Energy’s report, “Carbon 

Sequestration Research and Development,” concluded 
26 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Figure 6. Map of the physiographic regions in the nine districts, North Dakota. 
that ecosystem protection is important to carbon 

sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon 

currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. The 

report defines carbon sequestration as “the capture 

and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be 

emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.” 

The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the earth’s 

atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in 

surface temperature commonly referred to as “global 

warming.” In relation to comprehensive conservation 

planning for Refuge System units, carbon sequestration 

constitutes the primary climate-related effect considered 

during planning. 

Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon 

sequestration. Large, naturally occurring communities 

of plants and animals that occupy major habitats— 

grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert—are 

effective both in preventing carbon emission and in 

acting as biological “scrubbers” of atmospheric CO2. 

One Service activity in particular—prescribed burning 

—releases CO2 directly to the atmosphere from the 

biomass consumed during combustion yet results in no 

net loss of carbon because new vegetation quickly 

germinates and sprouts to replace the burned-up 

biomass. This vegetation sequesters an approximately 

equal amount of carbon as was lost to the air (Dai et al. 

2006). Several other effects of climate change may need 

consideration in the future: 

QQ	 Habitat available in lakes and streams for coldwater fish such as trout and salmon could be 

reduced. 

Forests may change, with some plant species 

shifting their range northward or dying out and 

other trees moving in to take their place. 

Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding 

habitat because of stronger and more frequent 

droughts. 

Changes in the timing of migration and nesting 

could put some birds out of synchronization with 

the life cycles of their prey. 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

Climate 

The normal average annual temperature in North 

Dakota ranges from 37°F in the northeast to 43°F 

along the southern border. January is the coldest 

month with average temperatures ranging from 2°F 

in the northeast to 17°F in the southwest. July is the 

warmest month with temperatures averaging 67°F 

in the northeast to 73°F in parts of the south. The 

range of normal average monthly temperatures 

between the coldest and warmest months is 54°F in 

the southwest and 65°F in the northeast. These large 

annual ranges attest to the continental nature of 

North Dakota’s climate (Jensen, no date). 

The highest temperature ever recorded in North 

Dakota was 121°F at Steele on July 6, 1936, and the 

Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 27 

lowest temperature measured was –60°F at Parshall 

on February 15, 1936. Temperatures of 100°F or higher 

occur nearly every year somewhere in North Dakota. 

Chances of this occurring are greatest in the southcentral area where, in about 85% of the years, maximum 

temperature will equal or exceed 100°F. These 

temperatures of 100°F or more last only for a day or 

two. In the northeast, temperatures reach 100°F or 

higher in only 3 years out of 10 (Jensen, no date). 

Annual precipitation ranges from less than 13 inches 

in the northwest to more than 20 inches in parts of the 

Red River Valley and southeast. The lines of equal 

precipitation, although subject to some meandering, 

are oriented north–south; as a generalization, 

precipitation increases about 1 inch for every 50 miles 

of eastward movement. 

There are two areas where the general increase of 

precipitation in an easterly direction does not apply: 

QQ One area is located in the southwest where the 

annual precipitation of more than 16 inches is 

higher than the surrounding area. This area 

of higher precipitation is largely a result of 

topographic uplift. 

The other area is in the north-central section of 

the state, where the annual precipitation of less 

than 16 inches is lower than surrounding areas. 

This area is caused primarily by air moving 

downhill from all but a southerly direction, 

which works against the precipitation process 

(Jensen, no date). 

QQ

Annual snowfall in North Dakota ranges from less 

than 26 inches in parts of Mountrail and McLean 

counties (west-central portion of the state) to about 

38 inches in a belt extending diagonally across the 

state northeast–southwest (Jensen, no date). 

pHysiograpHy, geograpHy, and soils 

This section describes the districts’ ecoregions and 

soils. 

Ecoregions 

Four level 3 ecoregions cover the nine districts (see 

figure 7): Lake Agassiz Basin, Northern Glaciated 

Plains, Northwestern Glaciated Plains, and 

Northwestern Great Plains. The differences in 

ecosystem properties and functions in the level 3 

ecoregions are distinguished by the patterns of biotic 

and abiotic phenomena: vegetation, climate, soils, land 

use, wildlife use, and hydrology. Local biotic and abiotic 

factors have further refined the ecoregions. Each 

level 3 ecoregion is subdivided into several level 4 

ecoregions; level 4 ecoregions are the finest level in 

the hierarchy (Bryce et al. 1996). Table 2 displays the 

level 3 ecoregions in which each district occurs. 
28 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Figure 7. Map of the level 4 ecoregions in the nine districts, North Dakota. 
Table 2. Ecoregions in the Nine Districts, North 

Dakota. 

Wetland 

Management 

District Level 3 Ecoregion 

Arrowwood Northern Glaciated Plains

Ecoregion 46 

Audubon 

Northwestern Glaciated Plains 

Ecoregion 42 

Northwestern Great Plains

Ecoregion 43 

Northern Glaciated Plains 

Ecoregion 46 

Chase Lake 

Northwestern Glaciated Plains 

Ecoregion 42

Northern Glaciated Plains 

Ecoregion 46 

Crosby 

Northwestern Glaciated Plains 

Ecoregion 42 

Northwestern Great Plains

Ecoregion 43 

Northern Glaciated Plains 

Ecoregion 46 

Devils Lake 

Northern Glaciated Plains 

Ecoregion 46

Lake Agassiz Basin Ecoregion 48 

J. Clark Salyer Northern Glaciated Plains

Ecoregion 46 

Kulm 

Northwestern Glaciated Plains 

Ecoregion 42

Northern Glaciated Plains 

Ecoregion 46 

Lostwood 

Northwestern Glaciated Plains 

Ecoregion 42 

Northwestern Great Plains

Ecoregion 43 

Northern Glaciated Plains 

Ecoregion 46 

Valley City 

Northern Glaciated Plains 

Ecoregion 46

Lake Agassiz Basin Ecoregion 48 

Descriptions of the four level 3 ecoregions and their 

level 4 ecoregions relevant to the districts follow (see 

figure 7). Most text and graphics in this section are 

from “Ecoregions of North Dakota and South Dakota” 

(USGS 2006). 

Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 29 

USFWS 

North Dakota’s prairie is a haven of unique species. 

NorthwesterN Glaciated PlaiNs ecoreGioN 42 (level 3) 

Portions of Audubon, Chase Lake, Crosby, Kulm, and 

Lostwood wetland management districts occur within 

this ecoregion. 

The Northwestern Glaciated Plains ecoregion marks 

the westernmost extent of continental glaciation. 

The youthful morainal (ridges of rock debris at the 

margins of glaciers) 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 dryland farming 

in Drift Plains ecoregion 46i (below) to the east and 

the predominance of cattle ranching and farming to 

the west in Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion 43 

(described below). 

Missouri Coteau Ecoregion 42a (Level 4) 

Like closely spaced ocean swells, the rolling mounds 

of the Missouri Coteau enclose countless wetland 

depressions or potholes. During its slow retreat, the 

Wisconsinan glacier stalled at the Missouri escarpment 

for thousands of years, melting slowly beneath a 

mantle of sediment to create the characteristic pothole 

topography of the coteau. The wetlands of the Missouri 

Coteau and the neighboring Prairie Pothole Region 

are the major WPAs in North America. Land use on 

the coteau is a mixture of tilled agriculture in flatter 

areas and grazing land on steeper slopes. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

USFWS 

The vastness of the North Dakota prairie is protected by grassland easements throughout the districts. 

Collapsed Glacial Outwash Ecoregion 42b (Level 4) 

Areas of Collapsed Glacial Outwash formed from 

gravel and sand that was deposited by glacial 

meltwater and precipitation runoff over stagnant ice. 

Many large, shallow lakes are found in these areas; 

these lakes and wetlands 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. 

Missouri Coteau Slope Ecoregion 42c (Level 4) 

The Missouri Coteau Slope ecoregion declines in 

elevation from Missouri Coteau ecoregion 42a to the 

Missouri River. Unlike Missouri Coteau ecoregion 42a, 

where there are few streams, 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 in Missouri 

Coteau ecoregion 42a. Cattle graze on the steeper 

land that occurs along drainages. 

Northern Missouri Coteau Ecoregion 42d (Level 4) 

The Northern Missouri Coteau lies in a transition 

zone to a more boreal climate to the north and a more 

arid climate to the west. Willow and aspen, southern 

occurrences of aspen parkland to the north, may occur 

at wetland margins. Rough fescue, also a northern 

species, appears in grassland associations. Wetlands 

tend to dry out earlier in the summer than in Missouri 

Coteau ecoregion 42a to the south and east. Mixed 

dryland agriculture is the major land use. 

Glaciated Dark Brown Prairie Ecoregion 42i (Level 4) 

The boundary of the Glaciated Dark Brown Prairie 

marks a transition to drier conditions. Glaciated Dark 

Brown Prairie has a well-defined drainage system 

and fewer wetlands compared with the more recently 

glaciated Missouri Coteau Slope ecoregion 42c to the 

east. Land use is a mosaic of cropland and rangeland. 

NorthwesterN Great PlaiNs ecoreGioN 43 (level 3) 

Small portions of the Audubon, Crosby, and Lostwood 

wetland management districts occur within this 

ecoregion. 

The Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion encompasses 

the Missouri Plateau section of the Great Plains. 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. 

Agriculture is limited by erratic precipitation 

patterns and limited opportunities for irrigation. 

River Breaks Ecoregion 43c (Level 4) 

The River Breaks form broken terraces and uplands 

that descend to the Missouri River and its major 

tributaries. They have formed in soft, easily erodible 

strata, such as Pierre shale. The dissected topography, 
wooded draws, and uncultivated areas provide a haven 

for wildlife. Riparian gallery forests of cottonwood 

and green ash persist along major tributaries such 

as the Moreau and Cheyenne rivers, but they have 

mostly been eliminated along the Missouri River by 

impoundments. 

NortherN Glaciated PlaiNs ecoreGioN 46 (level 3) 

All nine districts have portions of their management 

area within this ecoregion. Also commonly referred 

to as the Drift Plains or Drift Prairie, this area was 

subject to scouring and deposition due to prolonged 

glacier activity between 70,000 and 10,000 years ago. 

A flat to gently rolling landscape of glacial drift 

characterizes the Northern Glaciated Plains ecoregion. 

The subhumid conditions foster a grassland transition 

between the tall- and short-grass prairies. High 

concentrations of temporary and seasonal wetlands 

create favorable conditions for duck nesting and 

migration. Although the tilled soil is very fertile, 

agricultural success is subject to annual climatic 

fluctuations. 

Pembina Escarpment Ecoregion 46a (Level 4) 

The Pembina Escarpment is a rugged, forested slope 

that marks the boundary between Northern Black 

Prairie ecoregion 46g (below) and the Lake Agassiz 

Plain. Though small, the Pembina Escarpment is a 

distinctive level 4 ecoregion. Originally formed by 

the undercutting of Cretaceous sandstones by the 

ancestral Red River, glacial scouring later steepened 

the escarpment. The vista today, of wooded hills with 

small farms tucked into valleys, is reminiscent of 

pastoral sections of New England. Streams flowing 

off the escarpment have high gradients and a cobble 

substrate. 

Turtle Mountains Ecoregion 46b (Level 4) 

The undulating landscape and abundant wetlands of 

the Turtle Mountains are similar to Missouri Coteau 

ecoregion 42a (previous). However, the Turtle Mountains 

contain larger, deeper, and more numerous lakes. 

Additionally, this ecoregion receives about 10 inches 

more precipitation than the surrounding drift plains; 

thus, it supports a forest cover of aspen, birch, bur oak, 

elm, and ash. The forest soils are erodible and poorly 

suited for cropland, although there is some clearing 

for pastureland. 

Glacial Lake Basins Ecoregion 46c (Level 4) 

Lake Souris, Devils Lake, and Lake Dakota once 

occupied the Glacial Lake Basins. These proglacial 

(adjacent to a glacier) lakes were formed when major 

stream or river drainages were blocked by glacial ice 

during the Pleistocene. The smooth topography of the 

Glacial Lake Basins—even flatter than the surrounding 

drift plains (ecoregions 46g, 46i, and 46n)—resulted 

from the slow buildup of water-laid sediments. The 

level, deep soils in the lake plains are intensively 

cultivated. In the north, the primary crops are spring 

wheat, other small grains, and sunflowers; in the Lake 

Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 31 

Dakota basin of South Dakota, corn and soybeans are 

more prevalent. 

Glacial Lake Deltas Ecoregion 46d (Level 4) 

The Glacial Lake Deltas were deposited by rivers 

entering glacial lake basins (for example, Glacial Lake 

Souris, Devils Lake, and Lake Dakota). The heaviest 

sediments, mostly sand and fine gravel, formed delta 

fans at the river inlets. As the lake floors were exposed 

during withdrawal of the glacial ice, wind reworked 

the sand in some areas into dunes. In contrast to the 

highly productive, intensively tilled glacial lake plains, 

the dunes in the delta areas have a thin vegetative 

cover and a high risk for wind erosion. These areas 

are used mainly for grazing or irrigated agriculture. 

End Moraine Complex Ecoregion 46f (Level 4) 

The End Moraine Complex is a concentration of 

glacial features in east-central North Dakota. Blue 

Mountain and Devils Lake Mountain are comprised 

of blocks of surface material scraped off and thrust 

up by the continental glacier at the south end of the 

Devils Lake basin. In the western part of the ecoregion, 

patches of stagnation moraine similar to Missouri 

Coteau ecoregion 42a (previous) have high densities 

of wetlands. Favorable precipitation, aspect, and 

slightly higher elevations result in wooded lake margins 

and morainal (stone debris carried by glaciers) ridges 

for the moraines south of Devils Lake basin. 

Northern Black Prairie Ecoregion 46g (Level 4) 

The Northern Black Prairie represents a broad range 

of biological events (such as flowering, seeding, and 

propagation) within this transition zone that is 

influenced by the boreal climate. Aspen and birch 

appear in wooded areas, willows grow on wetland 

perimeters, and rough fescue, common to the Rocky 

Mountain foothills, becomes evident in grassland 

associations. This ecoregion has the shortest growing 

season and the lowest January temperatures of any 

level 4 ecoregion in North Dakota and South Dakota. 

Most of the area is used for growing small grains, with 

durum wheat being a major crop. 

Northern Dark Brown Prairie Ecoregion 46h (Level 4) 

The Souris and Des Lacs rivers generally divide the 

Northern Dark Brown Prairie from Northern Black 

Prairie ecoregion 46g. These ecoregions differ in 

precipitation, soil, and vegetation characteristics. The 

Souris River is within the broad transitional zone 

between subhumid and semiarid climatic conditions. 

Soils west of the Souris River developed under drier 

conditions than those soils further east; they have less 

organic material, which gives them a lighter color. 

In addition, crop and native grass production is 

generally lower than in ecoregions further east. 

Drift Plains Ecoregion 46i (Level 4) 

On the Drift Plains, the retreating Wisconsinan glaciers 

left a subtle, rolling topography and a thick mantle of 

glacial till (mixture of clay, sand, and rocks). A greater 

proportion of temporary and seasonal wetlands are 
32 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

found in the Drift Plains than in the coteau areas, 

where semipermanent wetlands are numerous. 

Because of the productive soil and level topography, 

this ecoregion is almost entirely cultivated, with 

many wetlands drained or simply tilled and planted. 

However, valuable waterfowl habitat still remains, 

concentrated in state- and federally sponsored duck 

production areas. The historical grassland in the 

Drift Plains was a transitional mix of tall- and shortgrass prairie. The prairie grasses have been largely 

replaced by fields of spring wheat, barley, sunflowers, 

and alfalfa. 

Glacial Outwash Ecoregion 46j (Level 4) 

The separated areas of Glacial Outwash differ from 

outwash areas in Missouri Coteau ecoregion 42a 

(previous) in that they generally have a smoother 

topography. The soils are highly permeable with 

low water-holding capacity. Areas of excessive soil 

permeability have a poor to fair potential for dryland 

crop production. Some areas are used for irrigated 

agriculture. The risk for blowing soil in droughty 

areas is reduced by retaining native range grasses 

like little bluestem, needle and thread, and green 

needlegrass. 

Jennifer Anderson/USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database 

Big bluestem. 

lake aGassiz BasiN ecoreGioN 48 (level 3) 

Devils Lake and Valley City wetland management 

districts occur in this ecoregion. 

Glacial Lake Agassiz was the last in a series of 

proglacial lakes to fill the Red River Valley since the 

beginning of the Pleistocene era. The Lake Agassiz 

Plain is comprised of thick lacustrine (formed in lakes) 

sediments underlain by glacial till. It is extremely 

flat and has fewer lakes and pothole wetlands than 

neighboring ecoregions. The historical tall-grass 

prairie has been replaced by intensive agriculture. 

The preferred crops in the northern half of the region 

are potatoes, beans and wheat; soybeans and corn 

dominate in the south. Sugar beets are grown 

throughout the ecoregion. 

Glacial Lake Agassiz Basin Ecoregion 48a (Level 4) 

From the Pembina escarpment, the view of the Glacial 

Lake Agassiz Basin is an extremely flat patchwork 

of cultivated farmland. Because the Red River of the 

North has a poorly defined floodplain and very low 

gradient, flooding can be a problem. Outside of 

channelized areas in the floodplain, muddy valley 

streams meander within narrow buffer strips of 

cottonwood, elm, ash, and willow. Soils range from 

silty to clayey in texture. Most have high water tables 

and are extremely productive. 

Sand Deltas and Beach Ridges Ecoregion 48b (Level 4) 

The varying relief of the Sand Deltas and Beach 

Ridges interrupts the extremely flat and intensively 

farmed land of the Lake Agassiz Plain. The beach 

ridges appear as parallel lines of sand and gravel 

formed by wave action on the varying shoreline 

levels of glacial Lake Agassiz. Three sand deltas— 

the largest being the Sheyenne River delta in the 

south—occur where major rivers entered glacial Lake 

Agassiz and dropped their sediment load. A high 

erosion risk exists in the sand dune areas. 

Saline Area of the Lake Agassiz Basin Ecoregion 48c (Level 4) 

In the Saline Area of the Lake Agassiz Basin, salty 

artesian groundwater flows to the surface through 

glacial till and lacustrine sediments from the underlying 

beds of Cretaceous sandstone. The regional boundary 

of the Saline Area of the Lake Agassiz Basin delineates 

an area where salt effects are most evident. Other 

saline areas occur along the tributaries of the Park, 

Forest, and Turtle rivers in northeastern North 

Dakota. Salt-affected soils in the saline area reduce 

crop productivity. Many areas are not suitable for 

farming, but are used for range or wildlife habitat. 

Soils 

Data for soil temperature and frost penetration in 

North Dakota are scarce. Dr. Guy Wilkinson of the 

department of soils at North Dakota State University 

did the most complete study of soil temperatures. 

Wilkinson measured soil temperature at Fargo, North 

Dakota, continuously over a 4-year period (Jensen, no 

date). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 33 

At Fargo, the average date of soil surface freezing was 

November 26. Freezing progressed to greater depths 

throughout the winter until the average maximum 

frost penetration depth of 4.5 feet was reached April 1. 

Surface thawing in the spring began on March 26, 

a few days earlier than the occurrence of maximum 

frost penetration. After April 1, soil thawing proceeded 

both downward from the surface and upward toward 

the surface from the deeper unfrozen soil until May 1, 

when the last of the frozen soil at about the 3-foot level 

was thawed (Jensen, no date). 

The lowest average soil temperature of 8.2°F was 

found at a depth of 0.25 inch on January 17. The time 

of minimum soil temperature for deeper soil depths 

was progressively later, with minimum soil temperatures 

at the 4.5-foot depth occurring on April 1. Highest 

average soil temperature at the 0.25-inch depth reached 

the low 80s during the third week in July. As in winter, 

soil temperatures at greater depths reached their 

highest levels later in the season. For instance, soil 

temperatures at the 2-foot depth did not reach their 

highest levels until about August 6, while 3-foot-deep 

maximum temperatures were reached August 15 

(Jensen, no date). 

Water resoUrCes 

The districts cover the prairie basins of the Red River 

Valley basin to the east, to the Missouri basin to the 

west. Prairie basin wetlands of North Dakota and 

South Dakota are part of a series of community profiles 

on ecologically important wetlands of national 

significance. The shallow wetlands of North Dakota 

and South Dakota form the bulk of the portion of the 

Prairie Pothole Region lying within the United States. 

This region is famous as the producer of at least half 

of North America’s waterfowl and an unknown, but 

large, proportion of other prairie-dwelling marsh and 

aquatic birds. 

Hydrology 

The wetlands described here lie in relatively small, 

shallow basins that vary greatly in their ability to 

maintain surface water, and in their water chemistry, 

which varies from fresh to hypersaline. These wetlands 

occur in a wide variety of hydrological settings, in an 

area where annual and seasonal precipitation varies 

greatly in form and amount. Thus, the presence of 

surface water in these wetlands is largely unpredictable. 

Superimposed on these phenomena are the effects of 

a variety of land uses including pasture, cultivation, 

mechanical forage removal, idle conditions, and burning. 

All these factors greatly affect the plant and animal 

communities found in these basins (Kantrud et al. 1989). 

These wetlands described as lacustrine basins and 

palustrine basins (wetlands that lack flowing water 

including marshes, swamps, bogs, and floodplains) 

have water regimes that are temporarily flooded, 

seasonally flooded, and semipermanently flooded. 

Basins with these water regimes compose about 90% 

of the basins in the Prairie Pothole Region of North 

Dakota and South Dakota. This profile outlines the 

wetland subsystems, classes, and subclasses that 

occur in these basins and provides a useful reference 

to their geologic, climatic, hydrologic, and pedologic 

(natural composition, distribution, and formation of 

soils) setting (Kantrud et al. 1989). 

Glacially created wetlands in the Prairie Pothole 

Region, in combination with the surrounding 

grasslands, provide breeding habitat that supports 

half of the continent’s waterfowl production (Kantrud 

1983). The original density of wetlands in the Prairie 

Pothole Region is thought to have been about 80 

wetlands per square mile before historical settlement. 

Since European settlement, 49% of North Dakota’s 

wetlands have been drained for agriculture or 

development (Dahl 1990). The Prairie Pothole Region 

is a major world supplier of cereal grains. Consequently, 

wetlands in the region are often drained for crop 

production or otherwise cropped when water 

conditions permit. 

Wetlands exist because specific geologic settings and 

hydrologic processes favor pooling of water or soil 

saturation. A unique combination of glaciation and 

climatic conditions in the Prairie Pothole Region has 

produced a large number of dynamic aquatic ecosystems 

that have a tendency to not receive or contribute 

to channelized surface flow. These basins have the 

potential to impound large volumes of water and 

undergo long-term, extreme changes in water depth 

and biotic conditions in response to climatic trends. 

The water level fluctuates in typical, seasonal and 

semipermanent North Dakota wetlands. The lowgrade shorelines of prairie wetlands combine with the 

semiarid climate to produce dynamic wetlands; for 

example, small increases in water level cause great 

increases in the proportion of a basin inundated and, 

conversely, hot, dry conditions often remove surface 

water from large areas of a basin in a relatively short 

time (Kantrud et al. 1989). 

Water Quality 

Some wetland basins function as groundwater recharge 

areas; such basins tend to be temporarily or seasonally 

flooded. These basins hold water for only a few months 

each year, and the water is generally low in dissolved 

solids. Some basins are through-flow systems with 

respect to groundwater; that is, groundwater flows in 

through parts of their bed while other parts recharge 

groundwater. Through-flow basins hold water over 

longer periods and the water tends to have higher 

concentrations of dissolved solids. Some basins serve 

only as discharge areas for groundwater. Lakes that 

receive discharge from both regional and local 

groundwater flow systems and do not lose water to 

seepage or surface outflow are highly saline (Kantrud 

et al. 1989). 

Human-related disturbance such as drainage and 

cultivation are the most extreme disturbances seen 
 

 

 

 

34 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

in most prairie wetlands in North Dakota and South 

Dakota. In some instances, fill (earth or rocks) or use 

for solid-waste disposal has also destroyed the basins 

(Kantrud et al. 1989). 

Wetlands are a natural filter for the nation’s water resources. 

USFWS 

Water Rights 

During the 1930s, the U.S. Bureau of Biological Survey 

on behalf of the federal government submitted 

“declarations of filing” in North Dakota for many 

impoundments on national wildlife refuges. Such filing 

applies for and documents the claim of ownership of 

the right to use water for current purposes. In 1930, 

there was a fire at the state capitol that destroyed 

most of these early filings, and, subsequently, new 

legislation was introduced to alter the way in which 

water rights were applied for and processed. As a 

result, there are many old declarations of filing that 

have not been entered into the state’s water rights 

database and have never been “perfected” (described 

in following paragraph) in the same manner as the newer 

water right permits. There is one documented filing 

on a conservation easement for Billings Lake WPA. 

The state of North Dakota currently issues a 

“conditional water permit” when an application for a 

water right is made. This permit grants the claimant 

the right to develop the structure or structures 

necessary to put the water to beneficial use. After 

the claimant has developed the necessary structures 

and put the water to beneficial use, the North Dakota 

State Water Commission has to inspect the project 

and verify that the water as claimed is being put to 

beneficial use. The North Dakota State Engineer 

then issues a “perfected” water permit. 

Early water rights usually included a storage amount 

as well as an amount for seasonal use. The seasonal 

use is the water needed to offset evaporation and is 

generally only seen in connection with a reservoir. 

The state instituted a one-time fill rule, eliminating 

the ability to offset evaporation. This rule was waived 

in some cases, but many of the later water rights only 

list a storage volume. 

Some water rights—particularly groundwater rights, 

but also some surface water rights—have an 

associated flow rate. If there is a decreed flow rate, 

this is the maximum rate at which water can be 

pumped or diverted. 

There are no water rights associated with Crosby, 

Kulm, and Lostwood wetland management districts. 

Tables 3–8 list the water rights for Arrowwood, 

Audubon, Chase Lake, Devils Lake, J. Clark Salyer, 

and Valley City wetland management districts, 

respectively. 
Table 3. Water Rights for Audubon Wetland Management District, North Dakota. Declaration of Filing Conditional Permit Number Perfect Water Permit Number Priority Date County Area Structure Type Use

Flow RateStorageAcre-feetSeasonalAcre-feet 

— — — — Dunn Audubon 

WMD 

Lake Ilo 

G-6 — — 1.80 — 

— — — — Slope Audubon 

WMD 

White 

Lake G-1 

Dugout 

— — 0.30 — 

— — — — Dunn Audubon 

WMD 

Lake Ilo 

G-5 Dam — — 0.90 — 

— — — — Dunn Audubon 

WMD 

Lake Ilo 

Wl-3 Dam — — 0.80 — 

— — — — Dunn Audubon 

WMD 

Lake Ilo 

G-6 Dam — — 1.40 — 

— — — — Dunn Audubon 

WMD 

Lake Ilo 

A-6 — — 0.20 — 

— — — — Dunn Audubon 

WMD 

Lake Ilo 

G-5 Dugout — — 0.80 — 

— — — — Dunn Audubon 

WMD 

Lake Ilo 

G-5 Channel 

Dam 

— — 1.50 — 

— — — — Slope Audubon 

WMD 

White Lake 

G-2 Dugout — — 0.60 — 

— — — — McLean Coal Coulee 

WDA — Fish, wildlife — — — 

— — — — Sheridan Goodrich 

WDA Dikes Fish, wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Heckers 

Lake WDA — Fish, wildlife — — — 

— — — — Sheridan, 

Wells 

Johnson 

Lake WDA — Fish, wildlife — 2,591.00 — 

— — — — McLean Koenig WDA Muskrat 

Wetland #2 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Koenig WDA 

Cattail 

Wetland 

#207 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Koenig WDA 

Gravel Pit 

Wetland 

#154 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Koenig WDA 

Cattail 

Wetland 

#215 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Koenig WDA 

Willow 

Wetland 

#519 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Koenig WDA Laibs 

Marsh #49 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Koenig WDA 

Seepage 

Wetlands 

#551, 562, 

730 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 35 
Table 3. Water Rights for Audubon Wetland Management District, North Dakota. Declaration of Filing Conditional Permit Number Perfect Water Permit Number Priority Date County Area Structure Type Use

Flow RateStorageAcre-feetSeasonalAcre-feet 

— — — — McLean Koenig WDA Cattail 

Wetland #3 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Koenig WDA Dave’s 

Wetland 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Koenig WDA Sump 

Wetland 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Koenig WDA Hippie 

Slough 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Koenig WDA Sectionline 

Slough 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Koenig WDA Droplog 

Wetland 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Koenig WDA Cattail 

Wetland #2 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Koenig WDA Fisher 

Lake 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Koenig WDA 

Gravel Pit 

Wetland 

#173 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Lake Holmes 

Outlet WDA Pool 2 Fish, wildlife — 42.40 — 

— — — — McLean Lake Holmes 

Outlet WDA Pool 5 Fish, 

wildlife — 86.20 — 

— — — — McLean Lake Holmes 

Outlet WDA Pool 6 Fish, 

wildlife — 57.40 — 

— — — — McLean Lake Holmes 

Outlet WDA Pool 4 Fish, 

wildlife — 90.80 — 

— — — — McLean Lake Holmes 

Outlet WDA Pool 3 Fish, 

wildlife — 10.80 — 

— — — — McLean Lake Holmes 

Outlet WDA Pool 1 Fish, 

wildlife — 29.40 — 

— — — — McLean Lake Williams 

North WDA — Fish, wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Lake Williams 

South WDA — Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — Sheridan Lincoln Valley 

South WDA — Fish, wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Lost Lake 

West WDA — Fish, wildlife — — — 

— — — — Wells Pony Gulch 

WDA — Fish, wildlife — — — 

— — 04499 7/22/1991 Ward Rovig WPA Dam Fish, 

wildlife — 108.50 46.50 

— — 04500 7/22/1991 Ward Rovig WPA Dam Fish, 

wildlife — 47.00 16.90 

— — — — McLean Turtle 

Creek 2 WDA — Fish, wildlife — — — 

36 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 
Declaration

of FilingConditionalPermit NumberPerfect Water Permit NumberPriority DateCountyAreaStructureTypeUseFlow RateStorage 

Table 3. Water Rights for Audubon Wetland Management District, North Dakota. 

— — — — McLean Turtle 

Creek 3 WDA — Fish, wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Turtle Lake 1 

WDA 

Central 

Marsh 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Turtle Lake 2 

WDA 

Nygaard 

Slough 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Turtle Lake 2 

WDA 

Overflow 

Wetlands 

1, 2, 3 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Turtle Lake 2 

WDA 

Hanson 

Hay Slough 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — McLean Turtle Lake 3 

WDA Turtle Lake Fish, 

wildlife — — — Acre-feet Seasonal Acre-feet 

 

Declaration of FilingConditional Permit NumberPerfect Water Permit NumberPriority DateCountyAreaStructure TypeUseFlow RateStorage 

Table 4. Water Rights for Chase Lake Wetland Management District, North Dakota. 

— — 01720 6/23/1970 Wells Crystal Lake 

WPA Dike 

Fish, 

wildlife, 

recreation 

— 37.80 10.50 

— — — — Stutsman Hawks Nest 

WDA Dikes Fish, wildlife — — — 

— — 03986 6/21/1988 Sheridan, 

Wells 

Indian Hills 

WDA Dikes Fish, wildlife — 74.00 29.00 

— — 03985 6/21/1988 Sheridan, 

Wells 

Indian Hills 

WDA Dikes Fish, 

wildlife — 31.00 9.00 

— — 01481 9/14/1967 Stutsman Mt. Moriah 

WPA Dike — — 171.00 162.00 

— — 03962 3/3/1988 Wells Pipestone 

WDA Dike Fish, 

wildlife — 105.30 52.40 

— — 01361 4/19/1966 Stutsman Thiesen 

Marsh WPA Dike 

Fish, 

wildlife, 

recreation, stock 

— 32.00 51.00 

— — 01339 11/17/1965 Stutsman Vashti WPA Dikes Stock, 

wildlife — 49.00 45.00 

— — 05229 3/2/1998 Stutsman Woodworth 

Station WPA 

Dike, water 

control 

structure 

Fish, 

wildlife — 18.10 10.00 Acre-feet Seasonal Acre-feet 

Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 37 
Table 5. Water Rights for Devils Lake Wetland Management District, North Dakota. Declaration of Filing Conditional Permit Number Perfect Water Permit Number Priority Date County Area Structure Type Use

Flow RateStorageAcre-feetSeasonalAcre-feet 

— — 03924 6/9/1987 Ramsey Avocet 

Island WDA Dam Fish, wildlife — 290.00 104.00 

— — — — Towner Big Coulee 

WDA Dikes Fish, wildlife — — — 

Yes — — 9/1/1934 Cavalier Billings Lake 

WPA Dam, dikes Fish — 216.00 216.00 

— — 03543 3/19/1982 Cavalier Billings Lake 

WPA (center) Stop log Fish, 

wildlife — 60.00 54.00 

— 05256 — 4/20/1998 Cavalier Billings Lake 

WPA (north) Dam Fish, wildlife — 39.00 24.00 

— — 04981 2/12/1996 Cavalier Edwards 

WPA (Dike 1) Dam Fish, 

wildlife — 34.37 31.92 

— — 04982 2/12/1996 Cavalier 

Edwards 

WPA 

(Dikes 2, 3) 

Dam Fish, 

wildlife — 154.45 74.56 

— — 04468 5/8/1991 Walsh Forest River 

WPA Dike Fish, wildlife — 311.00 91.30 

— — — — Nelson Goose River 

WDA 17 dikes Fish, wildlife — — — 

— — 03905 1/26/1987 Grand 

Forks Hofer WPA Dam Fish, wildlife — 66.00 20.30 

— — 03049 2/27/1978 Benson Hofstrand 

Lake WPA Dam Fish, 

wildlife — 1,425.00 1,425.00 

— 05425 — 4/14/2000 Towner Kitsch WPA Dam Fish, 

wildlife 69.20 61.00 

— 05439 — 5/22/2000 Towner 

Kitsch WPA, 

McLaughlin 

Lake 

Pump Fish, 

wildlife 

10,000 

gpm* 69.20 — 

— — — — Ramsey Kneeling 

Moose WDA 

Dikes, 

water 

control 

structure 

Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — Ramsey Lake Alice 

WDA — Fish, wildlife — — — 

— — — — Cavalier Mulberry 

Creek WDA Dikes Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — 04814 10/20/1994 Towner Nikolaisen 

WPA Dam Fish, wildlife — 13.00 13.00 

— — 04813 10/20/1994 Towner Nikolaisen 

WPA Dam Fish, 

wildlife — 48.40 48.40 

— — — — Benson Rolling Rock 

WDA — Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

— — — — Nelson Rugh Lake 

WDA Dikes Fish, wildlife — — — 

— — — — Cavalier Storlie WDA — Fish, 

wildlife — — — 

38 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 
Declaration

of FilingConditionalPermit NumberPerfect Water Permit NumberPriority DateCountyAreaStructureTypeUseFlow RateStorage 

Table 5. Water Rights for Devils Lake Wetland Management District, North Dakota. 

— — 04469 5/9/1991 Grand 

Forks 

Turtle River 

WPA Dike Fish, wildlife — 122.00 75.90 

— — 04730 11/8/1993 Cavalier Weaver 

WPA Dam Fish, wildlife — 63.10 43.50 

— pending — — Cavalier Wengeler 

South WPA Dam Fish, wildlife — 34.30 14.80 

— — 03482 4/12/1982 Cavalier Wengeler 

WPA, Phase 1 — Fish, wildlife 

10,000 

gpm 

55.37 — 

— — 04608 6/5/1992 Cavalier Wengeler 

WPA, Phase 1 Dam Fish, wildlife 

10,000 

gpm 

14.63 30.40 

— — 04804 8/19/1994 Cavalier Wengeler 

WPA, Phase 2 Dam Fish, 

wildlife — 47.60 42.80 

— — 04902 5/5/1995 Cavalier Wengeler 

WPA, Phase 3 Dam Fish, wildlife 

10,000 

gpm 

174.00 60.00 

*gpm=gallons per minute. 

Acre-feetSeasonalAcre-feet 

Declaration of FilingConditional Permit NumberPerfect Water Permit NumberPriority DateCountyAreaStructure TypeUseFlow RateStorage 

Table 6. Water Rights for J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District, North Dakota. 

— 05021 — 5/31/1996 Renville Brudvik 

WPA Dam Fish, wildlife — 200.00 280.00 

— — 03806 6/28/1985 Bottineau Holsten 

Slough WPA Slough Fish, wildlife 50 cfs* 180.00 334.00 

*cfs=cubic feet per second. 

Acre-feetSeasonal Acre-feet 

Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 39 

Declaration of FilingConditional Permit NumberPerfect Water Permit NumberPriority DateCountyAreaStructure TypeUseFlow RateStorage 

Table 7. Water Rights for Valley City Wetland Management District, North Dakota. 

— — 01362 4/25/1966 Steele Fullers Lake 

WPA 

Dam, stop 

logs 

Fish, 

wildlife, 

recreation, 

flood 

control 

— 1,044.00 1,218.00 Acre-feet Seasonal Acre-feet 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

air QUality 

Air quality receives protection under several 

provisions of the Clean Air Act, including the national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the 

prevention of significant deterioration program. The 

NAAQS include maximum allowable pollution levels 

for particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 

dioxide, lead, and carbon dioxide. 

North Dakota is one of only a handful of states that 

meets all the NAAQS, given the title of “Attainment.” 

Attainment status is based on data collected through 

an ambient air-monitoring network, which has various 

sites throughout the state. North Dakota is rural, 

with monitoring data stations throughout the state. 

Although the data is not on a county-by-county basis, 

data collected in one county is representative of other 

areas. North Dakota has energy facilities operating 

in the central part of the state and oil and gas activity 

in the western portion of the state. Even with the 

influence of the energy production activity, North 

Dakota still has some of the cleanest air in the nation. 

Some of the monitoring locations are in North Dakota’s 

class 1 areas, which include the three units of Theodore 

Roosevelt National Park and the Service’s Lostwood 

Wilderness (Terry O’Clair, director, division of air 

quality, North Dakota Department of Health; personal 

communication; August 10, 2007). 

Prescribed burning is the management activity that 

has the greatest effect on air quality (find more 

information in the descriptions of the fire management 

programs in appendixes G and H). Planning for use of 

prescribed fire incorporates the management of smoke. 

To the extent possible, suppression of wildfires also 

addresses smoke management. The Service identifies 

sensitive areas and takes precautions to safeguard 

visitors and local residents. Smoke dispersal is a 

consideration in determining whether a prescribed 

burn is within prescription. Generally, the fine-grass 

fuels and small burn size (80–600 acres) generate low 

volumes of smoke for short durations (4–5 hours). 

3.2 Biological Resources 

This section contains descriptions of the vegetative 

communities and wildlife at the districts. The vegetation 

section includes discussions about invasive plants, fire, 

and grazing, each of which has a major influence on 

native vegetative communities. 

VegetatiVe CommUnities 

Prairies, or grasslands, in North Dakota and throughout 

the Great Plains have been gaining public interest 

over the last few years as more people become aware 

of their decline (see table 9). Before the 1870s, prairies 

covered more than a third of the United States and 

almost all of North Dakota. What once was a mosaic 

of grasses and forbs (flowering plants) where bison 

roamed is now predominantly agricultural land. With 

the arrival of increasing numbers of settlers in the late 

1800s, the landscape started to change and continued 

to change at such a great extent that now only onehalf of a percent of those areas in the United States 

remain. 

Table 8. Prairie Decline in North Dakota. 

Historical Present 

Prairie Type Acreage Acreage % Decline 

Mixed grass 35,088,200 11,119,500 68.3
 

Tall grass 321,230 297 99.9
 

Source: National Wildlife Federation (2001). 

A combination of factors is to blame for this loss. 

Large-scale agriculture and intensive grazing are 

often criticized but fire suppression, introduction 

of invasive plants, altered hydrology, and modified 

animal communities have contributed. The loss of 

diversity and distribution of prairie grass and forbs 

are of great concern, but it is not just plants that 

have suffered. Grasslands not only provide primary 

nesting habitat for a variety of bird species, but also 

are very important staging and feeding areas for 

waterfowl and shorebirds during long migratory 

flights. In addition, prairies provide an important food 

source for small mammals and insects that, in turn, 

support larger wildlife species. From a human 

standpoint, prairies can help to maintain clean air and 

water, control erosion, provide rich soil, are rich in 

history and folklore, and provide community income 

from wildlife-related recreation and tourism. All this 

combined makes it easy to see why prairies are 

considered the most endangered ecosystems. 

Historically, North Dakota was predominantly mixedgrass prairie in the southwest and tall-grass prairie 

in the northeast. As the total annual precipitation 

increases eastward across the state, conditions allow 

for taller, more robust grasses. Today, some of the 

best places to find prairie plants in North Dakota are 

federal grassland refuges, state-owned land, railway 

rights-of-way, ditches, old cemeteries, pastures, and 

private property throughout the Missouri Coteau in 

the central and western parts of the state (Grondahl 

and Evelsizer 2002). 

Many prairie birds currently show population declines. 

The western prairie fringed orchid is now a rare flower 

of the tall-grass prairie; its habitat occurs at Devils 

Lake and Valley City wetland management districts. 

The Dakota skipper butterfly is another prairie 

inhabitant whose numbers are decreasing. Each of 

these declines is directly related to the loss of prairie. 

Prairie provides important values to people. It 

contains dozens of wildlife species, hundreds of 

different plants, and thousands of insects. These 

species provide genetic diversity important to 

agriculture and medicine. Planted grasslands do not 

begin to match the diversity found in native prairie. 
In addition to its importance to wildlife, prairie is also 

crucial for soil and water conservation. Prairie provides 

a reminder of the nation’s rural and pioneer heritage; 

it provides recreational activities such as hunting, 

hiking, and bird watching; and it offers living 

laboratories for scientific research. Prairie also 

provides economic benefits through cattle grazing, 

haying, and native seed harvesting. When prairie is 

lost, the nation’s natural heritage is lost, along with 

a valuable resource (North Dakota Parks and 

Recreation Department, no date). 

Mixed-grass Prairie 

The mixed-grass prairie is one of the largest 

ecosystems in North America, with significant areas 

preserved for natural values in national wildlife 

refuges, WPAs, state game management areas, and 

nature preserves (Johnson 2006a). The predominant 

grassland vegetation within the mixed-grass prairie 

is prairie Junegrass, little bluestem, needle and thread, 

blue grama, green needlegrass, porcupine grass, 

prairie cordgrass, northern reedgrass, plains muhly, 

western wheatgrass, and Kentucky bluegrass 

(NDGF 2005). 

One can envision the short- and tall-grass prairies 

intergrading just east of an irregular line that runs 

from northern Texas through Oklahoma, Kansas, and 

Nebraska, and then northwestward into west-central 

North Dakota and South Dakota. The perimeter is 

not well defined because of the array of short-stature, 

intermediate, and tall-grass species that make up an 

ecotone between the short- and tall-grass prairies 

(Bragg and Steuter 1996). In general, the mixedgrass prairie is characterized by the warm-season 

grasses of the short-grass prairie to the west and the 

cool- and warm-season grasses (which grow much 

taller) to the east. Because of this ecotonal mixing, 

the number of plant species found in mixed-grass 

prairies exceeds that in other prairie types. Estimated 

declines in area of native mixed-grass prairie, 

although less than those of the tall-grass prairie, 

range from 30.5% in Texas to more than 99.9% in 

Manitoba (Austin 1988). 

The landscape component across the districts includes 

the mixed-grass prairie of the Missouri Coteau and 

associated wetlands. This area marks the boundary 

of the western limits of glaciation in North Dakota. 

The hummocky, rolling hills of the Missouri Coteau 

dramatically rise 150–500 feet above the Drift Prairie. 

A high concentration of wetlands are present, roughly 

800,000 basin acres. Alkaline lakes are also more 

prevalent here. Streams and rivers are nearly absent 

as are upland deciduous forests, but tracts of aspen 

parkland occur in the north. A considerable amount of 

native prairie remains, and this area provides primarily 

for cattle grazing. Areas of reduced slope, particularly 

the western edge, have been converted to cropland 

for small grains, sunflowers, corn, and alfalfa hay land. 

The coteau is known for supporting some of the highest 

numbers of breeding ducks in North America. Due to 

Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 41 

the large amount of grassland and wetland that remains 

or has been restored, this area is especially crucial to 

many other species and constitutes the focus area, 

Missouri Coteau Breaks. Much of the coteau is classified 

as “good” to “outstanding” for wind energy potential, 

which could pose the threat of habitat fragmentation. 

Irrigation and new advances in cropland could allow 

farming of native prairie. There is established oil and 

gas activity in the extreme northwest. 

USFWS 

North Dakota’s unbroken prairie. 

Tall-grass Prairie 

Tall-grass prairie is the wettest of the grassland types 

and predominantly contains sod-forming bunchgrasses. 

Like other grasslands, the tall-grass prairie has species 

originally from different geographical sources (Sims 

1988). Grassland groupings of the tall-grass prairie 

are (1) the bluestem prairie from southern Manitoba 

through eastern North Dakota and western Minnesota 

south to eastern Oklahoma, and (2) the wheatgrass, 

bluestem, and needlegrass area from south-central 

Canada through east-central North Dakota and South 

Dakota to southern Nebraska. The predominant grass 

vegetation within this area is big bluestem, little 

bluestem, switchgrass, Indiangrass, prairie dropseed, 

slender wheatgrass, porcupine grass, mat muhly, 

fescue sedge, and meadow sedge. 

Since 1830, there have been estimated declines of 

82.6%–99% in tall-grass prairie within specific states 

and provinces. These declines exceed those reported 

for any other major ecological community in North 

America (Samson et al. 1998). 

Less than one-tenth of 1% of all tall-grass prairie in 

North Dakota lies intact. Nationwide, just 1% remains. 

No other major ecosystem on the North American 

continent—not Pacific Northwest old-growth forest, 

not tundra, not southwestern desert, not eastern 

deciduous forest—has been so fully altered by people 

(Domek 1998). 

Located in southeastern North Dakota (Richland and 

Ransom counties), the 70,000-acre Sheyenne grassland 

straddles the ancient Sheyenne River Delta, where 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

42 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

prehistoric meanderings of the river flowed into the 

glacial Lake Agassiz-forerunner to the Red River 

Valley. Just a century ago, this area hosted native 

grasses, some as high as a human: big bluestem, 

switchgrass, Indiangrass, and prairie cordgrass 

(Domek 1998). 

Prairie landscapes are shaped by disturbance regimes 

such as drought, fire, and grazing. That meant wildland 

fire and bison 130 years ago. On the tall-grass prairie, 

fire probably played a larger role than did bison in 

shaping the vegetative mosaic. Fire swept through 

the area every 3–5 years, burning plant material and, 

thus, recycling nutrients into the soil and setting the 

stage for diverse, healthy plant growth (Domek 1998). 

The tall-grass prairie and associated wetlands within 

the districts were historically found predominantly 

in the eastern one-fourth of North Dakota. The Red 

River of the North forms the state line between 

North Dakota and Minnesota. This area is referred 

to as the Red River Valley. Until just 10,000 years 

ago, a large glacial lake named Lake Agassiz covered 

this area. The flat topography and rich soil of the 

glacial Lake Agassiz basin provides for excellent but 

intensive agricultural production including potatoes, 

beans, sugar beets, corn, and wheat. By the 20th 

century, much of the tall-grass prairie had been 

converted to farmland. Few tracts of native vegetation 

remain; places where small natural areas remain 

intact are remnants of Lake Agassiz. The shoreline 

of Lake Agassiz created diagonal striations of sand 

and gravel a few feet high that are visible in aerial 

and satellite imagery. The Red River Valley has few 

wetlands compared with the mixed-grass prairie to 

the west, with roughly 150,000 total wetland basin 

acres. Farmland with woodlot and shelterbelt plantings 

is now prevalent, particularly in Grand Forks County 

(NDGF 2005). 

Initially the Service focused on protection of wetlands 

in the Prairie Pothole Region. However, data also 

revealed the importance of upland grasslands to 

successful nesting of waterfowl. With the continued 

conversion of grassland to cropland and consistent 

declines in the populations of grassland-dependent 

birds, the need to protect adjacent grassland habitats 

became evident. Like a wetland easement, a grassland 

easement transfers limited perpetual rights to the 

Service for a one-time, lump-sum payment. The 

purpose of a grassland easement is to prevent the 

conversion of grassland to cropland while minimally 

restricting existing agricultural practices. 

More specifically, the purposes of the grassland 

easement are 

to improve the water quality of wetlands by 

reducing soil erosion and the use of chemicals 

and fertilizers on surrounding uplands; 

to improve upland nesting habitat for all groundnesting birds, especially waterfowl, and 

enhance nesting success on private lands; 

to perpetuate grassland cover established by 

other federal programs (for example, the 

Conservation Reserve Program); 

to provide an alternative to the purchase of 

uplands in fee title, thus maintaining lands 

in private 

ownership. 

Grassland easements 

restrict the landowner 

from altering the grass 

by digging, plowing, 

disking, or otherwise 

destroying the 

vegetative cover. 

Haying, mowing, and 

seed harvest is 

restricted until July 15 

of each year. The 

landowner can graze 

without restriction. 

Initially, the tracts in 

all districts that were considered for 

a grassland easement were on native prairie, at least 

160 acres in size, and situated in an area supporting 

at least 40 waterfowl pairs per square mile. Most of 

the native grassland fitting these criteria lies within 

the Missouri Coteau. The first grassland easement 

within the nine-district area was in acquired in Chase 

Lake Wetland Management District (Stutsman County; 

tract 558G; 1,520 acres) on November 7, 1990. To date, 

the Service has bought 556 grassland easements 

covering 243,130 acres in the districts. 

Wetland Habitat 

Wetlands once covered about 4.9 million acres of 

North Dakota—11% of the state. By the 1980s, the 

acreage had decreased to about 2.7 million acres, 

a loss of about 45%. Most of the losses have been 

caused by drainage for agricultural development. 

The rate of agricultural conversions in the future 

will likely depend on crop prices and other economic 

factors. Most of North Dakota’s wetlands are prairie 

potholes, which provide nesting and feeding habitat 

for migratory waterfowl and wading birds. About 

one-half the nation’s duck population originates in the 

Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota and other 

prairie states. 

Prairie potholes, or sloughs, are water-holding 

depressions of glacial origin that occur in 300,000 

square miles of prairies in north-central United States 

and south-central Canada. These potholes provide the 

most productive wetland habitat for waterfowl in 

North America. Although comprising only 10% of the 

continental waterfowl breeding, the Prairie Pothole 

Region produces about 50% of the duck crop in an 

average year and much more in bumper years. Potholes 

also furnish water for other wildlife and livestock 

(USGS 2007). 

Bluestem. 
Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 43 

Turtle Mountains 

The Turtle Mountains are located in the extreme northcentral extent of the Drift Prairie. This landform is 

known as an erosional outlier and covers nearly 1,000 

square miles and rises 800 feet above the surrounding 

landscape (NDGF 2005). 

Forested habitats are found in only a few locations in 

North Dakota, and they do not cover large contiguous 

areas. A majority of the forest habitat is in riparian 

zones. The Turtle Mountains and a forested section of 

northeastern North Dakota contain some of the largest 

stands of aspen and bur oak in the state (NDGF 2005). 

Aspen and oak make up 42% of North Dakota’s 

forested lands. Aspen is the dominant forest species, 

but bur oak, balsam poplar, boxelder, green ash, and 

paper birch are also present. Shrubs associated with 

this forest type are beaked hazel, highbush cranberry, 

juneberry, chokecherry, and raspberry. These stands 

are often associated with lakes, wetlands, and grassy 

meadows (NDGF 2005). 

Invasive Plants 

North Dakota has designated the invasive plants in 

table 10 as noxious weeds because they pose serious 

threats to agriculture and the environment. The 

North Dakota Weed and Pest Control Commission 

has designated certain weeds as noxious because of 

their difficulty to control and the costs associated 

with loss of agricultural production. All of the statelisted noxious weeds were introduced from other 

ecosystems and have flourished in the absence of 

natural controls. 

Control of state-listed noxious weeds is a priority for 

the Service. However, many other invasive plants are 

threatening wildlife habitat and interfering with the 

Service’s management objectives. District staffs deal 

with these species on a case-by-case basis, depending 

on available money, time, and resources. 

The “North Dakota Department of Agriculture 

Cooperative Weed Management Plan–January 2004” 

identifies nine goals: 

1.	 Prevent the introduction, reproduction, and 

spread of designated noxious and invasive 

nonnative plants into North Dakota. 

2.	 Develop cooperative weed management 

partnerships with public and private partners 

to attack shared weed problems. 

3.	 Carry out the most effective, economical, and 

environmentally appropriate weed control 

methods for the target weeds. 

Table 9. State-listed Noxious Weeds Found at Waterfowl Production Areas in North Dakota. 

Invasive Present on 

Common Name Scientific Name Characteristics Service Lands 

State-listed 

 Noxious Weed

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Yes Yes Yes 

musk thistle Carduus nutans Yes Yes Yes 

absinth wormwood Artemisia absinthium Yes Yes Yes 

leafy spurge Euphorbia esula Yes Yes Yes 

purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Yes Yes No 

Dalmatian toadflax Linaria genistifolia ssp. 

dalmatica Yes Yes No 

diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa Yes Yes No 

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens Yes Yes No 

saltcedar Tamarix ramosissima Yes Yes Yes 

spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa Yes Yes Yes 

yellow star-thistle Centaurea solstitialis Yes Yes No 

field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Yes Yes Yes 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

4.	 Carry out an early detection and rapid response 

system; this will include mapping and control of 

infestations. 

5.	 Reduce the extent and density of established 

weed infestations to the point that economic 

and environmental impacts are minimized or 

eliminated. 

6.	 Educate and inform the public, private 

landowners, public land managers, and decision 

makers about invasive weeds and their 

economic and environmental impacts. 

7.	 Coordinate and standardize the mapping of 

infestations of all noxious and invasive weeds 

in North Dakota, and develop and maintain 

a database of noxious and invasive weed 

infestations. 

8.	 Seek voluntary compliance with North Dakota 

weed laws. When necessary, apply enforcement 

of these laws in a fair and consistent manner. 

9.	 The Service’s “North Dakota Integrated Pest 

Management Plan” will be reviewed for possible 

modification to incorporate the state’s goals that 

fit with Service policy, goals, and objectives of 

habitat management. 

Invasive plants on Service lands have reduced wildlife 

habitat and biodiversity. The presence of invasive 

plants can alter the functioning of ecosystems by loss 

of wildlife habitat, displacement of native species, 

change in carrying capacity from reduced forage 

production, lower plant diversity, and increased soil 

erosion and sedimentation. These plants are not only 

problematic on the Service’s fee-title lands, but invasive 

plants infest rangelands and croplands across North 

Dakota. The spread of invasive plants occurs by root 

spread or by seed dispersal via wind, water, district 

visitors, humans, equipment, or animals. 

Fire 

Historically, grasslands in the northern Great Plains 

co-evolved with various disturbance regimes such as 

fire and large-mammal grazing. Whether lightninginduced or deliberately set by Native Americans, 

historical fires have influenced the composition of the 

plant communities. A handful of fire-tolerant shrubs 

such as chokecherry, American plum, and leadplant 

were present, while other fire-sensitive woody species 

were restricted to areas that were protected from 

fire. A number of grass and forb species dominated 

the plant communities. 

It is estimated that the historical wildland fire 

frequency for the North Dakota prairie was 5–7 years 

(Bragg 1995), although little information is available 

on the occurrence of fire during the early years on 

each of the districts. Potential exists for large wildland 

fires to occur; however, this has generally not been 

the case. 

USFWS 

Prescribed fire is an important tool for keeping 

grasslands healthy. 

Local fire departments and area ranchers aggressively 

suppress wildfire. It is also the districts’ policy to 

control all wildfires occurring on Service lands. 

The district staffs use prescribed fire to simulate 

the historical influence wildland fire had on plant 

communities. Historically, wildfires likely occurred 

during the summer and fall. Most prescribed fires 

are applied in spring through early summer or in 

early fall to allow for some recovery of vegetation 

before winter. These periods present opportunities 

to use fire to manage invasive cool-season grasses, 

open up shorelines and vegetation-choked wetlands, 

and provide areas of green browse attractive to 

migratory waterfowl. During the last 15 years, 

prescribed fire has been increasingly used. 

The combination of prescribed burning and grazing 

is a practice used to reduce the accumulation of 

organic litter. A fire creates a “flush” growth of new 

vegetation, which is then grazed to extend treatment 

of problem plants such as Kentucky bluegrass and 

smooth brome. Invasive plants including Canada 

thistle, absinth wormwood, and leafy spurge can be 

managed similarly. The districts have occasionally 

used this management strategy; however, the strategy 

shows promise for more frequent use in the future. 

Overall guidance for use of prescribed fire and 

management of wildland fire is in the descriptions of 

the fire management programs (appendixes G and H). 

Grazing 

Grazing greatly influences the structure and 

composition of grassland communities. Herbivores 

such as bison, elk, deer, pronghorn, and black-tailed 

prairie dog interact with soils, plants, other animals, 

and other processes to produce unique successional 

patterns in the northern Great Plains landscape at 

multiple scales. 

Most plant species have growing points located at or 

near the ground surface, which allows the plant to be 

clipped off without killing it. Some contain bitter or 
toxic substances that cause animals to avoid grazing 

on them. Some species have spines to cause injury to 

grazing animals’ mouths. It is likely that herds of bison 

historically spent a considerable amount of time grazing 

native prairie found in the nine districts. Their grazing, 

trampling, trailing, and related activities likely had a 

significant effect on the development and maintenance 

of certain plant communities. 

Free-ranging bison and elk are no longer present 

within the districts. Instead, district staffs work with 

local ranchers to mimic natural disturbances through 

livestock grazing. Seasonal grazing of the uplands 

stresses the invasive cool-season grasses and favors 

native grasses and forbs. The timing of grazing is 

also used to stress invasive plants and is prescribed 

seasonally during periods when specific plants are 

most palatable to livestock. 

Wetland grazing reduces accumulations of organic 

litter at the surface. A large amount of organic litter 

often favors invasive plants such as Canada thistle. 

Grazing can also be used as part of an integrated pest 

management (IPM) program. Follow-up treatments 

tend to be easier to complete and are more effective 

after grazing. 

USFWS 

The districts use grazing in the uplands during spring 

and early summer and again in the fall. 

Wildlife 

This section describes the birds and mammals that 

are common within district lands, as well as the 

threatened and endangered species that occur in 

North Dakota and have habitats in district lands. 

Strategic planning for waterfowl is also described. 

Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 45 

Birds 

Lush, pristine, grasslands and wetlands that are 

dominated by a rich assortment of native grasses and 

sedges occur throughout the districts. This diverse 

grassland landscape holds an impressive concentration 

of waterfowl, shorebirds, and other open-water bird 

species. Within the upland prairie grassland, many 

species of raptors and songbirds breed and are widely 

distributed on protected district lands—making 

North Dakota a primary destination for outdoor 

enthusiasts. Bird species that occur at the districts 

are listed in appendix I. 

Three vegetative groups distinguish the districts— 

mixed-grass prairie, tall-grass prairie, and the Turtle 

Mountains—and embrace a suite of primary and 

secondary bird species that are associated with 

each “area (see appendix J). These areas are defined 

primarily based on major proportional differences in 

prominence of plant and animal groups. The following 

text is from “Breeding Birds of North Dakota” 

(Stewart 1975). 

Mixed-Grass Prairie 

Bird habitats of the mixed-grass prairie include 

a variety of shallow basin wetland, constructed 

wetlands, isolated small tracts of deciduous forest, 

and residential areas. Fluviatile (of river origin) 

wetlands include permanent and intermittent 

streams and their associated oxbows. Constructed 

wetlands are represented by stock ponds, dugouts, 

large shallow-stream impoundments, reservoirs, and 

sewage lagoons. Deciduous forests include (1) narrow 

bands of floodplain forest along the Sheyenne, James, 

and Mouse rivers and their tributaries, (2) local 

upland forests on river bluffs and high moraines 

and along margins of permanent lakes, (3) scattered 

thickets of small trees or aspen groves on the prairie, 

and (4) tree claims, shelterbelts, and other wooded 

habitats established by humans. Farmsteads, towns, 

and city suburbs commonly represent the partially 

wooded residential areas. 

The breeding birds are mostly upland and wetland 

species that are characteristic of the north-central 

avifauna (bird species found in a particular geographic 

region), including endemic (restricted to a geographic 

region) and pandemic (prevalent over a region) species. 

Species typical of the eastern avifauna are common 

along permanent streams and in other wooded habitats 

on the northeastern and southern Drift Plains, but 

occur more sparingly elsewhere. Small local populations 

of a few species that belong to the western and 

northern avifaunas also occur in this area. 

The characteristic breeding birds of this area include 

16 primary species, 52 secondary species, and 79 

tertiary species. The primary and secondary species 

in mixed-grass prairie are listed in appendix J. 
46 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

tall-Grass Prairie 

Because of the high fertility of the soils, agricultural 

development has modified nearly all of the cultivable 

land within the tall-grass prairie. Only a few, small, 

remnant tracts of the original, climax, tall-grass 

prairie remains. Large expanses of cropland are 

common throughout. The principal crops are small 

grains (chiefly wheat), corn, potatoes, sugar beets, 

soybeans, and sunflowers. Occasional narrow bands 

of floodplain forest along some of the larger streams 

break up the monotypic habitat. Brushy open 

woodlands that adjoin tracts of a distinct, sparsely 

vegetated type of prairie also occur on the limited 

areas of deltaic sand. In addition, wooded habitats 

established by people—including tree claims, 

shelterbelts, and landscaped yards—are found near 

farmsteads, towns, and city suburbs. Wetland habitats 

in this area include streams and associated oxbows, 

and a few widely scattered ponds and marshes. 

The breeding birds are dominated by upland, pandemic 

species of the north-central avifauna in association 

with many species of the eastern avifauna. In addition, 

a few species of the northern avifauna and two species 

of the western avifauna (western kingbird and Brewer’s 

blackbird) are common. 

The characteristic breeding birds are categorized 

according to relative abundance and include 6 primary 

species that are often common or abundant, 29 

secondary species that are fairly common, and 78 

tertiary (minor) species that are uncommon or rare. 

The primary and secondary species for tall-grass 

prairie are listed in appendix J. 

turtle MouNtaiNs 

Within this small, unique portion of North Dakota, 

natural basin wetlands are numerous and include 

many, deep, permanent ponds and lakes as well as 

many wetlands that are temporary, seasonal, or 

semipermanent. Swamps dominated by shrubs or 

trees are numerous. Other habitats of local significance 

include farmsteads and residential resort areas on 

some of the larger fishing lakes. 

The main breeding birds are a mixture of species that 

typify the north-central and eastern avifaunas. Large 

populations of northern avifaunal species are common, 

and very limited numbers of five species of the western 

avifauna (turkey vulture, western kingbird, blackbilled magpie, mountain bluebird, and Brewer’s 

blackbird) are present. 

The characteristic breeding birds in the Turtle 

Mountains include 19 primary species, 54 secondary 

species, and 60 tertiary species. The primary and 

secondary species for this area are listed in appendix J. 

strateGic PlaNNiNG for waterfowl 

Waterfowl habitat protection and restoration are 

the primary emphases of the wetland management 

districts. With strategic planning, the Service can 

make decisions on what habitats need protection 

and what landscapes have the greatest value to the 

health of waterfowl populations. 

The Service’s Habitat and Population Evaluation 

Team (HAPET) in Bismarck, North Dakota, conducts 

research and develops predictive models. Through 

the HAPET’s research and modeling of the Prairie 

Pothole Region of North Dakota, the Service can 

predict duck pair density. This modeling tool provides 

the Service with information needed to conserve 

and restore wetland and grassland landscapes that 

will benefit waterfowl and other bird species. The 

Service bases its protection priority for wetland and 

grassland habitat on this modeling effort. 

The Service’s goal is to protect habitat capable of 

supporting 25 or more breeding duck pairs per square 

mile. Figure 8 shows the predicted concentrations of 

duck pairs throughout the districts. The coteau across 

North Dakota has the highest predicted concentrations, 

with up to 100 or more duck pairs per square mile. 

Consequently, district managers can prioritize habitat 

protection and management for WPA lands. 

The Service uses ranking criteria to determine high, 

medium, and low priorities for management of WPAs 

in the districts. 

Priority

High Meets minimum thresholds for at least 

three criteria. 

Medium Exceeds the minimum threshold for two 

criteria. 

Low Meets one criterion. 

North Dakota’s wetland management districts occur 

within various major landforms (for example, Missouri 

Coteau). The districts’ WPAs vary in size, proportion 

of upland and wetland habitat, and surrounding land 

use (for example, cropland versus grassland). As such, 

each WPA has unique attributes that can be used to 

rank it relative to other WPAs within a district. 

Because each district is unique, specific thresholds 

need to be developed for each of the criterion below. 

WPAs purchased or managed for threatened and 

endangered species are exempt from this ranking 

process and are given high priority. 

Criteria

1. Waterfowl Pair Density. Priority is given to

 WPAs within landscapes that support high 

densities of breeding waterfowl. 

These areas are spatially defined in available 

GIS databases, based on models that factor in 

the type and density of wetlands, developed by 

the HAPET. 

Example: 

WPAs in Audubon Wetland Management District 

have a higher ranking if they support >40 pairs 

of breeding waterfowl per square mile (see 

figure 8). 
Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 47
 

Figure 8. Map of the predicted duck-pair concentrations in the nine districts, North Dakota. 
48 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

2. Landscape Context. Priority is given to WPAs 

within “conservation areas.” 

Conservation areas (spatially defined through 

GIS databases developed by the HAPET) 

recognize landscape-level juxtaposition of 

wetland and grassland habitats that support 

characteristic species. 

Example:
 

WPAs have a higher ranking if they are within 


grassland bird conservation areas (see figure 9).
 

3. WPA Size. Priority is given to large WPAs. 

Many wetland- and grassland-dependent species 

of wildlife prefer large patches of habitat. 

Regardless of surrounding land use, large WPAs 

are more valuable than small WPAs because 

they can be easier to manage and support a 

more diverse assemblage of plants and animals. 

Example:
 

WPAs in Devils Lake Wetland Management 


District have a higher ranking if they are >125 


acres in size.
 

4. Ecological Integrity. Priority is given to large 

 tracts (independent of WPA size) of native prairie 

that is dominated by native grasses and forbs. 

WPAs dominated by native sod, without a 

previous cropping history, usually support 

more diversity of grassland-dependent species 

of wildlife. However, many areas of native sod 

are badly infested with undesirable plants 

and, thus, are less valuable and more costly to 

manage. By 2008, the vegetative composition 

of all Service-owned native sod >40 acres in 

North Dakota will have been inventoried. 

Example: 

WPAs in J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management 

District have a higher ranking if they have >80 

acres of native prairie comprised of >30% native 

grasses and forbs and <40% smooth brome. 

A 2007 report by the Government Accounting Office 

analyzed the effectiveness of Service acquisitions 

under the WPA program. As a result, the Service 

recently completed a “decision tree” matrix that 

outlines how to set priorities for grassland and wetland 

acquisitions. The details of this prioritization can be 

found in chapter 4 (“4.2 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, 

and Rationale”; “Wetlands in Easements Objective 1”; 

“Uplands in Easements Objective 1”) and appendix K. 

Strategic planning increases the likelihood of making 

cost-effective decisions by avoiding misapplications 

of management treatments or investing in areas with 

limited potential to affect populations. 

Donna Dewhurst/USFWS 

This gadwall finds sanctuary on a district pond. 

Mammals 

There can be little doubt that the activities of the wild 

bison, which was extirpated (exterminated) from the 

Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota and South 

Dakota in the 19th century, had a major influence on 

prairie wetlands in pristine times. Unfortunately, 

there is no documentation of how wetlands were 

affected by the feeding, drinking, dusting, or other 

activities of millions of bison as they roamed the 

prairies. Other grassland mammals extirpated from 

the area are the grizzly bear, kit fox, and plains wolf. 

These carnivores probably made only minor use of 

prairie wetlands (Kantrud et al. 1989). 

Today at the districts, the representative group of 

mammal species includes coyote, red fox, white-tailed 

jackrabbit, eastern cottontail, deer mouse, badger, 

raccoon, muskrat, white-tailed deer, mule deer, 

thirteen-lined ground squirrel, striped skunk, mink, 

long-tailed weasel, prairie vole, and meadow vole. 

In addition to these common mammal species, there 

are occasionally confirmed sightings of moose, elk, and 

pronghorn on or adjacent to district lands. Additionally, 

the district staff has received unconfirmed reports of 

mountain lion and gray wolf on Service lands. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Habitats for five federally listed species occur within 

one or more districts—piping plover, whooping crane, 

interior least tern, western fringed prairie orchid, and 

Dakota skipper (butterfly). 
Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 49
 

Figure 9. Map of the grassland bird conservation area matrix for the nine districts, North Dakota. 
50 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Laws passed in the late 1960s gave limited attention 

to endangered species; however, it was not until the 

Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973 that 

significant protection was granted to rare species. 

This landmark law, considered by some the most 

significant environmental law ever passed, has been 

amended and reauthorized by Congress on numerous 

occasions, most recently in 1988. The Service 

administers the law for all inland species and certain 

marine species. 

When Congress authorized the Endangered Species 

Act they declared that species of “fish, wildlife, 

and plants are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, 

historical, recreational, and scientific value to the 

nation and its people.” The purpose of the act is to 

provide a means whereby endangered species and 

their ecosystems may be conserved. The intent of the 

Endangered Species Act is not to just list species as 

endangered or threatened, but rather, to recover the 

populations of these species to a point where they 

can be removed from the list. Appendix L shows the 

federally listed threatened and endangered species 

found in North Dakota. 

PiPiNG Plover (threateNed) 

Breeding piping plovers occur in small numbers on 

numerous alkali wetlands in the Audubon, Crosby, 

and Lostwood wetland management districts. In any 

given year, 50%–80% of the piping plovers that nest 

in the United States portion of the northern Great 

Plains do so in an eight-county area stretching from 

central North Dakota to northeastern Montana (see 

figure 10, map of the core area for piping plover). 

Plovers in this core area breed on barren shorelines 

associated with alkali lakes and wetlands. 

Of the roughly 6,000 piping plovers left in the world, 

about half breed in the northern Great Plains. This 

population is declining between 6% and 12% annually 

(Larson et al. 2002, Plissner and Haig 2000, Ryan et al. 

1993), and is expected to go extinct in 50–100 years 

unless significant conservation activities are started. 

The decline and poor prognosis led to the 1980s’ listing 

of this population as “threatened” in the United States 

and “endangered” in Canada. 

whooPiNG craNe (eNdaNGered) 

The whooping crane is one of the most endangered 

birds in North America. The only naturally occurring 

wild, migratory population in the world numbers 

fewer than 266 individuals (Martha Tacha, USFWS, 

personal communication; May 22, 2008). 

Each spring and fall, whooping cranes use wetlands 

and agricultural fields in the districts as migratory 

stopover areas en route to their summer and winter 

grounds (see figure 11, map of whooping crane sightings). 

© Jerome Negaard 

Whooping cranes rest on wetlands near Crosby 

Wetland Management District. 

iNterior least terN (eNdaNGered) 

The interior least tern nests in North Dakota. This 

tern, the smallest member of the tern family, arrives 

on its breeding grounds in early May. The interior 

least tern nests in small, loosely defined groups on 

barren beaches of sand, gravel or shells, on dry 

mudflats and salt-encrusted soils (salt flats), and at 

sand and gravel pits along rivers. Nesting success 

depends on the presence of bare or nearly barren 

sandbars, favorable water levels during nesting and 

abundant food. 

The terns nest in small colonies. The chicks leave the 

nest only a few days after hatching, but the adults 

continue to care for them, leading them to shelter in 

nearby grasses and bringing them food. The terns 

hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to 

catch small fish. 

The interior least tern was federally listed as 

endangered in 1985, primarily due to the loss of 

nesting habitat as a result of dramatic alterations 

(channelization and impoundment) of important river 

systems. Water level fluctuations, vegetation of nesting 

habitat, and disturbance (from people, pets, predators, 

and livestock) continue to jeopardize nesting success. 

westerN Prairie friNGed orchid (threateNed) 

The Devils Lake and Valley City wetland management 

districts are within the range of and have suitable 

habitat for the western prairie fringed orchid, an 

endangered flower of the tall-grass prairie. However, 

there are no records of this orchid occurring in district 

lands. This orchid species is restricted to mostly west 

of the Mississippi River and currently occurs in Iowa, 

Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Dakota in 

the United States and in Manitoba, Canada. 

The orchids occur most often in wet, unplowed, tallgrass prairies and meadows but have been found in 

old fields and roadside ditches. The nocturnally 

fragrant flowers of these perennial orchids attract 

hawkmoths that feed on nectar and transfer pollen 

from plant to plant. 
Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 51
 

Figure 10. Map of the seven-county core area for piping plover in North Dakota. 
52 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Figure 11. Map of the whooping crane sightings in the nine districts, North Dakota. 
 

Marlin BowlesUSFWS 

Western prairie fringed orchid. 

The greatest threat to the fringed orchid is habitat loss, 

mostly through conversion to cropland. Competition 

with invasive plants, filling of wetlands, intensive hay 

mowing, fire suppression, and overgrazing threatens 

these species. 

dakota skiPPer (caNdidate) 

All of the districts contain habitat suitable for the 

Dakota skipper, and this species occurs within each 

district. The skipper is a small butterfly with a 1-inch 

wingspan. It has a thick body and a faster and more 

powerful flight than most butterflies. 

The skipper is likely to occur throughout a relatively 

unbroken and vast area of grassland in the northcentral United States and south-central Canada, 

occurring only in scattered remnants of high-quality 

native prairie. The most significant remaining 

populations of Dakota skipper occur in western 

Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 53 

Minnesota, northeastern South Dakota, north-central 

North Dakota, and southern Manitoba. The skipper’s 

current distribution straddles the border between 

tall-grass and mixed-grass prairie; it occurs in two 

types of habitat (USFWS 2002): 

QQ	 Flat, moist, native bluestem prairie in which 

three species of wildflowers are usually present— 

stage-wood lily, harebell, and smooth camas. 

Upland (dry) prairie that is often on ridges and 

hillsides; bluestem grasses and needlegrasses 

dominate these habitats and three wildflowers 

are typically present in quality sites—pale purple, 

upright coneflowers, and blanketflower. 

QQ	 

Dakota skipper populations have declined due to 

widespread conversion of native prairie for agriculture 

and other uses. This has left the remaining skipper 

populations isolated from one another in relatively 

small areas of remnant native prairie. In addition, 

many of the habitats where the species persists are 

threatened by overgrazing, conversion to cultivated 

agriculture, inappropriate fire management and 

herbicide use, woody plant invasion, road construction, 

gravel mining, invasive plant species, and historically 

high water levels in some areas. 

Robert Dana/USFWS 

The Dakota skipper is a prairie inhabitant whose 

numbers have decreased. 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

This section is based on the cultural resource overview 

of the districts developed for the Service in 2007 by 

RMC Consultants, Inc. 

preHistoriC resoUrCes 

The cultural history of North Dakota spans over 

10,000 years and has been divided into several 

cultural traditions. From earliest to most recent, 

these traditions are as follows: 

QQ	 Paleo-Indian tradition 

Plains Archaic tradition 

Plains Woodland tradition 

Plains Village tradition 

Equestrian Nomadic tradition (Horse Culture) 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

The Equestrian Nomadic tradition is the most 

recent tradition and represents protohistoric (initial 

European contact) and early historic times. Each 

of these traditions is a way of life that is relatively 

distinct in terms of variation in technology and 

subsistence practices. 

Perhaps the most dramatic cultural changes in North 

Dakota prehistory are associated with the Plains 

Village tradition. This period began at approximately 

AD 1000 and lasted until 1780, when disease introduced 

by Europeans decimated village populations. The onset 

of the Plains Village tradition marks the incorporation 

of horticultural production into the hunting and 

gathering subsistence base. Horticultural production 

allowed for the creation of food surpluses, primarily 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

of corn, and facilitated the aggregation of households 

into larger, more sedentary earth lodge villages. In 

North Dakota, these earth lodge villages were most 

common in the southwestern and northwestern areas 

of North Dakota. Elsewhere in the state, settlement 

patterns were characterized by a combination of 

traits characteristic of the Plains Village tradition 

and the preceding Plains Woodland tradition. The 

generic term “Late Prehistoric” is used to describe 

post-Archaic resources that can be ascribed to neither 

the Plains Woodland nor Plains Village traditions. 

HistoriCal resoUrCes 

Before it was settled by Euro-Americans in the early 

1800s, North Dakota was inhabited by several Native 

American tribes including Arikara, Assiniboine, 

Cheyenne, Hidatsa, Lakota, and Mandan. 

Early Settlement 

Scottish and Irish families along the Red River 

established the first community, Pembina, in the 

early 1800s (Info Please 2007). The location was 

originally that of trader Alexander Henry’s Fort 

Pembina, a trading post that competed with the 

Hudson Bay Company (Robinson 1966). The area 

eventually became northeastern North Dakota, but 

at the time was owned by Great Britain. 

Trading posts were 

established at Fort 

Union and Fort 

Clark and at other 

lesser-known forts 

(Remele 1988). At 

these posts, meat and 

furs were exchanged 

for guns, metal, 

cloth, beads, and 

other trade goods. It 

was not long before 

the presence of 

the white traders was made evident in other ways; 

a high number of French-Canadian, Scottish, and 

English traders took Native American wives (mostly 

Chippewa, Cree, and Assiniboine). In time, a number 

of North Dakota trading posts and neighboring 

communities became predominantly populated by the 

offspring of these marriages, people referred to by 

the French as bois brules or métis (Robinson 1966). 

Activity and settlement of European and EuroAmerican people had been consistent for some 

time in the North Dakota area, but was limited to 

discreet locations at and around military forts and 

trading posts. Increased settlement started in the 

late 1850s and early 1860s when a concerted effort 

was undertaken to link St. Paul with trading posts in 

eastern North Dakota (Robinson 1966). 

History of Development 

The St. Paul and Pacific Railroad reached the Red 

River in 1871 and brought growing numbers of people 

looking toward the Red River Valley as a desirable 

location to settle. The Northern Pacific Railroad 

reached the Missouri River shortly after (Remele 

1988, Robinson 1966). These two major events—as 

well as increased boat traffic on the Red River, new 

stage lines in the area, plus the establishment of a 

land office in Pembina—opened the door for major 

settlement. 

Numerous towns and settlements sprang up along 

the new railroad routes. Between 1879 and 1886, 

the state underwent a settlement boom, mostly by 

homesteaders, with the formation of some large, 

organized, mechanized (“bonanza”) farms (Remele 

1988). The population of North Dakota increased more 

than 1,000% between 1878 and 1890, and a second 

boom occurred after 1905 (Remele 1988, Robinson 

1966). Many of the settlers were immigrants of 

Scandinavian or Germanic origin as well as Norwegian, 

Russian, and Scotch-Irish-English (Remele 1988). 

In 1915, more than 79% of the population was 

immigrants or the children of immigrants (Remele 

1988). North Dakota achieved statehood on 

November 2, 1889 (Remele 1988). 

Improved weather conditions, a wartime economy, 

and federal construction projects related to flood 

control and irrigation resulted in another economic 

boom during the 1940s (Remele 1988). Crop yields 

increased, America entered World War 2, and several 

large-scale construction projects were carried out 

along the Missouri, James, and Sheyenne rivers, 

including the Garrison Dam in the Missouri River. 

The development of the state’s natural resources 

began in the 1950s. Oil was discovered near Tioga 

in the Williston Basin in 1951, and coal resources 

were mined for use in newly constructed plants 

to generate electricity (Remele 1988). The 

communications and transportation networks were 

also expanded and improved throughout the 1950s 

(Remele 1988). North Dakota is “the most rural of 

all the states,” and today 90% of the land is used for 

(1) farming including cultivation of crops such as 

wheat, barley, rye, sunflowers, beans, oats, flaxseed, 

sugar beets, and hay, and (2) for raising beef cattle, 

sheep, and hogs (Info Please 2007). The state also 

produces other resources including lignite, clay, sand, 

and gravel. Outdoor recreation is popular in North 

Dakota, particularly fishing and hunting. 

3.4 Visitor Services 

The Improvement Act emphasizes the importance of 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation. The act 

identifies these six priority public uses: hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

HUnting 

Centuries ago, the Missouri Coteau was considered a 

prominent landmark to the Plains Indians and early 

European settlers who camped and hunted waterfowl 

and other game species within the wetlands and 

potholes areas. With the settlement of the prairie 

states, certain hunting restrictions were established 

for the protection and propagation of wildlife. 

Migratory waterfowl hunting is allowed at WPAs, 

where only federally approved nontoxic shot is 

permitted. All other state regulations apply at WPAs. 

Most of the WPAs are open to hunting for upland 

birds (ring-necked pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, 

gray partridge). The districts also offer archery, rifle, 

and muzzleloader hunting for deer. 

fisHing 

Fishing is allowed year-round at the districts; 

although, during the winter months ice fishing seems 

to be the most popular. Restrictions on vehicle access 

into WPAs may be limited to designated trails. 

Permanent lakes at the districts offer fishing for 

northern pike, walleye, yellow perch, and a few other 

species. 

The NDGF has also stocked many permanent 

wetlands. Anglers commonly seek yellow perch and 

northern pike in these areas. 

Due to the abundance of aquatic life in the permanent 

wetlands, growth rates of fish are often very high. 

Fishing in WPAs, as with all fishing of Service lands, 

requires the angler to follow both state fishing 

regulations and special refuge regulations. 

Wildlife obserVation and pHotograpHy 

The districts provide outstanding opportunities for 

viewing wildlife. They offer optimal viewing for 

waterfowl, grassland birds, and shorebirds from 

April through early June and from late August 

through October. Seasonal highlights include the 

spring courtship dances of sharp-tailed grouse and 

western grebe, spring and fall shorebird migrations, 

daily fall movements of thousands of waterfowl, and 

winter activities of various bird and mammal species. 

Many wildlife species can be observed from public 

roads. In some areas, viewing blinds are available in 

the spring for visitor observation of wildlife in their 

native habitat. 

Jackie Jacobson/USFWS 

The districts provide an outdoor experience for North 

Dakota’s youth. 

enVironmental edUCation and 

interpretation 

Each district has either a standalone headquarters 

or a headquarters co-located with a national wildlife 

refuge. Each headquarters facility has interpretative 

information associated with its small visitor center. 

Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 55 

The visitor center includes exhibits and a variety of 

informational pamphlets about the Service, district, 

Refuge System, and other natural resources-related 

information. There are generally kiosks located in 

front of each headquarters facility; kiosks contain 

information about prairie wetlands and wildlife species 

found throughout the district. 

District staffs provide educational talks and tours 

for schools and other groups, on request. The 

environmental education and outreach programs 

expand beyond the boundaries of the districts. 

District staffs are involved in local, regional, and 

statewide programs. 

trapping 

Recreational trapping is available at all WPAs and 

WDAs, in accordance with state trapping regulations. 

Authorized by 50 CFR, part 31.16, recreational 

trapping is administered by the Service. 

3.5 Partnerships 

The district staffs have established partnerships with 

local, state, and national groups in efforts to achieve 

habitat objectives and to improve and expand 

environmental education. Most districts have local 

partnerships with the following groups for projects 

ranging from control of invasive plants to protection 

of piping plover nests: 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

56 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

QQ weed boards 

water resource boards 

rural volunteer fire departments 

law enforcement departments 

Scouts 

4-H clubs 

private landowners 

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

The districts have worked closely with NDGF and 

North Dakota’s health and agriculture departments 

on projects such as hunting and fishing opportunities, 

disease issues, and management of habitat and 

invasive plants. 

The district staffs have partnerships with the 

following groups and agencies for habitat management, 

research, and environmental education: 

QQ Army Corps of Engineers 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Delta Waterfowl 

Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 

The Nature Conservancy 

National Audubon Society 

National Turkey Federation 

National Wildlife Federation 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

North Dakota Natural Resources Trust 

North Dakota Wildlife Federation 

USGS 

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

The districts have also developed working relationships 

with various oil and wind industry companies. 

3.6 Socioeconomic Environment 

This section is based on the socioeconomic impact 

analysis for the districts that was completed for the 

Service in 2007 by BBC Research and Consultants. 

The nine wetland management districts cover a 

majority of the area in the state north and east of 

the Missouri River. Related visitor activity—such 

as spending on food, gasoline, and overnight lodging 

in the local area—provides local businesses with 

supplemental income and increases the local tax 

base. Management decisions about visitor services, 

expansion of services, and habitat improvements at 

the districts may either increase or decrease visitation 

and, thus, affect the amount of visitor spending in the 

local economy. 

popUlation and demograpHiCs 

The population of the nine districts’ 34-county area 

represents about 70% of the total population of 

North Dakota. The population of this 34-county area 

has declined over the past 25 years from almost 

460,000 in 1980 to 450,000 in 2005, similar to a 2% 

decline in the population of the entire state. The 

population decrease in North Dakota has come from 

nonmetropolitan areas of the state, while metropolitan 

areas have experienced some growth. 

Population projections from the North Dakota State 

Demography Office suggest that the population of 

the 34-county area and the entire state will rebound 

slightly by 2010. Population growth in metropolitan 

areas is expected to be the driving force behind 

statewide growth in the future. 

North Dakota has a rapidly aging population—a trend 

that is expected to become more marked in coming 

decades and have important policy implications as the 

“baby boomer” generation enters retirement. 

employment 

The government (federal, state and local) claimed the 

largest portion of employment (17%) in North Dakota, 

followed by health care (12%), retail trade (11%), and 

farming (8%). Between 2001 and 2005, employment in 

the 34-county area grew from 318,000 to 333,000 jobs 

according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Within 

the 34-county district area, local unemployment rates 

ranged from 2.1% in Williams County to 9.3% in 

Rolette County in 2006. According to the Bureau of 

Economic Analysis, unemployment in North Dakota 

fell from a high of 3.6% in 2003 to 3.2% in 2006. 

distriCt operations and aCtiVities 

In 2000, the total budget for all Service activities in 

North Dakota totaled more than $11,508,000. The 

Service employs about 170 people throughout the 

state, 66 of which are involved with management of 

the nine districts. Because many district employees 

work for both national wildlife refuges and wetland 

management districts, they cannot be considered 

full-time equivalents (FTEs) when examining the 

socioeconomic impact of districts alone. (A full-time 

equivalent is one or more job positions with tours 

of duty that, when combined, equate to one person 

employed for the standard government work-year). 

The nine districts support 49.5 FTEs in North Dakota. 

The districts offer many recreational and educational 

opportunities, which include hunting, fishing, and 

nonconsumptive activities such as hiking, photography, 

and wildlife observation. Hunting is very popular at 

the districts, especially at Kulm, Audubon, and Devils 

Lake. The hunting of waterfowl, pheasant, grouse, 

and partridge is most popular. White-tailed deer are 

also commonly hunted in the districts. According to 

visitation data collected as part of the “Refuge Annual 

Performance Plan” (RAPP), hunting accounts for 64% 

of all visitor days to North Dakota districts. Trapping 

is also permitted at all WPAs within the districts. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nonconsumptive activities such as hiking and wildlife 

observation draw casual visitors, outdoor enthusiasts, 

educational tours, photographers, and others to the 

districts. Many districts have a good deal of interpretive 

material for recreational visitors, and they offer 

educational programs to school groups on an 

appointment basis. Visitors engaged in these 

recreational activities account for 27% of all visitor 

days to North Dakota districts. 

Visitor leVels and spending 

According to 2007 RAPP data, visitation to the nine 

districts will have totaled 177,000 visitor days by the 

end of the year. The 2004 “Banking on Nature” (Caudill 

and Henderson 2005) study estimates total visitation 

for eight national wildlife refuges in region 6, two of 

which are located in North Dakota (Arrowwood and 

Audubon national wildlife refuges). According to the 

study, about 44% of visitors are nonresidents of the 

local areas surrounding the refuges visited. Applying 

this same rate of nonresident visitation to the districts, 

approximately 78,600 nonresident visitor days occur 

annually at the nine districts under consideration, of 

which 50,500 are for hunting, 7,200 are for fishing, and 

20,800 are for nonconsumptive recreational activity. 

baseline eConomiC aCtiVity 

Combining the effects of Service employment 

and visitor spending, the total economic activity 

generated by the districts on their local economies is 

approximately $5,505,000 per year. 

The districts affect their local economies through the 

visitor spending they generate and the employment 

they support. The districts generate direct local 

economic activity through employee earnings. The 

districts’ 49.5 FTEs account for $2,674,000 in employee 

compensation, or roughly $54,000 per FTE. Using 

Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 57 

the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s Consumer Expenditure 

Survey data for individuals in these income 

categories, roughly 79% of annual income is spent 

locally. Under this assumption, the districts 

contribute about $2,113,000 to North Dakota local 

economies through employee spending. 

The districts’ nonresident visitation of 78,600 visitor 

days per year, combined with spending averages 

reported in the 2004 Banking on Nature study (Caudill 

and Henderson 2005), total visitor expenditure 

generated by the districts is estimated to be almost 

$3,392,000 per year. Of this total, approximately 

$2,776,000 (82%) comes from hunting, $244,000 (7%) 

from fishing, and $373,000 (11%) from nonconsumptive 

recreational activity. 

3.7 Operations 

Funding for operations at the districts is for the 

staff, facilities, and equipment needed to carry out 

management activities to meet the purposes, goals, 

and objectives for the districts. 

All but one of the districts, Kulm Wetland Management 

District, has staff and facilities that are shared to 

manage all the units in a “complex” (a complex is one 

or more refuges and one or more districts that are 

administratively grouped for management efficiency). 

Kulm Wetland Management District has its own staff 

and a standalone facility that are not part of a complex. 

Because in most cases facilities are shared with 

complex staff and for administrative duties, office 

working conditions are tight and not conducive for 

conducting business. In addition, visitor centers and 

interpretive displays are inadequate and do not provide 

visitors an adequate space to learn about the benefits 

of the districts and their resources. 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Management Direction
 Dave Menke/USFWS 

Male and female wood ducks paired for the breeding season. 

The Service decided to carry out the management 

direction in this chapter, based on a determination 

that it does the following: 

QQ	 Best achieves the districts’ purposes, vision, 


and goals and helps fulfill the mission of the 


Refuge System.
 

Maintains and, where appropriate, restores 

the ecological integrity of each district and the 

Refuge System and addresses the significant 

issues and mandates. 

Is consistent with principles of sound fish and 

wildlife management. 

QQ	 

QQ	 

This chapter describes the overall management focus 

for the districts, as well as the objectives and strategies 

that will be carried out to help district staffs achieve 

the goals. In addition, this chapter includes descriptions 

of the funding, staff, and step-down plans needed to 

meet the goals and objectives. Finally, this chapter 

briefly describes the monitoring and evaluation of 

both district resources and this CCP, along with the 

process to amend or revise the CCP. 

4.1 Management Focus 

The district staffs will manage wetland and upland 

habitats to meet the vision and goals by carrying 

out the objectives described below. Management 

objectives for habitat types are based on the habitat 

preferences of groups of target (indicator) species, 

which consist of members of taxonomic groups such 

as waterfowl, shorebird, grassland, and upland species. 

District staffs will emphasize adaptive management, 

including monitoring the effects of habitat management 

practices and using research results to direct ongoing 

management. Wetland management will benefit 

migratory birds, particularly waterfowl species. 

Management efforts will be expanded to benefit 

species of the Central Flyway. 

The districts and refuges in North Dakota received 

more than 385,000 visitors during fiscal year 2007. It 

is a high priority for the district staffs to foster an 

appreciation, support, and understanding of the 

districts’ vision and provide opportunities for wildlifedependent recreational use. Arrowwood, Audubon, 

Kulm, Lostwood, and Valley City wetland management 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

districts will improve their visitor contact stations 

and office space to facilitate visitor use and provide 

for a safe, quality visit. The districts will enhance 

trails, kiosks, and interpretive displays to provide 

the public with an awareness of district resources. 

The Service will maintain the fishing and hunting 

programs at the districts’ WPAs and WDAs to 

provide good-quality experiences for the public. 

USFWS 

Bird watchers enjoy the spring migration of songbirds 

near Audubon Wetland Management District. 

4.2 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, 

and Rationale 

This section has objectives, strategies, and rationale 

that follow each goal to describe how management 

of Service lands in the districts will be carried out to 

meet the goal. 

A goal is a descriptive, broad statement of desired 

future conditions that conveys a purpose, but does 

not define measurable units. 

An objective is a concise statement that indicates 

what is to be achieved, the extent of the 

achievement, who is responsible, and when and 

where the objective should be achieved. 

A strategy is a way to achieve an objective. 

The rationale for each objective provides context 

such as background information, assumptions, and 

technical details. 

Note: Although the Service identified needs during 

the planning process, there are no assurances that any 

projects or staff positions will be fully or partially 

funded. Implementation of some objectives in this 

chapter will be subject to future increases in staff or 

funding, or both. However, there are opportunities to 

examine current allocations of funds and resources 

and determine the best uses based on a comprehensive 

evaluation of critical needs. 

Habitat and Wildlife goal 

Protect, restore and enhance the ecological diversity 

of grasslands and wetlands of the North Dakota 

Prairie Pothole Region. Restore and maintain examples 

of aspen-oak woodland/wetland communities with 

characteristic of the mid-1800s Turtle Mountain 

Physiographic 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. 

Wetlands in Easements 

The first wetland easements within the nine wetland 

management districts were bought on November 29, 

1960, and were located in LaMoure County (LaMoure 

“21x” and “27x”—two of a few 20-year conservation 

easements). These easements were not renewed after 

they expired. To date, the Service has purchased 

11,359 wetland easements (705,679 acres). Through 

effective enforcement, these easements continue to 

provide the continent’s most important waterfowl 

breeding habitat. 

Wetland easement contracts signed before 1976 state 

that “all” wetlands “occurring or reoccurring due to 

natural causes” are protected on the described property, 

except those that were specifically excluded (deleted 

from the provisions of the easement agreement and 

shown on a drainage facility map). Beginning in 1976, 

the Service began to include a map (known as Exhibit A) 

with the conservation easement document. Exhibit A 

shows the wetland basins protected by the provisions 

of the easement, as well as the wetlands that may 

exist on the described property but are excluded 

from protection. 

In 1997, the United States Eighth Circuit Court of 

Appeals affirmed that the Service’s wetland easements 

were valid and its law enforcement efforts were legal. 

However, the court also addressed the Service’s 

easement summaries for those conservation easements 

bought before 1976 and held that the agreement be 

consistent with those acres listed. Consequently, as a 

part of the enforcement process, the Service is required 

to map the protected wetlands for conservation 

easements bought before 1976. 

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. 

Wetland priority zones are shown in figure 12. Figure 13 

summarizes the evaluation criteria (decision tree) for 

wetland easements (detailed in appendix K) that field 

biologists will use to set priorities for protection of 

additional wetlands. 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 61
 

Figure 12. Map of the wetland priority zones in the nine districts, North Dakota. 
62 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Figure 13. Evaluation criteria for wetland easements.

Evaluation Criteria for Wetland Easements 

No 

Yes 

Duck

Biological Factors Non-duck Biological Factors Risk Factors Protection Priority

Acquire All Wetlands 

<25

Breeding

Duck Pairs 

Do not acquire without extraordinary justification 

Yes 

Associated 

with

No 

Grassland 

Easement

>25

Breeding

Duck Pairs 

Yes Yes 

No Priority 5

Avoid/Minimize 

Temporary or Seasonal, 

or <1 Acre Semipermanent

Wetland 

Yes 

Priority 1APriority 1B 

Priority 1C

Priority 1D

Yes

No

Yes

No 

Wetland-dependent 

Migratory Bird Priority

Wetland-dependent 

Migratory Bird Priority 

Yes

No 

Endangered Species 

Priority 

Other Wetland

<25 Acres 

Yes 

Priority 2APriority 2B 

Priority 2C

Priority 2D

Yes

No

Yes

No 

Wetland-dependent 

Migratory Bird Priority

Wetland-dependent 

Migratory Bird Priority 

Yes

No 

Endangered Species 

Priority 

No 

Embedded 

in 

Cropland 

No 

No Priority 5

Avoid/Minimize 

Temporary or Seasonal, 

or <1 Acre Semipermanent

Wetland 

Yes 

Priority 3APriority 3B 

Priority 3C

Priority 3D

Yes

No

Yes

No 

Wetland-dependent 

Migratory Bird Priority

Wetland-dependent 

Migratory Bird Priority 

Yes

No 

Endangered Species 

Priority 

Other Wetland

<25 Acres 

Yes 

Priority 4APriority 4B 

Priority 4C

Priority 4D

Yes

No

Yes

No 

Wetland-dependent 

Migratory Bird Priority

Wetland-dependent 

Migratory Bird Priority 

Yes

No 

Endangered Species 

Priority 

No 
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 63 

Strategies 

— 	 Continue to focus the protection of wetlands 

with conservation easements in areas where the 

Service is also protecting priority grasslands. 

Because of the administrative process involved 

in calculating values (using the assessed value 

of the land and a multiplier derived from the 

relationship between the sales price of similar 

properties and the assessed values of those 

properties), it is most efficient for the Service’s 

division of realty to focus acquisition efforts 

in specific areas (for example, counties) before 

moving on to another area. Focusing on specific 

areas and making multiple offers to many 

landowners cuts down on the administrative 

burden of purchasing conservation easements, 

thereby increasing the number of acres that can 

be protected. 

— 	 Continue with the initiative to secure protected 

status on wetlands at highest risk of degradation 

that are situated in the Drift Prairie. This 

initiative began as a pilot project in 2004 with a 

renewed effort to focus wetland protection in 

Dickey, LaMoure, Barnes, and Griggs counties 

in the Kulm and Valley City wetland management 

districts. It had been some 20 years since 

acquisition of wetland easements had occurred 

in these areas, and it was unknown whether or 

not landowners will be receptive. The results 

have been positive indicating that acquisition 

of priority wetlands can be sustained, or even 

expanded to other areas of the Drift Prairie. 

— 	 Use mass mailings to prospective sellers with 

information about the conservation easement 

program. Targeted mailings can generate 

sufficient interest to keep the division of realty 

staff busy in a specific locale for months, if not 

years, at a time. 

— 	 Continue to “piggyback” on the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program as a way to inform 

prospective sellers of the Service’s conservation 

easement program. Oftentimes, staff of the 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is the 

first point of contact for many landowners who 

might not otherwise be aware of the conservation 

programs available to them. 

— 	 Opportunistically buy additional WPAs, including 

“roundouts” whenever possible. 

— 	 Continue to use the Service’s strong partnership 

with Ducks Unlimited and other conservation 

organizations to generate non-Duck Stamp 

funding to buy conservation easements. 

— 	 Use North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

(NAWCA) funding to buy wetland easements 

in counties where the cap has already been 

met on the total wetland easement acreage the 

Service can attain with Duck Stamp funding 

(as explained in chapter 2, “2.1 Conservation 

Easements”). 

Rationale 

Given a constant acquisition budget over the next 15 

years, it is projected that more than 42,000 wetland 

acres can be protected with conservation easements 

in North Dakota (Stuart Wacker, USFWS, division of 

realty, personal communication, 2007). An estimated 

40,000 acres within the nine districts can be protected 

by wetland easements (after subtraction of acres 

identified in Long Lake Wetland Management District’s 

CCP, as well as those that might be protected in the 

Tewaukon Wetland Management District, which also 

has a completed CCP). The amount of additional acres 

protected in fee title over the next 15 years will 

likely be negligible. 

The HAPET has identified those wetlands that are 

especially at risk—temporary and seasonal wetlands, 

often less than 1 acre in size, and totally or partially 

embedded in cropland. The pressure to drain and 

fill these wetlands to allow tillage agriculture puts 

these basins at higher risk of conversion than those 

within grasslands. At the same time, the value of 

these wetlands to the waterfowl resource is great. 

According to HAPET, for every ten 1-acre wetlands 

in the Prairie Pothole Region, there will predictably 

be 20 breeding pairs of ducks; whereas one 10-acre 

wetland will likely support only seven duck pairs. 

Based on predictive models developed by the HAPET, 

the Service has prioritized conservation easement 

acquisitions to focus on the following: 

QQ	 wetlands that are not protected 

wetlands capable of supporting more than 25 

breeding duck pairs per square mile 

wetlands embedded in cropland, where the risk 

of degradation is especially high 

wetlands at greatest risk of degradation (from 

drainage and filling)–seasonal and temporary 

basins 

semipermanent and permanent wetlands less 

than 1 acre in size 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

According to the HAPET, waterfowl pairs in the 

PPJV are supported on 7.33 million wetland acres, 

of which 1.49 million are currently protected by 

wetland easements or WPAs. An estimated 1.15 

million duck pairs reside in these wetlands, leaving 

the majority of pairs (3.10 million, or 73%) dependent 

on wetlands that are currently unprotected except 

through the “Swampbuster” provision of the Farm 

Bill. Using the criteria above, the HAPET identified 

1.4 million acres of priority wetlands within the area 

encompassed by the PPJV that are in greatest need 

of protection; these wetlands will support 1.5 million 

duck pairs (see figure 12, map of wetland priority 

zones). This figure has been adopted as a protection 

goal by both the Dakota Working Group (a team 

consisting of refuge managers and project leaders 

from refuges and districts in North Dakota and South 

Dakota) and the PPJV (Ringelman 2005). Securing 
64 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

protected status on 40,000 priority wetland acres in 

the next 15 years will advance the Service toward 

these goals and will prevent the loss of habitat for 

an estimated 39,423 waterfowl pairs (Chuck Loesch, 

USFWS, HAPET, North Dakota, personal 

communication, 2007). 

Protection of priority wetlands with conservation 

easements will not only benefit waterfowl, but will 

also have significant impacts to other migratory 

waterbirds. Niemuth et al. (2006) presented results 

that demonstrate the importance of temporary and 

seasonal wetlands embedded in agricultural landscapes 

to migrant shorebirds in the Prairie Pothole Region. 

Specifically, Niemuth et al. (2006) found that temporary 

wetlands were selected by migrant shorebirds, but 

pointed out that presence of water and lack of drainage 

activity were also strong predictors of shorebird 

presence. 

wetlaNds 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. 

Strategies 

— 	 Following the guidelines contained in the 

“Easement Manual” for enforcement procedures, 

conduct annual surveillance flights to detect 

potential conservation easement violations and 

promptly follow up with needed enforcement 

action. 

Annually send letters to new landowners 


informing them of existing conservation 


easements on their property, including 


associated easement provisions.
 

Proactively map pre-1976 wetland easements 

and provide maps to landowners along with 

a copy of the easement contract containing 

provisions. 

Annually review FmHA easements to ensure 

all wetland provisions are enforced. 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 Complete a workforce analysis to discern law 

enforcement staff needs and strengthen these 

areas through position management or new staff, 

or both. This will prevent protected wetlands 

from being lost through violations as a result of 

insufficient law enforcement staff. 

USFWS 

Wildflowers create a ring around a wetland. 

Rationale 

At the beginning of the Small Wetlands Acquisition 

Program more than 40 years ago, the Service believed 

that conservation easements would require little to 

no maintenance or enforcement efforts. However, it 

soon became evident that, to protect the government’s 

interest in these conservation easements, a systematic 

approach was necessary for easement administration 

and enforcement. 

“Swampbuster” provisions of the Farm Bill (which 

prohibit conversion of wetlands for the production 

of commodity crops by Farm Bill participants) not 

withstanding, pressures to drain and fill wetlands 

have continued to intensify. As farm implements 

such as drills, sprayers, and tractors become larger, 

landowners increasingly view small isolated wetlands 

as nuisance spots because they are tired of working 

around them. Other Farm Bill programs can also 

unintentionally increase pressure to violate wetland 

easement provisions. One such program, “prevented 

planting,” provides compensation to a landowner for 

acres that cannot be seeded to a crop. To qualify for 

payment, the operator must only make an attempt 

to farm the acres (oftentimes, these are wetland 

acres). Simply plowing the ground once in the fall, 

when wetlands are naturally dry, can constitute an 

attempt. To facilitate plowing, oftentimes landowners 

will first burn off the wetland vegetation. It is common 

for these burns to occur on conservation easementprotected wetlands in absence of the required permit 

from the administering district, which is a violation 

of the easement provisions. 

In the absence of active and effective enforcement, 

the Service’s conservation easement interests could 

be lost forever, as opposed to those resources that 

the government owns outright. Hypothetically, should 

the Service “walk away” from its fee-title land for 15 

years, it is reasonable to expect that the habitat will 

remain intact. However, the same cannot be said of 

habitat on private land that is protected only by a 

Service easement. A 15-year hiatus in enforcement 

action will likely result in the irreparable harm to the 

Service’s easement interests and permanent loss of 

habitat. 

Uplands in Easements 

The initial focus of the Small Wetland Acquisition 

Program was primarily on the protection of wetlands 

by purchasing land in fee title and acquiring perpetual 

wetland easements. However, data also revealed the 

importance of upland grasslands to successful nesting 

of waterfowl. With the continued conversion of 

grassland to cropland, and consistent declines in the 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 65 

populations of grassland dependent birds, the need to 

protect adjacent grassland habitats became evident. 

The Service was authorized and began to acquire 

grassland easements in South Dakota and Montana 

in 1989. The first conservation easements were 

bought in North Dakota in 1991 with Land and Water 

Conservation Funds. 

Like a wetland easement, a grassland easement 

transfers limited perpetual rights to the Service for 

a one-time, lump-sum payment. The purpose of a 

grassland easement is to prevent the conversion of 

grassland to cropland, while minimally restricting 

existing agricultural practices. 

More specifically, the purposes of a grassland 

easement are 

to improve the water quality of wetlands by 

reducing soil erosion and the use of chemicals 

and fertilizers on surrounding uplands; 

to improve upland nesting habitat for all groundnesting birds, especially waterfowl, and enhance 

nesting success on private lands; 

to perpetuate grassland cover established 

by other federal programs (for example, 

Conservation Reserve Program); 

to provide an alternative to the purchase of 

uplands in fee title, thus maintaining lands in 

private ownership. 

Grassland easements restrict the landowner from 

altering the grass by digging, plowing, disking, or 

otherwise destroying the vegetative cover. Haying, 

mowing, and seed harvest is restricted until July 15 

of each year. The landowner can graze without 

restriction. (See appendix F.) 

Initially, in all districts (and continuing presently 

in some districts) tracts considered for a grassland 

easement were on native prairie, at least 160 acres in 

size, and situated in an area supporting at least 40 

pairs of waterfowl per square mile. Most of the native 

grassland fitting these criteria lies within the Missouri 

Coteau. The first grassland easement (tract 558G; 

1,520 acres) in the nine districts was acquired in 

Stutsman County on November 7, 1990. To date, 556 

grassland easements have been bought covering 

243,130 acres. 

USFWS 

Grassland easements protect a variety of grass and 

flower species. 

uPlaNds iN easeMeNts oBjective 1 

Over a 15-year period, secure perpetual 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. 

Grassland priority zones are shown in figure 14. 

Figure 15 summarizes the evaluation criteria (decision 

tree) for grassland easements (detailed in appendix K) 

that field biologists will use to set priorities for 

protection of additional uplands. 

Strategies 

— Continue to protect wetlands with conservation 

easements in areas where the Service is also 

protecting priority grasslands. Because of the 

administrative process involved in calculating 

values (using the assessed value of the land 

and a multiplier derived from the relationship 

between the sales price of similar properties and 

the assessed values of those properties), it is 

most efficient for the Service’s division of realty 

to focus acquisition efforts in specific areas (for 

example, counties) before moving on to another 

area. Focusing on specific areas and making 

multiple offers to many landowners cuts down 

on the administrative burden of purchasing 

conservation easements, thereby increasing the 

number of acres that can be protected. 

Adopt the use of a new combined easement 

contract that protects both the grassland and 

wetland habitats in the described property. This 

new conservation easement contract contains the 

same grassland protection provisions as the 

original grassland easement contract and restricts 

the right to fill or pump water from identified 

wetlands within the tract. The use of the combined 

easement contract will eliminate the need for 

separate grassland and wetland easement 

contracts and will be more cost effective. 

Use mass mailings to prospective sellers with 

information about the conservation easement 

program. Targeted mailings can generate 

sufficient interest to keep realty staff busy in a 

specific area for months, if not years, at a time. 

Continue to “piggyback” on the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program as a way to inform 

prospective sellers of the Service’s conservation 

easement program. Oftentimes, staff of the 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is the 

first point of contact for many landowners who 

might not otherwise be aware of the conservation 

programs available to them. 

—

—

—
66 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Figure 14. Map of the grassland priority zones in the nine districts, North Dakota. 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 67 

Evaluation Criteria for Grassland Easements

Duck

Biological Factors 

Non-duck

Biological Factors 

Protection

Priority 

Funding

Allocation

80% 

>60

Breeding

Duck Pairs 

Priority 1APriority 1B 

Priority 1C 

Priority 1D 

Grassland-dependent

Migratory Bird Priority

Grassland-dependent

Migratory Bird Priority

Endangered Species 

Priority 

Yes

No 

Yes

No

Yes

No 

Yes 

No 

15% 

40–60

Breeding

Duck Pairs 

Priority 2APriority 2B 

Priority 2C 

Priority 2D 

Grassland-dependent

Migratory Bird Priority

Grassland-dependent

Migratory Bird Priority

Endangered Species 

Priority 

Yes

No 

Yes

No

Yes

No 

Yes 

No 

Do not acquire 

without extraordinary 

justification 

Yes <25 Breeding

Duck Pairs

 5% 

25–40

Breeding

Duck Pairs 

Priority 3APriority 3B 

Priority 3C 

Priority 3D 

Grassland-dependent

Migratory Bird Priority

Grassland-dependent

Migratory Bird Priority

Endangered Species 

Priority 

Yes

No 

Yes

No

Yes

No 

Yes 

No

Figure 15. Evaluation criteria for grassland easements. 
68 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

— 	 Buy those lands in WPAs that make management 

cost effective, when possible. 

Continue to use the Service’s strong partnership 

with Ducks Unlimited and other conservation 

organizations to generate non-Duck Stamp 

funding to buy conservation easements. 

— 	 

Rationale 

Considering the strong and ongoing partnership with 

Ducks Unlimited and consistent success of using Ducks 

Unlimited’s nonfederal money to help acquire NAWCA 

grants, it is likely the Service’s grassland easement 

program will enjoy stable, if not increasing, funding 

over the next 15 years. Given this scenario, the Service 

will secure protected status for more than 500,000 

grassland acres in that time period in North Dakota 

(Stuart Wacker, USFWS, division of realty, personal 

communication, 2007). An estimated 425,000 acres 

within the nine districts can be protected by grassland 

easements (after subtraction of acres identified in 

Long Lake Wetland Management District’s CCP, as 

well as those that might be protected in the Tewaukon 

Wetland Management District, which also has a 

completed CCP). The amount of additional acres 

protected in fee title over the next 15 years will 

likely be negligible. 

The HAPET has developed a model that shows the 

distribution of priority grassland patches (≥55 acres) 

in relation to breeding duck pairs (≥25 per square mile) 

and predicts that for every 1% decline of priority 

grassland in the Prairie Pothole Region, there will be 

25,000 fewer ducks in the fall (see figure 9 in chapter 3). 

Protection of priority grassland patches not only 

benefits waterfowl, but also a wide variety of grasslanddependent migratory birds such as the western 

meadowlark (Johnson and Igl 2001). 

The HAPET identified 11.56 million acres within the 

PPJV area of North Dakota and South Dakota and 

eastern Montana that meet the above criteria. By 

subtracting grasslands already protected in WPAs 

or grassland easements, the HAPET identified an 

additional 10.4 million grassland acres in need of 

protection. As with the wetland protection goal, both 

the Dakota Working Group and the PPJV (Ringelman 

2005) have adopted this figure as a protection goal. 

Securing protected status on 425,000 acres of priority 

grassland in the next 15 years will advance the 

Service toward meeting these goals and will prevent 

the loss of habitat for an estimated 738,620 waterfowl 

recruits during that period (Chuck Loesch, USFWS, 

HAPET, North Dakota, personal communication, 2007). 

Additionally, the HAPET model has identified larger 

grassland areas with respect to area-dependent 

grassland-nesting birds such as northern harrier, 

upland sandpiper, and grasshopper sparrow (Johnson 

and Igl 2001). These areas consist of contiguous grass 

cover ≥640 acres in size with ≤30% of their area being 

comprised of permanent or semipermanent wetlands. 

Protection of these large, contiguous blocks of grass 

within a larger, grassland dominated-landscape 

should provide adequate protection for a wide range 

of grassland-dependent migratory bird species that 

are of management concern (Estey 2007). 

uPlaNds iN easeMeNts oBjective 2 

Over a 15-year period, through active monitoring and 

law enforcement, protect all grassland areas under 

perpetual Service conservation easement according 

to the provisions of the easement contracts. 

Strategies 

— Following the guidelines contained in the 

“Easement Manual” for enforcement procedures, 

conduct annual surveillance flights to detect 

potential conservation easement violations and 

promptly follow up with needed enforcement 

action. 

Send letters to new landowners informing 

them of existing conservation easements on 

their property, including associated easement 

provisions. 

Review FmHA easements to ensure all wetland 

and grassland provisions are enforced. 

Develop a step-down plan following the 

recommendations provided by the Region 6 

Refuge Wind Energy Advisory Group to 

administer wind development requests for 

existing conservation easements. The plan will 

also address new conservation easements for 

lands encumbered by wind lease options with 

existing wind farms. 

—

—

—

USFWS 

Harebell. 
Rationale 

At the beginning of the Small Wetlands Acquisition 

Program more than 40 years ago, the Service believed 

that conservation easements would require little to 

no maintenance or enforcement efforts. However, it 

soon became evident that in order to protect the 

government’s interest in these conservation easements, 

a systematic approach was necessary for easement 

administration and enforcement. 

Since most grassland easements protect native prairie, 

the major enforcement concern is cultivation. While 

violations involving the conversion of native prairie 

to cropland are extremely rare, full restoration is 

arguably impossible (although restoration of grassland 

is possible to regain compliance with the grassland 

easement provisions, which do not specify native 

prairie). Therefore, enforcement is essential to the 

protection of these habitats. Haying, mowing or 

harvesting seed before July 15, in violation of the 

conservation easement provision, could cause direct 

losses to grassland-nesting birds including waterfowl. 

While the cutting of hay on native prairie is not common, 

it is more likely to occur on tame grasses. Enforcing 

early hay violations affords another opportunity to 

meet and visit with landowners and operators. These 

contacts may serve to remind landowners and operators 

of the conservation easement provisions and hopefully 

prevent more serious violations in the future. As with 

any law enforcement, the goal is voluntary compliance. 

In the absence of active and effective enforcement, the 

Service’s conservation easement interests could be 

lost forever, as opposed to those resources that the 

government owns outright. Hypothetically, should the 

Service “walk away” from its fee-title land for 15 years, 

it is reasonable to expect that the habitat will remain 

intact. However, the same cannot be said of habitat 

on private land that is protected only by a Service 

easement. A 15-year hiatus in enforcement action will 

likely result in the irreparable harm to the Service’s 

easement interests and permanent loss of habitat. 

Developed Wetlands in WPAs 

Developed wetlands have a water control structure 

or some capability for managers to manipulate water 

levels. Developed wetlands generally are managed 

impoundments. Their relatively shallow depths and 

periodic flooding and drying nature make for highly 

productive systems, with respect to invertebrates 

and wetland vegetation. Corresponding bird use is 

generally quite diverse. 

Meeting objectives for developed wetlands will require 

that water level management is carried out in a timely 

and appropriate manner. Ideally, impoundments will 

provide a mosaic of wetland habitat types to a wide 

variety of wetland-dependent birds such as waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and wading birds. This mosaic of habitat 

types will satisfy the needs of nesting, molting, and 

migrant waterbirds, as well as waterfowl broods and 

other fledgling waterbirds. 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 69 

develoPed wetlaNds iN wPas oBjective 1 

Provide between 30% and 70% coverage of emergent 

vegetation (over water) on average, over 11 of 15 years. 

Strategies 

— 	 Estimate the percent coverage of emergent 

vegetation through either visual estimation 

or GIS area determination using aerial photos 

taken annually in early July. 

Adjust water control structures and management 

plans to achieve hemi-marsh (see description 

under rationale below). 

Review all water management structures for 

improvements or repairs that will enhance 

management capability and seek money 

necessary to carry out the improvements or 

repairs. 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

Previous research has indicated that wetlands with 

an approximate 50:50 ratio of open water and emergent 

vegetation such as cattails and bulrushes, often termed 

hemi-marshes, attract the highest densities and 

diversities of wetland birds (Weller and Spatcher 1965). 

Open water to emergent vegetation ratios will likely 

be close to 50:50 (that is, 30:70 ratio, 70:30 ratio) in 

most developed wetlands, as recommended by Weller 

and Spatcher (1965), in most years (approximately 11 

of 15), through targeted water level management. 

Because of the dynamics involved with prairie– 

wetland conditions over time, in certain years the 

coverage of emergent vegetation may fall well outside 

the target range (30%–70% coverage). During years 

of extreme drought, emergent vegetative cover may 

exceed the upper-end target of 70%; during extremely 

wet periods, wetlands may revert to a more openwater state, supporting far less than 30% coverage 

by emergent vegetation. 

Growing-season drawdowns can effectively manipulate 

plant community composition. Drawdowns and, more 

specifically, drawdown intervals can influence plant 

species composition, structure, and seed production 

(Frederickson 1991). 

A sharp increase in invertebrate populations when 

wetlands reflood following a dry phase is an important 

reason for artificially flooding and draining wetlands 

to enhance waterfowl habitat (Cook and Powers 1958, 

Kadlec and Smith 1992). 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Strategies 

— 	 Randomly sample vegetative zones (wet meadow, 

shallow marsh, deep marsh, and open water) 

(Stewart and Kantrud 1971) along transects. 

Randomly sample invertebrate abundance and 

biomass in all major vegetative zones. 

Sample water quality for salinity and total 


dissolved solids.
 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

Understanding how water management actions alter 

developed wetlands is critical to ensuring long-term 

health and sustainability. The composition of aquatic 

plant and invertebrate communities supported is 

directly related to hydrology and water chemistry 

and, in turn, affects habitat. For example, salinity can 

negatively influence invertebrate composition directly 

by affecting physiology (Williams and Crawford 1989, 

Euliss et al. 1999) or indirectly by affecting habitat 

structure and foods (Krull 1970, Wollheim and Lovvorn 

1996). Other examples include documented reports 

that high concentrations of suspended silt and clay 

are toxic to zooplankton, and agrichemicals can 

cause significant mortality of aquatic invertebrates 

(Borthwick 1988). 

Overall productivity in both the short and long term 

could be negatively affected, because plant community 

structure and composition influences use by 

invertebrates and vertebrates such as birds (Laubhan 

and Roelle 2001). Both plants and invertebrates play 

significant roles in nutrient cycling and are integral 

to components in the food chains of a wide variety 

of vertebrates (Murkin and Batt 1987). 

The vegetative community of a wetland is one of the 

most significant driving forces in the makeup of that 

wetland’s other biotic components (for example, 

invertebrates and birds). Wetland vegetative structure 

and floristic composition is important to nearly all 

waterbirds from the standpoint of nesting, broodrearing, foraging, and migration stopover habitat 

(Laubhan and Roelle 2001). The same vegetative 

factors influence invertebrate community composition 

(Voigts 1976). Managing for a diversity of wetland 

flora in a wetland community generally equates to 

a corresponding diversity of waterbirds. Decreased 

waterbird use generally equates to decreased 

heterogeneity of a wetland’s floral community. 

Variability in a wetland’s floral community is driven 

in part by the temporal influence of climate (Euliss et 

al. 2004), but may also be tied to alterations that 

affect fundamental processes (for example, hydrology, 

water chemistry, and sediment dynamics) and might 

alter system tolerance with respect to the germination 

and growth of certain wetland plant species (Laubhan 

et al. 2006). 

The importance of invertebrates is substantial for a 

number of bird groups. Invertebrates are a key food 

resource for shorebirds (Helmers 1993, Laubhan and 

Roelle 2001), cranes, grebes, herons, rails, and ibis 

(Laubhan and Roelle 2001), as well as a number of 

duck species (Bartonek 1968, 1972; Krapu and Swanson 

1975; Swanson et al. 1979; Meyer and Swanson 1982; 

Swanson et al. 1984). According to Skagen and Oman 

(1996), more than 400 genera of invertebrate prey are 

consumed by 43 species of shorebirds in the Western 

Hemisphere alone. A diversity of invertebrates is a 

critical supporting factor of a wetland bird community, 

not only with respect to various bird groups, but also 

concerning various foraging guilds (groups of species 

that use a common resource in a similar fashion, for 

example, birds that glean and birds that probe) within 

a specific group (for example, shorebirds). Differences 

in foraging technique, as well as bill length and body 

size, allow birds to partition themselves and use 

different invertebrate species to avoid overlap in 

habitat use (Recher 1966). 

In addition to their obvious role in the feeding ecology 

of various waterbirds, invertebrates provide critical 

food chain support for many other organisms and play 

substantial roles in overall wetland productivity and 

nutrient cycling (Murkin and Batt 1987). Rosenberg 

and Danks (1987) point out that invertebrates of 

freshwater wetlands are poorly studied and there is 

little existing information. 

Invertebrates that inhabit prairie wetlands are well 

suited to cope with the highly dynamic and harsh 

environmental conditions of this region (Euliss et al. 

1999). The invertebrate community of the Prairie 

Pothole Region is comprised mostly of ecological 

generalists that have the necessary adaptations 

to tolerate environmental extremes. However, 

invertebrates are sensitive to agrichemicals that can 

accumulate in wetlands (Borthwick 1988, Grue et al. 

1989), and there is strong interest in their use as 

indicators of wetland and landscape condition in the 

Prairie Pothole Region (Adamus 1996). 

Invertebrate sampling data could be tied to water 

quality data to determine if salinity levels are affecting 

invertebrate composition directly via physiology 

(Newcombe and McDonald 1991, Euliss et al. 1999), 

or indirectly by affecting habitat structure and foods 

(Krull 1970). Eventually, the Service will gain an 

improved understanding of the invertebrates that 

developed wetlands support across space and time, 

through the acquisition of initial baseline data and 

subsequent periodic monitoring. 

Undeveloped Wetlands in WPAs 

Undeveloped wetlands occur naturally and have 

nature-dependent water levels. Service-owned 

wetlands within the nine districts consist of a wide 

variety of wetland sizes and regimes (temporary, 

seasonal, semipermanent, and permanent) (Stewart 

and Kantrud 1971). The majority of wetlands in 

Service lands are undeveloped wetlands, that is, 

those with no water level management capabilities. 

Most undeveloped wetlands are dynamic systems— 
some are influenced by spring runoff and rainfall only 

(temporary and seasonal wetlands), whereas others 

are also influenced by groundwater interaction 

(semipermanent and permanent wetlands). However, 

all are at the mercy of nature with respect to temporal 

fluctuations in water levels, abiotic conditions such 

as salinity, and biotic communities such as plants and 

invertebrates. 

Euliss et al. (2004) stressed the need to consider the 

changes these prairie wetland systems undergo, as a 

result of normal climatic variation, when evaluating 

biological wetland data or a wetland’s expressed 

condition (for example, dry, devoid of emergent 

vegetation, and choked with emergent vegetation) at 

a given point in time. Differences in wetland density 

and a variety of water regimes exist in different 

physiographic regions and ecoregions. More specifically, 

densities of temporary, seasonal, and semipermanent 

wetlands are greatest in the Missouri Coteau ecoregion, 

whereas the greatest density of large, shallow, alkali 

lakes exists in the Collapsed Glacial Outwash ecoregion. 

The prairie potholes of North Dakota and South 

Dakota support a wide diversity of wildlife, but they 

are most famous for their role in waterfowl production. 

Although the Prairie Pothole Region occupies only 

10% of North America’s waterfowl breeding range, 

it produces approximately 50% of the continent’s 

waterfowl population (Kantrud 1983). 

Complexes of depressional, palustrine wetlands 

scattered throughout North Dakota attract breeding 

duck pairs, drive nesting and renesting intensity, and 

provide brood habitat (Kantrud et al. 1989). While 

semipermanent and permanent wetlands best serve 

to provide brood-rearing habitat and migratory 

stopover habitat, respectively, it is the smaller 

temporary and seasonal wetlands that draw breeding 

duck pairs to North Dakota and South Dakota and 

other parts of the Prairie Pothole Region. 

For every ten 1-acre wetlands, there will predictably 

be 20 duck pairs, whereas one 10-acre wetland will 

likely support only seven duck pairs. The availability 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 71 

of wetlands is a major factor driving duck breeding in 

the Prairie Pothole Region (Ron Reynolds, USFWS, 

division of realty, personal communication, 2007). 

Meeting the objectives for undeveloped wetlands will 

require that limited habitat management is conducted 

by a variety of Service staff. The Service will restore 

and enhance wetland habitat and protect against 

wetland degradation such as sedimentation and 

invasive plant infestation. 

USFWS 

The coteau region of North Dakota has a high density of 

wetlands. 

uNdeveloPed wetlaNds iN wPas oBjective 

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. 

Strategies 

— 	 Identify wetlands with restoration or 

enhancement potential and begin restoration 

actions. 

Fill ditches and remove fill and sediment from 

basins in fee-title lands. 

On selected wetlands, control the invasion of 


narrowleaf cattail, hybrid cattail, and reed 


canarygrass.
 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

Wetland managers have been restoring prairie 

wetlands since the 1960s (Dornfeld 1988). Most 

wetland restorations in North Dakota are accomplished 

by plugging ditches with simple clay-core dams and 

seeding the surrounding upland to perennial grassland 

cover (Knutsen and Euliss 2001). Fill and sediment 

may be removed to restore hydrologic function. 

It has generally been concluded that, whenever 

possible, restoration efforts in the Prairie Pothole 

Region should focus on restoring wetland complexes 

(groups of wetlands in close proximity to one another 

that consist of multiple regimes [for example, seasonal, 

permanent]), rather than individual basins. Knutsen 

and Euliss (2001) suggested that targeting large blocks 

of wetlands for restoration increases the chance of the 

successful return of all wetland characteristics, 

including wildlife. 

Native Prairie in WPAs 

The following three objectives consider tracts of 

native prairie on fee-title lands within the districts. 

Native prairie is defined as native (“unbroken”) 

sod and exists in all of the nine districts in various 

acreages and with broad management histories. Most 

of the northern mixed-grass prairie and tall-grass 

prairie have been destroyed through conversion 

to agriculture, and remnant tracts appear to be 

particularly vulnerable to invasion by smooth brome 

and Kentucky bluegrass (Murphy and Grant 2005). 

Losses are more severe in the Drift Plain physiographic 

region than the Missouri Coteau physiographic region. 
72 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Key roles of the Refuge System include contribution 

to ecosystem integrity and the conservation of 

biological integrity. Thus, the WPAs should contribute 

to the conservation of native prairies unique to North 

Dakota. 

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. 

Strategies 

— 	 Use current vegetation inventory data and 

landscape characteristics to identify native 

prairie tracts. Enter tract boundaries into the 

RLGIS. 

Establish permanent transects to collect baseline 

data about plant species composition, following 

procedures of the belt transect methodology 

(Grant et al 2004). 

— 	 

Rationale 

A prerequisite to setting detailed objectives for 

native prairies is to complete a basic inventory of 

existing native prairie. Thus, this objective calls 

for such an inventory, and the next objective states 

that once the inventory is complete, each district 

will develop a system to prioritize native prairies 

and subsequently develop detailed objectives for 

desired vegetation conditions. The third objective 

notes that, for units designated as lower priority, the 

management emphasis will be to provide appropriate 

structural diversity to meet the needs of a broad 

array of waterfowl and other grassland bird species. 

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. 

Strategies 

Following the example from J. Clark Salyer 

Wetland Management District provided in 

appendix M, develop a method to prioritize 

native prairie units and describe desired 

vegetative conditions. 

Manage tracts or portions of tracts with 


prescribed fire, grazing (see appendix F), 


“interseeding,” herbicide application, or 


appropriate combinations of these tools.
 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

Recent inventory data suggest that relatively intact 

native herbaceous flora is uncommon in North Dakota, 

with few remaining large tracts dominated by native 

grasses and forbs. Native warm-season grasses are 

especially uncommon. This objective focuses on the 

restoration and maintenance of floristic composition. 

Smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and other 

introduced plants are prevalent in native prairie 

across North Dakota. Kentucky bluegrass tends to 

increase under prolonged rest or with grazing but 

decreases with fire, especially when burning occurs 

during stem elongation or in dry years. Smooth brome 

also increases under rest but, in contrast to Kentucky 

bluegrass, appears sensitive to repeated grazing but 

unaffected or variably affected by prescribed fire. A 

strategy to improve competitive abilities of native 

herbaceous plants should match the types, timing, 

and frequencies of disturbances under which these 

plants evolved. 

Smooth brome generally is more difficult to control 

once established than Kentucky bluegrass and more 

significantly alters the quality and structure of native 

prairie. Therefore, restoration management will 

focus more on strategies to reduce brome. 

Although the focus of this objective is on the restoration 

and maintenance of floristic composition in native 

prairie, wildlife such as prairie birds and butterflies 

will also benefit. 

Examples of objectives to prioritize native prairies 

and describe desired vegetation conditions were 

developed for J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management 

District and are provided in appendix M. However, 

each district staff will need to develop objectives 

specific to their area and situation. 

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). 

Strategies 

— 	 Manage tracts or portions of tracts with 

prescribed fire, grazing (see appendix F), or a 

combination of both. 

Manage tracts with select chemical herbicides 

(imazapic-based). 

— 	 

Rationale 

By 2 years after CCP approval, districts will have 

identified high-priority native prairie tracts to manage 

for floristic quality, floristic composition, and landscape 

characteristics that underlie the quality of nesting 

habitat of grassland-dependent birds. This will 

improve the chances of restoring at least some native 
prairie by more intensively managing these areas. For 

the remaining native prairie tracts, it is likely most of 

the prairie has passed a threshold such that restoration 

of a modestly diverse, native herbaceous flora is an 

unrealistic and impractical goal. With modest effort, 

the prevalent, introduced cool-season grasses and 

scattered low shrubs can be managed to provide a mix 

of postdisturbance structural types attractive to a 

broad array of native grassland bird species, with a 

focus on waterfowl. 

This objective focuses on providing vegetative 

structural diversity, emphasizing structure that 

is moderate- to tall-dense for nesting waterfowl. 

Structural habitat preferences (for example, VORs, 

Robel et al. 1970) of bird species vary widely. It is 

assumed that the needs of all species will not be met 

on a single tract or management unit, but rather 

the needs of various species groups will be met by 

providing a mosaic of vegetative structures (high, 

medium, and low) across many tracts of land in the 

districts. Because WPAs are “waterfowl first” lands, 

it is appropriate to manage for a high percentage 

of high and medium VOR acres (>40% and >25%, 

respectively) and low percentage of low VOR acres 

(>5%). In addition to mallards, several other uplandnesting duck species (northern shoveler, gadwall, 

northern pintail, and blue-winged teal) prefer VORs 

in the medium (4–8 inches) and high (>8 inches) 

categories (Laubhan et al. 2006). 

Invasive Plants 

Significant infestations on Service lands have resulted 

in more than a loss of habitat for wildlife and a decline 

in species diversity in prairie grasslands. Control of 

invasive plants is costly in time and money. Control 

requires careful planning, implementation, and 

monitoring as defined by an integrated approach to 

management of invasive plants designed to meet a 

habitat objective. 

Elaine Haug/Smithsonian Institution 

Spotted knapweed is an invasive plant in North Dakota’s 

grasslands. 

iNvasive PlaNts oBjective 1 

Within 1 year after CCP approval, develop an IPM 

plan for control of invasive plants, including noxious 

weeds. 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 73 

Strategies 

— 	 Review and update the IPM plan every 5 years. 

Prepare annual progress reports or have 

meetings to share current treatment techniques 

and results. In annual updates, include information 

on what treatment protocols may or may not 

have been successful in achieving stated 

objectives and any future plans. 

— 	 

Rationale 

The Service has developed an IPM plan for each 

district. These plans detail strategies (1) for control 

or elimination of key invasive plants affecting Service 

resources, and (2) to comply with state and federal 

noxious weed and invasive plant laws. An integrated 

approach to pest management will be used to treat 

infestations of invasive plants on Service lands. The 

plans identify the current extent of encroachment by 

all species of concern and suitable control methods 

and monitoring needs. The plans document infestations 

and provide an index to effectiveness of management 

actions. A surveillance program be designed and 

carried out to document the spread and introduction 

of invasive plants. The implementation of an early 

detection and rapid response system requires 

coordination with North Dakota Department of 

Agriculture, weed boards, weed management areas, 

and other state, federal and local partners. During 

annual coordination, all parties will share information 

and discuss the most effective, economical, and 

environmentally appropriate control strategies for 

priority invasive plant species. 

iNvasive PlaNts oBjective 2 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, establish a baseline 

inventory of all invasive plants, including noxious 

weeds, on Service lands. 

Strategies 

— 	 Conduct inventories following the USFWS 

Strike Team operational guidelines, when 

completed, which will include mapping criteria. 

Store all inventory data in RLGIS. 

Repeat inventories at a minimum of 10-year 

intervals. 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

Invasive plants are a major threat to native ecosystems 

in the United States, considered second only to habitat 

destruction in significance. Invasive plants have 

infested approximately 2 million acres of Refuge 

System lands. Infestations of invasive plants have a 

direct effect on the ability of the districts to fulfill 

their wildlife conservation mission including species 

recovery and maintenance and restoration of 

biological diversity, biological integrity, and natural 

functions. 

Recognizing the need for a rapid response to invasive 

plant control, the Service sought increased funding in 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

74 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

the fiscal year 2004 budget to support invasive species 

strike teams for the Refuge System. Specifically the 

Service sought to “Develop ‘Refuge Invasive Species 

Strike Teams’ (similar in organizational structure and 

responsiveness to ‘hot shot’ crews used in interagency 

fire fighting). Strike teams will respond rapidly to 

invasive species problems identified by a refuge, or 

a grouping of refuges” (USFWS 1999). This strategy 

clarifies the intent to create a set of unique teams 

(ISSTs) to address primarily new infestations of 

invasive plants. The idea behind ISSTs is to attack 

invasive infestations in a more effective and costeffective way. The ISSTs represent a new way of 

doing business in dealing with invasive plants. 

The Service’s budget documentation for fiscal year 

2004 stated, “The program goal is to increase the rapid 

response capability for invasive plant management, 

using a highly trained, equipped, and mobile response 

force that refuge managers can call on to support 

control efforts on newly discovered and satellite (‘spot 

fire’) infestations. The teams will provide an emergency 

rapid response initial attack force for a set of refuges 

within a wide geographic area. The design of the ISST 

program is based upon models developed for the 

National Park Service’s Exotic Plant Management 

Teams and interagency firefighter ‘Hot Shot’ crews.” 

(DOI 2004) 

Through these initial efforts, the Service established 

three geographic ISSTs: Everglades Focus Area based 

at J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge, Florida; 

Columbia-Yellowstone-Missouri Rivers Focus Area 

based at the Great Falls, Montana; and Southwest 

Focus Area (Arizona, California, New Mexico, and 

west Texas) based at Imperial National Wildlife Refuge, 

Arizona. In fiscal year 2006, the Service sought and 

acquired funding for two additional ISSTs: Hawaiian 

and Pacific Islands Focus Area and the North Dakota 

Refuges Focus Area. 

The ISST program is based on models developed for 

the National Park Service’s exotic plant management 

teams and interagency firefighter hotshot crews. The 

Service will develop working relationships with other 

federal and state agencies to share and incorporate 

successful and unsuccessful strategies where 

appropriate, including centralized coordination at a 

national level. Individual ISSTs must evaluate their 

programs annually and make adjustments depending 

on their individual needs and consultation with the 

Service’s invasive species coordinator. 

As of July 2007, the Service’s ISSTs have operational 

guidelines in a draft form. The draft mission statement 

is as follows: “To protect the natural resources of the 

Refuge System from the impacts caused by invasive 

plants, primarily through early detection and rapid 

response principals, which may include prevention, 

control, monitoring, restoration and education.” 

The North Dakota ISST first received full funding in 

fiscal year 2006. North Dakota districts had recognized 

the need to fight invasive plants many years ago and 

were conducting IPM strategies throughout the state. 

The rapid spread of invasive plants and declining 

budgets hampered this effort. The focus of the ISST 

was to provide funding to each district to hire and 

train individuals to identify and treat invasive plants. 

Many Service lands in the districts did not have any 

digital information recorded for invasive plants. One 

goal of the ISST was to hire and train an inventory 

crew to traverse all Service-owned lands in North 

Dakota and collect invasive plant inventory information 

to be saved in the RLGIS. This information will provide 

managers a starting point in the prioritization of areas 

to be treated for invasive plants. 

Trying to manage an infestation of invasive plants 

without any idea of the size, canopy cover, or rate of 

spread jeopardizes the efficiency of the control efforts 

and wastes precious time and money. An inventory 

will help prioritize the strategies used to eliminate 

new and isolated infestations and contain or reduce 

larger infestations by attacking the perimeter and 

working toward the center. Inventory maps are an 

invaluable planning tool for management as well as 

critical to monitoring efforts. These inventory maps 

will play a critical role in monitoring the effectiveness 

of control methods and ensuring the area is not 

reinfested after several years by dormant viable seed. 

The Service, the state of North Dakota, and other 

partners have not yet developed and universally 

adopted criteria for mapping invasive plants. Regional 

invasive species and IPM coordinators in region 6 are 

in the process of drafting protocols for field mapping 

of invasive plants for entry and storage in the RLGIS. 

This document will provide guidelines for (1) mapping 

new and old infestations, (2) minimum mapping units, 

and (3) the use of a point versus a polygon and canopy 

cover. These guidelines will incorporate the minimum 

standards outlined in “The North American Invasive 

Plant Mapping Standards,” approved by North 

American Weed Management Association, May 7, 2002. 

Once a baseline inventory has been completed for 

Service lands in North Dakota, the focus will shift to 

more scientific surveys to provide quantifiable data. 

Surveys will be conducted every 3–5 years on priority 

areas to provide information about effectiveness of 

treatment, response to an IPM strategy, or results of 

grassland restoration. 

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. 

Strategies 

— 	 Identify, for each district, the priority WPAs by 

2 years after CCP approval. 

Apply early detection, rapid response strategies 

to attack new infestations before they become 

large and costly to treat. 

— 	 
 

 

 

 

 

Use the GIS to predict areas at greatest risk of 

new infestations. 

Conduct a surveillance program for new 

infestations of invasive plants every 2 years. 

Every 5 years, complete surveys for invasive 

plants, GPS-map locations, create a baseline map, 

and collaborate with partners to map records 

for neighboring lands. 

Monitor change over time by collecting RLGIS 

cover-type data for all invasive plant species. 

GPS-map and store in the RLGIS anecdotal 

observations of infestations made by Service 

staffs while conducting other work activities. 

Respond promptly to all landowner or other 

public complaints. 

Map sites of invasive plant treatment each year 

in the RLGIS. 

Monitor infestation rates and effectiveness of 

control efforts. 

Share GIS layers of invasive plant infestations 

with partners. 

Attain help with invasive plants (applications 

and monitoring) by pursuing additional money 

through partnerships, grants, and invasive 

plant programs. 

Communicate with and educate local, state, and 

federal agencies and the public about invasive 

plant issues. In a timely manner, make known 

information about new infestations, effective or 

ineffective treatment methods, and new treatment 

options. 

Coordinate invasive plant control by meeting 

at least once per year with county weed boards, 

representatives from weed management areas, 

and other partners to share information and 

discuss control strategies. 

Address public complaints about invasive plants 

on Service-owned lands, while using IPM 

strategies. 

Ensure all seed used to restore habitat is certified 

weed-free. Avoid purchasing seed from sources 

known to have violated the weed-free seed 

regulation. 

Begin habitat management treatments to develop 

habitat that will be more resilient to invasive 

plants. 

 

USFWS 

The Service uses a variety of methods, including biological 

(beetles above), to control leafy spurge. 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

Leafy spurge (993,644 acres), Canada thistle (956,335 

acres), and absinth wormwood (452,594 acres) are the 

most widespread and common species infesting lands 

across North Dakota, as reported by city weed boards 

(North Dakota Department of Agriculture 2006). 

These problem plants can displace native vegetation 

over large areas and have the ability to form nearly 

monotypic stands in the absence of management; 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 75 

therefore, these plants threaten native biodiversity 

(Watson 1985, Bedunah 1992, Trammell and Butler 

1995, Svedarsky and Van Amburg 1996, Hutchison 

1992). Due to the large acreage of infestation, these 

three species have been the priority invasive plants 

on Service lands. 

The first step to control is to prevent the introduction, 

reproduction, and spread of invasive plants. Many of 

the newer invasive plant and “watch” species were 

introduced via seed imported from states and countries 

that have invasive plants. The most common sources 

are the states of California, Oregon, and Washington 

and the country of Argentina (Ken Eraas, North 

Dakota Department of Agriculture, personal 

communication, 2007); seed from these locations should 

be avoided. Wherever possible, all grass seed should 

be bought from seed grown in North Dakota to 

minimize the introduction or spread of new invasive 

plant species. 

Farming can be used to rejuvenate DNC and other 

old cropland areas, fight colonization of invasive plants, 

prepare ground for grass seeding, and reduce use 

of nonselective broadleaf herbicides over the long 

term. Old cropland areas that are heavily infested 

with Canada thistle or other invasive plants may 

be completely renovated by temporarily converting 

these areas to cropland. The crop rotation may include 

the use of genetically modified varieties of “Roundup® 

ready” corn or soybeans that are sprayed with the 

nonselective herbicide, glyphosate. By maintaining 
76 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

these fields in crop production for several years, the 

percentage of viable invasive plant seed in the upper 

soil layer should be significantly depleted and the 

germination potential reduced. These fields will be 

replanted to a grass and forb mixture designed to meet 

habitat objectives for individual tracts of land. See 

the Old Cropland Objective for detailed information 

on using certain seed mixtures to reduce infestations. 

Mowing or haying may be used to remove the 

aboveground growth of invasive plants before flowering 

and seed production in areas where other treatments 

may not be available or practical. Neighboring 

landowners are usually interested in additional forage. 

Heavily infested areas can often be hayed early to 

prepare the site for other control practices (for example, 

biological control agents and chemical control). Two 

common obstacles to haying for control of invasive 

plants is (1) excessively rough and uneven ground 

usually due to pocket gopher activity, and (2) potential 

to spread the invasive plants via hay transported off 

Service lands to private lands. (See appendix F.) 

Grazing by sheep or goats can be used to maintain an 

invasive plant population at a level that the plant no 

longer presents an economic hardship. Grazing may 

also be used as a pretreatment to prepare for herbicide 

application. (See appendix F.) 

The use of biological control agents—flea beetles 

(Apthona species)—for leafy spurge control has 

shown excellent results. Widespread use of these 

insects needs to be made by monitoring insectaries 

for the beetles, with redistribution of beetles among 

leafy spurge patches as needed. The use of other 

biological control for other invasive plant species needs 

to be investigated. Releases of the Canada thistle stem 

mining weevil, seed head weevil, and stem gall fly 

have shown mixed results. Biocontrol is commercially 

available for musk thistle, yellow and Dalmatian 

toadflax, yellow star-thistle, knapweeds, and purple 

loosestrife. 

Old Cropland in WPAs 

This section provides descriptions of declining 

grassland bird species, old cropland areas, restoration 

efforts, priority WPAs, and the integrity policy. 

decliNiNG GrasslaNd Bird sPecies 

According to Conner et al. (2001), the human 

impacts to the diversity of the biota of the North 

American grasslands are likely the most significant 

of all terrestrial ecosystems on the continent. 

Specifically, the bird species that use grasslands 

have shown dramatic and consistent declines (Knopf 

1994). According to Knopf (1995) and Rich et al. 

(2004), as an overall group, grassland birds show 

higher declines than birds of other North American 

vegetative associations. Breeding Bird Survey data 

from 1966–1996 indicates that populations of 13 

species of North American grassland birds declined 

significantly and, conversely, populations of only 2 

species increased (Peterjohn and Sauer 1999). It is 

hypothesized that major contributing factors to this 

decline are grassland fragmentation and habitat 

loss. The native sod conversion to cropland directly 

impacted wetland and grassland birds by reducing 

and fragmenting the available breeding cover for 

grassland-nesting species (Sugden and Beyersbergen 

1984, Batt et al. 1989). Further, many grassland- and 

wetland-dependent birds have few alternatives to the 

Great Plains (Igl and Johnson 1995), whereas birds 

associated with woody vegetation appear to have 

larger distributions across the continent (Johnson et 

al. 1994). 

Another proposed cause for declines of grassland birds 

is the degradation of existing prairie and wetlands. 

Current day grazing regimes often do not imitate the 

processes that were in place 200 years ago, which 

presents the birds with a different structure and, often, 

a different vegetative composition. In addition, some 

areas of native sod have been under a management 

regime of idleness, which appears to have given an 

advantage to invasive plant species such as smooth 

brome and Kentucky bluegrass. These species tend to 

dominate and overtake native species and degrade the 

habitat. Wilson and Belcher (1989) found that Eurasian 

plant species in the North American prairie not only 

replace the native plant community, but also impact 

the species composition of wildlife communities that 

use these plant communities. The woody vegetation 

now commonplace across the formerly open grasslands 

also negatively influences grassland songbirds by 

fragmenting the grasslands, which provides habitat 

for predator species and attracts forest-edge bird 

species that may displace the grassland species 

(Johnson 2006b). 

old croPlaNd areas 

Many of the upland acres associated with district 

lands were previously cultivated and are referred 

to as “old cropland.” Traditionally, these areas were 

reseeded to herbaceous mixtures that included 

species such as cool-season introduced grasses and 

legumes (intermediate wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, 

alfalfa, or sweetclover) and primarily provided nesting 

cover for mallards and other ducks. This seed mixture 

has been referred to as DNC (dense nesting cover). 

Although a viable mixture that is beneficial on multiple 

levels, this mixture requires intensive inputs to 

maintain over the long term. First, DNC has a limited 

lifespan and provides attractive cover to nesting ducks 

for perhaps only 6–8 years after seeding and up to 15 

years with certain management (Higgins and Barker 

1982, Lokemoen 1984). 

At the end of the DNC lifecycle, a field is typically 

cultivated and farmed for 2–3 years, and then reseeded. 

This leads to a rotation of seeding–managing–farming– 

seeding into perpetuity. Oftentimes, fields are not 

reseeded at the prescribed frequencies, which leave 

decadent, invasive plant-infested uplands across 

the landscape that are limited in attractiveness to 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 77 

migratory birds. Further, the need to repeat this 

rotation on a regular basis negatively affects other 

ecological factors in the surrounding environment. 

For example, cultivation increases soil erosion, and 

herbicide use is increased to prepare the seedbed for 

each new seeding. 

restoratioN efforts 

As part of this CCP, the nine wetland management 

districts will restore priority WPAs of old cropland 

back to native vegetation. These areas will be 

revegetated with a diversity of native vegetation that, 

with modest management, will be relatively resistant 

to infestation by invasive plant species including 

noxious weeds. This will benefit grassland and wetland 

birds, because providing habitat that is most similar 

to the historical vegetative condition likely provides 

habitat for more grassland-dependent wildlife. 

According to Howell (1988), re-creating the elements 

found in the original communities may be the optimal 

method for ensuring continued species interactions 

and natural selection. As an example, Baird’s sparrow 

and Sprague’s pipit appear to use short, sparse grass 

structure and mostly associate with native 

bunchgrasses, rather than the broad-leaved, introduced 

species used for DNC mixes (Madden et al. 2000). 

Further, according to Stewart (1975), and Kantrud and 

Higgins (1992), marbled godwit and willet typically 

select native grass cover over tame grass cover. 

Native prairie areas that have not been cultivated, 

typically have a diversity of plant forms including 

short, rhizomatous grasses, taller bunchgrasses, a low 

shrub component, and a variety of forbs, dependent 

on management. This structural diversity is usually 

lower in fields dominated by introduced vegetation 

(most commonly, smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, 

and invasive plants such as wormwood or leafy spurge) 

that have a more homogeneous height across a field 

(Wilson and Belcher 1989). Grassland-dependent birds 

adapted to the diverse structure the native prairie 

provided, whereas DNC-type mixtures limit this 

diversity in structure and likely attract only bird 

species that key in on this tall, dense cover. 

Another benefit of using native seed mixtures to 

restore old cropland, as compared with using a DNC 

mixture, is the longevity. In theory, native seed 

mixtures should persist into perpetuity under 

appropriate management including disturbances that 

imitate the natural regimes that sustained wildlife 

populations before human interventions. Management 

of district lands in North Dakota typically involves 

various tools to imitate the defoliation activities 

through which prairie plants evolved, including 

prescribed fire and rotational grazing (see appendix F). 

The frequency of certain activities depends on the 

particular habitat components, for example, a pristine, 

native prairie tract may require a burn every 3–5 years 

and intermittent, rotational grazing of domestic 

cattle. This is much less activity over time than the 

rotation required to sustain DNC-seeded fields. 

Experimentation with native seeding that took place 

10–20 years ago in the Drift Prairie and Red River 

Valley areas of North Dakota usually included three 

to five, native warm-season grasses. Current research 

indicates that this may not be an optimal mixture for 

success of establishment and management. Tilman 

(1996) states that biological diversity is dependent on 

the functionality and sustainability of the ecosystem, 

lending to the thought that grassland restorations 

should attempt to include diverse seed mixtures. Guo 

and Shaffer (2006) completed their research in North 

Dakota, which indicated that the saturation rate for 

one of their study sites was between 16 and 32 species 

of native plants. 

Inclusion of forbs in native mixtures appears to be 

necessary in attempts to restore variables such as 

nutrient cycling and energy flow (Pokorny et al. 2005). 

Sheley and Half (2006) indicate that seeding a wide 

range of forbs increases the likelihood that more 

niches will be filled and facilitates overall survival 

of the forbs. The use of multiple forbs may help to 

overcome the temporal weather variations because at 

least certain species should germinate and respond to 

the dynamic weather conditions that annually persist 

(Sheley and Half 2006). More specifically, varying 

numbers and combinations of species in differing 

developmental phases may be a requirement for a 

native seeded area to achieve the best possible results. 

It is likely too that, as a stand matures, a diverse 

mixture may play an important role in the belowground 

community by providing a well-developed root system 

for sustainability over time (Guo and Shaffer 2006). 

Further, another benefit to establishment of native 

vegetation is the suggestion that species-rich seed 

mixtures may reduce infestation of invasive plants 

in restored grasslands (Blumenthal 2003, Carpinelli 

2001, Pokorny 2002, Sheley and Half 2006, Tilman 

1996). In a study by Pokorny et al. (2005), they 

determined that native forbs resisted invasion by 

spotted knapweed better than grasses. The overall 

theory in the literature indicates that seeding a 

diverse seed mixture increases the inclusion of 

various functional groups among plant species. With 

extremely limited data on the reestablishment of 

native flora mixtures in North Dakota, there is a 

need to begin long-term research in this area. Ensuring 

science-based management for reseeding these areas 

is of chief importance to the perpetuation of the 

grassland resources. 

Priority wPas 

Based on data in federal, regional, and state plans and 

several literature sources, the approximate midrange 

of habitat requirements for several grassland bird 

species is 125 acres. Therefore, WPAs that are at least 

125 acres in size or part of existing habitat blocks 

greater than 125 acres will be a priority for restoration. 

For restoration of grasslands, the amount of edge 

needs to be minimized by designing circular or square 

fields (Wyoming Partners in Flight 2002). The 

literature provides evidence that even such smaller 
78 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

areas provide benefits to grassland birds. One study 

indicated that landscape-level effects are not strong; 

rather that local habitat management is important 

for reproduction of ducks and songbirds (Koper and 

Schmniegelow 2006). Further, Davis et al. (2006) 

indicate that patch size effects on reproductive success 

of songbirds of the mixed-grass prairie were relatively 

small and variable. These studies may indicate 

variations in regional abundance or landscape 

composition among species. Regardless, patterns of 

area sensitivity probably vary for grassland birds 

(Davis et al. 2006) and likely restoration efforts will 

provide appropriate habitat size and composition 

for certain grassland-dependent birds including 

grasshopper sparrow, Savannah sparrow, bobolink, 

Le Conte’s sparrow, sedge wren, upland-nesting 

shorebirds, and various waterfowl. 

iNteGrity Policy 

The districts’ focus on using native plants to restore 

WPAs is in line with the Improvement Act, which 

includes an “Integrity Policy” that states that Refuge 

System units are to promote biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health and attempt the 

restoration of historical conditions on Refuge System 

lands (Schroeder et al. 2004). 

USFWS 

Phalarope chicks find refuge in nesting cover. 

old croPlaNd iN wPas oBjective 

In an attempt to restore grasslands that resemble 

presettlement conditions, over the next 15 years reseed 

at least 10,000 acres to native herbaceous mixtures in 

priority WPAs that, 10 years postestablishment, will 

be comprised of >60% native grasses and forbs. 

(For this objective, planning team members used 

their knowledge and expertise to obtain an acreage 

estimate. This acreage seems achievable based on the 

adequacy of funding and staff levels included in the 

CCP. The level of 60% presence of native grasses and 

forbs across seeded areas considers the management 

challenges associated with control of invasive 

plants, while targeting a reasonable percentage for 

maintaining dominance of seeded species. Monitoring 

these seeded sites is critical for measuring the 

acreage and percentage listed in the objective.) 

Strategies 

— 	 Identify priority restoration sites in WPAs 


based on habitat blocks of wetlands and 


grasslands that are greater than 125 acres.
 

Use appropriate site preparation techniques to 

ensure a weed-free seedbed, which may include 

a combination of cropping and chemical fallowing 

using glyphosate-based herbicide. 

Develop a seed mixture with a nearly equal coolseason to warm-season grass and forb component. 

Drill or broadcast the native seed mixture. 

Use a variety of tools in postseeding management, 

including clipping, prescribed fire, prescribed 

grazing (see appendix F), and necessary IPM 

strategies. 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— Monitor results of vegetation establishment. 

To ensure that grassland restoration efforts are 

science-based, conduct research on selected 

newly seeded sites to determine the establishment 

success of species included in the mixtures. From 

this data, within 15 years of CCP approval, 

develop a decision matrix to help with selecting 

optimal species to use in grassland restorations. 

To ensure effectiveness of native seed mixes 

containing grasses and forbs, conduct research 

on wildlife response that focuses on Lepidoptera 

and grassland-dependent migratory birds 

(waterfowl, shorebirds, and songbirds) within 

10 years of CCP approval. 

—

—

Rationale 

According to Klett et al. (1984), nest initiation rates 

for mallard, gadwall, and blue-winged teal in North 

Dakota and South Dakota were as high or higher in 

native-seeded fields than in seeded fields that lacked 

natives. In addition, nest success was not significantly 

different in native-seeded versus tame-grass-seeded 

study fields (Klett et al. 1984). Therefore, the Service 

will seed old cropland to a mix of cool-season and 

warm-season native grasses over time. The number 

of species in seed mixes is, in part, dependent on 

annual budgets; however, more important seed mix 

considerations concern the ratio of cool-season to 

warm-season species, with a target cool-season to 

warm-season grass ratio close to 1:1. 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 79 

Dense Nesting Cover in WPAs 

As described under “Old Cropland,” certain old cropland 

WPAs were seeded back to an herbaceous cover of 

introduced vegetation known as DNC. Traditionally, 

these seed mixtures included cool-season introduced 

grasses and legumes (intermediate wheatgrass, tall 

wheatgrass, alfalfa, or sweetclover) that establish 

well under a wide variety of soil, moisture, and climatic 

conditions that exist across the Prairie Pothole Region 

(Duebbert et al. 1981). Such a mixture provides 

nesting cover for generalist birds including uplandnesting ducks (Duebbert et al. 1981), northern harrier, 

and sedge wren (Johnson et al. 2004). DNC provides 

attractive nesting cover for about 6–8 years after 

seeding and up to 15 years with certain management 

(Duebbert and Frank 1984, Higgins and Barker 1982, 

Lokemoen 1984). At the end of the DNC lifecycle, a 

field is typically cultivated and farmed for 2–3 years, 

and then reseeded. This leads to a rotation of seeding– 

managing–farming–seeding into perpetuity to maintain 

the intended cover. 

The WPAs included in the following objective are old 

croplands that are not part of the acreage listed in the 

previous old cropland objectives. Ideally, the majority 

of these tracts will be seeded back to a native mixture; 

however, certain situations may limit this opportunity. 

Often, newly acquired district lands have been under 

a regime of conventional cropland tillage and wetland 

drainage for decades. Such areas often have varying 

challenges in terms of soil quality, especially with 

salinity. Potentially, a cycle or two of a DNC mixture 

on these sites may improve the soils to a point where 

seeding a native mixture is more viable. In addition, 

several logistics must be considered in the decision 

to seed DNC versus native mixtures. If a site is such 

a distance from district headquarters that adequate 

management (especially in the establishment phase) 

of native species is not possible, a DNC mixture may 

be more appropriate. Further, DNC mixtures are 

significantly cheaper than native mixtures at least in 

the short term and, therefore, may be a more 

appropriate choice simply based on funding availability. 

If a DNC mixture is used, intermediate wheatgrass and 

tall wheatgrass are viable grasses to use and alfalfa an 

appropriate legume. Under no circumstances should 

smooth brome or sweetclover be used in DNC mixtures. 

DNC tracts must also be managed to maintain optimal 

vigor throughout the seeding’s lifecycle. Especially 

within cropland-dominated areas, invasive plant 

problems will persist and require appropriate 

treatments to control (see the invasive plant objective). 

Other management methods such as grazing (see 

appendix F) and fire may also be used in certain 

situations to stimulate the height and density of DNC 

mixtures. Additionally, mechanical methods such as 

haying may also benefit seedings by removing the 

litter layer. Finally, the most productive stands of DNC 

are those that are reseeded approximately every 10– 

15 years, including appropriate crop rotation frequency 

as seedbed preparation (Duebbert et al. 1981). 

deNse NestiNG cover iN wPas oBjective 

Over 15 years, continue to use other options for 

grassland cover (such as DNC and tame grass) on 

old cropland WPAs to address site-specific migratory 

bird cover. Carry out appropriate management that 

maintains this cover at a minimum of every 4–7 years. 

Strategies 

— 	 Use appropriate site preparation techniques to 

ensure weed-free seedbeds. 

Use farming activities to provide an appropriate 

seedbed for seeding (see appendix F). 

Manage this habitat using varying tools such as 

fire, haying and grazing (see appendix F), and 

idling. 

Reseed introduced species mixes such as DNC 

every 10–15 years. 

Control invasive plants using IPM strategies 

(see the invasive plants objective). 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

Old cropland tracts that have not begun the seedbed 

preparation process will be maintained in an idle 

state that generally consists of a predominance of 

introduced, cool-season grass species. Before seedbed 

preparation for seeding to native grass, these sites 

are of relatively low priority. Management efforts 

can be better directed toward higher priority upland 

areas such as native prairie, tracts already reseeded 

to native grass, and tracts being prepared for native 

reseeding. Some studies have indicated that, despite 

the presence of introduced, cool-season perennial grass 

cover, DNC will likely support multiple plant species 

and generalist birds including upland-nesting ducks 

(Mark Sherfy, USGS, unpublished data). 

Invasive and Planted Woody Vegetation in 

WPAs 

The plants and animals of the North Dakota grasslands 

evolved simultaneously and were influenced by fire, 

climate, and herbivory (animals eating plants) (Weaver 

1954, Weaver and Albertson 1956, Milchunas et al. 

1988, Vallentine 1990, Flannery 2001). These factors 

maintained a predominantly grassland ecosystem, 

with a limited occurrence of woody plants. 

North Dakota’s grasslands burned frequently, providing 

an inhospitable environment to trees (Higgins 1986, 

Severson and Sieg 2006). The growing points of most 

grassland vegetation are usually protected at the base 

of the plant, compared with woody vegetation that 

possesses elevated growing points that are more 

vulnerable to injury or fatality from fire. Grassland 

plants persist and expand with frequent and repetitive 

burns, whereas woody plants tend to decrease (Vogl 

1974). The tall-grass and mixed-grass prairie types 

that cover North Dakota produce large quantities 

of fuel that dry quickly and easily burn (Steuter and 

McPherson 1995). Specifically, Bragg (1982) states 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

that bluestem prairies recover quickly postfire and 

can even provide enough fuel for multiple burns in a 

single growing season. 

The climate also played a pivotal role in the 

development of grasslands, especially considering 

that periodic droughts limited the growth and 

expansion of trees (Weaver and Albertson 1936). 

Transeau (1935) states that it is important to 

consider the climatic extremes in North Dakota to 

understand the distribution of grasslands, rather 

than focus on the long-term averages. As an example, 

the drought of the 1930s likely played a significant 

role in reducing current trees and eliminating the 

establishment of new woody vegetation. While it is 

interesting that the recent climate of the area has 

been capable of supporting trees (Anderson 1990), 

that could easily change with the onset of a drought. 

Finally, records indicate that the two primary grazing 

animals, bison and elk, likely negatively affected woody 

vegetation. Considering that heavy and consistent 

use by bison occurred across eastern North Dakota, 

activities such as grazing, trampling, and rubbing 

suppressed tree growth at some level across the 

grasslands (Severson and Sieg 2006). Elk, although 

considered primary grazers, shift to eating woody 

materials as grasses dry and become less available 

in the winter (Nelson and Leege 1982). In addition, 

documentation also exists that elk damaged woody 

vegetation by other behavioral activities, especially 

associated with the rut (Severson and Sieg 2006). 

Considering the cumulative damages occurring 

from ungulates, fire, and drought, it is evident that 

tree growth and expansion were limited across the 

grasslands of North Dakota. 

Recent research in North Dakota determined that the 

probability of occurrence of breeding grassland birds 

decreased notably for 11 of 15 species as the percentage 

of woody vegetation increased. Further, negative 

effects on grassland birds increased as the height of 

woody plants increased: brush→tall shrubs→trees. By 

most accounts, the grasslands became unsuitable for 

nine grassland bird species as woodland cover exceeded 

25% (Grant et al. 2004). Results of a recent experimental 

study in North Dakota determined that the bobolink, 

Savannah sparrow, and sedge wren specifically avoided 

tree plantings (Naugle and Quamen 2007). 

It is apparent that nest predators and nest parasites 

increase near woody habitat edges (Johnson and 

Temple 1990, Burger et al. 1994); therefore, planting 

woody vegetation in these formerly treeless 

grasslands magnifies these problems. Tree plantings 

in grasslands are important den and foraging sites 

for grassland bird and egg predators historically 

uncommon to grasslands (Sargeant 1972, Sargeant 

et al. 1987, Pedlar et al. 1997, Kuehl and Clark 2002). 

Gazda et al. (2002) indicate that duck nest success 

decreases near planted woodlands, mainly because 

of increased predation by mammal and bird species 

associated with trees and shrubs. In addition, other 

sources state that waterfowl and waterbirds actually 

avoid wetlands where trees and shrubs occur along 

wetland margins, presumably to evade predation 

(Rumble and Flake 1983, Shutler et al. 2000). In their 

study, Johnson and Temple (1990) determined that 

nest predation rates were lower for five species of 

grassland songbirds in large grassland areas where 

nests were more than 148 feet from woody vegetation. 

The brown-headed cowbird is a nest parasite whose 

numbers have increased in recent decades to the 

detriment of other birds (Shaffer et al. 2003). A 

cowbird will lay its eggs in the nest of another bird, 

and the other bird will act as a foster parent to the 

cowbird young, thus reducing survival of the host 

bird’s young (Lorenzana and Sealy 1999). Studies in the 

mixed-grass prairie and tall-grass prairie determined 

that grassland birds nesting close (less than 541 feet 

[165 meters]) to wooded edges incur higher rates of 

brood parasitism from cowbirds than nests further 

away (Johnson and Temple 1990, Romig and Crawford 

1995, Patten et al. 2006). Shaffer et al. (2003) 

documented that brown-headed cowbird parasitizes 

24 of the 36 North American grassland birds. 

Historically, most of the WPAs in the state were part 

of a grassland-dominated system, where fire, grazing, 

and drought restricted natural tree growth to limited 

areas (Higgins 1986). Now, planted trees and shrubs 

occur at many WPAs. Although most woody plantings 

existed before Service ownership of these lands, the 

Service did some planting after acquisition. Planted 

trees and shrubs such as green ash, cottonwood, and 

buffaloberry are native to North America; however, 

many others are nonnative species such as caragana, 

Russian olive, and Siberian elm. Most of these plantings 

are considered unnatural components of historical 

habitat. Additionally, nonnative species of woody 

vegetation such as Russian olive and Siberian elm are 

invasive and readily spread from both Service-owned 

and non-Service-owned plantings into new areas. 

Preventing the encroachment and planting of woody 

vegetation into grassland systems contributes 

significantly to the recovery of grassland bird 

populations (Herkert 1994). Several sources indicate 

that the elimination and reduction of existing invasive 

and planted woody vegetation will benefit most 

grassland-dependent bird species (Bakker 2003, Grant 

et al. 2004, Patten 2006, Shaffer et al. 2003, Naugle 

and Quamen 2007, Johnson and Temple 1990, Sovada 

et al. 2005). Although many woodland bird species 

might nest in planted woodlands, few are of 

management concern. This suggests that the loss of 

planted woodlands will have negligible effects on 

these species whose populations are stable or expanding. 

In addition, tree plantings on the prairie fail to provide 

habitat for forest birds that are of management 

concern (Kelsey et al. 2006). 

Considering all of this data, systematic removal of 

invasive and planted woody vegetation from Service 

lands is central to improvement of habitat for grassland­
dependent birds. As described in the objective, the 

HAPET developed a grassland bird conservation 

area matrix (Niemuth et al. 2005), which highlights 

significant blocks of grassland (see figure 9 in chapter 3, 

map of the grassland bird conservation area matrix). 

Sites for tree removal at WPAs are prioritized based 

on this matrix, with the majority of removal acres 

existing in the areas with the largest blocks of grass 

(see figure 14, map of grassland priority zones). 

Reducing fragmentation in these core areas (see 

figure 9 in chapter 3) has the potential to provide the 

most benefit to grassland-dependent birds. In addition, 

the removal of woody species >3.28 feet tall should 

target the removal of larger shrubs and trees that are 

problematic across Service lands, rather than the 

native, small shrubs such as prairie rose, lead plant, 

and western snowberry that are an important 

component of grassland composition. 

USFWS 

The Service uses many tools, including prescribed fire, to 

control woody vegetation in grasslands. 

iNvasive aNd PlaNted woody veGetatioN iN wPas oBjective 

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 (see figure 9 in chapter 3). 

Strategies 

— 	 Cut standing trees and shrubs and remove 

belowground woody material (stumps and roots) 

using chainsaws and a variety of heavy equipment. 

Where removal of stumps and roots is not viable, 

treat them with appropriate herbicide. 

Apply herbicides in situations where suckering 

occurs or is anticipated. 

Pile and burn down woody material. 

Use high-intensity spring or fall fires to 

initially kill trees within 4 years. Then use fire 

or herbicides to reduce viability of recurring 

growth. Continue control of trees and tall shrubs 

with periodic fire (every 3–6 years) applied from 

March to November. 

Restore bare areas resulting from woody 


vegetation removal to perennial grass cover.
 

Due to the potential controversial nature of this 

management, conduct outreach and appropriate 

education to the associated local communities, 

politicians, media, and other interested 

individuals. 

Use appropriate bird survey methods to monitor 

bird response to removal of woody vegetation. 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

Prior to Euro-American settlement in North Dakota, 

woody vegetation primarily occurred in riparian or 

streamside areas, in broken topography occurring in 

the upper drainages of streams, and in escarpments 

and sandhills. These areas often had increased soil and 

foliar moisture, standing water, and relatively steep 

topography that provided protection from fires 

(Severson and Sieg 2006). 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 81 

Today, although numerous patches of native woodlands 

still exist in the northern Great Plains, once large 

expanses of nearly treeless prairie are now intermixed 

with cropland and scattered small (less than 5 acres) 

linear and block-shaped tree plantings (also commonly 

referred to as windbreaks, shelterbelts, and tree belts). 

Baer (1989) estimated that these plantings cover 3% 

of the land area in the state. Tree plantings are 

designed to reduce soil erosion from croplands (Baer 

1989) and are viewed by many as striking landscape 

features that symbolize settlement of the western 

United States. However, they also further fragment 

remaining grasslands by creating abrupt boundaries 

that increase edge effects (O’Leary and Nyberg 2000, 

Winter et al. 2000, Ribic and Sample 2001). Additionally, 

the suppression of ecological processes such as fire and 

grazing has allowed an increase in the encroachment 

of woody plants into grasslands (Bakker 2003). These 

factors have been linked to the deterioration of 

grassland bird populations, which are declining faster 

and more consistently than any other group of North 

American birds (Samson and Knopf 1994, Herkert 1995). 

Research indicates that native grassland birds need 

large, uninterrupted tracts of treeless grasslands 

(Herkert 1994, Winter et al. 1999, Bakker et al. 2002). 

The literature overwhelmingly indicates that invasive 

and planted trees in prairie landscapes often negatively 

affect a variety of bird groups (Bakker 2003). 

Specifically, trees on the prairie are correlated with 

negative consequences to ducks (Rumble and Flake 

1983), wetland birds other than ducks (Naugle et al. 

1999), prairie grouse (Hanowski et al. 2000, Niemuth 

2000), grassland songbirds (Winter et al. 2000, Grant 

et al. 2004), and ring-necked pheasant (Snyder 1984, 

Schmitz and Clark 1999). 

Turtle Mountains Habitat 

The Turtle Mountains are unique to North Dakota, 

representing the most extensive forested area in the 

state. The area is an “island” of aspen-dominated 

forests with a high density of permanent lakes 

surrounded by a sea of prairie. Located along the 

United States–Canada boundary, the Turtle Mountains 
82 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

are approximately 40 miles long and 25 miles wide 

and occupy an area of 500 square miles. 

The J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District 

manages approximately 1,600 acres at eight WPAs 

in Bottineau and Rolette counties in the Turtle 

Mountains. Approximately 800 acres is forested and 

the other 800 acres are wetlands. Most of the forested 

acres are located in Rolette County in the Baxtrom, 

Carlisle Lake, and Willow Lake WPAs. 

Only a small fraction of the Turtle Mountains in 

North Dakota is in public ownership. About 40% of 

the historical woodland cover has been converted 

to cropland or hay land and many wetlands have 

been drained or modified. In contrast, the Canadian 

portion of the Turtle Mountains (almost half the 

total area) is mostly protected as a provincial park, 

consisting of intact forest–wetland complexes. 

Bird (1961) felt the vegetation of the Turtle Mountains 

might be a distinct unit or a southern extension of the 

aspen parkland. In the north, the aspen parkland occurs 

between the boreal forest (northern coniferous) and 

the true prairie and is characterized by groves of 

poplars (Bird 1930). Bird (1961) considered the entire 

parkland an ecotone between grassland and coniferous 

forest. Within the parkland, Moss (1932, 1955) noted 

competition between the poplar area and the boreal 

forest was primarily a struggle between the dominants. 

White spruce is the dominant tree of the boreal forests, 

but balsam poplar and trembling aspen will invade 

a white spruce forest after a fire and Moss (1932) 

attributed the low frequency of white spruce in poplar 

stands to frequent fires. Potter and Moir (1961) 

examined the relationship between fire and vegetation 

in the Turtle Mountains and found that conifers, 

although not naturally present today, grew there in 

the not too distant past. 

The recovery of an ecosystem following a major 

disturbance is called “secondary succession” (Dickman 

and Leefers 2003). Aspen forest is a secondary 

succession forest type maintained or regenerated by 

periodic disturbance, especially fire. When aspen trees 

are cut or burned, they regenerate by sprouting 

suckers from root clones. Without disturbance, mature 

aspen stands (40–60 years old) will begin to die and 

be succeeded by more shade-tolerant and fire-sensitive 

trees species such as green ash, American elm, and 

boxelder. The objective for the Turtle Mountains is 

to promote the regeneration of aspen by removing 

mature trees to maintain structural diversity (various 

age classes of regeneration), thereby providing habitat 

to a broad spectrum of species. 

Historically, fire has been a major factor affecting the 

vegetative structure and composition of woodlands in 

the Turtle Mountains (Potter and Moir 1961). Fires 

were more frequent before settlement, but have 

become less common since settlement in the late 1800s. 

The last extensive wildland fire in the Turtle Mountains 

was in 1886, which burned and killed most of the trees. 

Currently, fires are suppressed as soon as possible 

to protect homes and other property. Without fire 

disturbance, aspen stands will mature, thus reducing 

forest diversity and the inhabiting species. 

Some of the highest wetland and waterfowl densities 

occur in the Turtle Mountains. Numerous wetlands 

support high densities of mallard, canvasback, bluewinged teal, and ring-necked duck. In addition, this 

is the only place in the state where four cavity-nesting 

species occur: bufflehead, wood duck, hooded merganser, 

and common goldeneye. Waterfowl densities are two 

times greater in areas where complexes of aspen 

woodland and wetlands are intact. Other characteristic 

wetland species include common loon, red-necked 

grebe, and American white pelican. The Turtle 

Mountains support the most diverse woodland bird 

population in North Dakota. 

turtle MouNtaiNs haBitat oBjective 

Within 15 years after CCP approval, opportunistically 

rejuvenate 20–50 acres of mature (>40–60 years old) 

aspen woodland in WPAs to provide structural diversity 

(various age classes of aspen) important for providing 

habitat for a broad suite of woodland birds and other 

native wildlife. Conserve other native trees in the 

stand by selective retention of these species. 

Strategy 

— 	 Use a bulldozer with a blade to shear off mature 

aspen trees in 3–10 acre patches during winter 

freeze-up. Remove or leave trees on the ground. 

Avoid harvest of hardwood species such as green 

ash, American elm, boxelder, and oak trees to 

promote stand diversity. 

Rationale 

Ideally, large forest-wetland complexes in the Turtle 

Mountains include a mix of wetland types and age 

classes of aspen and oak woodland. Wildlife, especially 

birds, use these various wetland types and age classes 

of aspen forest to meet their needs. For example, 

ruffed grouse rely on many age classes of aspen during 

their life cycle. The ruffed grouse feeds extensively 

on aspen buds (DeByle and Winokur 1985). Other 

species such as yellow warbler and willow flycatcher 

breed mainly in young (<20 years old) aspen woodland. 

Many species, such as ovenbird, veery, and hairy 

woodpecker, nest only in mature aspen–oak woodland. 

Compared with coniferous forests, aspen stands have 

a rich understory of shrubs and herbaceous species 

(Gruell and Loope 1974). The forage in a stand of 

aspen can be up to six times as rich as that under 

coniferous forests (DeByle 1981). An aspen stand has 

three to four layers of vegetation—from small trees 

like chokecherry and juneberry, to small shrubs like 

hazelnut, to wildflowers and grasses. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

The Service developed objectives and strategies for 

three species—piping plover (threatened), whooping 

crane (endangered), and Dakota skipper (candidate). 
Edward Henry/USFWS 

Piping plover. 

PiPiNG Plover 

Wetlands in the Audubon, Crosby, and Lostwood 

wetland management districts have been historical 

nesting habitat for the threatened piping plover. 

The piping plover occurs in three distinct populations: 

Atlantic Coast, Great Lakes, and northern Great 

Plains. Of the roughly 6,000 piping plovers left in the 

world, about half breed in the northern Great Plains. 

Unlike the Atlantic Coast and Great Lakes populations, 

the northern Great Plains population is declining 

somewhere between 6% and 12% annually (Larson 

et al. 2002, Plissner and Haig 2000, Ryan et al. 1993), 

and is expected to go extinct in 50–100 years unless 

significant conservation activities are started. The 

decline and poor prognosis led to the listing of this 

population as threatened in the U. S. and endangered 

in Canada in the mid-1980s. 

In any given year, 50%–80% of the piping plovers that 

nest in the United States’ portion of the northern 

Great Plains do so in an eight-county area stretching 

from central North Dakota to northeastern Montana 

(see figure 10, map of the core area for piping 

plover, in chapter 3. Plovers in this core area breed 

on barren shorelines associated with alkali lakes 

and wetlands. Unlike the Missouri River, alkali 

lake habitat is relatively more stable within and 

between years and it is free of the social, political, 

and economic conflicts that plague piping plover 

recovery along the river. In addition, piping plover 

productivity is more stable from year to year on 

alkali lakes, whereas the Missouri River is a “boom 

or bust” environment for plovers (Adam Ryba, piping 

plover coordinator, USFWS, North Dakota, personal 

communication). 

Depending on water levels and availability, occasional 

plover use may occur outside of the core area in the 

northern Great Plains. However, these occurrences 

have been rare and no active management has been 

pursued in these other areas, with the exception of 

taking part in the International Piping Plover Census. 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 83 

PiPiNG Plover oBjective 1 

Over a 15-year period, annually protect piping plover 

nests found within the Audubon, Crosby, and Lostwood 

wetland management districts, and monitor the 

success of protected nests and hatched young. Strive 

for fledging rates of >1.24 per pair in the Alkali Lake 

core area to stabilize the northern Great Plains 

population (Larson et al. 2002), in an attempt to reach 

a population goal of 2,300 breeding pairs in the United 

States (USFWS 1994a). 

Strategies 

— 	 Erect wire mesh cages with netted tops over 

piping plover nests or provide nest protection 

by electric fence exclosures, or both. 

Monitor the success of protected nests by 

searching for “pip chips” in or near the nest 

bowl; or timing nest visits based on known or 

suspected nest initiation date, laying rate, and 

mean incubation period; or both. 

Monitor hatched young to fledging. 

Identify lands sensitive to piping plover nesting 

for consideration of added protection through 

land acquisition. 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

The Service listed the northern Great Plains 

population of piping plovers as threatened in the 

United States due to a poorly understood decline in 

abundance. Mabee and Estelle (2000) suggested that 

nest predation is a major problem limiting piping 

plover nest success throughout their range. However, 

according to Murphy et al. (2003), predators can 

successfully be deterred from depredation of eggs of 

piping plovers by placing large (10-foot diameter) mesh 

exclosures (cages) over individual nests. Recruitment 

has improved with these cages in the northern Great 

Plains (Murphy et al. 2003). Service staff plans to 

erect these exclosures over piping plover nests that 

are encountered within the boundaries of the Alkali 

Lake core area, not limited to Service lands, when 

permission is granted on private property. Exclosures 

placed after one or more eggs have been laid in the 

nest bowl have resulted in <2% nest abandonment in 

the northwestern portion of the state and northeastern 

Montana (Adam Ryba, piping plover coordinator, 

USFWS, North Dakota, personal communication). 

PiPiNG Plover oBjective 2 

Over a 15-year period, annually use a variety of 

vegetation control methods to eliminate vegetation 

on known plover beaches in the Alkali Lake core area. 

Do not conduct vegetation control between May 15 

and August 7 (Stewart 1975) or any time that piping 

plovers are present on the beaches. 

Strategies 

— 	 Determine percent coverage of vegetation by 

visual estimation. 
84 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

— Apply herbicides, mechanical disturbance, or 

other means to remove upland vegetation. 

Rationale 

Piping plovers do not generally nest in areas of dense 

vegetation (Prindiville-Gaines and Ryan 1988). 

Additionally, Espie et al. (1996) found that depredated 

piping plover nests in Saskatchewan were closer to 

vegetation than successful nests. Although many 

sandy beaches in the districts are suitable for plover 

nesting, the beaches will revegetate periodically. 

Without intervention (herbicide application, prescribed 

fire, mechanical disturbance), vegetation may expand 

to become the predominant cover type on these beaches. 

The district staffs will remove (when needed) as much 

of this vegetation as possible, before and after the 

piping plover nesting season, to continue to provide 

quality breeding habitat for piping plover. 

PiPiNG Plover oBjective 3 

Over a 15-year period, continue the International 

Piping Plover Census for the presence of piping 

plovers in 100% of the wetland basins across the 

Audubon, Crosby, and Lostwood wetland management 

districts, which have historical nesting habitat for 

piping plovers. 

Strategy 

— 	 Survey wetlands for piping plovers by the most 

appropriate means (for example, boat, walk the 

shoreline, view from a vehicle with a spotting 

scope). Conduct surveys between early and 

mid-June. 

Rationale 

Beginning in 1991, biologists throughout North America 

collaborated in a monumental effort known as the 

International Piping Plover Census (Haig and Plissner 

1993). Plovers nest on open gravel patches and avoid 

areas dominated by mud, heavy cobbles, or dense 

vegetation (Whyte 1985, Prindiville-Gaines and Ryan 

1988). Both breeding and wintering habitats are 

censused in an effort to (1) establish benchmark 

population levels for all known piping plover sites, 

(2) survey additional potential breeding and wintering 

sites, and (3) assess the current status of the species 

relative to past population estimates. 

Since 1991, the International Piping Plover Census 

has been conducted at 5-year intervals (1996, 2001, 

and 2006) at sites censused in 1991 and a limited 

number of new sites (Plissner and Haig 2000). In the 

2006 census, a total of 1,481 pairs were counted in the 

United States (Adam Ryba, piping plover coordinator, 

USFWS, North Dakota, personal communication); 

the recovery plan goal is 2,300 pairs (USFWS 1994a). 

Continuation of this effort will allow district staffs 

to develop a better understanding of where to use 

nest protection measures (see Piping Plover Objective 1, 

previous) in a given year, as well as determine 

wetlands in need of protection through acquisition 

(fee title or wetland easement) or designation as 

piping plover critical habitat. 

whooPiNG craNe 

Each spring and fall, endangered whooping cranes use 

wetlands and agricultural fields within all the districts 

as migratory stopover areas en route to their summer 

and winter grounds (see figure 11, map of whooping 

crane sightings, in chapter 3). 

whooPiNG craNe oBjective 

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. 

Strategies 

— 	 Post warning signs in the areas being used by 

whooping cranes. 

Contact the local media (radio, television, 

newspapers), upon confirmed observations, 

when it appears that whooping cranes will stay 

in the area for multiple days and where hunting 

activity exists or is likely. 

Actively patrol areas being used by whooping 

cranes to periodically monitor their whereabouts 

and inform the public of their presence. 

On a case-by-case basis for each occurrence of a 

whooping crane, consider the merits of a possible 

voluntary hunting closure on private lands where 

whooping crane use is occurring regularly. If 

this is deemed appropriate, contact the necessary 

landowner(s) to discuss a possible voluntary 

closure in accordance with the whooping crane 

contingency plan (USFWS 2001). 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

The whooping crane is one of the most endangered 

birds in North America. The only naturally occurring 

wild, migratory population of whooping cranes in the 

world numbers fewer than 215 individuals (Tom Stehn, 

USFWS, personal communication). 

Ryan Hagerty/USFWS 

Whooping crane. 
In addition to occasional whooping cranes, several 

thousand sandhill cranes stage in the districts each 

fall, where they are a relatively popular game species. 

Because of the often-close interaction between sandhill 

cranes and whooping cranes and their use of similar 

habitats, potential exists for a whooping crane to be 

mistaken for a sandhill crane. In 2004, sandhill crane 

hunters in Kansas mistakenly shot and killed two 

whooping cranes near Quivira National Wildlife Refuge. 

Since 1968, there have been other shooting incidents 

involving the whooping crane—four in Texas and one 

in Saskatchewan, Canada (Richard Hinton, Bismarck 

Tribune, personal communication, 2003). The Service 

hopes that by informing and educating area hunters 

about whooping cranes’ use of district lands, it can 

greatly reduce any risk of an accidental shooting. The 

Service will consult the whooping crane contingency 

plan (USFWS 2001) for appropriate actions when 

dealing with migrant whooping cranes that show 

potential for remaining in the districts for multiple days. 

dakota skiPPer 

The Dakota skipper butterfly is a species of concern 

whose numbers have decreased. Its current 

distribution straddles the border between tall-grass 

prairie and mixed-grass prairie. The Dakota skipper 

occurs in two types of habitat (USFWS 2002): 

QQ	 Flat, moist, native bluestem prairie in which 

three species of wildflowers are usually present— 

stage-wood lily, harebell, and smooth camas. 

Upland (dry) prairie that is often on ridges and 

hillsides; bluestem grasses and needlegrasses 

dominate these habitats and three wildflowers 

are typically present in quality sites—pale 

purple, upright coneflowers, and blanketflower. 

QQ	 

The Dakota skipper’s historical range is not known 

precisely, because extensive destruction of native 

prairie preceded widespread biological surveys in 

central North America. Although this butterfly likely 

occurred throughout a relatively unbroken and vast 

area of grassland in the north-central United States 

and south-central Canada, it now occurs only in 

scattered blanketflower remnants of high-quality 

native prairie. 

Scientists have recorded Dakota skippers from 

northeastern Illinois to southern Saskatchewan. 

Dakota skippers now occur no further east than 

western Minnesota and scientists presume that the 

species no longer exists in Illinois and Iowa. The most 

significant remaining populations of Dakota skipper 

occur in western Minnesota, northeastern South 

Dakota, north-central North Dakota, and southern 

Manitoba. Its current distribution straddles the border 

between tall-grass and mixed-grass prairie ecoregions. 

dakota skiPPer oBjective 

At 5-year intervals, reevaluate native prairie portions 

>80 acres in WPAs for suitability as Dakota skipper 

habitat, based on new vegetative species composition 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 85 

data. Manage sites deemed suitable for Dakota skipper 

(tier 2, after Murphy 2005) in accordance with its 

habitat needs. Within 5 years of classification, survey 

sites one or more times to document Dakota skipper 

presence or absence. 

Strategies 

— 	 Use data from new belt transects (Grant et al. 

2004) to reevaluate vegetative species composition. 

Systematically survey for Dakota skipper using 

either the checklist or Pollard Walk methods 

(Royer et al. 1998). 

Contract survey work to qualified lepidopterists. 

— 	 

—

Rationale 

Dakota skipper populations have declined due to 

widespread conversion of native prairie for agriculture 

and other uses. This has left the remaining skipper 

populations isolated from one another in relatively 

small areas of remnant native prairie. In addition, 

many of the habitats where the species persists are 

threatened by overgrazing, conversion to cultivated 

agriculture, inappropriate fire management and 

herbicide use, woody plant invasion, road construction, 

gravel mining, invasive plant species, and historically 

high water levels (in some areas). 

All district lands that have habitat capable of supporting 

Dakota skippers need to be systematically surveyed in 

an attempt to document the presence or absence of 

this species. Periodic reevaluation (every 5 years) of 

native prairie tracts must be completed to capture 

changes in vegetative species composition that occur 

over time as a result of management, climatic changes, 

or other factors (such as new infestations by invasive 

plants). 

Predator Management in WPAs 

This section describes predator–prey dynamics, related 

waterfowl nest success, and predator management. 

Predator–Prey dyNaMics 

Across the prairie landscape, grassland and wetland 

conversions changed the predator–prey relationships 

and actually bolstered the populations of several 

waterfowl predators (Sovada et al. 2005). Prior to 

settlement, the highest-ranking predator across the 

landscape was the gray wolf and an occasional grizzly 

bear. Less abundant were coyote and red fox, while 

swift fox populations were high. 

After settlement, the near elimination of the gray wolf 

from this area had a profound effect on mesopredators 

(intermediate predators), especially canids such as the 

red fox and coyote. Wolves are territorial and intolerant 

of other canids; thus, fox and coyote abundance was 

limited and somewhat controlled by wolves. However, 

after the extermination of gray wolves from the prairie, 

fox and coyote populations grew. Subsequently, coyotes 

were targeted with a bounty and populations were 

driven down. This increased the abundance and 
86 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

distribution of the red fox, which adversely affected 

waterfowl populations because red fox are a primary 

predator of nesting waterfowl and eggs (Sargeant 

et al. 1993, Sovada et al. 1995). Populations of other 

species that were scarce and narrowly distributed 

expanded greatly as well, including raccoon and 

American crow. 

Predator species composition is noteworthy because 

of the impacts on waterfowl survival (Greenwood et al. 

1995, Sovada et al. 1995). Franklin’s ground squirrel 

and six carnivores (raccoon, mink, striped skunk, 

badger, red fox, and coyote) cause most waterfowl 

depredation (Sargeant and Arnold 1984). Sargeant 

et al. (1993) determined that predation rates on 

waterfowl nests early in the nesting season increased 

simultaneously with the increase in the abundance 

of red fox, badger, and American crow, whereas, late 

in the nesting season, predation increased with the 

abundance of red fox and striped skunk. 

Additionally, fragmentation of the landscape caused 

by loss of wetland and grassland created edge effect 

that negatively affected many native species and 

increased predation. Predators live in areas where 

their needs are met at a more efficient level than by 

the surrounding landscape (Charnov 1976, Stephens 

and Krebs 1986). Relating this to the prairie, patchy 

grassland habitats that are interspersed throughout 

agricultural lands provide attractive food sources to 

predators as compared with the surrounding cropland 

(Greenwood et al. 1999). Charnov (1976) indicates that 

predators will spend more time in these isolated 

grassland patches, even considering the increased 

effort required to access these areas (for example, 

predators must traverse crop fields, roads, and human 

dwellings to get to grasslands). 

waterfowl Nest success 

In the Prairie Pothole Region, nest success of uplandnesting waterfowl declined between 1935 and 1992: 

nest success in 1935 averaged 30% and by the early 

1990s it was around 10%. Likely reasons for the 

decline include habitat alteration, drought, farming 

practices, nest predation, overhunting, environmental 

contaminants, and disease (Beauchamp et al. 1996). 

USFWS 

A canvasback hen keeps a watchful eye on her ducklings. 

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, this area experienced 

widespread drought, which reduced the already 

limited wetland habitat available to waterfowl and 

caused significant reductions in productivity (Samson 

et al. 1998). Such conditions resulted in poor nesting 

efforts and success and low survival rates of young 

(Austin 1998). Varying precipitation characteristic 

of the area greatly influenced the number and 

distribution of waterfowl despite restoration and 

regulatory practices that were becoming more 

prominent across the landscape (Batt et al. 1989). As 

an example, before the drought years, most of the 

area encountered a wet cycle that began in late 1993 

and continued through the 1990s. Most populations of 

waterfowl appeared to recover quickly at the onset 

of the wet years, with obvious reasons being (1) the 

increased quality of readily available wetland habitat 

(Austin 1998), and (2) the large number of cropland 

acres (about 4.8 million acres in the Prairie Pothole 

Region) that were converted to perennial grass through 

the Conservation Reserve Program (Kantrud 1993). 

Greenwood and Sovada (1996) indicate that other 

factors likely contributed to the large and rapid 

recovery of waterfowl following the drought years. 

Specifically, low red fox populations likely were a 

significant factor in the increased nest success in ducks, 

while duck survival was also enhanced by the low 

mink numbers (Austin 1998). The landscape conditions 

were ideal for a boom in waterfowl populations— 

favorable water conditions, reduced predator pressure, 

and increased availability of upland cover. However, 

these conditions that favor increased duck numbers 

appear to be in synchronization for only a short time 

following the drought years. Habitats highly dominated 

by agriculture, which are commonplace across the 

Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota, may only 

generate high duck production for 2–3 years out of 10 

(Lynch et al. 1963). 

Predator MaNaGeMeNt 

At breeding grounds in cropland-dominated landscapes, 

wildlife managers must deal with predation issues. 

The major source of mortality for North American 

waterfowl during the breeding season is predation 

(Sargeant and Raveling 1992), with greater than 

70% of nest failures attributed to predation (Sovada 

et al. 2001). Various studies indicate that predator 

removal increases waterfowl nest success (Mense 

1996, Garrettson et al. 1996, Zimmer 1996, Hoff 1999, 

Garrettson and Rohwer 2001). Sovada et al. (2001) 

state that extensive predator removal will improve 

waterfowl productivity. Several other studies document 

intensive predator removal that can increase duck 

nest success and brood production (Balsar et al. 1968, 

Duebbert and Lokemoen 1980, Sargeant et al. 1995, 

Garrettson et al. 1996). In situations where habitat 

protection and management is not enough to maintain 

and enhance waterfowl nest success, predator 

management is an acceptable and viable alternative 

(Sovada et al. 2005).
In addition to predation of waterfowl, predation of 

songbirds and other nongame birds is an important 

cause of nest failure (Martin 1988, 1995). Predator 

communities in fragmented landscapes such as the 

Prairie Pothole Region do not provide safe nesting 

sites for songbirds (Dion et al. 2000). An independent 

group of ornithologists (Berkey et al. 1993) stated that 

the following species will benefit from predator fence 

exclosures designed to reduce the impact of mediumto large-sized mammals: sedge wren, common 

yellowthroat, dickcissel, clay-colored sparrow, lark 

bunting, Savannah sparrow, song sparrow, bobolink, 

and red-winged blackbird. Berkey et al. (1993) 

concluded that predator barriers (fences) are very 

beneficial to larger nongame migratory birds such 

as northern harrier, short-eared owl, and American 

bittern. Additionally, Helmers and Gratto-Trevor 

(1996) determined that predation causes a significant 

impact on shorebird nest success, especially in 

southern areas of their breeding range. Witmer et al. 

(1996) indicate that two factors—protection and 

restoration of habitat and predator management— 

may curtail listing and extinction rates of bird species. 

Predator MaNaGeMeNt iN wPas oBjective 

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. 

(Several predator management techniques are 

available for use in North Dakota; therefore, it is 

reasonable for each district to carry out at least one 

on an annual basis. Details and background on 

techniques are documented in Dixon and Hollevoet 

(2005). In addition, most techniques for predator 

management are intended to provide a significant 

benefit to many ground-nesting birds. Therefore, 

the >40% Mayfield nest success is intended; this is 

well above maintenance levels of dabbling ducks that 

nest in the area.) 

Strategies 

— 	 Hire professional trappers to trap selected 

36-square mile predator management blocks. 

Carry out predator management activities in 

the spring on islands associated with WPAs. 

Annually maintain established predator 


exclosures at WPAs.
 

Install and maintain nesting structures at WPAs. 

Remove artificial microhabitats such as rock 

piles, abandoned buildings, downed fences, and 

miscellaneous junk at WPAs. Remove invasive 

and planted trees from WPAs. 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

Wildlife managers in North Dakota are well aware 

that management of ground-nesting birds requires 

the protection and restoration of prairie grasslands 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 87 

and wetlands. However, there has been recent emphasis 

on identification of effective methods that reduce the 

negative effects of predation on waterfowl and other 

grassland-nesting birds. The districts intend to carry 

out science-based management that will reduce the 

effects of predation on grassland-nesting birds. 

The Red River Valley, Drift Prairie, and eastern 

portions of the Missouri Coteau lie within a croplanddominated landscape. The cropland-dominated 

landscape is an area altered to such a degree that, 

despite perpetual habitat protection of WPAs, 

consistently maintaining recruitment of migratory 

birds above maintenance levels is not possible. It is 

likely that this area consists of less than 20%–40% 

grassland cover, with the majority of the landscape in 

agricultural commodity production. These intensively 

cultivated areas cannot sustain nest success for stable 

populations of waterfowl species. In addition, waterfowl 

are more susceptible to predation in cultivated areas. 

In these situations, predator management is extremely 

beneficial to nesting waterfowl. 

John J. Mosesso/National Biological Information Infrastructure 

Predators such as the red fox prey on waterfowl nests 

and have a significant impact on nest success. 

Wildlife Disease 

There is a wildlife disease contingency plan specific 

to each district (completed in 2006). Each staff will 

annually review the district plan and update it as new 

information becomes available. Because of emerging 

disease threats, Service staffs can no longer rely on 

past informal disease protocols. Two new diseases that 

have the potential to affect management at district 

lands are the highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) 

and chronic wasting disease (CWD). 
88 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

wildlife disease oBjective 

Annually review and update disease contingency plans. 

Strategies 

— 	 Follow the monitoring and response protocols 

outlined in disease contingency plans. 

Maintain a supply of personnel protective 


equipment on hand for emergency cleanup 


operations.
 

Cooperate with USDA’s Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) wildlife services 

for HPAI, where possible. 

Continue to support the NDGF with CWD 


surveillance.
 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

Bird disease response is a readily evolving process. 

Prior to 2006 and the present threat level of HPAI in 

North American migratory birds, most districts dealt 

primarily with two diseases in bird communities: 

botulism and West Nile virus. Although safe handling 

practices such as rubber gloves have always been 

used, human health threats from handling birds with 

botulism are relatively minor (Friend and Franson 

1999) and West Nile virus (Domek 1998). However, 

the highly pathogenic H5N1 strain of HPAI presents 

Service staff and other wildlife resource personnel 

with unknowns, including possibly serious human 

health threats. 

HPAI (bird flu) is a disease caused by a virus that 

infects both wild birds (such as shorebirds and 

waterfowl) and domestic poultry. Each year, there is 

a bird flu season just as there is an influenza season 

for humans and, as with people, some forms of the 

influenza are worse than others (USGS 2006). Recently, 

the H5N1 strain of HPAI has been found in an 

increasing number of countries in Europe, Asia, and 

Africa. This strain is not present in the United States, 

but is likely to spread to this country (Dr. Thomas 

Roffe, veterinarian, USFWS, Montana, personal 

communication). There are a number of ways that the 

H5N1 strain could potentially reach the United States 

including (1) wild bird migration, (2) illegal smuggling 

of birds or poultry products, and (3) travel by infected 

people or people traveling with virus-contaminated 

articles from areas where H5N1 already exists 

(USGS 2006). 

CWD is a disease of the nervous system in deer and 

elk that results in distinctive brain lesions. CWD has 

not been detected in either wild or captive white-tailed 

deer, mule deer, or elk in North Dakota (Dorothy Fecske, 

furbearer biologist, NDGF, personal communication). 

The NDGF has conducted surveillance for this disease 

since 2002, testing tissue samples from more than 

8,500 deer heads (mostly hunter-harvested). Through 

2006, all samples were negative (NDGF, news release; 

April 16, 2007). 

CWD has been documented in captive deer and elk in 

the surrounding states (Minnesota and Montana) and 

Saskatchewan, Canada (Samson et al. 1998). There 

is potential for CWD to be present, but undetected, 

or eventually infect deer and elk in the state. Service 

personnel helped NDGF with CWD surveillance efforts 

by establishing drop-off sites for white-tailed deer 

(heads) harvested on or near Service lands during the 

state’s firearm deer season. Service staffs will adhere 

to protocols in the “Chronic Wasting Plan for U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Lands in the Dakotas” (USFWS 

2004) for all future CWD-related work. This plan 

acknowledges the NDGF as the lead in all CWD efforts 

in the state and describes the Service’s role as a 

supporting partner. 

monitoring and researCH goal 

Use science, monitoring, and applied research to 

advance the understanding of the Prairie Pothole 

Region and management within the North Dakota 

wetland management districts. 

Monitoring and Research 

Habitat goals and objectives are the basis for monitoring 

and research priorities for district lands. Goals and 

objectives emphasize management of vegetative 

communities as habitat for wildlife. Monitoring and 

research should be used to predict and validate 

wildlife response to management. Too often, biological 

needs of wildlife species and their habitats receive 

less consideration than socioeconomic and political 

factors in the decision-making process. Biology should 

guide management decisions for the Refuge System. 

Most factors that influence the dynamics of wildlife 

populations, especially those of migratory birds, may 

not be directly influenced at the individual district or 

WPA level, but can be influenced indirectly through 

appropriate or inappropriate management of habitat. 

Because the CCP is a broad umbrella plan that 

provides general concepts and specific management 

and operational objectives for Service lands, it is 

imperative that step-down plans such as inventory 

and monitoring plans and habitat management plans 

are produced. The purpose of step-down plans is to 

provide detail and clear direction to Service managers 

and other employees who will carry out the strategies 

described in the CCP. A habitat management plan 

provides staff with detailed information about various 

management practices. An inventory and monitoring 

plan outlines activities for habitat and wildlife and 

provides detailed information on methodology and 

analysis. 

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. 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 89 

USFWS 

A basic inventory of habitats is essential. 

Strategies 

— 	 Establish permanent transects to collect baseline 

data about plant species composition following 

standardized methodologies (belt transects 

[Grant et al. 2004]). 

Conduct periodic (every 5 years) surveys to 

assess vegetative composition and structure of 

habitats. 

Enter all inventory and survey mapping into 

RLGIS. 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

A basic inventory of habitats is the first step in 

development of detailed objectives describing the 

desired future vegetation conditions. Permanent 

vegetation transects, following standardized 

methodologies across all districts and that can be 

repeated periodically, will be needed to help assess 

change over time. 

MoNitoriNG aNd research oBjective 2 

Within 2 years of gathering baseline floristic composition 

data (see Monitoring and Research Objective 1), each 

district will complete a habitat management plan. 

Strategy 

— 	 Develop specific habitat goals and objects for 

priority management units based on data from 

baseline surveys. 

Rationale 

Following completion of baseline floristic surveys, 

managers will be able to identify high- and lowpriority native prairie tracts, invasive plant infestations, 

and wetland vegetation composition. The habitat 

management plans will identify specific habitat 

objectives for each district. Each plan will also 

provide detailed information about various management 

practices (such as timing of prescribed fire; timing 

and intensity of grazing; timing, application rate, and 

pesticide type for chemical applications; and water 

level manipulations). If a separate water management 

plan is not needed, the habitat management plan will 

provide guidance for management of wetlands and 

uplands. 

MoNitoriNG aNd research oBjective 3 

Within 1 year of CCP approval, identify and prioritize 

research needs required to meet the goals and objectives. 

Strategies 

— 	 Develop a research team with responsibility to 

identify and prioritize research needs within 

North Dakota or the northern Great Plains. 

Compile annual progress reports that describe 

current monitoring and research, results to date, 

and future projects. Include information on what 

treatment protocols may or may not have been 

successful in achieving stated objectives and 

include plans for future treatments. 

— 	 

Rationale 

In 2005, the Dakota Working Group’s grasslands 

monitoring team put together a grassland habitat 

management/monitoring survey to assess management 

issues and threats to grasslands in Service lands. The 

survey resulted in identification of smooth brome 

invasion as the most common threat to native prairie. 

Following a 2-day technical meeting, the “Brome 

Summit,” to discuss the ecology and control strategies 

for smooth brome, the grasslands monitoring team 

started the smooth brome research project. This 

project is a large-scale investigation of the efficacy 

and effectiveness of various management treatments 

used to promote recolonization by native species. The 

project has the potential to involve all districts and 

refuges in North Dakota and South Dakota that have 

intact native prairie or native sod never broken and 

cropped. The grassland monitoring team successfully 

competed for USGS Science Support Program funding 

to complete vegetation inventories of plant communities 

on native prairie tracts for most districts and refuges 

in North Dakota and South Dakota during the 2007 

and 2008 field seasons. Completion of all inventories 

will provide a baseline for monitoring changes and 

evaluating success of management actions, as well as 

be used to develop a monitoring plan. 

Research needs include information about treatment 

tools, response to various treatments, and wildlife 

response as a result of treatments. Wildlife population 
90 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

research should focus on assessments of species– 

habitat relationships. 

USFWS 

Waterfowl banding allows Service personnel to track 

bird movement. 

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 

investigates needs identified in Monitoring and Research 

Objective 3, to increase knowledge about effectiveness 

of techniques to achieve habitat and wildlife goals and 

objectives. 

Strategies 

— 	 Develop a research team with responsibility to 

develop study plans, apply for funding, and begin 

the selected research. 

Participate in large-scale monitoring and research 

projects by providing on-the-ground study plots 

or indirectly by providing equipment or staff for 

data collection. 

Design and conduct issue-driven research. 

Focus wildlife population research on assessments 

of species–habitat relationships. 

Promote research and science priorities within 

the broader scientific community. Ensure that 

cooperative research addresses information 

needs identified in habitat management goals 

and objectives. 

Annually complete progress reports that 

summarize the current year’s monitoring and 

research efforts. If applicable, include discussion 

on past and current techniques that did or did 

not produce expected results. 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

Knowledge gaps regarding natural resources are many 

and varied. Investigations must be sufficiently designed, 

funded, and carried out to reliably address 

hypotheses or questions. All research needs will need 

to be prioritized because resources (funding, staff, 

and equipment) are always limited and oftentimes 

insufficient. Partnerships will need to be developed 

for a variety of disciplines from various state and 

federal agencies and institutions to meet the research 

goal and objectives. Cooperative efforts will be 

supported with shared funding, lodging, vehicles, 

equipment, knowledge, and expertise. 

Examples of specific research needs identified during 

the CCP process include the following: 

QQ	 Ensure that predator management in “blocks” 

does not negatively affect nongame migratory 

birds—research will determine the nest success 

of breeding shorebirds and ground-nesting 

songbirds on controlled and trapped sites 

within 15 years of CCP approval. 

Ensure functionality of restored temporary 

and seasonal wetlands—conduct research on 

appropriate levels of sediment removal in 

wetlands. 

QQ	 

QQ	 Ensure that grassland restoration efforts are 

science based—conduct research on newly 

seeded sites that focuses on the establishment 

success of species included in the mixtures. From 

these data, within 15 years of CCP approval, 

develop a decision matrix for selection of optimal 

species to use in grassland restorations. 

Ensure the effectiveness of native seed mixes 

that contain grasses and forbs—conduct research 

on wildlife response, focusing on Lepidoptera 

and grassland-dependent migratory birds 

(waterfowl, shorebirds, and songbirds) within 

10 years of CCP approval. 

Identify restorable prairie tracts using objective 

criteria that focuses on (1) contemporary 

composition, emphasizing diversity and 

prevalence of native plants, and (2) landscape 

area and connectivity to adjacent grasslands, 

especially native prairies (large tracts of highquality native prairie provide the most suitable 

habitat for grassland birds, especially those 

species of significant conservation concern)— 

conduct research in the next decade that 

investigates threshold levels for infestation of 

invasive plants (Much of the native prairie at 

J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District 

may have passed a threshold of infestation 

by invasive plants, such that restoration of a 

modestly diverse, native herbaceous flora is 

an unrealistic goal. However, maintenance or 

restoration of a native, biological diverse flora 

may be possible on some remaining tracts.) 

Review the list of seven current research 

needs identified by Naugle et al. (2000), which 

provides ideas for development of a prioritized 

research list. 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 
CUltUral resoUrCes goal 

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. 

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. 

Strategy 

— 	 Continue cultural resource review of the districts’ 

projects to identify concerns. 

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 resource staff 

early in the planning process and, whenever possible, 

completing the review without delay to the project. 

Strategies 

— 	 Incorporate the section 106 of the NHPA review 

in project design as early as possible and 

complete the process, as applicable. 

Complete a programmatic agreement with the 

State Historic Preservation Office to expedite 

project review. 

— 	 

Rationale 

The protection and interpretation of cultural resources 

is important to the public and the Service. Federal 

laws and policies mandate the consideration and, 

often, the protection of significant cultural resources. 

Visitor serViCes goal 

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. 

Hunting 

Since the late 19th century, hunters concerned about 

the future of wildlife and outdoor tradition have 

made countless contributions to the conservation 

of the nation’s wildlife resources. Today, millions 

of Americans deepen their appreciation and 

understanding of the land and its wildlife through 

hunting. Hunting organizations contribute millions 

of dollars and countless hours of labor to various 

conservation causes each year. 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 91 

The Service recognizes that, in many cases, hunting 

is an important tool for wildlife management. Hunting 

gives resource managers a valuable tool to control 

populations of some species that might otherwise 

exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and 

threaten the well-being of other wildlife species and, 

in some instances, that of human health and safety. 

Under federal law established by international treaties 

with Canada, Mexico, and other countries with which 

the United States shares migratory birds, the Service 

has ultimate responsibility for regulating migratory 

bird hunting nationwide. Through a regulatory process 

that begins each year in January and includes public 

consultation, the Service establishes the frameworks 

that govern all migratory bird hunting in the United 

States. Within the boundaries established by those 

frameworks, state wildlife agencies have the flexibility 

to determine season length, bag limits, and areas for 

migratory game bird hunting. 

Each state has primary responsibility and authority 

over the hunting of wildlife that lives within state 

boundaries. State wildlife agencies that sell hunting 

licenses are the best sources of information regarding 

hunting seasons and areas open and closed to hunting. 

huNtiNG oBjective 

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. 

Strategies 

— 	 Develop brochures for each district that describe 

all the WPAs and WDAs. 

Post all WDA boundaries with WPA signs to 

avoid confusing the public and hunters about 

boundary regulations. 

Identify areas that are suitable for hunters with 

special needs and provide universal access to 

select hunting areas. 

Explore opportunities for development of 

universally accessible facilities and designation 

of hunting days for hunters with special needs. 

Work with partners such as Wheeling Sportsmen 

and Wilderness on Wheels to help fund this type 

of facility development. 

Establish criteria for eligibility to use the special 

needs hunter privileges such as drive-in access. 

Work cooperatively with the NDGF to conduct 

law enforcement patrols at the districts to ensure 

compliance. Ensure state and federal hunting 

regulations can be enforced. 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

The popularity of hunting at the WPAs and WDAs 

is increasing and, as a result, crowding is becoming 
92 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

an issue that affects the quality of the hunting 

experience. Crowds of hunters lead to unsafe hunting 

conditions and compromised harvest opportunities as 

game is dispersed. 

Pressure for hunting is intensifying on Service lands. 

The number of nonresident hunters is increasing. In 

addition, there is a growing number of private property 

acres off limits to hunting, along with fewer grassland 

acres within private lands that were in the Conservation 

Reserve Program. 

To ensure a good-quality hunting experience, it will 

be essential to maintain healthy populations of resident 

wildlife and migratory birds through habitat 

management. There is a growing demand for hunting 

opportunities accessible to hunters with special needs 

such as hunters with limited mobility. Hunting by 

young people is already occurring, because the WPAs 

and WDAs are managed in accordance with the state 

regulations that include hunt days for youths. 

USFWS 

Waterfowl hunting is popular at many WPAs. 

Fishing 

The districts’ abound with fishing opportunities. 

Fishing generates tremendous economic benefit 

through taxes on fishing equipment. Revenues paid 

by anglers are distributed by the Service to North 

Dakota’s state government and spent by state resource 

agencies on aquatic habitat enhancement, fishing and 

boating access, education, and invasive plant species 

eradication. 

fishiNG oBjective 

Throughout the life of the plan, provide access to openwater and ice-fishing opportunities at the districts. 

Strategies 

— 	 Work with the state to maintain healthy fish 

populations (for example, restocking). 

Seek out partnerships to develop facilities that 

accommodate anglers with special needs (for 

example, universally accessible piers). 

Work cooperatively with the NDGF to conduct 

law enforcement patrols at the districts to ensure 

compliance. 

Continue to work with partners and neighbors 

to provide access points to fishing areas. 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

Fishing within districts is available summer and 

winter. Winter ice fishing is far more popular than 

fishing during warmer weather. Permanent lakes 

within the districts provide fishing for northern pike, 

perch, walleye, and a few other species. Parts of these 

lakes may be in WPAs and WDAs. These areas are 

open to fishing according to state regulations and 

special refuge regulations. Because districts have 

a combination of private ownership with Service 

conservation easements and Service ownership, access 

is limited to the public. Historically, there has been 

conflict with public access to fishing areas and damage 

to croplands and grassland vegetation. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wildlife observation and photography is available to 

visitors all year at the WPAs and WDAs. Due to the 

vast distribution of districts throughout North Dakota, 

the public from major cities of the state and Canada 

seize on the tremendous opportunities for viewing 

wildlife resources. Because of the relatively small size 

of many WPAs and WDAs, wildlife observation and 

photography can usually be done from rural roads 

adjoining the boundaries of district lands. 

Appendix F contains the compatibility determination 

for wildlife observation and photography. 

wildlife oBservatioN aNd PhotoGraPhy oBjective 

Throughout the life of the CCP, provide opportunities 

for wildlife observation and photography and increase 

awareness of observation and photography 

opportunities. 

Strategies 

— 	 Ensure the public is aware of wildlife observation 

and photography opportunities at the districts 

and identify open observation areas to the public 

through signage, publications, and maps. 

Conduct media outreach and review brochures 

and publications annually. Complete updates as 

needed. 

— 	 
 

— 	 Incorporate district lands into the birding drives 

by promoting WPAs and WDAs as stops. Seek 

out partners to establish and promote birding 

drives. Provide support materials to guide 

visitors through the state and direct them to 

key birding spots. 

Host bird identification events in conjunction 

with International Migratory Bird Day in May. 

Develop website-based observation materials 

such as bird lists and information, maps, and 

web cams. 

Where feasible, develop a simple map for each 

district’s visitor center or contact station wher

visitors can record what they saw and where 

(for example, a laminated map that people can 

write on with a dry-erase marker or magnet 

board). 

Where feasible, provide a computer kiosk where 

visitors can access birding information (for 

example, songs, using Thayer birding software).

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

e 

— 	 

Rationale 

Wildlife observation and photography are both wildlifedependent recreational (priority) uses listed in the 

Improvement Act. In fiscal year 2007, wildlife 

photography alone accounted for more than 26,000 

visits to North Dakota’s districts and refuges. Facilities 

that support these activities include visitor centers, 

interpretive displays, auto 

routes, overlooks and 

 observation platforms, and 

 informational kiosks. 

 

Bob Savannah/USFWS 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation 

Parents, educators, and civic groups have been visiting 

WPAs for an educational outdoor experience for many 

years. Special use permits are available in support of 

education, and educators are encouraged to use the 

areas as outdoor classrooms. Educational opportunities 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 93 

are available to public and private schools and homeschools, as well as Scout groups and other interested 

parties. 

Appendix F contains the compatibility determination 

for environmental education and interpretation. 

eNviroNMeNtal educatioN aNd iNterPretatioN oBjective 

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. 

Strategies 

— 	 Conduct visitor services events such as teacher 

workshops and waterfowl identification workshops 

on a three-year rotation among districts. 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, identify the key 

WPAs within the districts that could support 

visitor use information such as signage and 

information kiosks. By 15 years after CCP 

approval, develop this visitor use infrastructure. 

Ensure WPAs and WDAs have boundary signage; 

post WDAs as WPAs. 

Keep data current so the state can incorporate 

district lands’ information in the “Private Lands 

Open to Sportsmen” guide. 

Work with the North Dakota tourism department 

to promote the WPAs and WDAs and their 

resources. 

Keep each district website up-to-date. 

Conduct information sharing with the media 

(for example, local newspapers), chambers of 

commerce, congressional contacts, and tourism 

outlets. Limit outreach to wildlife, conservation, 

and community groups. 

Educate educators, Scout leaders, and others 

so they can educate their students and group 

members. 

Promote programming that incorporates the 

“Children in Nature” national initiative in both 

structured and unstructured ways. Encourage 

family visits or family awareness of the 

districts. 

Seek out partnerships with the Department 

of Public Instruction to encourage expansion 

of environmental education programs among 

local schools. Build on existing relationships 

with schools for both on-site and off-site 

programming. Promote education at an early age 

about natural resources and wetland management 

districts. 

Construct a new interpretive sign for the auto 

tour route at Chase Lake Wetland Management 

District. 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 
 

 

94 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

— 	 Redesign the visitor contact station at Crystal 

Spring WPA in Chase Lake Wetland Management 

District. 

Build on the state’s Outdoor Wildlife Learning 

Site program (Valley City Wetland Management 

District has an Outdoor Wildlife Learning Site). 

Expand educational and interpretive 

programming to foster greater visitor 

awareness and appreciation of district habitats. 

Continue to coordinate and promote the junior 

Duck Stamp program. 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

Targeting teachers in the districts is an efficient 

means of promoting awareness of the districts and 

developing support for the Refuge System. Teachers 

educate the students who, in turn, explain to their 

families about wetland ecosystems and the districts. 

The internet is an increasingly popular source of 

information and can serve as an excellent and efficient 

tool for keeping the public informed about programs 

and resources of the districts. 

Visitor Service Facilities 

Environmental education and interpretation are two 

of the six wildlife-dependent recreational (priority) 

uses listed in the Improvement Act. The districts 

use self-guided exhibits, interpretive panels, and 

brochures. District facilities used to support visitor 

services include visitor center exhibits, although 

some contact stations are ill-equipped to handle 

any exhibits or provide for in-house educational 

opportunities. The districts and refuges in North 

Dakota received more than 385,000 visitors during 

fiscal year 2007. Interpretative programming and 

special events help foster an appreciation, support, 

and understanding of district-specific topics and the 

Refuge System. 

Visitors to the WPAs will see one or more of these signs. 

visitor services facilities oBjective 

Identify locations for other visitor contact stations at 

the districts within 3 years of CCP approval. 

QQ	 At Arrowwood Wetland Management District, 

remodel the office entrance to include a visitor 

contact station with interpretive exhibits within 

10 years of CCP approval. 
QQ	 At Arrowwood Wetland Management District, 

build two kiosks within 5 years of CCP approval: 

one at Bauer’s Lake WPA (Foster County) and 

one at Wallace WPA (Eddy County). 

At Audubon Wetland Management District, 

design and construct an education center to 

house exhibits, classrooms, visitor information, 

and office space within 5 years of CCP approval. 

At Crosby Wetland Management District, 

improve the entrance road to the office within 

2 years of CCP approval. 

At Devils Lake Wetland Management District, 

develop a visitor contact station and office at a 

WPA within 5 years of CCP approval. 

At Kulm Wetland Management District, develop 

a visitor contact station and office at Patzer WPA 

within 5 years of CCP approval. 

At Lostwood Wetland Management District, 

improve the entrance road to the office within 

2 years of CCP approval, and remodel the 

existing office to add a visitor contact station 

within 5 years of CCP approval. 

At Valley City Wetland Management District, 

improve and update the visitor contact station 

by adding exhibits and enhancing the visitor 

experience within 5 years of CCP approval. 

At Valley City Wetland Management District, 

work with the Cass County wildlife club and 

other partners to secure funding and help to 

improve the trail and build kiosks and 

interpretive panels at Alice WPA within 3 years 

of CCP approval. 

At Valley City Wetland Management District, 

make improvements to the Outdoor Wildlife 

Learning Site adjacent to the district office, 

including paving the trail to make it universally 

accessible and design and construction of 

interpretive facilities, within 5 years of CCP 

approval. 

In the eastern portion of Valley City Wetland 

Management District, construct a handicapaccessible blind and interpretive trail within 

5 years of CCP approval. 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

Strategies 

— Inventory all districts to determine what facilities 

are in place and where new or updated facilities 

are needed. 

Identify and locate facilities to support volunteers 

(for example, hook ups and amenities). 

—

Rationale 

The districts are near metropolitan areas such as 

Bismarck, Fargo, Grand Forks, and Minot. The 

districts also have numerous visitors from Canada, 

from the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. 

The districts have potential for outreach and 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 95 

education through establishment of new facilities and 

update of existing facilities. 

Trapping 

Trapping generally follows the regulations of the 

state and trappers are required to have state 

licenses. Trapping programs conducted for resource 

management reasons are conducted by district staffs, 

by trappers under contract, and by the public through 

issuance of special use permits. 

Trapping programs conducted primarily to provide 

recreational opportunities to the public do not require 

a special use permit, except at WPAs. Special use 

permits and contracts often impose specific stipulations 

that may restrict trapping activities more than state 

regulations. These stipulations are required to ensure 

that trapping programs are compatible with the 

districts’ purposes and otherwise in the public interest. 

traPPiNG oBjective 

Throughout the life of the plan, provide trapping 

opportunities at the districts at the current level. 

Strategy 

— 	 Work cooperatively with the NDGF to conduct 

law enforcement patrols at the districts to ensure 

compliance. 

Rationale 

Trapping is done in accordance with requirements 

of the Refuge Recreation Act, the Administration 

Act (as amended in 1997) and the NEPA. Authorized 

by 50 CFR, part 31.16, recreational trapping is 

administered by the Service. 

partnersHips goal 

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. 

Partnerships 

The nine districts reach across much of the North 

Dakota landscape with fee-title ownership and wetland 

and grassland easements. The districts have potential 

to affect neighbors and communities. Communication 

is vital through various outlets, as well as on an 

individual basis. Staffs participate in local events and 

activities that maintain and support district programs. 

The Service assigns personnel to the Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program (Partners Program), which is an 

internal Service partner that works with neighboring 

private landowners. This program helps with restoration 

and enhancement of habitat to benefit federal trust 

species, while also helping Refuge System units 

through a landscape-scale approach to conservation. 

The Partners Program provides technical assistance 
96 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

to private landowners to give them the information 

they need to apply for other habitat improvement 

programs. In addition, program personnel work with 

private landowners interested in perpetual conservation 

easements with the Service to maintain wetland and 

grassland ecosystems for future generations. Private 

lands adjacent to Refuge System lands benefit species 

that require larger landscapes for their survival. 

These partnerships benefit many sensitive fish and 

wildlife species. 

PartNershiPs oBjective 

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. 

Strategies 

— 	 Work with partners (wildlife groups and other 

agencies) to continue the JAKES (Juniors 

Acquiring Knowledge, Ethics, and Skills) event 

at Valley City Wetland Management District. 

Maintain and where appropriate build the 

statewide approach to environmental education 

(North Dakota Education Team). If possible, 

increase the number of Service representatives 

on the team within 5 years of CCP approval. 

Maintain the partnership with Cass County 

Wildlife Club to maintain the Alice WPA trail at 

Valley City Wetland Management District. 

Maintain the partnership with Logan County 

Sportsman Group to maintain the boat 

ramp at Mundt Lake WPA at Kulm Wetland 

Management District. 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

Many of the districts’ wildlife, habitat, and visitor 

services programs will not continue without support 

from partners. Without partners, many of the habitat 

protection, restoration, and enhancement projects 

will go unfunded. Over time, the diversity of wildlife 

species will begin to decline as habitat becomes 

degraded. 

operations goal 

Effectively employ staff, partnerships, and volunteers 

and secure adequate funding in support of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System’s mission. 

Staff and Volunteers 

Operations and visitor services staffs maintain, enhance, 

and monitor wildlife-dependent operations and 

recreational opportunities for a diverse audience. 

Within the nine districts, staffs are limited and often 

shared with other units such as refuges. The demand 

on the districts’ wildlife resources is increasing through 

such visitor activities as bird watching, photography, 

educational activities, and general outdoor appreciation. 

Those that volunteer for the Service generally do so in 

the area of visitor services. Visitor services require 

extensive Service staff time to coordinate, develop, 

and maintain. Volunteers ease some of those time 

requirements. 

Volunteers for the districts are 

individuals who want to give back to their 

communities; 

parents who want to be good stewards of the 

land and set examples for their children; 

retired people willing to share their wealth of 

knowledge; 

concerned citizens of all ages who want to learn 

more about conservation; 

passionate people who enjoy the outdoors 

and want to spread the word about America’s 

greatest natural treasures. 

staff aNd voluNteers oBjective 

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. 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 97 

Strategies 

— 	 Work with the North Dakota working group to 

determine strategic locations for placement of 

additional staff. 

Research methods for recruiting volunteers. 

Determine what other districts have done to 

attract and retain volunteers. If possible, tap 

into existing volunteer networks to recruit 

volunteers. Determine incentives or benefits 

for volunteers (for example, privileged access, 

amenities, interagency annual parks pass). 

Develop “friends groups” to help each district 

(except for Audubon and Chase Lake wetland 

management districts, which already have 

“friends groups”). 

— 	 

— 	 

Rationale 

The Improvement Act identifies six wildlife-dependent 

recreational (priority) uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation—that receive enhanced 

consideration over other general public uses in planning 

and management of the districts. Other uses can occur 

but must support, or not conflict with, a wildlifedependent recreational use. No use of a district can 

detract from accomplishing the purposes of the district 

or the mission of the System. North Dakota’s districts 

and refuges received more than 385,000 visitors that 

enjoyed some of the wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses the Refuge System offered. 

4.3 Funding and Staff 

Goals, objectives, and strategies described in this 

chapter are based on full, adequate funding and staff. 

the Service is currently reviewing a staffing model 

that will revise the basis for which a district will 

determine its needed staff. The Service anticipates 

that, by the time of CCP implementation, the new 

staffing model will be in effect and all districts will 

have a new staff level goal. 

A national team of Refuge System professionals 

developed this staffing model to determine the level 

of staff needed to most effectively operate and manage 

the variety of field stations in the Refuge System. 

The staffing model uses 15 factors that drive workload 

including the following: number of acres, number of 

easement contracts, number of acres actively managed, 

level of invasive species, endangered species, biological 

management and monitoring, wilderness management, 

visitor services, and maintenance needs. Date for the 

model was drawn from the Service’s “Annual Report 

of Lands,” “Refuge Annual Performance Plan,” “Real 

Property Inventory,” and other Service data sources. 

4.4 Step-down Management Plans 

The CCP for the nine districts is a broad umbrella plan 

that (1) outlines general concepts and objectives for 

habitat, wildlife, visitor services, cultural resources, 

and partnerships, and (2) guides management of the 

districts for the next 15 years. 

Step-down management plans provide detail needed 

to carry out specific actions authorized by the CCP. 

Tables 11–19 list the step-down management plans 

that are anticipated to be needed for each district, 

along with their current status and revision dates. 

Table 10. Step-down Management Plans for 

Arrowwood Wetland Management District, 

North Dakota. 

Completion Revision 

Plan Type Year Year 

Fire management 

plan 

Grassland 

management plan 

Habitat work 

plan (annual) 

IPM plan 

Law enforcement 

plan 

Predator 

management plan 

Safety plan 

Watermanagement 

plan (annual) 

2008 

— 

2008 

2005 

— 

2004 

2006 

2007 

2013 

2011

2009

2010 

2013

2010

2011 

2008
Table 11. Step-down Management Plans for 

Audubon Wetland Management District, North 

Dakota. 

Completion Revision 

Plan Type Year Year 

Fire management 

plan 

Grassland 

management plan 

Habitat work 

plan (annual) 

IPM plan 

Law enforcement 

plan 

Predator 

management plan 

Safety plan 

Sign plan 

Visitor services 

plan 

Watermanagement 

plan (annual) 

Watermanagement 

plan (long-range) 

1999 

1981 

2007 

2002 

— 

1988 

2006 

1984 

2004 

2007 

1983 

2008 

— 

2008 

2008 

2013 

2010 

2011 

— 

2009 

2008 

— 

Table 12. Step-down Management Plans for 

Chase Lake Wetland Management District, 

North Dakota. 

Completion Revision 

Plan Type Year Year 

Fire management 

plan 

Grassland 

management plan 

Habitat work 

plan (annual) 

IPM plan 

Law enforcement 

plan 

Predator 

management plan 

Safety plan 

Watermanagement 

plan (annual) 

2008 

— 

2008 

2005 

— 

2004 

2006 

2007 

2013 

2011 

2009 

2010 

2013 

2010 

2011 

2008 

98 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 
Table 13. Step-down Management Plans for 

Crosby Wetland Management District, North 

Dakota. 

Completion Revision 

Plan Type Year Year 

Fire management 

plan 

Grassland 

management plan 

Habitat work 

plan (annual) 

IPM plan 

Law enforcement 

plan 

Predator 

management plan 

Safety plan 

Sign plan 

2000 

2007 

2007 

— 

— 

2004 

1995 

1987 

2008 

2008 

2008 

2008 

2013 

2010 

2011 

— 

Table 14. Step-down Management Plans for 

Devils Lake Wetland Management District, 

North Dakota. 

Completion Revision 

Plan Type Year Year 

Fire management 

plan 

Grassland 

management plan 

Habitat work 

plan (annual) 

Hunting plan 

IPM plan 

Law enforcement 

plan 

Predator 

management plan 

Safety plan 

Sign plan 

Visitor services 

plan 

Watermanagement 

plan (annual) 

Watermanagement 

plan (long-range) 

2002 

— 

2007 

— 

2005 

— 

2004 

1986 

— 

1993 

— 

— 

2008 

2010 

2008 

2010 

2010 

2012 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2015 

2015 

2015 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 99 
Table 15. Step-down Management Plans for 

J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District, 

North Dakota. 

Completion Revision 

Plan Type Year Year 

Fire management 

plan 

Grassland 

management plan 

Habitat work 

plan (annual) 

IPM plan 

Law enforcement 

plan 

Predator 

management plan 

Safety plan 

Watermanagement 

plan (annual) 

1999 

— 

2007 

2005 

— 

2004 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2011

2008

2010 

2013

2011

2011 

2008

Table 16. Step-down Management Plans for Kulm 

Wetland Management District, North Dakota. 

Completion Revision
 

Plan Type Year Year 

Fire management 

plan 

Grassland 

management plan 

Habitat work 

plan (annual) 

IPM plan 

Law enforcement 

plan 

Predator 

management plan 

Safety plan 

Watermanagement 

plan (annual) 

2000 

— 

2007 

2004 

— 

2004 

2001 

2007 

2008 

2011

2008

2011 

2013

2010

2008 

2008

Table 17. Step-down Management Plans for 

Lostwood Wetland Management District, North 

Dakota. 

Completion Revision 

Plan Type Year Year 

Fire management 

plan 2000 2008 

Grassland 

management plan 2007 2008 

Habitat work 

plan (annual) 2007 2008 

IPM plan — 2008 

Law enforcement 

plan — 2013 

Predator 

management plan 2004 2010 

Safety plan 1995 2011 

Sign plan 1987 2011 

Watermanagement 

plan (annual) 2007 2008 

Table 18. Step-down Management Plans for 

Valley City Wetland Management District, North 

Dakota.

Completion Revision
 

Plan Type Year Year
 

Fire management 

plan 

Grassland 

management plan

Habitat work 

plan (annual) 

IPM plan 

Law enforcement 

plan

Predator 

management plan 

Safety plan 

Watermanagement 

plan (annual) 

2001 

— 

2005 

2005 

— 

2004 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2011

2008

2010 

2013

2010

2011 

2008

100 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4—Management Direction 101 

4.5 Monitoring and Evaluation 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to longterm management of biotic resources. The results of 

ongoing monitoring activities and other information 

are evaluated to guide adaptive management over 

time. Adaptive management is a process by which 

projects are carried out within a framework of 

scientifically driven experiments to test the predictions 

and assumptions outlined in the final CCP (see figure 16, 

the adaptive management process). 

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, 

inventory, and monitoring protocols will be adopted 

for each of the nine wetland management districts. 

The habitat management strategies will be 

systematically evaluated to determine management 

effects on wildlife populations. This information will 

be used to refine approaches and determine how 

effectively the objectives are being accomplished. 

If monitoring and evaluation indicate undesirable 

effects for target and nontarget species or communities, 

the management projects will be altered accordingly. 

Subsequently, the Service will revise the CCP. 

Figure 16. The adaptive management process. 

4.6 Plan Amendment and Revision 

The Service will annually review this CCP to determine 

the need for revision. A revision will occur when 

significant information becomes available. The CCP 

will be supported by detailed step-down management 

plans to address the completion of specific strategies 

in support of the wetland management districts’ goals 

and objectives. Revisions to the CCP and the stepdown management plans will be subject to public 

review and NEPA compliance. 

At a minimum, the Service will evaluate the CCP 

every 5 years and revise it after 15 years. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glossary
 

abiotic—Pertaining to nonliving things. 

accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas 

and activities for people of different abilities, especially 

those with physical impairments. 

adaptive management—Rigorous application of 

management, research, and monitoring to gain 

information and experience necessary to assess and 

modify management activities; a process that uses 

feedback from research, monitoring, and evaluation 

of management actions to support or modify objectives 

and strategies at all planning levels; a process in 

which policy decisions are carried out within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments 

to test predictions and assumptions inherent in a 

management plan. Analysis of results helps managers 

determine whether current management should 

continue as is or whether it should be modified to 

achieve desired conditions. 

Administration Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966. 

alternatives—Different sets of objectives and 

strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and 

goals, helping fulfill the Refuge System mission and 

resolving issues. 

amphibian—Class of cold-blooded vertebrates 

including frogs, toads or salamanders. 

APHIS—Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; 

agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

avifauna or avifaunal biome—A physiographic area 

defined by the Partners in Flight program that 

represents all the living components needed by a 

group of birds. 

baseline—Set of critical observations, data, or 

information used for comparison or a control. 

biological control, also biocontrol—Reduction in 

numbers or elimination of unwanted species by 

the introduction of natural predators, parasites, or 

diseases. 

biological diversity, also biodiversity—Variety of 

life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, 

and the communities and ecosystems in which they 

occur (“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 052 

FW 1.12B). The National Wildlife Refuge System’s 

focus is on endemic species, biotic communities, and 

ecological processes. 

biological integrity—Composition, structure, and 

function at the genetic, organism, and community 

levels consistent with natural conditions and the 

biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, 

and communities. 

biomass—Total amount of living material, plants and 

animals, above and below the ground in a particular 

habitat or area. 

biotic—Pertaining to life or living organisms. 

breeding habitat—Habitat used by migratory birds or 

other animals during the breeding season. 

buffer zone, also buffer strip—Protective land borders 

around critical habitats or water bodies that reduce 

runoff and nonpoint source pollution loading; areas 

created or sustained to lessen the negative effects 

of land development on animals and plants and their 

habitats. 

canopy—Layer of foliage, generally the uppermost 

layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel or understory 

vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy closure 

(also canopy cover) is an estimate of the amount of 

overhead vegetative cover. 

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan. 

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations. 

cfs—Cubic feet per second. 

climax—Community that has reached a steady state 

under a particular set of environmental conditions; a 

relatively stable plant community; the final stage in 

ecological succession. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—Codification of the 

general and permanent rules published in the Federal 

Register by the executive departments and agencies 

of the federal government. Each volume of the CFR 

is updated once each calendar year. 

community—Area or locality in which a group of 

people lives and shares the same government. 

compatible use—Wildlife-dependent recreational 

use or any other use of a refuge that, in the sound 

professional judgment of the director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of 

the refuge (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility determination 
 

 

 

 

 

 

104 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

supports the selection of compatible uses and 

identified stipulations or limits necessary to ensure 

compatibility. 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—A document 

that describes the desired future conditions of 

the refuge and provides long-range guidance and 

management direction for the refuge manager to 

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute 

to the mission of the Refuge System, and to meet 

other relevant mandates (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

concern—See issue. 

conservation—Management of natural resources 

to prevent loss or waste. Management actions may 

include preservation, restoration, and enhancement. 

conservation easement—Perpetual agreement 

entered into by a landowner and the Service by 

which a landowner gives up or sells one or more 

of the rights on their property for conservation 

purposes, with terms set by the Service. In return 

for a single lump-sum payment, the landowner 

agrees not to drain, burn, level, or fill habitats 

covered by the easement. Conservation easements 

generally prohibit the cultivation of grassland 

and wetland habitats while still permitting the 

landowner traditional grazing uses. A single-habitat 

conservation easement is often referred to as either a 

“wetland easement” or a “grassland easement.” 

conspecific—An individual belonging to the same 

species as another. 

cool-season grass—Grass that begins growth earlier in 

the season and often become dormant in the summer; 

will germinate at lower temperatures (65–85°F). 

Examples are western wheatgrass, needle and 

thread, and green needlegrass. 

cooperative agreement—Legal instrument used 

when the principal purpose of the transaction is the 

transfer of money, property, services or anything of 

value to a recipient in order to accomplish a public 

purpose authorized by federal statute and substantial 

involvement between the Service and the recipient is 

anticipated. 

coordination area—Wildlife management area made 

available to a state, by “(A) cooperative agreement 

between the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the state fish and game agency pursuant to 

Section 4 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 USC 664); of (B) by long-term leases or 

agreements pursuant to the Bankhead–Jones Farm 

Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525; 7 USC 1010 et seq.).” 

States manage coordination areas, but they are part 

of the Refuge System. CCPs are not required for 

coordination areas. 

coteau—A hilly upland including the divide between 

two valleys; a divide; the side of a valley. 

coulee—A deep ravine or gulch with sloping sides, 

often dry, that has been formed by running water. 

cover, also cover type, canopy cover—Present 

vegetation of an area. 

cultural resources—Sites, buildings, structures, and 

objects that are the result of human activities and 

are more than 50 years old: prehistoric, historic, and 

architectural sites, artifacts, historic records, and 

traditional cultural properties including traditional 

use areas for Native Americans that may or may not 

have material evidence. 

cultural resource inventory—Professionally conducted 

study designed to locate and evaluate evidence of 

cultural resources present within a defined area. 

Inventories may involve various levels including 

background literature search (class 1), sample 

inventory of project site distribution and density 

over a larger area (class 2), or comprehensive field 

examination to identify all exposed physical 

manifestation of cultural resources (class 3). 

CWCS—Comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. 

CWD—Chronic wasting disease. 

database—Collection of data arranged for ease and 

speed of analysis and retrieval, usually computerized. 

deciduous—Pertaining to any plant organ or group 

of organs that is shed annually; perennial plants that 

are leafless for sometime during the year. 

defoliation—Removing of vegetative parts; to strip 

vegetation of leaves; removal can be caused by 

weather, mechanical, animals, and fire. 

demography—Quantitative analysis of population 

structure and trend.­

dense nesting cover (DNC)—Composition of grasses 

and forbs that allows for a dense stand of vegetation 

that protects nesting birds from the view of predators, 

usually consisting of one to two species of wheatgrass, 

alfalfa, and sweetclover. 

district—See wetland management district. 

district purpose—See purpose of the district. 

disturbance—Significant alteration of habitat 

structure or composition. May be natural (for example, 

fire) or human-caused events (for example, timber 

harvest). 

DNC—See dense nesting cover. 

DOI—U.S. Department of the Interior. 

drawdown—Manipulating water levels in an 

impoundment to allow for the natural drying-out cycle 

of a wetland. 

duck, dabbling—Duck that mainly feeds on vegetable 

matter by “upending” on the water surface, or by 

grazing, and only rarely dives. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glossary 105 

duck, diving—Duck that mainly feeds by diving 

through the water. 

EA—See environmental assessment. 

ecological succession—Orderly progression of an 

area through time from one vegetative community to 

another in the absence of disturbance. For example, 

an area may proceed from grass–forb through aspen 

forest to mixed-conifer forest. 

ecosystem—Dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their associated 

nonliving environment; a biological community, 

together with its environment, functioning as a 

unit. For administrative purposes, the Service has 

designated 53 ecosystems covering the United States 

and its possessions. These ecosystems generally 

correspond with watershed boundaries and their 

sizes and ecological complexity vary. 

emergent—Plant rooted in shallow water and having 

most of the vegetative growth above water such as 

cattail and hardstem bulrush. 

endangered species, federal—Plant or animal species 

listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, that is in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

endangered species, state—Plant or animal species 

in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in a 

particular state within the near future if factors 

contributing to its decline continue. Populations 

of these species are at critically low levels or their 

habitats have been degraded or depleted to a 

significant degree. 

endemic species—Plants or animals that occur 

naturally in a certain region and whose distribution is 

relatively limited to a particular locality. 

environmental assessment (EA)—Concise public 

document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses 

the purpose and need for an action and alternatives 

to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and 

analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare 

an environmental impact statement or finding of no 

significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

environmental education—Education aimed at 

producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable 

concerning the biophysical environment and its 

associated problems, aware of how to help solve these 

problems, and motivated to work toward their 

solution. 

environmental health—Natural composition, structure, 

and functioning of the physical, chemical, and other 

abiotic elements, and the abiotic processes that shape 

the physical environment. 

EO—Executive order. 

extinction—Complete disappearance of a species 

from the earth; no longer existing. 

fauna—All the vertebrate and invertebrate animals 

of an area. 

federal land—Public land owned by the federal 

government, including lands such as national forests, 

national parks, and national wildlife refuges. 

federally listed species—Species listed under the 

federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 

either as endangered, threatened, or species at risk 

(formerly candidate species). 

fee title—Acquisition of most or all of the rights to a 

tract of land. 

finding of no significant impact (FONSI)—Document 

prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, supported by an 

environmental assessment, that briefly presents why 

a federal action will have no significant effects on the 

human environment and for which an environmental 

impact statement will not be prepared (40 CFR 

1508.13). 

fire regime—Description of the frequency, severity, 

and extent of fire that typically occurs in an area or 

vegetative type. 

flora—All the plant species of an area. 

fluvial—Regarding flowing water, usually rivers and 

streams. Important fluvial processes include erosion, 

downcutting of channels, and suspension and 

transport of sediments. 

FmHA—Farmers Home Administration. 

FMP—Fire management plan. 

FONSI—See finding of no significant impact. 

forb—A broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; a seedproducing annual, biennial, or perennial plant that 

does not develop persistent woody tissue but dies 

down at the end of the growing season. 

forest—Group of trees with their crown overlapping 

(generally forming 60%–100% cover). 

fragmentation—The alteration of a large block of 

habitat that creates isolated patches of the original 

habitat that are interspersed with a variety of other 

habitat types; the process of reducing the size and 

connectivity of habitat patches, making movement 

of individuals or genetic information between parcels 

difficult or impossible. 

FTE—See full-time equivalent. 

full-time equivalent (FTE)—One or more job positions 

with tours of duty that, when combined, equate to 

one person employed for the standard government 

work-year. 
 

 

 

 

106 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

geographic information system (GIS)—Computer 

system capable of storing and manipulating 

spatial data; a set of computer hardware and 

software for analyzing and displaying spatially 

referenced features (points, lines and polygons) with 

nongeographic attributes such as species and age. 

GIS—See geographic information system. 

glacial till—Unstratified sediment (clay, sand, and 

rocks) deposited by melting glaciers or ice sheets. 

global positioning system (GPS)—System that, by 

using satellite telemetry, can pinpoint exact locations of 

places on the ground. 

goal—Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

statement of desired future conditions that conveys a 

purpose but does not define measurable units (“Draft 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 620 FW 1.5). 

GPS—See global positioning system. 

GS—General schedule (pay rate schedule for certain 

federal positions). 

guild—A group of species that use a common resource 

base in a similar fashion within an ecological 

community. A guild can be generally defined (for 

example, grassland birds) or specifically defined (for 

example, seed-eating small mammals). 

habitat—Suite of existing environmental conditions 

required by an organism for survival and 

reproduction; the place where an organism typically 

lives and grows. 

habitat conservation—Protection of animal or plant 

habitat to ensure that the use of that habitat by the 

animal or plant is not altered or reduced. 

habitat disturbance—Significant alteration of habitat 

structure or composition; may be natural (for example, 

wildland fire) or human-caused events (for example, 

timber harvest and disking). 

habitat type, also vegetation type, cover type—Land 

classification system based on the concept of distinct 

plant associations. 

HAPET—Habitat and Population Evaluation Team. 

hemi-marsh—The emergent phase of a seasonal or 

semipermanent wetland where the ratio of open-water 

area to emergent vegetation cover is about 50:50, 

and vegetation and open-water areas are highly 

interspersed. 

herbivore—Animal feeding on plants. 

herbivory—The eating of plants, especially ones that 

are still living. 

HPAI—Highly pathogenic avian influenza. 

impoundment—A body of water created by collection 

and confinement within a series of levees or dikes, 

creating separate management units although not 

always independent of one another. 

Improvement Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

integrated pest management (IPM)—Methods of 

managing undesirable species such as invasive plants; 

education, prevention, physical or mechanical methods 

of control, biological control, responsible chemical use, 

and cultural methods. 

“interseed”—Mechanical seeding of one or several 

plant species into existing stands of established 

vegetation. 

introduced species—A nonnative plant or animal 

species that is intentionally or accidentally released 

into an ecosystem where it was not previously 

adapted. 

introduction—Intentional or unintentional escape, 

release, dissemination, or placement of a species into 

an ecosystem as a result of human activity. 

invasive plant, also noxious weed—Species that is 

nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration 

and whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, 

economic or environmental harm or harm to human 

health. 

inviolate sanctuary—Place of refuge or protection 

where animals and birds may not be hunted. 

IPM—See integrated pest management. 

ISST—Invasive species strike team. 

issue—Any unsettled matter that requires a 

management decision; for example, a Service 

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, 

a threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable 

resource condition (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

lacustrine—Relating to, formed in, living in, or 

growing in lakes. 

lek—A physical area where males of a certain animal 

species gather to demonstrate their prowess and 

compete for females before or during the mating 

season. 

local agencies—Municipal governments, regional 

planning commissions, or conservation groups. 

macrophyte—Plant, especially a marine plant, that is 

large enough to be visible to the naked eye. 

management alternatives—See alternatives. 

management plan—Plan that guides future land 

management practices on a tract of land. See 

cooperative agreement. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glossary 107 

mechanical control—Reduction in numbers or 

elimination of unwanted species through the use of 

mechanical equipment such as mowers and clippers. 

microhabitat—Habitat features at a fine scale; often 

identifies a unique set of local habitat features. 

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal movements 

of birds between their breeding regions and their 

wintering regions; to pass usually periodically from 

one region or climate to another for feeding or breeding. 

migratory bird—Bird species that follow a seasonal 

movement from their breeding grounds to their 

wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, 

and songbirds are all migratory birds. 

migratory game bird—Bird species, regulated under 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and state laws (legally 

hunted, including ducks, geese, woodcock, and rails). 

mission—Succinct statement of purpose or reason for 

being. 

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an 

environmental impact or to make an impact less severe. 

mixed-grass prairie—Transition zone between 

the tall-grass prairie and the short-grass prairie 

dominated by grasses of medium height that are 

approximately 2–4 feet tall. Soils are not as rich as 

the tall-grass prairie and moisture levels are less. 

monitoring—Process of collecting information to 

track changes of selected parameters over time. 

monotypic—Having only one type or representative. 

moraine—Mass of earth and rock debris carried by an 

advancing glacier and left at its front and side edges 

as it retreats. 

NABCI—North American Bird Conservation 

Initiative. 

national wildlife refuge—Designated area of land, 

water, or an interest in land or water within the 

Refuge System, but does not include coordination 

areas; a complete listing of all units of the Refuge 

System is in the current “Annual Report of Lands 

Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)— 

Various categories of areas administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior for the conservation of 

fish and wildlife including species threatened with 

extinction, all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, 

areas for the protection and conservation of fish and 

wildlife that are threatened with extinction, wildlife 

ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, and 

waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (Improvement Act)—Sets the mission and 

the administrative policy for all refuges in the 

Refuge System; defines a unifying mission for the 

Refuge System; establishes the legitimacy and 

appropriateness of the six priority public uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation); 

establishes a formal process for determining 

appropriateness and compatibility; establish the 

responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior 

for managing and protecting the Refuge System; 

requires a comprehensive conservation plan for each 

refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended portions 

of the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. 

native species—Species that, other than as a result 

of an introduction, historically occurred or currently 

occurs in that ecosystem. 

NAWCA—North American Wetlands Conservation Act. 

NDGF—North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 

Neotropical migrant, also Neotropical migratory bird— 

Bird species that breeds north of the United States– 

Mexico border and winters primarily south of this 

border. 

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act. 

nest success—Percentage of nests that successfully 

hatch one or more eggs of the total number of nests 

started in an area. 

NHPA—National Historic Preservation Act. 

nongovernmental organization—Any group that does 

not include federal, state, tribal, county, city, town, 

local, or other governmental entities. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan—North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan, signed in 

1986, recognizes that the recovery and perpetuation 

of waterfowl populations depends on restoring 

wetlands and associated ecosystems throughout the 

United States and Canada. It established cooperative 

international efforts and joint ventures comprised of 

individuals; corporations; conservation organizations; 

and local, state, provincial, and federal agencies drawn 

together by common conservation objectives. 

notice of intent—Notice that an environmental impact 

statement will be prepared and considered (40 CFR 

1508.22); published in the Federal Register. 

noxious weed, also invasive plant—Any living stage 

(including seeds and reproductive parts) of a parasitic 

or other plant of a kind that is of foreign origin 

(new to or not widely prevalent in the U.S.) and can 

directly or indirectly injure crops, other useful plants, 

livestock, poultry, other interests of agriculture, 

including irrigation, navigation, fish and wildlife 

resources, or public health. According to the Federal 

Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious weed 

(invasive plant) is one that causes disease or has 

adverse effects on humans or the human environment 

and, therefore, is detrimental to the agriculture and 

commerce of the United States and to public health. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

108 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation Service; 

agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

objective—Concise statement of what is to be 

achieved, when and where it is to be achieved, 

and who is responsible for the work. Objectives 

are derived from goals and provide the basis for 

determining management strategies. Objectives 

should be attainable, time-specific, and measurable. 

palustrine—Refers to a nontidal wetland dominated 

by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, and emergent 

mosses or lichens; or a wetland in tidal areas where 

salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 parts 

per thousand. 

Partners in Flight (PIF) program—Western Hemisphere 

program designed to conserve Neotropical migratory 

birds and officially endorsed by numerous federal and 

state agencies and nongovernmental organizations; 

also known as the Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Program. 

partnership—Contract or agreement entered into 

by two or more individuals, groups of individuals, 

organizations or agencies in which each agrees to 

furnish a part of the capital or some inBkind service, 

such as labor, for a mutually beneficial enterprise. 

patch—Area distinct from that around it; an area 

distinguished from its surroundings by environmental 

conditions. 

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; a plant species that has a life 

span of more than 2 years. 

phenology—The relationship between plant or animal 

development and climatic conditions. 

PIF—See Partners in Flight program. 

PL—Public law. 

planning team—Team that prepares the comprehensive 

conservation plan. Planning teams are interdisciplinary 

in membership and function. A team generally consists 

of a planning team leader; refuge manager and staff 

biologist; staff specialists or other representatives of 

Service programs, ecosystems or regional offices; and 

state partnering wildlife agencies as appropriate. 

planning team leader—Typically a professional planner 

or natural resource specialist knowledgeable of the 

requirements of National Environmental Policy Act 

and who has planning experience. The planning team 

leader manages the refuge planning process and 

ensures compliance with applicable regulatory and 

policy requirements. 

planning unit—Single refuge, an ecologically or 

administratively related refuge complex, or distinct 

unit of a refuge. The planning unit also may include 

lands currently outside refuge boundaries. 

plant association—Classification of plant communities 

based on the similarity in dominants of all layers of 

vascular species in a climax community. 

plant community—Assemblage of plant species unique 

in its composition; occurs in particular locations under 

particular influences; a reflection or integration of the 

environmental influences on the site such as soil, 

temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, 

and rainfall; denotes a general kind of climax plant 

community (ponderosa pine or bunchgrass). 

PPJV—Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. 

predation—Mode of life in which food is primarily 

obtained by the killing or consuming of animals. 

prescribed fire—Skillful application of fire to natural 

fuels under conditions such as weather, fuel moisture, 

and soil moisture that allow confinement of the 

fire to a predetermined area and produces the 

intensity of heat and rate of spread to accomplish 

planned benefits to one or more objectives of habitat 

management, wildlife management, or hazard 

reduction. 

priority public use—See wildlife-dependent 

recreational use. 

pristine—Typical of original conditions. 

private land—Land that is owned by a private 

individual, a group of individuals, or a nongovernmental 

organization. 

private landowner—Any individual, group of individuals, 

or nongovernmental organization that owns land. 

private organization—Any nongovernmental 

organization. 

proposed action—Alternative proposed to best 

achieve the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge 

(contributes to the Refuge System mission, addresses 

the significant issues, and is consistent with principles 

of sound fish and wildlife management). The draft 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

public—Individuals, organizations, and groups; 

officials of federal, state, and local government 

agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may 

include anyone outside the core planning team. It 

includes those who may or may not have indicated an 

interest in Service issues and those who do or do not 

realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

public involvement—Process that offers affected 

and interested individuals and organizations an 

opportunity to become informed about, and to express 

their opinions on, Service actions and policies. In 

the process, these views are studied thoroughly and 

thoughtful consideration of public views is given in 

shaping decisions for refuge management. 

public land—Land that is owned by the local, state, 

or federal government. 
purpose of the district—Purpose specified in or derived 

from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, 

public land order, donation document, or administrative 

memorandum establishing authorization or expanding 

a district or district subunit (“Draft U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

RAPP—Refuge Annual Performance Plan. 

Reclamation—Bureau of Reclamation; agency of the 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 

recruitment—The process of bringing hatch-year 

young into the adult population. 

Refuge Operations Needs System—National database 

that contains the unfunded operational needs of each 

refuge. Projects included are those required to carry 

out approved plans and meet goals, objectives, and 

legal mandates. 

Refuge System—See National Wildlife Refuge System. 

region 6—Mountain-Prairie Region of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, which administers Service 

programs in Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Utah. 

rest—Free from biological, mechanical, or chemical 

manipulation, in reference to refuge lands. 

restoration—Artificial manipulation of a habitat to 

restore it to something close to its natural state. 

Involves taking a degraded grassland and reestablishing 

habitat for native plants and animals. Restoration 

usually involves the planting of native grasses and 

forbs, and may include shrub removal and the use of 

prescribed fire. 

rhizomatous—A plant having rhizomes. 

rhizome—A continuously growing, horizontal, 

underground stem that produces roots and sends 

shoots upward at intervals (for example, many iris 

species). 

riparian area or riparian zone—Area or habitat that 

is transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems 

including streams, lakes, wet areas, and adjacent 

plant communities and their associated soils that have 

free water at or near the surface; an area whose 

components are directly or indirectly attributed 

to the influence of water; of or relating to a river; 

specifically applied to ecology, “riparian” describes 

the land immediately adjoining and directly influenced 

by streams. For example, riparian vegetation includes 

all plant life growing on the land adjoining a stream 

and directly influenced by the stream. 

RLGIS—Refuge lands geographic information system. 

“roundouts”—Odd shapes in boundaries of Refuge 

System lands that are “straightened” by the purchase 

of land tracts. 

Glossary 109 

runoff—Water from rain, melted snow, or agricultural 

or landscape irrigation that flows over the land surface 

into a waterbody. 

sandhills—Sand dunes created by wind and wave 

action following the melting of large glaciers about 

8,000–10,000 years ago. Soils are sand and silt. Local 

relief exceeds 80 feet in some places. 

scoping—Process of obtaining information from the 

public for input into the planning process. 

sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, and 

glaciers. 

Service—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Service Asset Maintenance Management System— 

National database that contains the unfunded 

maintenance needs of each refuge; projects include 

those required to maintain existing equipment 

and buildings, correct safety deficiencies for the 

implementation of approved plans, and meet goals, 

objectives, and legal mandates. 

shelterbelt—Single to multiple rows of trees and 

shrubs planted around cropland or buildings to block 

or slow down the wind. 

shorebird—Any of a suborder (Charadrii) of birds 

such as a plover or a snipe that frequent the seashore or 

mud flat areas. 

sound professional judgment—Finding, determination, 

or decision that is consistent with principles of sound 

fish and wildlife management and administration, 

available science and resources, and adherence to the 

requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act and other applicable laws. 

spatial—Relating to, occupying, or having the 

character of space. 

special status species—Plants or animals that 

have been identified through federal law, state law, 

or agency policy as requiring special protection 

of monitoring. Examples include federally listed 

endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate 

species; state-listed endangered, threatened, 

candidate, or monitor species; the Service’s species 

of management concern; and species identified by the 

Partners in Flight program as being of extreme or 

moderately high conservation concern. 

special use permit—Permit for special authorization 

from the refuge manager required for any refuge 

service, facility, privilege, or product of the soil 

provided at refuge expense and not usually available 

to the general public through authorizations in Title 

50 CFR or other public regulations (“National Wildlife 

Refuge System Manual” 5 RM 17.6). 

species of concern—Those plant and animal species, 

while not falling under the definition of special status 

species, that are of management interest by virtue of 
110 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

being federal trust species such as migratory birds, 

important game species, or significant keystone species; 

species that have documented or apparent population 

declines, small or restricted populations, or dependence 

on restricted or vulnerable habitats. Species that: 

(1) are documented or have apparent population 

declines; (2) are small or restricted populations; or 

(3) depend on restricted or vulnerable habitats. 

stand—Any homogenous area of vegetation with 

more or less uniform soils, landform, and vegetation. 

Typically used to refer to forested areas. 

step-down management plan—Plan that provides the 

details necessary to carry out management strategies 

identified in the comprehensive conservation plan 

(“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 602 

FW 1.5). 

strategy—Specific action, tool, or technique or 

combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

submergent—Vascular or nonvascular hydrophyte, 

either rooted or nonrooted, that lies entirely beneath 

the water surface, except for flowering parts in some 

species. 

succession—See ecological succession. 

SWG—State Wildlife Grant. 

temporarily flooded—Surface water is present for 

brief periods during the growing season. 

threatened species, federal—Species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, that are 

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of their 

range. 

threatened species, state—Plant or animal species 

likely to become endangered in a particular state 

within the near future if factors contributing to 

population decline or habitat degradation or loss 

continue. 

trust resource—Resource that, through law or 

administrative act, is held in trust for the people 

by the government. A federal trust resource is one 

for which trust responsibility is given in part to the 

federal government through federal legislation or 

administrative act. Generally, federal trust resources 

are those considered to be of national or international 

importance no matter where they occur, such as 

endangered species and species such as migratory 

birds and fish that regularly move across state 

lines. In addition to species, trust resources include 

cultural resources protected through federal 

historic preservation laws, nationally important and 

threatened habitats, notably wetlands, navigable 

waters, and public lands such as state parks and 

national wildlife refuges. 

trust species—See trust resource. 

understory—Any vegetation whose canopy (foliage) is 

below, or closer to the ground than canopies of other 

plants. 

upland—Dry ground; other than wetlands. 

USC—United States Code. 

USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, USFWS)— 

Principal federal agency responsible for conserving, 

protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 

people. The Service manages the 93-million-acre 

National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more 

than 530 national wildlife refuges and thousands 

of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 

national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological service 

field stations, the agency enforces federal wildlife 

laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores 

national significant fisheries, conserves and restores 

wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers 

the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign 

governments with their conservation efforts. It also 

oversees the federal aid program that distributes 

millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and 

hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mission—The mission 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with 

others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, 

and plants and their habitats for the continuing 

benefit of the American people. 

USFWS—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—Federal agency 

whose mission is to provide reliable scientific 

information to describe and understand the earth; 

minimize loss of life and property from natural 

disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and 

mineral resources; and enhance and protect our 

quality of life. 

USGS—See U.S. Geological Survey. 

vision statement—Concise statement of what the 

planning unit should be, or what the Service hopes 

to do, based primarily on the Refuge System mission, 

specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. 

In addition, the vision statement is tied to the 

maintenance and restoration of biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of each refuge 

and the Refuge System. 

visual obstruction—Pertaining to the density of a 

plant community; the height of vegetation that blocks 

the view of predators and conspecifics to a nest. 

visual obstruction reading (VOR)—Measurement of the 

density of a plant community; the height of vegetation 

that blocks the view of predators to a nest. 

VOR—See visual obstruction reading. 
 

 

 

Glossary 111 

wading birds—Birds having long legs that enable 

them to wade in shallow water. Includes egrets, 

great blue herons, black-crowned night-herons, and 

bitterns. 

warm-season grass—Grass that begins growth 

later in the season (early June); require warmer soil 

temperatures to germinate and actively grow when 

temperatures are warmer (85–95°F). Examples are 

Indiangrass, switchgrass, and big bluestem. 

waterfowl—Category of birds that includes ducks, 

geese, and swans. 

watershed—Geographic area within which water 

drains into a particular river, stream or body of 

water. A watershed includes both the land and the 

body of water into which the land drains. 

WDA—Wildlife development area. 

wetland—Land transitional between terrestrial and 

aquatic systems where the water table is usually at 

or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow 

water. 

wetland management district (district, WMD)— 

Administrative unit that provides oversight in a 

multicounty area for all of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s small land tracts. 

WG—Wage grade schedule (pay rate schedule for 

certain federal positions). 

wilderness—“A wilderness, in contrast with those 

areas where man and his own works dominate the 

landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where 

the earth and its community of life are untrammeled 

by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not 

remain” (Wilderness Act of 1964 Section 2c [PL 88­

577)]). This legal definition places wilderness in the 

Auntrammeled@ or Aprimeval@ end of the environmental 

modification spectrum. Wilderness is roadless lands, 

legally classified as component areas of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System, and managed to 

protect its qualities of naturalness, solitude, and 

opportunity for primitive types of recreation. 

wildfire—Free-burning fire requiring a suppression 

response; all fire other than prescribed fire that 

occurs in wildlands (“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 621 FW 1.7). 

wildland fire—Every wildland fire is either a wildfire 

or a prescribed fire (“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 621 FW 1.3). 

wildlife-dependent recreational use—Use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, or environmental education and 

interpretation. These are the six priority public uses 

of the Refuge System as established in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as 

amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other 

than the six priority public uses, are those that 

depend on the presence of wildlife. 

wildlife management—Practice of manipulating 

wildlife populations either directly through regulating 

the numbers, ages, and sex ratios harvested, or 

indirectly by providing favorable habitat conditions 

and alleviating limiting factors. 

WMD—See wetland management district. 

woodland—Open stands of trees with crowns not 

usually touching, generally forming 25%–60% cover. 

WPA—Waterfowl production area. 

WUI—Wildland–urban interface. 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A 

Key Legislation and Policies 

Administration of units of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System is governed by (1) bills passed by the U.S. 

Congress and signed into law by the president of the 

United States, and (2) by regulations developed by 

the various branches of the government. Following 

are brief descriptions of some of the most pertinent 

laws and statutes establishing legal parameters and 

policy direction for the Refuge System. 

In alphabetical order of the name of the act, order, or 

regulation. 

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits 

discrimination in public accommodations and services. 

Antiquities Act (June 8, 1906; 16 USC 431–3; 34 

Stat. 225): Authorizes the president to designate as 

national monuments objects or areas of historic or 

scientific interest on lands owned or controlled by the 

United States. Requires that a permit be obtained 

for examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological 

sites, and the gathering of objects of antiquity on 

lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of 

Interior, Agriculture, and Army, and provided 

penalties for violations. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (Public 

Law [PL] 96-95; October 31, 1979; 16 USC 470aa–ll; 93 

Stat. 721): Largely supplants the resource protection 

provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological 

items. Establishes detailed requirements for issuance 

of permits for any excavation for or removal of 

archaeological resources from federal or Indian 

lands. Establishes civil and criminal penalties for the 

unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of any 

such resources; for any trafficking in such resources 

removed from federal or Indian land in violation 

of any provision of federal law; and for interstate 

and foreign commerce in such resources acquired, 

transported, or received in violation of any state or 

local law. In addition, PL 100-588 (November 3, 1988; 

102 Stat. 2983) lowers the threshold value of artifacts 

triggering the felony provisions of the act from 

$5,000 to $500, makes attempting to commit an action 

prohibited by the act a violation, and requires the 

land managing agencies to establish public awareness 

programs regarding the value of archaeological 

resources to the nation. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally 

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be 

accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (PL 

86-523; June 27, 1960; 16 USC 469–469c; 74 Stat. 

220 [as amended by PL 93-291; May 24, 1974; 88 

Stat. 174]): Carries out the policy established by 

the Historic Sites Act; directs federal agencies to 

notify the Secretary of the Interior whenever they 

find a federal or federally assisted, licensed, or 

permitted project may cause loss or destruction of 

significant scientific, prehistoric, or archaeological 

data. Authorizes use of appropriated, donated, and 

transferred money for the recovery, protection, and 

preservation of such data. 

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for major wetland 

modifications. 

Criminal Code of Provisions of 1940 (as amended, 18 

USC 41): States the intent of Congress to protect all 

wildlife within federal sanctuaries, refuges, fish 

hatcheries, and breeding grounds. Provides that anyone 

(except in compliance with rules and regulations 

promulgated by authority of law) who hunts, traps, 

or willfully disturbs any such wildlife, or willfully 

injures, molests, or destroys any property of the United 

States on such land or water, shall be fined up to $500 

or imprisoned for not more than 6 months or both. 

Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986: Authorizes 

the buy of wetlands from Land and Water Conservation 

Fund monies, removing a prior prohibition on such 

acquisitions. Requires the Secretary to establish a 

national wetlands priority conservation plan, requires 

the states to include wetlands in their comprehensive 

outdoor recreation plans, and transfers to the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amount equal to 

import duties on arms and ammunition. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 and recent 

amendments (16 USC 1531–43, 87 Stat. 884; as 

amended): Provides for conservation of threatened 

and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and 

plants by federal action and by encouraging state 

programs. Specific provisions include the listing 

and determination of critical habitat for endangered 

and threatened species and consultation with the 

Service on any federally funded or licensed project 

that could affect any of these agencies; prohibition 

of unauthorized taking, possession, sale, transport, 

etc., of endangered species; an expanded program 

of habitat acquisition; establishment of cooperative 

agreements and grants-in-aid to states that establish 
 

 

 

 

 

 

114 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

and maintain an active, adequate program for 

endangered and threatened species; assessment of 

civil and criminal penalties for violating the act or 

regulations. 

Environmental Education Act of 1990 (PL 101-619; 

November 16, 1990; 20 USC 5501–10; 104 Stat. 3325): 

Establishes the Office of Environmental Education 

within the Environmental Protection Agency to 

develop and administer a federal environmental 

education program. Responsibilities of the office 

include developing and supporting programs to 

improve understanding of the natural and developed 

environment and the relationships between humans 

and their environment; supporting the dissemination 

of educational materials; developing and supporting 

training programs and environmental education 

seminars; managing a federal grant program; and 

administering an environmental internship and 

fellowship program. Requires the office to develop 

and support environmental programs in consultation 

with other federal natural resource management 

agencies including the Service. 

EO 11644—Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands 

(1972): Provides policy and procedures for regulating 

off-road vehicles. 

EO 11988—Floodplain Management (May 24, 1977): 

Prevents federal agencies from contributing to the 

“adverse impacts associated with occupancy and 

modification of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect 

support of floodplain development.” In the course of 

fulfilling their respective authorities, federal agencies 

“shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, 

to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, 

health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the 

natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.” 

EO 11990—Protection of Wetlands. 

EO 12996—Management and General Public Use of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System (1996): Defines 

the mission, purpose, and priority public uses of the 

Refuge System; presents four principles to guide 

management of the system. 

EO 13007—Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs federal 

land management agencies to accommodate access to 

and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian 

religious practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the 

physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where 

appropriate, maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires the use of 

integrated management systems to control or contain 

undesirable plant species, and an interdisciplinary 

approach with the cooperation of other federal and 

state agencies. 

Federal Records Act (1950): Requires the preservation 

of evidence of the government’s organization, functions, 

policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well 

as basic historical and other information. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 

401 (PL 92-500, USC 1411, 86 Stat. 816.33): Requires 

any applicant for a federal license or permit to 

conduct any activity that may result in a discharge 

into navigable waters to obtain a certification from 

the state in which the discharge originates or will 

originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water 

pollution control agency having jurisdiction over 

navigable waters at the point where the discharge 

originates or will originate, that the discharge will 

comply with applicable effluent limitations and water 

quality standards. Requires that a certification 

obtained for construction of any facility must also 

pertain to subsequent operation of the facility. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 

404 (PL 92-500, 86 Stat. 816): Authorizes the Secretary 

of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 

to issue permits, after notice and opportunity for 

public hearing, for discharge of dredged or fill material 

into navigable waters of the United States, including 

wetlands, at specified disposal sites. Requires that 

selection of disposal sites be in accordance with 

guidelines developed by the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction 

with the Secretary of the Army. States that the 

Administrator can prohibit or restrict use of any 

defined area as a disposal site whenever she/he 

determines, after notice and opportunity for public 

hearings, that discharge of such materials into such 

areas will have an unacceptable adverse effect on 

municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, fishery areas, 

wildlife, or recreational areas. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 USC 742a–742j, 70 

Stat. 1119; as amended): Establishes a comprehensive 

fish and wildlife policy and directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to provide continuing research and extension 

and conservation of fish and wildlife resources. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (PL 96366; 

September 29, 1980; 16 USC 2901–11; as amended 

1986, 1988, 1990, and 1992): Creates a mechanism 

for federal matching funding of the development 

of state conservation plans for nongame fish and 

wildlife. States that subsequent amendments to this 

law require that the Secretary monitor and assess 

migratory nongame birds, determine the effects of 

environmental changes and human activities, identify 

birds likely to be candidates for endangered species 

listing, and identify conservation actions that would 

prevent this from being necessary. In 1989, Congress 

also directed the Secretary to identify lands and 

waters in the Western Hemisphere, the protection, 

management, or acquisition of which would foster 

conservation of migratory nongame birds. All of 

these activities are intended to assist the Secretary 

in fulfilling the Secretary’s responsibilities under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act, and provisions of the Endangered 

Species Act implementing the Convention on Nature 

Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western 

Hemisphere. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies 115 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): Allows the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into agreements 

with private landowners for wildlife management 

purposes. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978: Improves 

the administration of fish and wildlife programs and 

amends several earlier laws including the Refuge 

Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act 

of 1956. Authorizes the Secretary to accept gifts and 

bequests of real and personal property on behalf of 

the United States. Authorizes the use of volunteers 

for Service projects and appropriations to carry out 

volunteer programs. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (August 21, 

1935; 16 USC 461–2, 464–7; 49 Stat. 666; known as the 

“Historic Sites Act” [as amended by PL 89-249; 

October 9, 1965; 79 Stat. 971]): Declares it a national 

policy to preserve historic sites and objects of national 

significance, including those located at refuges and 

districts. Provides procedures for designation, 

acquisition, administration, and protection of such 

sites. Provides for designation of National Historic 

and Natural Landmarks. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965: Provides 

money from leasing bonuses, production royalties, 

and rental revenues for offshore oil, gas, and sulphur 

extraction to the Bureau of Land Management, the 

USDA Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and state and local agencies for purchase of 

lands for parks, open space, and outdoor recreation. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 USC 715– 

715d, 715e, 715f–r): Establishes the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission, which consists of the 

Secretaries of the Interior (chair), Agriculture, and 

Transportation; two members from the House of 

Representatives; and an ex-officio member from the 

state in which a project is located. States that the 

commission approves acquisition of land and water, or 

interests therein, and sets the priorities for acquisition 

of lands by the Secretary of the Interior for sanctuaries 

or for other management purposes. Requires that, to 

acquire lands or interests therein, the state concerned 

must consent to such acquisition by legislation. Such 

legislation has been enacted by most states. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 USC 715s, 

45 Stat. 1222, as amended): Authorizes acquisition, 

development, and maintenance of migratory bird 

refuges; cooperation with other agencies in conservation; 

and investigations and publications on North American 

birds. Authorizes payment of 25% of net receipts from 

administration of national wildlife refuges to the 

country or counties in which such refuges are located. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 

of 1934 (March 16, 1934; 16 USC 718–718h; 48 Stat. 51; 

known as The “Duck Stamp Act”; as amended): 

Requires each waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or 

older to possess a valid federal hunting stamp. 

Authorizes the requirement of an annual stamp for 

the hunting of waterfowl; proceeds go toward the 

purchase of habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife. 

Duck stamps are also bought (1) for entry into some 

refuges, (2) by conservationists, and (3) for stamp 

collections. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are 

deposited in a special Treasury account known as 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and are not 

subject to appropriations. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 USC 703–11; 

50 CFR, subchapter B; as amended): Implements 

treaties with Great Britain (for Canada) and Mexico 

for protection of migratory birds whose welfare is 

a federal responsibility. Provides for regulations to 

control taking, possession, selling, transporting, and 

importing of migratory birds and provides penalties 

for violations. Enables the setting of seasons and other 

regulations (including the closing of areas, federal or 

nonfederal) related to the hunting of migratory birds. 

National and Community Service Act of 1990 (PL 101­

610; November 16, 1990; 42 USC 12401; 104 Stat. 3127): 

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the 

United States in full and part-time projects designed 

to combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job skills, 

enhance educational skills, and fulfill environmental 

needs. Provides for grants to states for the creation 

of programs for citizens over 17 years of age. Programs 

must be designed to fill unmet educational, human, 

environmental, and public safety needs. Initially, 

participants will receive postemployment benefits of 

up to $1,000 per year for part-time participants and 

$2,500 for full-time participants. 

Several provisions are of particular interest to the 

Service: 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps: 

As a federal grant program established under 

subtitle C of the law, the corps offers an 

opportunity for young adults between the ages 

of 16 and 25, or in the case of summer programs, 

between 15 and 21, to engage in approved human 

and natural resources projects that benefit the 

public or are carried out on federal or Indian 

lands. To be eligible for assistance, natural 

resources programs will focus on improvement 

of wildlife habitat and recreational areas, fish 

culture, fishery assistance, erosion, wetlands 

protection, pollution control, and similar projects. 

A stipend of not more than 100% of the poverty 

level will be paid to participants. A commission 

established to administer the Youth Service 

Corps will make grants to states, the Secretaries 

of Agriculture and Interior, and the Director of 

ACTION to carry out these responsibilities. 

Thousand Points of Light: Creates a nonprofit 

Points of Light Foundation to administer 

programs to encourage citizens and institutions 

to volunteer to solve critical social issues, discover 

new leaders, and develop institutions committed 

to serving others. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

116 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190; 

January 1, 1970; 42 USC 4321–47; 83 Stat. 852 [as 

amended by PL 94-52; July 3, 1975; 89 Stat. 258] [as 

amended by PL 94-83; August 9, 1975; 89 Stat. 424]): 

Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine 

the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation 

in the planning and the implementation of all actions, 

federal agencies must integrate the act with other 

planning requirements, and to prepare appropriate 

documents to facilitate better environmental decision 

making (40 CFR 1500). Declares national policy to 

encourage a productive and enjoyable harmony between 

humans and their environment. 

Section 102 of that act directs that “to the fullest 

extent possible the policies, regulations, and 

public laws of the United States shall be 

interpreted and administered in accordance with 

the policies set forth in this act, and all agencies 

of the Federal Government shall ... insure that 

presently unquantified environmental amenities 

and values may be given appropriate consideration 

in decision making along with economic technical 

considerations.” 

Section 102(2)c of the NEPA requires all federal 

agencies, with respect to major federal actions 

significantly affecting the quality the quality of 

the human environment, to submit to the Council 

on Environmental Quality a detailed statement 

of the environmental impact of the proposed 

action; any adverse environmental effect that 

cannot be avoided should the proposal be carried 

out; alternatives to the proposed action; the 

relationship between local short-term uses 

of the environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity; any 

irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 

resources that would be involved in the proposed 

action, should it be carried out. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (PL 89-665; 

October 15, 1966; 16 USC 470–470b, 470c–n; 80 Stat. 915; 

and repeatedly amended): Provides for preservation 

of significant historical features (buildings, objects, 

and sites) through a grants-in-aid program to the 

states. Establishes the National Register of Historic 

Places and a program of matching grants under the 

existing National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 

USC 468–468d). Establishes the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, which was made a permanent 

independent agency in PL 94-422 (September 28, 1976; 

90 Stat. 1319). That act creates the Historic Preservation 

Fund. Directs federal agencies to take into account 

the effects of their actions on items or sites listed or 

eligible for listing in the National Register. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

of 1966 (PL 89-669; 16 USC 668dd–ee; 80 Stat. 929; 

as amended): Defines the Refuge System as 

including wildlife refuges, areas for protection and 

conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened 

with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife 

management areas, and waterfowl production areas. 

Authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of an 

area provided such use is compatible with the major 

purposes for which such area was established. States 

that purchase considerations for rights-of-way go 

into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the 

acquisition of lands. By regulation, up to 40% of an 

area acquired for a migratory bird sanctuary may be 

opened to migratory bird hunting unless the Secretary 

finds that the taking of any species of migratory game 

birds in more than 40% of such area would be beneficial 

to the species. Requires an act of Congress for the 

divestiture of lands in the system, except for (1) lands 

acquired with Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 

money, and (2) lands that can be removed from the 

system by land exchange, or if brought into the system 

by a cooperative agreement, then pursuant to the 

terms of the agreement. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (PL 105-57; October 9, 1997; Amendment to 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966): Sets the mission and the administrative 

policy for all units in the Refuge System. Clearly 

defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; 

establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of 

the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation); establishes a formal process 

for determining appropriateness and compatibility; 

establishes the responsibilities of the Secretary of 

the Interior for managing and protecting the Refuge 

System; and requires a CCP for each refuge by the 

year 2012. Also amended portions of the Refuge 

Recreation Act and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966. 

Key provisions include the following: 

QQ	 A requirement that the Secretary of the Interior 

ensures maintenance of the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge 

System. 

The definition of compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation as “legitimate and appropriate 

general public use of the [National Wildlife 

Refuge] System.” 

The establishment of hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation as “priority public 

uses” where compatible with the mission and 

purpose of individual national wildlife refuges. 

The refuge managers’ authority to use sound 

professional judgment in determining which 

public uses are compatible at national wildlife 

refuges and whether or not they will be allowed 

(a formal process for determining “compatible 

use” is currently being developed). 

The requirement of open public involvement in 

decisions to allow new uses of national wildlife 

refuges and renew existing ones, as well as in the 

development of CCPs for national wildlife refuges. 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies 117 

National Wildlife Refuge Regulations (50 CFR 25-35, 

43 CFR 3103.2 and 3120.3–3): Provides regulations for 

administration and management of national wildlife 

refuges including mineral leasing, exploration, and 

development. 

Rights-of-way General Regulations (50 CFR 

29.21; 34 FR 19907, December 19, 1969): Provides 

for procedures for filing applications. Provides 

terms and conditions under which rights-of-way 

over, above, and across lands administered by 

the Service may be granted. 

Wilderness Preservation and Management (50 

CFR 35; 16 USC 1131-1136; 43 USC 1201; 78 

Stat. 890): Provides procedures for establishing 

wilderness units under the Wilderness Act of 

1964 at units of the Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and 

Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 

(PL 105-242, 112 Stat. 1575): Encourages the use of 

volunteers to assist the Service in the management 

of refuges within the Refuge System. Facilitates 

partnerships between the Refuge System and 

nonfederal entities to promote public awareness 

of the resources of the Refuge System and public 

participation in the conservation of those resources. 

Encourages donations and other contributions by 

persons and organizations to the Refuge System. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (PL 101­

233; December 13, 1989; 16 USC 4401–12; 103 Stat. 1968): 

Provides for the conservation of North American 

wetland ecosystems, waterfowl and other migratory 

birds, fish, and wildlife that depend on such habitats. 

Establishes a council to review project proposals and 

provided funding for the projects. Provides funding 

and administrative direction for implementation of the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan and 

the Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between Canada, 

United States, and Mexico. Converts the Pittman– 

Robertson account into a trust fund, with the interest 

available without appropriation through the year 2006 

to carry out the programs authorized by the act, along 

with an authorization for annual appropriation of $15 

million plus an amount equal to the fines and forfeitures 

collected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Available money may be expended, upon approval 

of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, for 

payment of not to exceed 50% of the United States 

share of the cost of wetlands conservation projects in 

Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100% of the 

cost of projects on federal lands). At least 50% and no 

more than 70% of the money received is to go to Canada 

and Mexico each year. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962: Authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, 

hatcheries, and other conservation areas for 

recreational use, when such uses do not interfere 

with the areas’ primary purposes. Authorizes 

construction and maintenance of recreational 

facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental 

fish and wildlife oriented recreational development 

or protection of natural resources. Authorizes the 

charging of fees for public uses. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1966 (PL 87-714, 16 USC 460k 

et seq., 76 Stat. 653–4): Authorizes appropriate, 

incidental, or secondary recreational use at conservation 

areas administered by the Secretary of the Interior 

for fish and wildlife purposes. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1969 [16 USC 460k–k4], as 

amended. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, Section 401 (June 15, 

1935; 16 USC 715s; 49 Stat. 383): Provides for payments 

to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived 

from the sale of products from refuges. Related 

legislation follows: 

PL 88-523 (August 30, 1964; 78 Stat. 701): 

Makes major revisions by requiring that all 

revenues received from refuge products such 

as animals, timber and minerals, or from leases 

or other privileges, be deposited in a special 

Treasury account and net receipts distributed 

to counties for public schools and roads. 

PL 93-509 (December 3, 1974; 88 Stat. 1603): 

Requires that monies remaining in the fund 

after payments be transferred to the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Fund for land acquisition 

under provisions of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act. 

PL 95-469 (October 17, 1978; 92 Stat. 1319): 

Expands the revenue-sharing system to include 

national fish hatcheries and Service research 

stations. Includes in the Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Fund receipts from the sale of salmonid carcasses. 

Establishes payments to counties as follows: 

On acquired land, the greatest amount 

calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre, 

3⁄4 of 1% of the appraised value, or 25% of the 

net receipts produced from the land. 

On land withdrawn from the public domain, 

25% of net receipts and basic payments under 

PL 94-565 (31 USC 1601–1607, 90 Stat. 2662), 

payment in lieu of taxes on public lands. 

This amendment also authorizes appropriations 

to make up any difference between the amount 

in the fund and the amount scheduled for 

payment in any year. The stipulation that 

payments be used for schools and roads was 

removed, but counties were required to pass 

payments along to other units of local 

government within the county that suffer 

losses in revenues due to the establishment 

of Service areas. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1978 (PL 95-469; 

October 17, 1978; amended 16 USC 715s; 50 CFR, part 34): 

Changes the provisions for sharing revenues with 

counties in a number of ways. Makes revenue sharing 
 

 

 

118 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

applicable to all lands administered by the Service, 

whereas previously it was applicable only to areas in 

the Refuge System. Makes payments available for any 

governmental purpose, whereas the old law restricted 

the use of payments to roads and schools. For lands 

acquired in fee simple, provides a payment of 75 cents 

per acre, 3⁄4 of 1% of fair market value or 25% of net 

receipts, whichever is greatest, whereas the old law 

provided a payment of 3⁄4 of 1% adjustment cost or 25% 

of net receipts, whichever was greater. Makes reserve 

(public domain) lands entitlement lands under PL 94­

565 (16 USC 1601–1607) and provides for a payment 

of 25% of net receipts. Authorizes appropriations to 

make up any shortfall in net receipts, to make payments 

in the full amount for which counties are eligible. The 

old law provided that if net receipts were insufficient 

to make full payment, payment to each county would 

be reduced proportionality. 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 28, 1906 (18 USC 41, 

43 Stat. 98; 18 USC 145): Provides the first federal 

protection for wildlife at national wildlife refuges. 

Makes it unlawful to hunt, trap, capture, willfully 

disturb, or kill any bird or wild animal, or take or 

destroy the eggs of any such birds, on any lands of 

the United States set apart or reserved as refuges 

or breeding grounds for such birds or animals by any 

law, proclamation, or executive order, except under 

rules and regulations of the Secretary. The act also 

protects government property on such lands. 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 USC 41, 

Stat. 686; Section 41 of the Criminal Code, Title 18): 

Consolidates the penalty provisions of various acts 

from January 24, 1905 (16 USC 684–687, 33 Stat. 614) 

through March 10, 1934 (16 USC 694–694b, 48 Stat. 

400) and restates the intent of Congress to protect all 

wildlife within federal sanctuaries, refuges, fish 

hatcheries, and breeding grounds. Provides that anyone 

(except in compliance with rules and regulations 

promulgated by authority of law) who hunts, traps, or 

willfully disturbs any wildlife on such areas, or willfully 

injures, molests, or destroys any property of the 

United States on such lands or waters, shall be fined, 

imprisoned, or both. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (October 1, 1973; 29 USC 794 

[as amended by PL 93-112, Title 5; 87 Stat. 355]): Prohibits 

discrimination on the basis of handicap under any 

program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. 

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act of 1948: Provides that, upon 

determination by the Administrator of the General 

Services Administration, real property no longer 

needed by a federal agency can be transferred without 

reimbursement to the Secretary of the Interior if the 

land has particular value for migratory birds, or to a 

state agency for other wildlife conservation purposes. 

U.S. Department of the Interior Order No. 3226 

(January 19, 2001): Directs bureaus and offices of the 

Department to analyze the potential effects on climate 

change when undertaking long-range planning, when 

setting priorities for scientific research, and when 

making major decisions about use of resources. 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (PL 88-577; September 3, 1964): 

Directs the Secretary of the Interior, within 10 years, 

to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres 

and every roadless island (regardless of size) within 

the Refuge System and National Park Service for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. 
Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies 119 

Laws and Executive Orders that Regulate Recreational Use on the Refuge System 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16 USC 410 hh3233 and 43 USC 1602–1784) 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 USC 1601–24) 

Antiques Act of 1906 (16 USC 431–3) 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1960 (16 USC 469–469c), as amended 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470aa–mm) 

Comprehensive Environmental Responses, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531–44), as amended 

Executive Order 11593—Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 

Executive Order 11593—Protection of Historical, Archaeological, and Scientific Properties 

Executive Order 11644—Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands 

Executive Order 11988—Floodplain Management 

Executive Order 11990—Protection of Wetlands 

Executive Order 12372—Intergovernmental Review of Federal Program 

Executive Order 12962—Recreational Fisheries 

Executive Order 12996—Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Executive Order 13006—Locating Federal Facilities On Historic Properties In Our Nation’s Central Cities 

Executive Order 13007—Indian Sacred Sites 

Executive Order 13287—Preserve America 

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 USC 742f [a] [4]), as amended 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (16 USC 2901–11), as amended 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661[1]–662[c]) 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 USC 7421) 

Historic Sites, Building and Antiquities Act of 1935 (16 USC 461–2, 464–7) 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (16 USC 460[l–4]–[l–11]), as amended. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 USC 715–715d, 715e, 715f–r), as amended 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 USC 668dd–669ee), as amended 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

Natural Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470–470b, 470c–n), as amended 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 USC 460k–k4), as amended 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1969 (16 USC 460k–k4), as amended 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, as amended 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 USC 1271–87), as amended 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 USC 1131–6) 

Appendix B 

Preparers and Contributors 

This document is the result of extensive, collaborative, and enthusiastic efforts by the members of the planning 

team for the nine North Dakota wetland management districts. Many others contributed insight and support. 

Planning Team 

The planning team comprised the project leaders for the Refuge System units that administer the districts, a 

biology subteam, a visitor services subteam, and extended team members. 

refUge system proJeCt leaders 

Team Member Position Work Unit 

Michael Erickson 

David Gillund 

Tedd Gutzke 

Kim Hanson 

Kelly Hogan 

Roger Hollevoet 

Lloyd Jones 

Project leader 

Project leader 

Project leader (retired) 

Project leader 

Project leader 

Project leader 

Project leader 

Kulm Wetland Management District 

Lostwood Wetland Management District 

Complex 

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex 

Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex 

Devils Lake Wetland Management District 

Complex 

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

biology sUbteam 

Team Member Position Work Unit 

Dave Azure 

Dave Bolin 

Cami Dixon 

Mike Goos 

Tim Kessler 

Deputy project leader 

Wetland management district 

manager 

Wildlife biologist 

Wetland management district 

manager 

Wetland management district 

manager 

Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex 

Devils Lake Wetland Management District 

Complex 

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Crosby Wetland Management District 
122 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Team Member Position Work Unit 

Paulette Scherr 

Richard 

Schroeder 

Wildlife biologist 

Wildlife biologist 

Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

USGS–Biological Survey, Fort Collins, CO 

Visitor serViCes sUbteam 

Team Member Position Work Unit 

Travis Carpenter 

Stacy Hoehn 

Jackie Jacobson 

Shapins 

Associates 

Cindy Souders 

Chad Zorn 

Deputy wetland management 

district manager 

Refuge operations specialist 

Outdoor recreation planner 

Consultants 

Outdoor recreational program 

specialist 

Refuge operations specialist 

Kulm Wetland Management District 

Valley City Wetland Management District 

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Boulder, CO 

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO 

Lostwood Wetland Management District 

Complex 

extended team members 

Team Member Position Work Unit 

Jim Alfonso 

Mike Artmann 

Natoma 

Buskness 

Gary Eslinger 

John Esperance 

Mike Estey 

Paul Halko 

Randy Kreil 

Greg Link 

Deputy project leader 

Wildlife biologist and GIS specialist 

District manager 

Biological technician 

Planning team leader 

Wildlife biologist and GIS specialist 

Refuge manager 

Division chief 

Assistant division chief 

Devils Lake Wetland Management District 

Complex 

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO 

Chase Lake Wetland Management District 

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex 

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO 

USFWS HAPET, Bismarck, ND 

Devils Lake Wetland Management District 

(south unit) 

NDGF 

NDGF 
Appendix B—Preparers and Contributors 123 

Team Member Position Work Unit 

Chuck Loesch 

Edward 

Meendering 

Neil Niemuth 

Ron Reynolds 

Neil Shook 

Kurt Tompkins 

Brian Vose 

Stu Wacker 

Stacy AdolfWhipp 

Gary Williams 

Kevin Willis 

Wildlife biologist and GIS specialist 

Former wetland management 

district manager 

Wildlife biologist and GIS specialist 

Project leader 

Refuge manager 

Refuge manager 

Refuge manager 

Realty field supervisor (retired) 

District manager 

Deputy project leader 

State coordinator 

USFWS HAPET, Bismarck, ND 

Valley City Wetland Management District 

USFWS HAPET, Bismarck, ND 

USFWS HAPET, Bismarck, ND 

Devils Lake Wetland Management District 

(north unit) 

Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge 

Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge 

Wetland acquisition office, Bismarck, ND 

Arrowwood Wetland Management District 

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, 

Bismark, ND 

Contributors 

The Service acknowledges the efforts of the following individuals and organizations toward the completion 

of the CCP. The diversity, talents, and knowledge they contributed dramatically improved the vision and 

completeness of this document. 

Team Member Position Work Unit 

Richard Coleman 

Paul Cornes 

Megan Estep 

Sheri Fetherman 

Wayne King 

Rod Krey 

David Linehan 

Assistant regional director, Refuge 

System 

Refuge supervisor 

Chief hydrologist 

Chief, division of education and 

visitor services 

Refuge biologist 

Refuge supervisor (retired) 

Deputy refuge supervisor 

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO 

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO 

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO 

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO 

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO 

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO 

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO 
124 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Team Member Position Work Unit 

Bud Oliveira 

Deb Parker 

Ron Shupe 

Michael Spratt 

Richard Sterry 

Meg VanNess 

Deputy assistant regional director, 

Refuge System 

Writer–editor, division of refuge 

planning 

Deputy assistant regional director, 

Refuge System (retired) 

Chief, division of refuge planning 

Regional fire planner 

Regional archaeologist 

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO 

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO 

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO 

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO 

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO 

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C
 

Public Involvement 

Public involvement started with a notice of intent 

published in the Federal Register on February 28, 2007. 

The notice announced the Service’s intent to prepare 

a CCP for the districts and obtain suggestions and 

information on the scope of issues to consider in the 

planning process. 

Public Scoping 

In April 2007, the Service sent the first planning 

update to interested parties. The update provided 

information about the history of the districts and 

the CCP process, along with an invitation to public 

scoping meetings. The local media also announced 

the public meetings. The planning update included 

a comment form and postage-paid envelope to give 

the public an opportunity to easily provide written 

comments. 

The Service held six public meetings in various locations 

throughout North Dakota starting on March 26, 2007, 

and ending on April 11, 2007. After a presentation 

about the districts, along with an overview of the CCP 

and NEPA processes, attendees were encouraged to 

ask questions and offer comments. Service employees 

were available after the presentation to answer 

individuals’ questions about the CCP process and 

district management. 

The Service received 46 written comments throughout 

the scoping process. The public provided numerous 

written comments that identified biological, social, 

and economic concerns about management of the 

districts. 

Public Review of the 

Draft CCP and EA 

The Service considered all input obtained from meetings 

and correspondence, including emails, in development 

of the draft CCP and EA. In addition, the Service 

considered changes to the districts’ current management 

that were suggested by the public and other groups. 

On August 19, 2008, the Service published a notice of 

availability announcing that the draft CCP and EA, 

with three management alternatives, was available 

for a 30-day public review. The Service mailed hard 

copies of the document to more than 90 federal, state, 

and local agencies; organizations; and citizens. In 

addition, the Service posted the draft CCP and EA 

document on the region 6 website and sent out news 

releases and a planning update. 

During the review period, the Service held nine public 

meetings in various locations throughout North Dakota. 

At each meeting, after a presentation about the 

districts and overview of the CCP and NEPA processes, 

Service employees encouraged attendees to ask 

questions and offer comments. Each attendee received 

a comment form to submit additional thoughts or 

questions in writing. 

The following section summarizes the comments 

from five letters submitted during the 30-day public 

review of the draft CCP and EA, along with the 

Service’s responses to the summarized comments. 

Comment 1: Your mantra states wildlife comes first. 

Aren’t wetland management districts managed for all 

wildlife, not just migratory birds? 

Response 1: Congress passed the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 to ensure 

that the Refuge System is managed as a national 

system of lands, waters, and interests for the 

protection and conservation of the nation’s wildlife 

resources. Two main components of the Improvement 

Act are a strong and singular wildlife conservation 

mission and the recognition that wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation are legitimate and appropriate 

public uses of the Refuge System. The Service’s 

motto or “mantra” that “wildlife comes first” means 

that wildlife and their habitat have priority over 

all public uses. 

Establishing legislation defines the purpose of each 

WPA in a wetland management district. Congress 

created the concept of waterfowl production areas 

under the Small Wetland Program in 1958 as an 

amendment to the Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp Act). This 

program allows proceeds from the sale of federal 

Duck Stamps to be used to protect migratory 

waterfowl and their habitat. The habitat protected 

through the Small Wetland Program consists of 

small wetlands and surrounding grassland habitat, 

primarily in the United States’ portion of the Prairie 

Pothole Region. This legislation also established the 

purpose of WPAs as breeding and resting places for 

migratory birds. The Service manages these lands 
126 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

to benefit migratory birds; however many of the 

habitat management strategies provide habitat 

for other species of birds, mammals, insects, and 

animals. The CCP calls for habitats to be managed 

for target species—waterfowl, migratory shorebirds, 

grassland birds, and other priority species. 

Comment 2: My easement with the Service is for 

water for all wildlife, not just for migratory birds. 

There is too much emphasis on migratory birds. 

Response 2: The federal government created 

the limited-interest refuge program in the 1930s, 

when the United States was experiencing a severe 

drought and waterfowl and other wildlife populations 

were in sharp decline. This program enabled the 

establishment of refuge and flowage easements for 

the purposes of (1) water conservation, (2) drought 

relief, and (3) migratory bird and other wildlife 

conservation. The purpose of the limited-interest 

refuges was primarily for migratory birds; however, 

these refuges also provide habitat for other wildlife. 

The program has played a vital role in the recovery 

and protection of water resources and the waterfowl 

and other wildlife that depend on these areas. 

Comment 3: Because the visitor services goal includes 

wildlife observation and photography, there should be 

a greater emphasis on grassland birds and their habitat 

management requirements. 

Response 3: Management of native prairie on the 

Service’s fee-title lands in the districts will focus 

on reduction of invasive plants and stimulation 

of native grasses and forbs. These management 

practices will best provide for the habitat 

requirements of native grassland bird species. 

Comment 4: The concern about prairie conversion for 

corn production may be true, but prairie converted 

for oil and gas development is also a major concern. 

Response 4: It would certainly be accurate to add 

oil and gas development as a concern to the prairie 

conversion issue. The loss of habitat through 

conversion of native prairie is associated with many 

facets of energy development and does affect wildlife. 

Comment 5: Increased oil and gas drilling has already 

changed the landscape. It is uncertain how drilling 

will affect WPAs, but drilling will have an affect on 

wildlife. The Service needs to study drilling and consider 

ways to conserve wildlife habitat for the future. 

Response 5: Although the Service has no 

jurisdiction, in almost all cases, over access to 

mineral rights, the Service has stepped up the 

acquisition of grassland and wetland easements. 

Where oil activities will affect the Service’s feetitle and easement lands, the Service negotiates 

the means by which negative effects will be 

minimized to protect habitat to the fullest extent 

possible. 

Comment 6: How does the application of chemicals fit 

into the plan for a healthy ecosystem? 

Response 6: The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 requires the Secretary 

of the Interior to maintain the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge 

System. A significant threat to the biological 

integrity and diversity of WPAs is the invasion 

of nonnative plants. Research has shown that a 

comprehensive and integrated plan is necessary 

to control nonnative plants. The CCP specifies a 

combination of management tools such as grazing, 

burning, herbicide application, biological control, 

mowing, haying, and reseeding. 

Besides the requirement to maintain biological 

integrity and diversity, the Service has a legal 

responsibility to control weeds. North Dakota 

Century Code states the following: “Every person 

in charge of or in possession of land in this state, 

whether as landowner, lessee, renter, or tenant, 

under statutory authority or otherwise, shall 

control or eradicate noxious weeds on those lands.” 

The code further states, “Each federal agency 

shall develop a management plan for control or 

eradicating noxious weeds on land under the 

agency’s jurisdiction.” 

Following integrated pest management plans, the 

Service makes every effort to minimize the use of 

chemical applications. Herbicides applied on WPAs 

in the districts must go though an extensive review 

process. The Service does not allow chemicals that 

are highly toxic to wildlife. Furthermore, all 

applicators must strictly follow label instructions and 

closely monitor wind conditions to minimize drift. 

Comment 7: Why aren’t all district lands open to haying? 

Response 7: The purpose of WPAs is to provide 

nesting and resting grounds for migratory birds. 

District staffs apply a variety of management 

techniques to achieve a diverse, contiguous 

grassland community that contains both structure 

and species diversity for nesting and breeding 

migratory birds. The districts use multiple tools 

to obtain optimal nesting habitat. Haying removes 

valuable cover for nesting and winter survival of 

many species of wildlife. The Service will apply 

this tool, like other management practices, only 

when it meets management objectives. 

Comment 8: Why can’t the parking and picnic areas 

be hayed? 

Response 8: There are few designated parking 

areas at the WPAs and most are too small for 

haying. In addition, invasive plants have infested 

most of the parking areas. There are no areas 

provided specifically for picnicking. Priority 

public uses for Service lands are hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, 
Appendix C—Public Involvement 127 

and environmental education; picnicking is not a 

priority public use. 

Comment 9: There should be more concentrated effort 

on mowing ditches. 

Response 9: The Service is required to mow road 

ditches according to North Dakota Century Code 

63-05-01, which states, “It is the duty of landowners 

or operators with land adjoining regularly traveled 

county and township highways, as designated by 

the township board of supervisors in organized 

townships, the board of county commissioners in 

unorganized townships, and the board of county 

commissioners in the case of county highways, 

to cut all weeds and grasses along the regularly 

traveled highways adjoining their lands, including 

weeds and grasses growing within the public right 

of way [sic] bordering the highways and their lands. 

The cutting shall be completed not later than 

September fifteenth or October first, as prescribed 

by the board of county commissioners.” District 

staffs make every effort to make two clean passes; 

however, safety is the foremost concern for tractor 

operators. If safety becomes an issue for the tractor 

operator, some locations may receive only one pass. 

Comment 10: Why can’t a neighboring landowner 

mow more than two passes next to a farmstead for a 

firebreak? 

Response 10: In areas where fire has been an issue 

or there is a need to maintain a firebreak, the district 

staffs determine if this is an appropriate measure 

to alleviate fire concerns. If neighboring landowners 

feel they are in danger due to the threat of wildland 

fire, they can contact a district’s fire management 

officer to obtain the handout, Fire Wise Communities, 

which provides guidance for reducing risks of fire 

near homes. 

Comment 11: While burning has a role in management 

of the districts, the Service needs to use other 

management applications along with burning. 

Response 11: Each management technique has 

its advantages and disadvantages and each plays 

a unique role in management of WPAs. The 

CCP describes the ecological benefit to use all 

management techniques rather than rely on one 

technique. 

Comment 12: Can the Service use management 

practices that provide benefits to the producer as 

well as to wildlife? 

Response 12: The Service uses a combination of 

management practices including grazing, haying, 

prescribed fire, and cooperative farming at WPAs. 

The Service relies heavily on local producers or 

cooperators for grazing, haying, and farming. 

Therefore, producers do benefit when the Service 

uses these practices to improve wildlife habitat. 

Comment 13: The Service should have food plots 

instead of wildlife feeding on neighboring farmlands. 

Response 13: When planning the options for 

management of vegetation, the district staffs 

consider the establishment purpose of the WPAs, 

as well as the policy for native and nonnative species. 

The purpose of WPAs is to provide habitat for 

waterfowl and other migratory birds; the Service 

also is directed to manage WPAs for natural 

biodiversity. (Refer to response 1 for a detailed 

description of the purpose for WPAs). 

Grassland management will continue to be the 

primary focus of WPA management, since grassland 

is the limiting upland habitat component in most 

districts. Many grassland bird species, including 

waterfowl, have increased nest success when 

nesting in large contiguous blocks of grassland. 

Comment 14: The Service shouldn’t have put beavers 

on district lands to kill trees. 

Response 14: The Service has no record of beaver 

releases at any of the WPAs. If there is a problem 

with beaver at a WPA, the Service can coordinate 

with the USDA Animal and Plant Inspection 

Service for further instruction and assistance. 

Mailing List 

The CCP mailing list follows. 

federal offiCials 

U.S. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Washington DC 

Sen. Dorgan’s area director, Bismarck, ND 

U.S. Senator Kent Conrad, Washington DC 

Sen. Conrad’s area director, Bismarck, ND 

U.S. Representative Earl Pomeroy, Washington DC 

Rep. Pomeroy’s area director, Bismarck, ND 

federal agenCies 

Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck, ND 

National Park Service, Omaha, NE 

USDA–APHIS, Bismarck, ND 

USDA–Farm Service Agency, Bottineau, ND 

USDA–Farm Service Agency, Rugby, ND 

USDA–Farm Service Agency, Towner, ND 

USDA–Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), Bismarck, ND 

USDA–NRCS, Bottineau, ND 

USDA–NRCS, Copperstown, ND 

USDA–NRCS, Linton, ND 

USDA–NRCS, Mohall, ND 

USDA–NRCS, Rolla, ND 

USDA–NRCS, Rugby, ND 

USDA–NRCS, Steel, ND 

USDA–NRCS, Valley City, ND 

USFWS, Ecological Services, Bismarck, ND 
128 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

USFWS, National Wildlife Refuge System— 

Albuquerque, NM; Anchorage, AK; Arlington, VA; 

Atlanta, GA; Fort Snelling, MN; Hadley, MA; 

Portland, OR; Rawlins, WY; Sacramento, CA; 

Shepherdstown, WV; Washington DC 

USGS–Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, CO 

tribes 

Three Affiliated Tribes, New Town, ND 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Fort Yates, ND 

Spirit Lake Tribal Council, Fort Totten, ND 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, Agency Village, SD 

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Belcourt, ND 

White Earth Band of Chippewa, White Earth, MN 

state offiCials 

Governor John Hoeven, Bismarck, ND 

North Dakota State Representatives and Senators 

(139) 

state agenCies 

North Dakota Forest Service, Bismarck, ND 

NDGF, Bismarck, ND 

North Dakota State Historical Preservation Office, 

Bismarck, ND 

North Dakota State Land Board, Bismarck, ND 

North Dakota State University Extension Service, 

Bismarck, ND 

North Dakota State University Extension Service, 

Linton, ND 

North Dakota State University Extension Service, 

Steele, ND 

North Dakota State Water Commission 

loCal goVernment 

County commissioners (33)
 

Mayors (7)
 

Resource conservation districts (8)
 

Weed board offices (19)
 

organizations 

American Bird Conservancy, Plains, VA 

American Rivers, Washington DC 

Animal Protection Institute, Sacramento, CA 

Beyond Pesticides, Washington DC 

Defenders of Wildlife, Washington DC 

Duck Unlimited, Great Plains Office, Bismarck, ND 

Fund for Animals, Silver Springs, MD 

Izaak Walton League, Gaithersburg, MD 

Murie Audubon Society, Casper, WY 

National Audubon Society, Fargo, ND 

National Audubon Society—Washington DC; New 

York, NY 

National Trappers Association, New Martinsville, WV 

National Wildlife Federation, Reston, VA 

National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington DC 

National Wild Turkey Federation, Bismarck, ND 

The Nature Conservancy, Minneapolis, MN 

Sierra Club—San Francisco, CA; Sheridan, WY 

Union Pacific Railroad, Omaha, NE 

The U.S. Humane Society, Washington DC 

The Wilderness Society, Washington DC 

Wildlife Management Institute—Fort Collins, CO; 

Corvallis, OR; Washington DC 

UniVersities and Colleges 

Bismarck State College 

Minot State University 

Northwestern University 

media 

Newspapers (57) 

Radio stations (4) 

TV stations (2) 

indiVidUals 

Individuals (631) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D 

Section 7 Biological Evaluation 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM 

Originating Person: 

John Esperance, Region 6, Division of Planning 

Telephone Number: 

Planning 303/236 4369 

Date: August 1, 2008 

I. Region: 6 

II. Service Activity (Program): Refuges 

III. Pertinent Species and Habitat 

A. Federally listed species and/or their critical habitat within the action area: 

County 

Interior 

Least 

Tern– 

E 

Whooping 

Crane– 

E 

Blackfooted 

Ferret– 

E 

Pallid 

Sturgeon– 

E 

Gray 

Wolf– 

E 

Piping 

Plover– 

T 

Western 

Prairie 

Fringed 

Orchid– 

T 

Dakota 

Skipper– 

C 

Designated 

Critical 

Habitat– 

Piping 

Plover 

Barnes 

Benson 

Bottineau 

Burke 

Cass 

Cavalier 

Dickey 

Divide 

Eddy 

Foster 

Grand Forks 

Griggs 

Lamoure 

Logan 

McHenry 

McIntosh 

McLean 

Mountrail 

Nelson 

Oliver 

Pierce 

Rolette 

Sheridan 

Steele 

Stutsman 

Traill 

Ward 

Wells 

Williams 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
130 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

B. Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat within the action area: 

Critical habitat for the piping plover 

C. Candidate species within the action area: 

None 

IV. Station Name, Geographic Area, and Action 

A. Stations: 

Arrowwood, Audubon, Chase Lake, Crosby, Devils Lake, J. Clark Salyer, Kulm, Lostwood, and Valley City 

wetland management districts 

B. Geographic area: 

Nine wetland management districts throughout North Dakota 

C. Action: 

Issuance and implementation of nine wetland management district comprehensive conservation plan 

V. Location (attach map) 

A. Ecoregion number and name: 

The nine districts are located within the USFWS Mountain-Prairie Region 6, and specifically in the Hudson 

Bay and Missouri main stem ecosystems. 

B. Counties and state: 

See above; within North Dakota 

VI. Description of Proposed Action 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

to develop a comprehensive conservation plan by 2012 for each wetland management district and national 

wildlife refuge. The CCP will guide management of the districts for the next 15 years. 

The wetland management districts provide oversight for all of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s small land

 tracts in a multicounty area. These nine wetland management districts in North Dakota manage 1,208 

waterfowl production areas, tens of thousands of conservation easements, and 50 wildlife development areas 

in 34 counties. These district lands, totaling 1,125,084 acres, are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 

a network of lands set aside to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitat. 

The nine districts were established in the early 1960s, with the major objectives of wetland preservation, 

waterfowl and wildlife production, and maintenance of breeding grounds for migratory birds. The districts 

also provide a northern staging area and habitat for migration. 

VII. Determination of Effects 

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in items III. A, B, and C: 

The CCP process consisted of a series of steps including environmental analysis. Public and partner 

involvement were encouraged and valued throughout the process. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

planning team developed management alternatives to meet the purposes, vision, and goals of the districts. 

Implementation of the CCP will be monitored throughout its 15-year effective period. 

All nine districts have a primary purpose to 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 

continental waterfowl populations to meet the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

Also, to support healthy populations of other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other 

wildlife. 

The species listed in III occur in various numbers and can be observed on grasslands, marshes and open water 

on a number of the districts described in the CCP. The primary issues related to these species of concern center 

on: monitoring their populations; monitoring habitat use; identifying, securing, and maintaining essential 

habitat; and developing habitat conditions in areas that hold potential for these species and that will promote 

increased recruitment or population protection to secure and increase their populations. 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 131 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects: 

The actions of the CCP implementation on the nine districts are not expected to create adverse effects. The 

implementation of a more defined management at the districts may create more suitable habitat for listed 

species and through monitoring enhance the potential of increasing their populations. 

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested 

A. Listed species/designated critical habitat: 

Determination Response Requested 

No effect/no adverse modification _____ Concurrence 

May affect, but is not likely to adversely _____ Concurrence 

affect species/adversely modify critical habitat 

May affect, and is likely to adversely _____ Formal 

affect species/modify critical habitat Consultation 

B. Proposed species/proposed critical habitat: 

Determination Response Requested 

No effect on proposed species/no adverse _____ Concurrence 

modification of proposed critical habitat 

(species: none) 

Is likely to jeopardize proposed species or _____ Conference 

adversely modify proposed critical habitat 

(species: none) 

________________________________________________ 

John Esperance 

Supervisory Fish and Wildlife Biologist 

Division of Planning 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Region 6 

Date 

IX. Reviewing ESO Evaluation 

_____ Concurrence 

_____ Non-Concurrence 

_____ Formal Consultation Required 

_____ Conference Required 

_____ Informal Conference Required 

________________________________________________

Jeffrey Towner 

Field Supervisor 

Ecological Services 

Bismarck, ND 

Date 

 

 

Appendix E 

Environmental Compliance 

Environmental Action Statement 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act and other 

statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and 

wildlife resources, I have established the following 

administrative record. 

I have determined that the action of implementing 

the “Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota 

Wetland Management Districts” is found not to have 

significant environmental effects, as determined by 

the attached “Finding of No Significant Impact” and 

the environmental assessment as found with the draft 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

Approved by 

Steve Guertin 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, CO 

Date 

Concurred with by 

Richard A. Coleman, PhD 

Assistant Regional Director, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, CO 

Date 

Paul Cornes 

Refuge Supervisor, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, CO 

Date 
 

134 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Submitted by 

Kim Hanson 

Project Leader 

Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(Arrowwood, Chase Lake, and Valley City wetland 

management districts) 

Pingree, ND 

Date 

Date 

Date 

Lloyd Jones 

Project Leader 

Date 

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(Audubon Wetland Management District) 

Coleharbor, ND 

Kelly Hogan 

Project Leader 

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District) 

Upham, ND 

Michael Erickson 

Project Leader 

Kulm Wetland Management District 

Kulm, ND 

Roger Hollevoet Date Date 

Project Leader 

Devils Lake Wetland Management District Complex 

Devils Lake, ND 

David Gillund 

Project Leader 

Lostwood Wetland Management District Complex 

(Crosby and Lostwood wetland management districts) 

Kenmare, ND 
 

Appendix E—Environmental Compliance 135 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assessed three 

management alternatives for nine wetland management 

districts (Arrowwood, Audubon, Chase Lake, Crosby, 

Devils Lake, J. Clark Salyer, Kulm, Lostwood, and 

Valley City) in North Dakota as to their effectiveness 

in achieving the districts’ purposes and their impacts 

on the human environment. 

QQ Alternative A, the “no-action” alternative. The 

Service would continue current management. 

Alternative B, the proposed action. Wildlife habitat 

management would enhance wetlands and 

uplands. The Service would base management 

objectives for habitat types on the habitat 

preferences of groups of target species such 

as waterfowl, migratory shorebirds, grassland 

birds, and threatened and endangered species. 

The district staffs would focus on high- and 

medium-priority habitats. The district staffs 

would carry out compatible techniques to 

enhance production of targeted migratory bird 

populations. 

The district staffs would maintain existing 

environmental education and visitor services 

programs, with additional waterfowl emphasis. 

The Service proposes, at a future date, (1) one 

new administration and visitor center facility 

each for Audubon and Kulm wetland management 

districts, and (2) one new visitor contact station 

each for Lostwood, Valley City, and Arrowwood 

wetland management districts. 

Alternative C. Management by the district staffs 

would target native prairie and wetland and be 

more intensive and widespread. As a priority, 

district staffs would seek out restoration projects 

that expand and return native grasslands to 

quality native prairie. The Service would have 

additional management options that address 

habitat requirements and needs of specific groups 

of water-dependent birds such as waterfowl and 

shorebirds. 

The district staffs would develop new 

environmental education and visitor services 

programs. The Service proposes, at a future 

date, (1) one new administration and visitor 

center facility each for Audubon and Kulm 

wetland management districts, and (2) one new 

visitor contact station each for Lostwood, Valley 

City, and Arrowwood wetland management 

districts. 

QQ	 

QQ	 

Based on the assessment and comments received, 

I have selected alternative B as the preferred 

alternative for implementation. 

I selected the preferred alternative because it best 

meets the purposes for which the nine, above-listed 

wetland management districts in North Dakota were 

established and is preferable to alternatives A and C 

in light of physical, biological, economic, and social 

factors. The preferred alternative will continue to 

provide public access for wildlife-dependent recreation 

at the districts’ waterfowl production areas. 

I find that the preferred alternative is not a major 

federal action that would significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment within the meaning 

of Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, the preparation of 

an environmental impact statement for the proposed 

action is not required. 

The following is a summary of anticipated 

environmental effects from implementation of the 

preferred alternative: 

QQ	 The preferred alternative will not adversely 

impact endangered or threatened species or 

their habitat. 

The preferred alternative will not adversely 

impact archaeological or historical resources. 

The preferred alternative will not adversely 

impact wetlands nor does the plan call for 

structures that could be damaged by or that 

will significantly influence the movement of 

floodwater. 

The preferred alternative will not have a 

disproportionately high or adverse human 

health or environmental effect on minority or 

low-income populations. 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

Steve Guertin 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, CO 

Date

Appendix F 

Compatibility Determinations for Wildlife-dependent 

Recreational Uses, Grazing, Haying, and Farming 

District Names 

Arrowwood Wetland Management District 

Audubon Wetland Management District 

Chase Lake Wetland Management District 

Crosby Wetland Management District 

Devils Lake Wetland Management District 

J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District 

Kulm Wetland Management District 

Lostwood Wetland Management District 

Valley City Wetland Management District 

Establishing and Acquisition

Authorities 

QQ Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 

Stamp Act (16 USC 718[c]) 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act 16 USC 715d(2) 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act 16 USC 715i(a) 

QQ

QQ

Purposes 

“Small areas, to be designated as ‘Waterfowl 

Production Areas’ may be acquired without regard 

to the limitations and requirements of the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act, but all of the provisions 

of such Act which govern the administration and 

protection of lands acquired thereunder, except the 

inviolate sanctuary provisions of such Act, shall 

be applicable to areas acquired pursuant to this 

subsection.” 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

Act (16 USC 718[c]) 

“For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other 

management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act 16 USC 715d(2) 

“Areas of lands, waters, or interests therein acquired 

or reserved pursuant to this subchapter shall ... be 

administered ... to conserve and protect migratory 

birds in accordance with treaty obligations with 

Mexico, Canada, Japan and the Union of Soviet 

Socialist Republics, and other species of wildlife 

found thereon, including species that are listed ... as 

endangered or threatened species, and to restore and 

develop adequate wildlife habitat.” 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act 16 USC 715i(a) 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Mission 

The mission of the System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats within the United States for 

the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans. 

Description of Use: 

Recreational Hunting 

All WPAs are open to recreational hunting in 

accordance with the Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act. The Service will continue 

to provide recreational hunting and expand programs 

at WPAs where programs can be provided in a 

compatible manner. The Service will allow continued 

recreational hunting of waterfowl, deer, ring-necked 

pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, and other approved 

state game species according to state regulations. 

Availability of Resources 

Sufficient resources are available to carry out the 

recreational hunting program. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

Some wildlife disturbance will occur during 

recreational hunting activities. There will be no 

negative effects on cultural resources or threatened 

or endangered species. 

Determination 

Recreational hunting is compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility 

— 	 Continue to provide the hunting programs at 

WPAs as prescribed by legislation. 

Require the use of nontoxic shot, in accordance 

with current hunting regulations for migratory 

birds and upland game. 

— 	 
138 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

— 	 Prohibit vehicle access beyond approved access 

roads, trails, and parking lots. 

Prohibit camping, overnight use, and fires. 

Require that hunting be in accordance with 

federal and state regulations. 

Promote sound hunting practices for hunter 

safety and quality experiences. 

Annually review recreational hunting activities 

to ensure these activities are compatible. 

Justification 

The Improvement Act identifies hunting on Refuge 

System lands as a wildlife-dependent recreational 

(priority) use. Additionally, hunting is a legitimate 

wildlife management tool that can be used to manage 

populations. Hunting harvests a small percentage 

of the renewable resources, which is in accordance 

with wildlife objectives and principles. Based on the 

biological impacts anticipated above and in the EA, 

it is determined that recreational hunting within the 

nine wetland management districts in this CCP will 

not interfere with the habitat goals and objectives or 

purposes for the districts. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2023 

Description of Use:

RecReational Fishing 

All WPAs are open to recreational fishing in 

accordance with the Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act. The Service will continue 

to provide recreational fishing at designated fishing 

areas in accordance with state regulations. Fishing 

within districts is available summer and winter. 

Permanent lakes on district WPA lands offer fishing 

for northern pike, perch, walleye, and a few other 

species. 

Availability of Resources 

Sufficient resources are available to carry out the 

current recreational fishing program. The CCP does 

not call for the implementation of any new fishing 

programs. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

Fishing and other human activities may cause 

disturbance to wildlife. There will be no negative 

effects on cultural resources or threatened or 

endangered species. 

Determination 

Recreational fishing is compatible. 

—

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility 

— 	 Require that fishing follow state and federal 

regulations. 

Monitor existing use to ensure that facilities are 

adequate and disturbance to wildlife continues 

to be minimal. 

— 	 

Justification 

The Improvement Act identifies fishing on Refuge 

System lands as a wildlife-dependent recreational 

(priority) use. Based on the biological impacts 

anticipated above and in the EA, it is determined 

that recreational fishing within the nine wetland 

management districts in this CCP will not interfere 

with the habitat goals and objectives or purposes for 

the districts. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2023 

Description of Use: 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

All WPAs are open to wildlife observation and 

photography in accordance with the Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act. The Service 

will provide opportunities that support these wildlifedependent recreational uses. 

The CCP will continue the above uses and add 

the following to improve wildlife observation and 

photography: 

QQ	 Provide the public with wildlife observation and 

photography opportunities at the districts by 

identification of open observation areas to the 

public through signage, publications, and maps. 

Provide the public with birding opportunities 

through identification of birding drives and 

promotion of WPAs as stops. Provide support 

materials to guide visitors through the state 

and direct them to key birding spots. 

Develop and construct a district map with a 

clear plastic overlay for each visitor center or 

contact station where visitors can record their 

bird observations. 

Construct a computer kiosk where visitors can 

access birding information (for example, bird 

songs from a product such as “Thayer Birding 

Software”). 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

Availability of Resources 

Existing programs such as current WPA and district 

signs and brochures can be updated with available 

resources. Construction of new facilities described in 

the CCP is closely tied to funding requests (projects 

through the Refuge Operating Needs System and 

Service Asset Maintenance Management System). 
Appendix F—Compatibility Determinations for Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses, Grazing, Haying, and Farming 139 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

Minimal disturbances to wildlife and wildlife habitat 

will result from these uses at the current and CCP 

levels. Some disturbance to wildlife will occur in 

areas frequented by visitors. There will be some 

minor damage to vegetation, littering, and increased 

maintenance. There will be no negative effects on 

cultural resources or threatened or endangered 

species. 

Determination 

Wildlife observation and photography are compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility 

— Restrict vehicles to designated roads and trails. 

Monitor use, regulate access, and maintain 

necessary facilities to prevent habitat 

degradation and minimize wildlife disturbance. 

Develop trails and viewing areas that have 

minimal impact on wildlife and their habitats. 

Annually review wildlife observation and 

photography activities to ensure these activities 

are compatible. 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

Justification 

Based on the biological impacts addressed above and 

in the EA, it is determined that wildlife observation 

and photography at the nine wetland management 

districts within this CCP will not interfere with 

the habitat goals and objectives or purposes for the 

districts. 

Wildlife observation and photography are priority 

public uses listed in the Improvement Act. By 

facilitating these uses, visitors will gain knowledge 

and an appreciation of fish and wildlife, which will 

lead to increased public stewardship of wildlife 

and their habitats. Increased public stewardship 

will support and complement the Service’s actions 

in achieving the purposes of the districts and the 

mission of the Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2023 

Description of Use: 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

All WPAs are open to environmental education and 

interpretation in accordance with the Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act. The Service 

will provide opportunities for environmental education 

and interpretation. Environmental education consists 

of activities conducted by district staffs, volunteers, 

and teachers. Interpretation occurs in less formal 

activities with district staffs, volunteers, or through 

exhibits, educational “trunks,” signs, programs, and 

brochures. Currently, environmental education and 

interpretation activities are conducted at district 

offices and various off-site WPA locations where 

activities and programs are presented. 

The proximity of the districts to North Dakota’s major 

population base provides potential to substantially 

expand environmental education and interpretation 

programs at individual districts. The CCP will continue 

current uses, as well as with the identified additional 

staff, to improve environmental education and 

interpretation for all visitors. 

The following are facility and program improvements 

described in the CCP: 

QQ	 Install boundary signs at WPAs. 

Identify key WPAs within the districts that 

could support visitor use information and 

construct signage and information kiosks at 

these areas. 

At Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex (includes the district), remodel the 

office entrance to include a visitor contact 

station with interpretive exhibits. 

At Arrowwood Wetland Management District, 

build two kiosks: one at Bauer’s Lake WPA 

(Foster County) and one at Wallace WPA 

(Eddy County). 

At Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(includes the district), construct an education 

center to house exhibits, classrooms, visitor 

information, and office space. 

At Crosby Wetland Management District, 


improve the entrance road to the office.
 

At Devils Lake Wetland Management District, 

develop a visitor contact station and office at a 

WPA. 

At Kulm Wetland Management District, 

construct a visitor contact station and office at 

Patzer WPA. 

At Lostwood Wetland Management District, 

improve the entrance road to the office and 

remodel the existing office to add a visitor 

contact station. 

At Valley City Wetland Management District, 

improve and update the visitor contact station 

by adding exhibits to enhance the visitor 

experience. 

At Valley City Wetland Management District, 

construct and improve the trail system and 

build kiosks and interpretive panels at Alice WPA. 

At Valley City Wetland Management District, 

make improvements to the Outdoor Wildlife 

Learning Site adjacent to the district office, 

including paving the trail to make it universally 

accessible and design and construction of 

interpretive facilities. 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 
140 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

QQ	 In the eastern portion of Valley City Wetland 

Management District, construct a handicapaccessible blind and interpretive trail. 

Construct additional interpretive panels for 

trails and parking lots. 

QQ	 

Availability of Resources 

Existing programs such as district signs and brochures 

can be updated with available resources. Construction 

of new facilities and upgrade of existing facilities 

described in the CCP are closely tied to funding 

requests (projects through the Refuge Operating 

Needs System and Service Asset Maintenance 

Management System). 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

Minimal disturbances to wildlife and wildlife habitat 

will result from these uses at the current and CCP 

levels. Some disturbance to wildlife will occur in 

areas frequented by visitors. There will be some 

minor damage to vegetation, littering, and increased 

maintenance. There will be no negative effects on 

cultural resources or threatened or endangered species. 

Determination 

Environmental education and interpretation are 

compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility 

— 	 Allow environmental education and interpretation 

only in designated areas or under the guidance 

of district staffs, volunteers, or trained teachers 

to ensure minimal disturbance to wildlife, minimal 

damage to vegetation, and minimal conflicts 

between groups. 

Prohibit vehicle access beyond parking lots. 

Develop trails and viewing areas that have 

minimal impact on wildlife and their habitats. 

Annually review environmental education and 

interpretation activities to ensure these activities 

are compatible. 

—

— 	 

— 	 

Justification 

Based on biological impacts addressed above and 

in the EA, it is determined that environmental 

education and interpretation within the nine wetland 

management districts will not interfere with or 

detract from the districts’ purposes. 

Environmental education and interpretation are 

priority public uses listed in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. By 

facilitating environmental education, district visitors 

will gain knowledge and an appreciation of fish, wildlife, 

and their habitats, which will lead to increased public 

awareness and stewardship of natural resources. 

Increased appreciation for natural resources will 

support and complement the Service’s actions in 

achieving the purposes of the districts and the mission 

of the Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2023 

Description of Use: 

Prescribed Grazing 

Prescribed grazing is the use of livestock, usually 

cattle, to remove standing vegetation, reduce 

vegetative litter, suppress woody vegetation or 

invasive plants, open up vegetation-choked wetlands, 

and open up areas to sunlight and encourage native 

grass seeding and growth. During 1996–2000, 

the Service annually used prescribed grazing on 

approximately 470,000 acres of grasslands in fee title 

in North Dakota’s WPAs. 

Prescribed grazing is carefully timed and usually of 

short duration (2–4 weeks) to target certain species 

for grazing impacts in order to benefit other species 

for growth after the competing vegetation has been 

removed. The frequency and duration of prescribed 

grazing at any WPA will be based on site-specific 

evaluations of the grassland under management. The 

prescribed grazing period generally will take place 

between April and September. Early spring grazing 

(mid-April through late May) will target cool-season 

invasive species and encourage warm-season native 

grasses and forbs. Midseason grazing (June and July), 

especially on nonnative grasslands, stimulates fall 

regrowth. Late-season grazing (August and September) 

removes litter and encourages spring growth of coolseason natives or other cool-season species. 

Fence construction and maintenance (often, temporary 

electric fence) and control and rotation of the livestock 

are the responsibility of cooperating private party. 

The regional office determines the market rate grazing 

fees, but may include standard deductions for fence 

construction and maintenance, frequent livestock 

rotations, construction of water gaps, and hauling or 

providing additional water in dry pastures. 

Availability of Resources 

Developing grazing plans and special use permits and 

monitoring compliance and biological effects will require 

some Service resources. Most grazing management 

costs—fencing labor, monitoring and moving the 

livestock, and hauling water—are provided by the 

cooperator or permittee. Evaluation of the grasslands 

for grazing prescriptions and grassland response is part 

of each district’s grassland management responsibilities. 

The Service may use some alternative form of 

grassland management such as prescribed burning or 

haying where areas are not treated with prescribed 

grazing. Management of grasslands through permitted 

haying has comparable costs to management through 

a prescribed grazing program. Managed mowing is 

more expensive since the Service assumes all labor 
Appendix F—Compatibility Determinations for Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses, Grazing, Haying, and Farming 141 

costs. Prescribed fire can be an effective grassland 

management tool, but there are personnel and weather 

limitations on a burning program, as well as the fact 

that some tracts are not suited to use of prescribed 

fire. In addition, there is an ecological benefit to 

rotation of grassland management techniques such 

as grazing, burning, and haying, at different seasons, 

rather than reliance on one technique. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Grazing by domestic livestock has the short-term 

effect of removing some or much of the standing 

vegetation from a tract of grassland. Properly 

prescribed, the effect of this vegetation removal 

increases the vigor of the grassland, stimulates 

growth of desired species of grass and forbs, and 

reduces the abundance of targeted species such as 

cool-season invasive plants, noxious weeds and other 

invasive plants, woody species, and cattails. 

Grazing in the spring may cause the loss of some bird 

nests due to trampling, and may cause some birds 

not to nest in grazed areas. Prescribed grazing is 

usually of short duration with the result of enhanced, 

more diverse, and vigorous grassland habitats. 

Grazing livestock may create a minor and temporary 

disturbance to wildlife, but generally does no harm. 

Grazing on public wildlife lands can create an aesthetic 

issue of concern for some people, including visitors, 

who do not understand grassland management. There 

is a slight potential for conflict between the visiting 

public and the livestock or the permittee, particularly 

during fall hunting seasons. These situations can be 

limited by having livestock removed by the anticipated 

beginning of fall hunting seasons. 

There will be no negative effects on cultural resources 

or threatened or endangered species. 

To eliminate any appearance of favoritism or 

impropriety, managers follow “Refuge Manual” 

procedures for cooperator or permittee selection. 

Determination 

The use of grazing is compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility 

— 	 Monitor vegetation and wildlife to assess the 

effects of the management tool. 

Require general and special conditions for each 

permit to ensure consistency with management 

objectives. 

Restrict the use of vehicles and motorized 

equipment to the minimum necessary to 

conduct operations to meet management 

objectives. 

— 	 

— 	 

Justification 

Upland and wetland habitat conditions will deteriorate 

without the use of a full range of management tools. 

Migratory bird habitat and ecological diversity will 

decrease as habitat suitability declines. Invasive 

plant species will increase and habitat diversity will 

decrease if grazing practices do not continue at the 

WPAs. To maintain and enhance habitat for migratory 

birds and other wildlife, habitat manipulation such as 

grazing needs to occur. Grazing will provide a means 

to restore degraded grasslands for the benefit of 

grassland-dependent species. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2018 

Description of Use: 

Prescribed Haying of Grasslands 

Haying is the cutting and removal, by baling and 

transport to an off-site location, of grass or other 

upland vegetation for the production of livestock 

forage. Haying for this purpose is typically done by 

a cooperating farmer acting under authority of a 

cooperative farming agreement or special use permit 

issued by the project leader or district manager. 

Prescribed haying in North Dakota averaged about 

13,500 acres per year from 1996 to 2000. 

Haying is an effective management tool as part of 

an overall grassland management plan to improve 

and maintain Service-managed grasslands for 

the benefit of migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Grasslands require periodic renovation to maintain 

vigor, diversity, and the structure necessary for 

migratory bird nesting. Haying can be an alternative 

to prescribed burning or grazing, which are the two 

other methods used to manage grassland habitats. 

If local conditions preclude the use of prescribed fire 

or livestock numbers are not available, removal of 

biomass through haying reduces unwanted overstory, 

including woody plants, and opens up the soil surface 

to sunlight. Such removal of vegetation allows for more 

vigorous regrowth of desirable species following the 

haying, although results are neither as dramatic nor 

positive as with fire or grazing. 

Haying can be part of a strategy to seed native grass 

on newly acquired lands or on tame grass stands that 

need restoration. To reduce competition from invasive 

plants and minimize herbicide applications, the 

Service may use a cooperating farmer to apply the 

native grass seed mix and “interseed” with a cover 

crop. As a requirement of the special use permit, the 

Service will require the cooperator to cut, bale, and 

remove the cover crop before it matures and goes to 

seed. The resultant hay will be used for livestock feed. 

In addition, haying serves the biological purpose of 

releasing young native grass and forb seedlings for 

growth with minimal competition. 

A third possible use of haying on Service-managed 

grasslands involves the initial steps of removing 
142 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

unwanted vegetation prior to seeding the tract to 

native grasses. Haying of a nonnative cool-season 

stand of grass is an effective step before spraying 

the field with herbicide to kill all existing vegetation. 

Removal of the heavy grass overstory by haying 

allows herbicide to more effectively reach and treat 

the remaining target plants. Better removal of 

unwanted grasses, in turn, will ensure better success 

of planted grasses and forbs whether they are 

“interseeded” into the sod or into the soil turned and 

leveled prior to seeding. 

Haying is sometimes used prior to treatment of 

invasive plants: the tract is hayed and after a period, 

the “flush” of invasive plants is treated with an 

herbicide application. Removal of vegetation through 

haying allows the herbicide to more effectively reach 

and treat the target plants. 

A more limited application of haying on Servicemanaged lands involves its use to establish firebreaks 

for prescribed burns. The Service will permit a 

cooperating farmer to hay firebreak strips in the 

fall. Those areas will then have little standing dead 

vegetation in early spring, or will green up earlier in 

the spring, and allow use as a firebreak. 

Availability of Resources 

Funding and staff resources are sufficient at each 

field station to administer prescribed haying. Staff 

time will be needed to evaluate the use, prepare sitespecific special use permits, and ensure compliance 

with the permit authorization and stipulations 

necessary to ensure compatibility. To lessen any 

appearance of favoritism or impropriety, managers 

follow “Refuge Manual” procedures for establishing 

rental rates and cooperator selection. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Haying will result in short-term disturbances to 

wildlife and long-term benefits to grasslands and the 

wildlife species that use these grasslands. Short-term 

impacts will include disturbance and displacement of 

wildlife typical of any noisy heavy-equipment operation. 

Cutting and removal of standing grass will result in 

the short-term loss (late summer to midsummer the 

following year) of habitat for those species requiring 

taller grass for feeding and perching. The Service will 

typically schedule prescribed haying after July 31 to 

avoid impacts to most nesting birds. Long-term 

benefits will accrue due to the increased vigor of 

regrown grasses or the establishment of highly 

desirable native grass and forb species, which will 

improve habitat conditions for the same species 

affected by the short-term removal of cover. 

Long-term negative effects may occur to some resident 

wildlife species such as pheasant, which may lose 

overwinter habitat in hayed areas. Strict time 

constraints and limiting grass stands to no more 

than 50% being hayed at any one time will limit the 

anticipated effects on these species. 

There will be no negative effects on cultural resources 

or threatened or endangered species. 

Determination 

Prescribed haying of grasslands is compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility 

— 	 Schedule prescribed haying to occur after 


July 31 in any given year, unless there 


are documented management reasons for 


prescribing an earlier hay date.
 

Issue the permit subject to the revocation and 

appeals procedure contained in Title 50, Part 25 

of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Allow haying on no more than 50% of a tract in 

any one year, unless size restrictions or habitat 

conditions warrant haying more than half of the 

area. 

Couple prescribed haying with a light disking 

or dragging operation or an “interseeding” of 

desirable species of grass or legumes to further 

increase the vigor of the grass stand. 

Require removal of bales or stacks by 


September 10.
 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

Justification 

Upland habitat conditions will deteriorate without 

the use of a full range of management tools. Migratory 

bird habitat and ecological diversity will decrease as 

habitat suitability declines. Invasive plant species will 

increase and habitat diversity will decrease if haying 

practices do not continue at the WPAs. To maintain 

and enhance the habitat for migratory birds and other 

wildlife, habitat manipulation such as haying needs 

to occur. Haying will provide a means to restore 

degraded grasslands for the benefit of grasslanddependent species. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2018 

Description of Use: 

Cooperative Farming 

Cooperative farming is the term used for cropping 

activities done by a third party on lands that the 

Service owns in fee title or controls through a 

conservation easement (wetland, grassland, or FmHA). 

This activity is usually done on a short-term basis 

(3–4 years or less) to provide an optimal seedbed for 

establishment of native grasses and forbs or other 

desirable planted cover for wildlife. Cooperative 

farming on certain tracts can provide a fall food source 

for migratory waterfowl or a winter food source for 

resident wildlife. Farming is done by a cooperating 

farmer acting under authority of a cooperative farming 

agreement or special use permit issued by the project 

leader or district manager. Terms of the agreement 
Appendix F—Compatibility Determinations for Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses, Grazing, Haying, and Farming 143 

ensure that the farmer follows all current Service and 

district restrictions. North Dakota WPAs and refuges 

permitted an average of 6,400 acres of cooperative 

farming during 1996–2000. 

Cooperative farming activities are generally limited 

to areas of former cropland or poor quality stands of 

tame or cool-season invasive grasses. Service policies 

do not allow tilling or cropping of highly erodible soils 

without an approved NRCS conservation plan. 

The WPAs average about 200 acres in size. Generally, 

farmed areas (before reseeding to more desirable 

plant species) will not cover more than 50% of the 

tract. Areas at the WPAs planted for food plots will 

be limited to the size needed to provide sufficient food 

for the targeted wildlife species. 

Availability of Resources 

Staff time is available for development and 

administration of cooperative farming agreements. 

Most of the needed fieldwork to prepare and plan for 

this use will be done as part of routine grassland 

management duties. The decision to use a cooperating 

farmer will occur as part of the overall strategy for 

managing lands within a district. The additional time 

needed to coordinate issuance of the special use permit 

or cooperative farming agreement and oversight of 

the permit or agreement is relatively minor and within 

the districts’ resources. In addition, the use of a 

cooperating farmer will free up Service employees 

who will otherwise have to conduct the farming 

operation. 

In most cases, farmers conduct cooperative farming 

operations on Service lands on a share basis rather 

than for a fee. The Service typically receives its share 

as (1) harvested grain used for other management 

purposes such as standing grain left for wildlife food, 

(2) additional work such as control of invasive plants, 

cultivation, or additional seedbed preparation, or 

(3) supplies such as herbicide or grass seed to be 

used on the same tract of land. The Service deposits 

any fees or cash income related to the farming into 

the Refuge Revenue Sharing Account. The Service 

receives fair-market value consideration from 

cooperating farmers, but the generation of income is 

a secondary consideration when developing the terms 

and conditions of a special use permit or cooperative 

farming agreement. To lessen any appearance of 

favoritism or impropriety, managers follow “Refuge 

Manual” procedures for establishing rental rates and 

cooperator selection. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Cooperative farming to prepare suitable seedbeds for 

planting better cover and habitat will result in shortterm disturbances and long-term benefits to both 

resident and migratory wildlife using the WPAs and 

easements. Short-term effects include disturbance 

and displacement of wildlife typical of any noisy 

heavy-equipment operation, and the loss of poor 

quality cover while the tract is farmed. Wildlife may 

use farmed areas as additional food sources during 

the farming period. 

There will be long-term benefits due to the 

establishment of diverse or more desirable habitat 

for nesting, escape cover, perching, or noncrop feeding 

activities. The resulting habitat will generally improve 

conditions for most of the species negatively affected 

by the short period of farming activity. 

There will be no negative effects on cultural 

resources or threatened or endangered species. 

Determination 

Cooperative farming is compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility 

— 	 Monitor vegetation and wildlife to assess the 

effects of the management tool. 

	 Require general and special conditions for each 

permit to ensure consistency with management 

objectives. 

	 Restrict the use of vehicles and motorized 

equipment to the minimum necessary to conduct 

operations to meet management objectives. 

	 Restrict farming permittees to use of approved 

chemicals that are less detrimental to wildlife 

and the environment. 

—

—

—

Justification 

Habitat conditions will deteriorate without the use 

of a full range of management tools. Migratory bird 

habitat and ecological diversity will decrease as 

habitat suitability declines. Invasive plant species 

will increase and habitat diversity will decrease if 

farming practices do not continue at the WPAs. To 

maintain and enhance habitat for migratory birds and

other wildlife, habitat manipulation such as farming 

needs to occur. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2018 
_______________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________ 

 

_______________________________________________ 

 

_______________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________ 

 

_______________________________________________ 

 

_______________________________________________ 

Signatures 

Kim Hanson 

Project Leader 

Date 

Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(Arrowwood, Chase Lake, and Valley City 

wetland management districts) 

Lloyd Jones 

Project Leader 

Date 

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(Audubon Wetland Management District) 

Roger Hollevoet 

Project Leader 

Date 

Devils Lake Wetland Management District Complex 

Kelly Hogan 

Project Leader 

Date 

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District) 

Michael Erickson 

Project Leader 

Kulm Wetland Management District 

Date 

David Gillund 

Project Leader 

Date 

Lostwood Wetland Management District Complex 

(Crosby and Lostwood wetland management districts) 

Reviewed
 

Paul Cornes 

Refuge Supervisor 

Date 

Region 6, National Wildlife Refuge System 

Approved 

Richard A. Coleman, PhD 

Assistant Regional Director 

Date 

Region 6, National Wildlife Refuge System 

144 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 
 

Appendix G 

Fire Management Program for Wetland Management Districts 

Within the Eastern North Dakota Fire District 

The Service has administrative and fire management 

responsibility for approximately 200,000 acres in 

fee title within the Arrowwood, Chase Lake, Devils 

Lake, Kulm, and Valley City wetland management 

districts, which are within the Eastern North Dakota 

Fire District. 

The Role of Fire 

In ecosystems of the Great Plains, vegetation has 

evolved under periodic disturbance and defoliation 

from grazing, fire, drought, and floods. This periodic 

disturbance is what kept the ecosystem diverse and 

healthy while maintaining significant biodiversity for 

thousands of years. 

Historically, natural fire and Native American 

ignitions played an important disturbance role in 

many ecosystems by removing fuel accumulations, 

decreasing the impacts of insects and disease, 

stimulating regeneration, cycling nutrients, and 

providing a diversity of habitats for plants and 

wildlife. 

When fire or grazing is excluded from prairie 

landscapes, the fuel loadings increase quickly due to a 

build-up of thatch and invasion of woody vegetation. 

This increase in fuel loadings leads to a significant 

increase in a fire’s resistance to control, which 

threatens firefighter and public safety as well as 

private and federal properties. 

However, properly used fire can 

reduce hazardous fuels buildup in both 

wildland–urban interface (WUI) and non-WUI 

environments; 

improve wildlife habitats by reducing the 

density of vegetation and changing plant 

species composition; 

sustain or increase biological diversity; 

improve woodland and shrub land by reducing 

plant density; 

reduce susceptibility of plants to insect and 

disease outbreaks; 

improve the quality and quantity of livestock 

forage; 

improve the quantity of water available for 

municipalities and activities dependent on 

wetlands for their water supply. 

Wildland Fire Management 

Policy and Guidance 

In 2001, the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture 

approved an update of the 1995 “Federal Fire Policy.” 

The 2001 “Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy” 

directs federal agencies to achieve a balance between 

fire suppression to protect life, property, and resources 

and fire use to regulate fuels and maintain healthy 

ecosystems. In addition, it directs agencies to use the 

appropriate management response for all wildland 

fire regardless of the ignition source. This policy 

provides nine guiding principles that are fundamental 

to the success of the fire management program: 

QQ	 Firefighter and public safety is the first priority 

in every fire management activity. 

The role of wildland fire as an ecological process 

and natural “change agent” will be incorporated 

into the planning process. 

Fire management plans (FMPs), programs, 

and activities support land and resource 

management plans and their implementation. 

Sound risk management is a foundation for all 

fire management activities. 

Fire management programs and activities 


are economically viable based on values to 


be protected, costs, and land and resource 


management objectives.
 

FMPs and activities are based on the best 


available science.
 

FMPs and activities incorporate public health 

and environmental quality consideration. 

Federal, state, tribal, local, interagency, and 

international coordination and cooperation are 

essential. 

Standardization of policies and procedures 

among federal agencies is an ongoing objective. 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

QQ	 

Land use resource plans such as CCPs should address 

fire management considerations, guidance, and 

direction. FMPs are step-down processes from the 
 

 

 

 

146 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

land use and habitat management plans, with more 

detail on fire suppression, fire use, and fire management 

activities. 

Management Direction 

The Eastern North Dakota Fire District will protect 

life, property, and other resources from wildland fire 

by safely suppressing all wildfires. The Service will 

use prescribed fire as well as manual and mechanical 

fuel treatments in an ecosystem context to protect 

federal and private property and for habitat 

management. The Service will apply fuels reduction 

activities in collaboration with federal, state, private, 

and nongovernmental partners. In addition, the 

Service will set priorities for fuels treatment based 

on the guidance for prioritization established in the 

goals and strategies outlined in the “U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System 

Wildland Fire Management Program Strategic Plan 

2003–2010” and the “R6 Refuges Regional Priorities 

FY07–11.” 

For WUI treatments, areas with community wildfire 

protection plans (CWPPs) and “communities at risk” 

(CARs) will be the primary focus. The following 

CARs located near the districts were identified in the 

Federal Register (August 17, 2001): 

QQ Fort Totten 

St. Michels 

Crow Hill 

Tokio 

QQ

QQ

QQ

The development of CWPPs is an ongoing process; 

Griggs and Traill counties are currently undergoing 

the process. As of February 2008, the following 

counties with Service fee-title land have developed 

CWPPs: 

QQ Barnes County 

Burleigh County 

Kidder County 

Stutsman County 

QQ

QQ

QQ

The Service will conduct all aspects of the fire 

management program in compliance with applicable 

laws, policies, and regulations. The districts and 

refuges within the Eastern North Dakota Fire 

District will maintain an FMP to accomplish the fire 

management goals described below. The Service will 

apply prescribed fire and manual and mechanical fuel 

treatments in a scientific way under selected weather 

and environmental conditions. 

fire management goals 

The goals and strategies of the “U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service National Wildlife Refuge System Wildland 

Fire Management Program Strategic Plan” are 

consistent with policies of the U.S. Department of the 

Interior and the Service, “National Fire Plan” direction, 

the “President’s Healthy Forest Initiative,” the “10­

Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation 

Plan,” guidelines of the National Wildfire Coordinating 

Group, initiatives of the Wildland Fire Leadership 

Council, and “Interagency Standards for Fire and 

Aviation Operations.” 

The “R6 Refuges Regional Priorities FY07–11” are 

consistent with the refuges vision statement for 

region 6: “To maintain and improve the biological 

integrity of the region, ensure the ecological condition 

of the region’s public and private lands are better 

understood, and endorse sustainable use of habitats 

that support native wildlife and people’s livelihoods.” 

The fire management goals for the districts and 

refuges in the Eastern North Dakota Fire District 

are to use prescribed fire and manual and mechanical 

treatments to (1) reduce the threat to life and property 

through hazardous fuels reduction treatments, and 

(2) meet the habitat goals and objectives identified in 

this CCP. 

fire management obJeCtiVe 

The objective of the fire management program is 

to use prescribed fire and manual and mechanical 

treatment methods to treat between 4,000 and 8,000 

acres, on average, per year. 

strategies 

The Service will use strategies and tactics that consider 

public and firefighter safety as well as resource values 

at risk. Wildland fire suppression, prescribed fire 

methods, manual and mechanical means, timing, and 

monitoring are described in more detail within the 

step-down FMP(s). 

All management actions will use prescribed fire and 

manual or mechanical means to reduce hazardous 

fuels, restore and maintain desired habitat conditions, 

control nonnative vegetation, and control the spread 

of woody vegetation within the diverse ecosystem 

habitats. 

The FMPs will outline the fuels treatment program 

for the districts. The Service will develop site-specific 

prescribed fire burn plans, following the “Interagency 

Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation 

Procedures Reference Guide” (2006) template. 

Prescribed fire temporarily reduces air quality by 

reducing visibility and releasing components through 

combustion. The districts will meet the Clean Air Act 

emission standards by adhering to the “North Dakota 

State Implementation Plan” requirements during all 

prescribed fire activities. 
 

 

 

 

Appendix G—Fire Management Program for Wetland Management Districts Within the Eastern North Dakota Fire District 147 

Fire Management Organization, 

Contacts, and Cooperation 

Region 6 of the Service, using the approach of “fire 

management districts,” will establish qualified fire 

management technical oversight for the districts. 

Under this approach, fire management staff will be 

determined by established modeling systems based 

on the fire management workload of a group of Service 

lands (such as WPAs and refuges) and possibly that of 

interagency partners. The fire management workload 

consists of historical wildland fire suppression as well 

as historical and planned fuels treatments. 

Dependent on budgets, fire management staff 

and support equipment may be located at the 

administrative station or at other locations within 

the fire management district and shared between 

all units. The Service will conduct fire management 

activities in a coordinated and collaborative manner 

with federal and nonfederal partners. 

A new FMP will be developed for the entire Eastern 

North Dakota Fire District, which includes the five 

districts listed above, as well as the other districts 

and refuges within this fire district. 

 

 

Appendix H 

Fire Management Program for Wetland Management Districts 

Within the Western North Dakota Fire District 

The Service has administrative and fire management 

responsibility for approximately 100,438 acres in fee 

title within the Audubon, Crosby, J. Clark Salyer, 

and Lostwood wetland management districts, which 

are within the Western North Dakota Fire District. 

This includes 374 WPAs, 9 national wildlife refuges, 

and 20 WDAs. The Service has no fire management 

responsibility for the approximate 292,440 acres of 

wetland and grassland easements it administers. 

The Role of Fire 

In ecosystems of the Great Plains, vegetation has 

evolved under periodic disturbance and defoliation 

from grazing, fire, drought, and floods. This periodic 

disturbance is what kept the ecosystem diverse and 

healthy while maintaining significant biodiversity for 

thousands of years. 

Historically, natural fire and Native American 

ignitions played an important disturbance role in 

many ecosystems by removing fuel accumulations, 

decreasing the impacts of insects and disease, 

stimulating regeneration, cycling nutrients, and 

providing a diversity of habitats for plants and 

wildlife. 

When fire or grazing is excluded from prairie 

landscapes, the fuel loadings increase quickly due to a 

build-up of thatch and invasion of woody vegetation. 

This increase in fuel loadings leads to a significant 

increase in a fire’s resistance to control, which 

threatens firefighter and public safety as well as 

private and federal properties. 

However, properly used fire can 

reduce hazardous fuels buildup in both WUI 

and non-WUI environments; 

improve firefighter ability to suppress unwanted 

wildfire; 

improve native prairie habitats by reducing 

competition from invasive plant species and 

maintaining native vegetative composition; 

reduce the encroachment of woody vegetation 

in prairie ecosystems; 

sustain or increase biological diversity; 

reduce susceptibility of plants to insect and 

disease outbreaks. 

Wildland Fire Management 

Policy and Guidance 

In 2001, the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture 

approved an update of the 1995 “Federal Fire Policy.” 

The 2001 “Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy” 

directs federal agencies to achieve a balance between 

fire suppression to protect life, property, and resources 

and fire use to regulate fuels and maintain healthy 

ecosystems. In addition, it directs agencies to use the 

appropriate management response for all wildland 

fire regardless of the ignition source. This policy 

provides nine guiding principles that are fundamental 

to the success of the fire management program: 

QQ Firefighter and public safety is the first priority 

in every fire management activity. 

The role of wildland fire as an ecological process 

and natural “change agent” will be incorporated 

into the planning process. 

FMPs, programs, and activities support land 

and resource management plans and their 

implementation. 

Sound risk management is a foundation for all 

fire management activities. 

Fire management programs and activities 


are economically viable based on values to 


be protected, costs, and land and resource 


management objectives.
 

FMPs and activities are based on the best 


available science.
 

FMPs and activities incorporate public health 

and environmental quality consideration. 

Federal, state, tribal, local, interagency, and 

international coordination and cooperation are 

essential. 

Standardization of policies and procedures 

among federal agencies is an ongoing objective. 

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

QQ

Land use resource plans such as CCPs should address 

fire management considerations, guidance, and 

direction. FMPs are step-down plans from the land 

use and habitat management plans, with more detail 

on fire suppression, fire use, and fire management 

activities. 
 

 

 

 

 

150 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Management Direction 

The fire management goal for the wetland 

management districts is to use prescribed 

fire and manual, biological, and mechanical 

treatments to (1) reduce the threat to life and 

property through hazardous fuels reduction 

treatments, and (2) meet the habitat goals 

and objectives identified in this CCP. 

The districts will protect life, property, and other 

resources from wildland fire by reducing the threat 

and severity of wildland fires through fuels reduction 

projects and safely suppressing all wildfires on 

Service lands. The Service will use prescribed fire 

as well as manual, biological, and mechanical fuel 

treatments to protect federal and private property 

by reducing hazardous fuels and to manage wildlife 

habitat. The Service will apply fuels reduction 

activities in collaboration with federal, state, private, 

and nongovernmental partners. In addition, the 

Service will set priorities for fuels treatment based 

on the guidance for prioritization established in the 

goals and strategies outlined in the “U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System 

Wildland Fire Management Program Strategic Plan 

2003–2010” and the “R6 Refuges Regional Priorities 

FY07–11.” 

For WUI treatments, areas with CWPPs and CARs 

will be the primary focus. As of February 2008, no 

CARs as identified in the Federal Register are located 

within the Western North Dakota Fire District. Any 

additions or deletions to the CAR list are the 

responsibility of the state through coordination with 

interagency partners. The development of CWPPs 

is an ongoing process. As of February 2008, the 

following counties located within the Western North 

Dakota Fire District have developed CWPPs: 

QQ Bottineau County 

McHenry County 

Mountrail County 

Williams County 

QQ

QQ

QQ

The Service will conduct all aspects of the fire 

management program in compliance with applicable 

laws, policies, and regulations. On approval of the 

final CCP, the Service will develop an FMP for all 

district lands covered by the CCP. The FMP may 

require a separate environmental assessment if 

district managers deem necessary. The FMP may 

be done as (1) an FMP that covers the wetland 

management districts, (2) an FMP that covers the 

fire management district, or (3) an interagency FMP. 

The Service will apply prescribed fire and manual, 

biological, and mechanical fuel treatments using the 

best available scientific guidance, given the existing 

weather and environmental conditions. 

fire management rationale and 

Considerations 

Fire frequency in western and central North Dakota 

has been estimated to historically occur every 

5–7 years (Barker and Whitman 1988). European 

settlement of North Dakota led to fire suppression 

or exclusion across the landscape. With this fire 

suppression and exclusion, woody vegetation 

encroached into both wetland and upland habitats. 

The long-term goal of fire management across the 

Western North Dakota Fire District is to apply fire 

to the landscape at an interval that will maintain 

healthy native plant communities that are naturally 

resistant to catastrophic wildfire. Due to the 

suppression and exclusion of fire over the past 

several decades, a more aggressive approach is 

needed to address the buildup of hazardous fuel 

across the prairie. 

Current fire occurrence within the districts has not 

been frequent enough to completely control invading 

shrubs and trees and reduce accumulated thatch. 

Monitoring of vegetation on Service lands in the 

Great Plains has shown that three to four prescribed 

fire treatments are usually needed to successfully 

reduce woody plant encroachment. Experience has 

shown prescribed fire to be much more efficient than 

mechanical or biological methods for reducing and 

removing woody plant encroachment and accumulated 

thatch. This level of application is needed at 

approximately 200 WPAs covering more than 45,000 

acres. In addition to initial restoration, continued 

maintenance through periodic prescribed fires (once 

every 5–7 years) and biological treatments are needed 

on remaining areas. 

A significant problem facing the districts in achieving 

fire management goals is the limited amount of 

qualified personnel available to plan and conduct 

prescribed fire and other fuels treatments. With 

additional staff and funding, the desired application 

of prescribed fire is to treat 15%–20% of the total 

burnable acreage with fire each year, which will 

return the historical fire regime to the landscape. 

Prescribed fire temporarily reduces air quality by 

reducing visibility and releasing components through 

combustion. The Western North Dakota Fire District 

will meet the Clean Air Act emission standards by 

adhering to North Dakota Department of Health 

requirements during all prescribed fire activities. 

The district staffs will work with partners to develop 

demonstrations, written information, and other 

methods of communicating to the public the benefits 

of prescribed fire. The Service will seek additional 

cooperative ventures for firefighter training and 

development of interagency agreements. 
 

 

 

 

Appendix H—Fire Management Program for Wetland Management Districts Within the Western North Dakota Fire District 151 

Fire Management Organization

and Coordination 

Region 6 of the Service, using the approach of “fire 

management districts,” will establish qualified fire 

management technical oversight for the districts. 

Under this approach, fire management staff will be 

determined by established modeling systems (such as 

“Firebase”), based on the fire management workload 

of a group of Service lands (such as WPAs, refuges, 

and fish hatcheries) and possibly that of interagency 

partners. The fire management workload consists 

of historical wildland fire suppression as well as 

historical and planned fuels treatments. 

Dependent on budgets, fire management staff and 

support equipment may be located at the administrative 

station or at other locations within the fire management 

district and shared between all units. The Service will 

conduct fire management activities in a coordinated 

and collaborative manner with federal and nonfederal 

partners. 

Appendix I
 

Bird Species of the Districts 

Appendix I—Bird Species of the Districts 155 

s

Birds of 

t 

ed­

, 

al 

t for 

at

dre

cie

a

Conservation 

en

6

y 

on ati

n

n 

ca

tio

c 

eriv

sas

n

d

d

an

ir

an

y veyveyveyve

in

i 

yve

n

e 

Species USFWS EndangeSpecies ListNorth Dakota Speof ConservationPriorityRare North DakotSpecies

Concern 

Species of ManagemConcern in RegionGame Birds BelowDesired ConditionUSFWS MigratorBird ManagementFocal SpeciesPPJV ImplementPlanPIF North AmeriLandbird ConservaPlanPIF PhysiographiArea (PA) 37 Mixgrass Prairie PlanPIF PA 38 West RES (No Plan)PIF PA 40 Tall-grPrairie PlanNorth AmericanWaterbird Conservation PlaNorthern PrairieParklands WaterbPlanU.S. Shorebird PlNorthern Plains/Prairie PotholesNational and RegPriority

ion

BCR 11BCR 17Region 6NationalBreeding Bird SurDeclining Speciesin North Dakota(1980–2005)Breeding Bird SurDeclining Speciesin “Black” Prairie(1966–2005)Breeding Bird SurDeclining Speciesin Drift Prairie(1966–2005)Breeding Bird SurDeclining SpeciesGlaciated MissourPlate (1966–2005)Breeding Bird SurDeclining Speciesin Great PlainsRoughlands(1966–2005)National AuduboSociety Watch LisNorth DakotaBirds of the PrairiPothole Region ThWarrant Attention 

Citation Number 

(See end of table.*) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 

horned grebe 

eared grebe 

1 m 4 H 

M 

pied-billed grebe 

western grebe m 

4 5 

H 

X 

American white 

pelican 

double-crested 

cormorant 

1 

X X 

M 

American bittern 1 X X m 2 7 H X 

great blue heron M X 

snowy egret H 

green heron S3 

black-crowned 

night-heron M 

white-faced ibis X L 

trumpeter swan X X 1 

wood duck X X 2 

American wigeon X X 

mallard X X w 

gadwall w 

northern pintail 

northern shoveler 

2 X X w 

w 

cinnamon teal 

blue-winged teal 

S3 

w X 

canvasback 2 X X 

redhead 2 X 

lesser scaup X X 

ringneck X 

common goldeneye S3 

hooded merganser S3 1 

northern harrier 2 X X X X l 2 X 

Swainson’s hawk 1 X X X X l l 

ferruginous hawk 1 X X X X X l 6 X 

golden eagle 2 S3 X X 

bald eagle 2 S1 X l 5 6 

merlin 

American kestrel 

S2 

X 
156 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts dreesci

Birds of n

-

s

d

d

,

yyyyy

ta

Conservation 

nt me

n 6

w

y

Implementation Plan

nca

tio

ic

n)

ras

n

an

an

rververververve

n

t 

t 

ie

ha

n 

Species 

USFWS EndangeSpecies ListNorth Dakota Speof ConservationPriorityRare North DakoSpecies

Concern 

Species of ManageConcern in RegioGame Birds BeloDesired ConditionUSFWS MigratorBird ManagementFocal SpeciesPPJVPIF North AmeriLandbird ConservaPlanPIF PhysiographArea (PA) 37 Mixgrass Prairie Plan

ed

PIF PA 38 West River ES (No PlaPIF PA 40 Tall-gPrairie PlanNorth AmericanWaterbird Conservation PlaNorthern PrairieParklands WaterPlan

bir

U.S. Shorebird PlNorthern Plains/Prairie PotholesNational andRegional PriorityBreeding Bird SuDeclining Speciesin North Dakota(1980–2005)Breeding Bird SuDeclining Speciesin “Black” Prairi(1966–2005)

e 

Breeding Bird SuDeclining Speciesin Drift Prairie(1966–2005)Breeding Bird SuDeclining SpeciesGlaciated MissouPlate (1966–2005)

ri

in 

BCR 11BCR 17Region 6NationalBreeding Bird SuDeclining Speciesin Great PlainsRoughlands(1966–2005)National AuduboSociety Watch Lisfor North DakotaBirds of the PrairPothole Region TWarrant Attentio

Citation Number 

(See end of table.*) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 

prairie falcon 2 S3 X X X X 

peregrine falcon E 3 S1 X X X X X 

sharp-tailed grouse 2 l l 4 

greater prairiechicken 2 S2 l l 1 1 

greater sage grouse 2 X 

American coot 4 X 

Virginia rail 4 7 M X 

sora 4 7 X 

yellow rail 1 S2 X X X X X m 1 1 H X X 

whooping crane E 3 G1 X 

sandhill crane X 

American goldenplover X X X X s X 

G3 

piping plover T 2 S1 X X s 1 X X 

S2 

American avocet 

solitary sandpiper 

2 

X X X 

s X 

willet 1 X 2 X 

upland sandpiper 

whimbrel 

1 X X X X 

X 

X s 4 X 

long-billed curlew 

Hudsonian godwit 

1 S2 X 

X 

X X X 

X 

X 

X s 

X X 

X 

X 

marbled godwit 1 X X X X X X s 1 3 X X X 

ruddy turnstone s X 

red knot X X 

sanderling X X X 

dunlin s X 

semipalmated s X 

sandpiper 

white-rumped X s X 

sandpiper 

stilt sandpiper X 

short-billed X 

dowitcher 

buff-breasted X X X X s X 

sandpiper 

American woodcock X X s X 
Species 

red USFWS Endange

Species List

cies North Dakota Spe

of ConservationPriority

ta Rare North Dako

Species

C

Bird

onser

Con

s of 

vati

cern 

on 

Species of Manage nt me

n 6 Concern in Regio

w Game Birds Belo

Desired Condition

y USFWS Migrator

Bird ManagementFocal SpeciesPPJVImplementation Plan

can PIF North Ameri

Landbird Conserva

n tio

Plan

ic PIF Physiograph

Area (PA) 37 Mix - ed

grass Prairie Plan

PIF PA 38 West 

n) River ES (No Pla

PIF PA 40 Tall-g s rasPrairie PlanNorth AmericanWaterbird 

n Conservation Pla

Northern Prairie

d an

Parklands Water

d bir

PlanU.S. Shorebird Pl , anNorthern Plains/Prairie PotholesNational andRegional Priority

rve Breeding Bird Su

y

Declining Speciesin North Dakota(1980–2005)

rve Breeding Bird Su

y

Declining Speciesin “Black” Prairie (1966–2005)

rve Breeding Bird Su

y

Declining Speciesin Drift Prairie(1966–2005)

rve Breeding Bird Su

y

Declining Species in Glaciated MissouriPlate (1966–2005)

rve Breeding Bird Su

y

Declining Speciesin Great PlainsRoughlands(1966–2005)

n National Audubo

t Society Watch Lis

for North Dakota

ie Birds of the Prair

Pothole Region T t ha

n 

BCR 11BCR 17Region 6NationalWarrant Attentio

Citation Number 

(See end of table.*) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 

common snipe X 

Wilson’s phalarope 

Bonaparte’s gull 

1 X X X X X X s 2 7 

M 

X X X 

Franklin’s gull 

Caspian tern 

common tern 

1 

X 

X 

X 

m 3 3 M H 

M 

M 

X 

least tern E 2 S1 X X X 5 H X 

black tern 

mourning dove 

1 X X 

X 

m 4 7 H X X 

black-billed cuckoo 1 X X X X X X l 4 1 X X X 

short-eared owl 2 X X X X X l l 3 X 

burrowing owl 

northern saw-whet 

owl 

2 X X X X X 

X 

l 6 X X 

red-headed 

woodpecker 

yellow-bellied 

sapsucker 

2 X X X X 

X 

l l 3 2 X X 

northern flicker l 4 X X X X 

pileated woodpecker 

olive-sided flycatcher 

willow flycatcher 

eastern kingbird 

western kingbird 

S3 

X X 

l 

l 

l 4 

4 

4 

loggerhead shrike 

warbling vireo 

2 X X X X l 6 

4 

7 X 

Philadephia vireo S3 

Bell’s vireo 

American crow 

horned lark 

northern roughwinged swallow 

bank swallow 

S3 X X 

X 

l 

l 

l 

l I 

X 

X 

X 

X X X 

X 

house wren l 5 

sedge wren 2 X X l 4 1 X 

marsh wren 

veery X 

l 4 2 X 

X 

Appendix I—Bird Species of the Districts 157 
158 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts dreesci

Birds of n

n

-

s

d

d

,

yyyyy

ta

Conservation 

nt me

n 6

w

y

Implementation Pla

nca

tio

ic

n)

ras

n

an

an

rververververve

n

t 

t 

ie

ha

n 

Species 

USFWS EndangeSpecies ListNorth Dakota Speof ConservationPriorityRare North DakoSpecies

Concern 

Species of ManageConcern in RegioGame Birds BeloDesired ConditionUSFWS MigratorBird ManagementFocal SpeciesPPJVPIF North AmeriLandbird ConservaPlanPIF PhysiographArea (PA) 37 Mixgrass Prairie Plan

ed

PIF PA 38 West River ES (No PlaPIF PA 40 Tall-gPrairie PlanNorth AmericanWaterbird Conservation PlaNorthern PrairieParklands WaterPlan

bir

U.S. Shorebird PlNorthern Plains/Prairie PotholesNational andRegional PriorityBreeding Bird SuDeclining Speciesin North Dakota(1980–2005)Breeding Bird SuDeclining Speciesin “Black” Prairi(1966–2005)

e 

Breeding Bird SuDeclining Speciesin Drift Prairie(1966–2005)Breeding Bird SuDeclining SpeciesGlaciated MissouPlate (1966–2005)

ri

in 

BCR 11BCR 17Region 6NationalBreeding Bird SuDeclining Speciesin Great PlainsRoughlands(1966–2005)National AuduboSociety Watch Lisfor North DakotaBirds of the PrairPothole Region TWarrant Attentio

Citation Number 

(See end of table.*) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 

wood thrush X X X 

Sprague’s pipit 1 S3 X X X X X X l l 1 X X X 

chestnut-sided S3 

warbler 

ovenbird X 

dickcissel 2 X X X l l 3 3 X X 

American tree (l) l 

sparrow 

clay-colored 

sparrow 

l 4 7 X 

Brewer’s sparrow 3 S3 X X X X 

Baird’s sparrow 1 X X X X X X l l 1 X X X X X 

grasshopper sparrow 1 X X X X X X l l 2 2 X X X X 

Le Conte’s sparrow 

Henslow’s sparrow 

2 X 

X 

X X X 

X 

X 

X 

l 

l 

1 X 

Nelson’s sharptailed sparrow 1 X X X l l 1 1 X X 

vesper sparrow l 4 5 X X 

lark bunting 

Harris’ sparrow 

1 

X 

X l 

(l) 

l 

l 

3 X X X 

white-throated S3 

sparrow 

swamp sparrow S3 

McCown’s longspur 3 S2 X X X X X l l 1 X X X 

chestnut-collared 1 X X X X X X l l 4 X X X X 

longspur 

Smith’s longspur X X (l) l 

Lapland longspur (l) l 

western meadowlark l X X 

bobolink 2 X X X l 3 1 X 

brown-headed X X 

cowbird 

yellow-headed l X 

blackbird 

red-winged l 

blackbird 

rusty blackbird X (l) l 

Total Number of Species 5 45 24 29 21 32 41 25 10 45 64 22 44 5 27 5 13 16 10 16 7 2 9 9 28 
Species 

red USFWS Endange

Species List

cies North Dakota Spe

of ConservationPriority

ta Rare North Dako

Species

C

Bird

onser

Con

s of 

vati

cern 

on 

Species of Manage nt me

n 6 Concern in Regio

w Game Birds Belo

Desired Condition

y USFWS Migrator

Bird ManagementFocal SpeciesPPJVImplementation Plan

can PIF North Ameri

Landbird Conserva

n tio

Plan

ic PIF Physiograph

Area (PA) 37 Mix - ed

grass Prairie Plan

PIF PA 38 West 

n) River ES (No Pla

PIF PA 40 Tall-g s rasPrairie PlanNorth AmericanWaterbird 

n Conservation Pla

Northern Prairie

d an

Parklands Water

d bir

PlanU.S. Shorebird Pl , anNorthern Plains/Prairie PotholesNational andRegional Priority

rve Breeding Bird Su

y

Declining Speciesin North Dakota(1980–2005)

rve Breeding Bird Su

y

Declining Speciesin “Black” Prairie (1966–2005)

rve Breeding Bird Su

y

Declining Speciesin Drift Prairie(1966–2005)

rve Breeding Bird Su

y

Declining Species in Glaciated MissouriPlate (1966–2005)

rve Breeding Bird Su

y

Declining Speciesin Great PlainsRoughlands(1966–2005)

n National Audubo

t Society Watch Lis

for North Dakota

ie Birds of the Prair

Pothole Region T t ha

n 

BCR 11BCR 17Region 6NationalWarrant Attentio

Citation Number 

(See end of table.*) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 

*Citations 1 USFWS Endangered Species List <http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/StateListing.do?state=ND&status=listed> 

E=endangered, T=threatened 

2 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy

 Table 1. North Dakota’s 100 Species of Conservation Priority:

 Level 1=Species having a high level of conservation priority in North Dakota or across their range, or a high rate of constituting the core of the species’ breeding range, but non-“State Wildlife Grant” funding is not 

readily available to them. 

 Level 2=Species having a moderate level of conservation priority or a high level of conservation priority, but a substantial amount of non-“State Wildlife Grant” funding is available to them. 

 Level 3=Species having a moderate level of conservation priority, or a high level of conservation priority, but a substantial amount of non-“State Wildlife Grant” funding is available to them. 

3 Rare North Dakota Species (North Dakota Natural Heritage Inventory 2002)

 Natural Heritage Global Ranks: 

 G1=Critically imperiled. Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or because of some factor of its biology making it especially vulnerable to extinction. 

 G2=Imperiled. Imperiled globally because of rarity or because of other factors demonstrably making it very vulnerable to extinction or elimination throughout its range. 

 G3=Vulnerable. Vulnerable globally either because it is very rare and local throughout its range, found only in a restricted range (even if abundant at some locations), or because of other factors making it vulnerable to 

extinction or elimination throughout its range. 

Natural Heritage State Ranks: 

 S1=Critically imperiled. Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity or because of some factor of its biology making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. 

 S2=Imperiled. Imperiled in the state because of rarity or because of other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. 

 S3=Vulnerable. Vulnerable in the state either because it is rare and uncommon, or found only in a restricted range (even if abundant at some locations), or because of other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. 

4 Birds of Conservation Concern USFWS 2002. 

5 USFWS Species of Management Concern 2005 <http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/speccon/tblconts.html> 

6 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 2005 Implementation Plans


 Waterfowl Plan: Focal species=w


 Shorebird Plan: Conservation priority of regularly occurring shorebird species where the region is highly important to the population=s


 Waterbird Plan: Conservation assessment of high in BCR 11=m


 Landbird Plan: Native landbird species for which >25% of the continental population occurs in BCR 11 and Watch List=l or (l) for wintering
 

7 PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan


 Part 1, Table 1. PIF Species of Continental Importance for the United States and Canada.


 Part 2, Table 7. Species of Continental Importance in the Prairie Avifaunal Biome.
 

8 PIF Bird Conservation Plan for the Northern Mixed-grass Prairie (Physiographic Area 37)—June 25, 1999


 Table 1. Partners in Flight Priority Species.
 

9 PIF Bird Conservation Plan for the Northern Tallgrass Prairie (Physiographic Area 40)—August 4, 1998


 Table 1. Partners in Flight Priority Species.
 

10 PIF West River Executive Summary (Physiographic Area 38) (no plan)


 List of priority bird populations.
 

11 North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, version 1


 Table 2. Conservation Status and Distribution of Colonial Waterbirds
 

12 Northern Prairie and Parklands Waterbird Conservation Plan—2004


 Table 7. Conservation Vulnerability Rankings (High [H] and Moderate [M] Concern)
 

13 U.S. Shorebird Plan and Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes Regional Shorebird Plan


 Table 2. National and Regional Priority Score ≥ 4
 

14 USGS North American Breeding Bird Survey Trend Results <http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/reglist05.html> 

15 National Audubon Society Watch List for North Dakota <http://audubon2.org/webapp/watchlist/viewWatchlist.jsp> 

16 Conservation Planning in the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States: Integration Between an Existing Waterfowl Plan and an Emerging Non-game Bird Model (David N. Pashley and Rick Warhurst)

 Table 1. Birds of the Prairie Pothole Region That Warrant Conservation Attention 

Appendix I—Bird Species of the Districts 159 

Appendix J 

Primary and Secondary Bird Species of the North Dakota Prairie 

The characteristic breeding birds are categorized 

according to relative abundance, as follows: 

QQ	 Primary species that are often common or 

abundant. 

Secondary species that are usually fairly 


common.
 

Tertiary, or minor, species that are uncommon 

or rare. 

QQ	 

QQ	 

The primary and secondary bird species in North 

Dakota are listed by habitat type below. 

Mixed-grass Prairie 

primary speCies 

gadwall 

mallard 

northern pintail 

blue-winged teal 

northern shoveler 

American coot 

black tern 

mourning dove 

horned lark 

western meadowlark 

red-winged blackbird 

yellow-headed blackbird 

brown-headed cowbird 

Savannah sparrow 

clay-colored sparrow 

chestnut-collared longspur 

seCondary speCies 

eared grebe 

pied-billed grebe 

American bittern 

black-crowned night-heron 

American wigeon 

green-winged teal 

canvasback 

redhead 

ruddy duck 

Swainson’s hawk 

red-tailed hawk 

northern harrier 

sharp-tailed grouse 

ring-necked pheasant 

gray partridge 

sora 

killdeer 

upland plover 

willet 

marbled godwit 

American avocet 

Wilson’s phalarope 

Franklin’s gull 

ring-billed gull 

black-billed cuckoo 

northern flicker 

eastern kingbird 

western kingbird 

willow flycatcher 

bank swallow 

barn swallow 

cliff swallow 

common crow 

house wren 

marsh wren 

brown thrasher 

gray catbird 

American robin 

cedar waxwing 

yellow warbler 

common yellowthroat 

house sparrow 

bobolink 

common grackle 

American goldfinch 

lark bunting 

Baird’s sparrow 

grasshopper sparrow 

vesper sparrow 

song sparrow 

great horned owl 

Tall-grass Prairie 

primary speCies 

mourning dove 

horned lark 

common crow 

western meadowlark 

common grackle 

brown-headed cowbird 
162 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

seCondary speCies 

red-tailed hawk 

American kestrel 

killdeer 

black-billed cuckoo 

great horned owl 

northern flicker 

eastern kingbird 

western kingbird 

barn swallow 

blue jay 

house wren 

brown thrasher 

gray catbird 

American robin 

cedar waxwing 

starling 

warbling vireo 

yellow warbler 

common yellowthroat 

house sparrow 

bobolink 

red-winged blackbird 

Baltimore oriole 

American goldfinch 

dickcissel 

Savannah sparrow 

vesper sparrow 

clay-colored sparrow 

song sparrow 

Turtle Mountains 

primary speCies 

mallard 

blue-winged teal 

broad-winged hawk 

red-tailed hawk 

ruffed grouse 

yellow-bellied sapsucker 

northern flicker 

least flycatcher 

common crow 

American robin 

veery 

red-eyed vireo 

yellow warbler 

American redstart 

red-winged blackbird 

brown-headed cowbird 

Baltimore oriole 

rose-breasted grosbeak 

clay-colored sparrow 

seCondary speCies 

common loon 

red-necked grebe 

eared grebe 

horned grebe 

pied-billed grebe 

double-crested cormorant 

American bittern 

American wigeon 

green-winged teal 

northern shoveler 

canvasback 

redhead 

ring-necked duck 

ruddy duck 

Cooper’s hawk 

northern harrier 

sora 

American coot 

killdeer 

spotted sandpiper 

Wilson’s phalarope 

black tern 

mourning dove 

black-billed cuckoo 

great horned owl 

common nighthawk 

belted kingfisher 

ruby-throated hummingbird 

hairy woodpecker 

eastern kingbird 

willow flycatcher 

tree swallow 

purple martin 

barn swallow 

black-capped chickadee 

house wren 

long-billed marsh wren 

short-billed marsh wren 

brown thrasher 

gray catbird 

cedar waxwing 

warbling vireo 

northern waterthrush 

common yellowthroat 

mourning warbler 

bobolink 

western meadowlark 

yellow-headed blackbird 

common grackle 

American goldfinch 

Savannah sparrow 

vesper sparrow 

chipping sparrow 

song sparrow 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix K 

Evaluation Criteria for Easements 

The Prairie Pothole Region of the United States 

supports some of the highest breeding duck populations 

in the nation and is particularly important to uplandnesting species such as mallard, northern pintail, 

gadwall, blue-winged teal, and northern shoveler. The 

Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota and South 

Dakota has approximately 7% of the principal breeding 

area for ducks in North America; this area supported 

>20% of all breeding ducks in the traditional survey 

area during 1996–2005. In addition to the importance 

of the Prairie Pothole Region to duck populations, the 

region also provides critical breeding and migration 

habitat for many species of shorebirds, waterbirds, 

and grassland birds. 

The Small Wetlands Acquisition Program was created 

to perpetuate migratory bird populations, particularly 

waterfowl, by acquisition and maintenance of critical 

breeding habitat in the Prairie Pothole Region. The 

Service acquires waterfowl production areas comprised 

of fee-title lands and grassland and wetland easements 

to fulfill the goals of this program. 

Conservation Strategy 

To guide the acquisition of grassland and wetland 

easements in the Prairie Pothole Region of region 6, 

the “Dakota Working Group” developed and adopted 

a conservation strategy in 2004 that focuses on the 

five primary upland-nesting ducks, which provided 

for benefits to other trust species. This strategy 

applies an adaptive approach to integrate biological 

priorities with current socioeconomic threats to 

habitat to target acquisition of grassland and wetland 

easements for the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program. 

The goal of this strategy is to permanently protect 

adequate grassland and wetland habitat to support 

>90% of the duck productivity observed in the region 

between 1987 and 1998. This goal equates to 

approximately 3.6 million breeding duck pairs and a 

recruitment rate of 0.6. 

The conservation strategy consists of two primary 

elements: 

QQ	 Protection of the capacity of the landscape to 

attract breeding ducks through the acquisition 

of wetland easements. 

Protection of the productivity of breeding ducks 

through the acquisition of grassland easements. 

QQ	 

The Service used models developed by the HAPET 

to identify the extent and location of grasslands and 

wetlands required to meet the protection goal. These 

models indicated that protection of all grasslands and 

wetlands within areas accessible to >25 pairs of ducks, 

plus a 1-mile buffer, would meet the conservation goal 

of protecting adequate habitat to support >90% of the 

duck productivity. It is currently estimated that an 

additional 1.4 million high-priority wetland acres and 

10.4–16 million grassland acres are needed to meet 

the goal. 

This conservation strategy is based on the knowledge 

that breeding duck distribution is determined by 

the wetland community, while reproductive success 

is determined by the characteristics of surrounding 

wetlands and uplands and is positively related to the 

amount of perennial grass cover in the landscape. 

Due to the willingness of hens to travel some distance 

from core wetlands to nesting cover, grassland 

protection is most effective when applied to areas 

accessible to the greatest number of hens. HAPET 

models indicated that if all grasslands accessible 

to >25 duck pairs were protected, they would be 

accessible to >90% of the breeding duck population. 

Due to the landscape influences of surrounding 

grassland on duck nest success, a 1-mile buffer was 

added to the >25 duck pair zone. It is assumed that 

protection of grasslands accessible to >25 duck pairs, 

plus supporting grassland within 1 mile of these areas, 

will maintain adequate nesting habitat. In addition, 

protection of wetlands within this same area will 

maintain adequate breeding pair and brood habitat 

for >90% of the duck population. 

Wetland Easement Prioritization 

Priority areas will be identified by HAPET models 

and updated as new information becomes available. 

The Service will also periodically update short-term 

objectives to reflect changes in opportunities and risks. 

Opportunities for new protection will decrease through 

time as more of the remaining habitat is either 

protected or converted to cropland. 

Acknowledging that, in addition to ducks, many other 

trust species benefit from wetland protection and 

that risk of wetland drainage varies among wetlands, 

the Service adopted a decision tree to integrate the 

benefits and risk factors of multiple trust species into 

the prioritization process for wetland easements. 
164 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

deCision tree 

The decision tree identifies hierarchical priorities that 

incorporate risk of drainage and consider benefits to 

other priority trust species, while preventing lower 

priorities from inappropriately influencing higherlevel priorities. The decision tree (see figure 13, 

chapter 4) portrays the structure of the decisionmaking 

process, while the associated map (see figure 12, 

chapter 4) shows the distribution of conservation 

opportunities resulting from application of spatial 

models driven by the decisionmaking process. 

Duck Biological Factors 

Protection of wetlands in areas accessible to >25 duck 

pairs, plus a 1-mile buffer, is the primary determinant 

for prioritizing wetland easements. In order for areas 

identified as high priority for acquisition of grassland 

easements (nesting habitat) to continue to be 

productive, the associated high-priority wetlands, 

which attract and support breeding duck pairs to an 

area, also must be protected. However, protection of 

these wetlands is necessary regardless of the habitat 

within which they occur. 

Temporary wetlands, seasonal wetlands, and small 

(<1 acre) semipermanent wetlands attract higher 

densities of ducks than more permanent and larger 

wetlands, although all associated wetlands contribute 

to attracting duck pairs, Short-term objectives were 

set to prioritize wetlands supporting the highest 

densities of breeding pairs. These wetlands were 

divided into the following three categories: 

QQ	 temporary wetlands, seasonal wetlands, and 

semipermanent wetlands <1 acre 

semipermanent wetlands >1–25 acres 

semipermanent wetlands >25 acres and lakes 

QQ

QQ

Risk Factors 

Because the risk of wetland drainage differs among 

wetlands, risk criteria were incorporated into the 

prioritization process. These risk criteria consider 

size and class of the wetland and surrounding land 

use. Drainage history in the Prairie Pothole Region, 

as well as numerous past efforts to modify or remove 

“Swampbuster Provisions” of the farm bill, demonstrate 

that the risk of wetland drainage is highest and most 

immediate for the smaller, less permanent wetlands 

embedded in cropland. 

Current information suggests that about 70% of all 

breeding waterfowl pairs in the Prairie Pothole Region 

occur in wetlands in crop fields. The Service adopted 

short-term objectives for new wetland easement 

acquisitions to allow a reasonable level of flexibility to 

accommodate local opportunities and needs, maximize 

acquisition of the highest priority wetlands, and 

remain consistent with biological priorities. These 

short-term objectives apply five priority levels to 

wetlands within priority waterfowl areas, based on 

the risk of wetlands being drained and the capacity of 

wetlands to attract duck pairs. 

Wetlands Embedded in Cropland 

Priority 1: Temporary wetlands, seasonal 

wetlands, or semipermanent wetlands <1 acre 

Priority 2: Semipermanent wetlands or lake 

wetlands <25 acres 

Wetlands Embedded in Grassland 

Priority 3: Temporary wetlands, seasonal 

wetlands, or semipermanent wetlands <1 acre 

Priority 4: Semipermanent wetlands or lake 

wetlands <25 acres 

Wetlands Embedded in Cropland or Grassland 

Priority 5: Wetlands >25 acres 

The Service applies these priority levels to potential 

easement tracts based on the highest priority (1–5) 

wetland associated with a tract. Wetland easement 

offers under consideration should be prioritized 

to acquire the highest priority tracts available for 

priorities 1–4. Although acquisition of some priority 5 

wetlands may be necessary to acquire higher priority 

wetlands, this should be minimized when possible. 

Priority 5 wetlands are generally at low risk of 

drainage due to their large size and water permanency. 

Non-duck Biological Factors 

Secondary priorities focus on wetland easements 

that would benefit recovery efforts for listed species 

(endangered or threatened); these are noted as A or 

B in the decision tree (figure 13, chapter 4). Wetland 

easements that would be appropriate conservation 

actions for migratory birds (excluding the five primary 

upland-nesting duck species) are the third highest 

priority; these are noted as C or D in the decision 

tree (figure 13, chapter 4). 

Managers will determine when and which species to 

incorporate into the prioritization process for their 

respective areas of responsibility. The HAPET will 

provide assistance with model development and 

integration of these additional species. 

Pending incorporation of endangered species or 

other migratory bird priorities, wetland easement 

prioritization will occur based solely on the duck 

prioritization criterion. Inclusion of endangered 

species and other migratory birds will further refine 

selections within, but not between, priority 1–5 

wetland tracts (for example, priority 2–5 tracts with 

endangered species or other migratory bird benefits 

do not rise to a higher priority than priority 1 tracts 

without these additional species benefits). 

additional Criteria 

After using the decision tree to identify the biological 

priority zone for a tract, the below criteria will be 

applied prior to final acceptance of a tract for easement 
purchase. These criteria provide additional guidance 

on current policies and logistical and economic 

considerations relevant to wetland easement 

acquisition. 

Highest Habitat Value per Dollar Spent 

For tracts within the same biological priority zone, 

preference will be given to parcels where the Service 

can acquire the best habitat at the lowest financial 

and administrative cost. The “Government Accounting 

Office Report of September 2007” (page 31) stated 

that “analysis indicate that an important opportunity 

for gains in efficiency would be for the Service to 

target the lowest cost easements in the high priority 

zone.” In addition to biological prioritization, the 

following guidance will further aid in reaching the 

Service’s acquisition goals as quickly and efficiently 

as possible: 

1.	 When funds are limiting, place emphasis on 

acquisition of tracts that are the lowest cost per 

acre. 

2.	 When personnel needed to complete the required 

evaluations, site visits, document preparation, 

etc., are limiting, place emphasis on acquisition 

of larger tracts. 

Other Funding Sources 

If a district has secured a partner(s) and additional 

funding and the proposed acquisition lies in a 

biological priority area, the Service may consider 

meeting the terms of the partner’s contribution. For 

example, if a tract would be excluded based on the 

“highest habitat value per dollar” criterion, but the 

partner(s) are willing to contribute adequate support 

to overcome the deficit, the tract should be acquired. 

Circumstances in a particular district may require 

the easement acquisition be completed using grants 

through the North American Wetlands Conservation 

Act, Ducks Unlimited contributions, Pheasants 

Forever monies, or any other special funds that may 

become available. Acquisitions of this type need to be 

coordinated with the regional realty division chief, to 

make the realty division aware of the special monies 

available. 

Funding Restrictions 

In North Dakota, the Service’s ability to acquire 

wetland easements is limited by an agreement with 

the governor of North Dakota. This agreement places 

a county-level cap on the number of wetland acres that 

the Service can acquire under easement using funds 

from the MBCF. As a result, the Service should use 

funds from the MBCF only for the highest risk wetlands 

(priorities 1 and 2) in North Dakota and should use 

other funding sources for acquisition of lower risk 

wetlands (priorities 3 and 4). 

Appendix K—Evaluation Criteria for Easements 165 

Grassland Easement Prioritization 

Priority areas will be identified by HAPET models 

and updated as new information becomes available. 

The Service will also periodically update short-term 

objectives to reflect changes in opportunities and 

risks. Opportunities for new protection will decrease 

through time as more of the remaining habitat is 

either protected or converted to cropland. 

Acknowledging that, in addition to ducks, many other 

trust species benefit from grassland protection and 

that risk of grassland loss is high throughout the 

Prairie Pothole Region, the Service adopted a decision 

tree to integrate the benefits and risk factors of 

multiple trust species into the prioritization process 

for grassland easements. 

deCision tree 

The decision tree identifies hierarchical priorities 

that incorporate risk of loss and consider benefits to 

other priority trust species, while preventing lower 

priorities from inappropriately influencing higherlevel priorities. The decision tree (see figure 15, 

chapter 4) portrays the structure of the 

decisionmaking process, while the associated map 

(see figure 14, chapter 4) shows the distribution of 

conservation opportunities resulting from application 

of spatial models driven by the decisionmaking process. 

Duck Biological Factors 

Grasslands accessible to the greatest number of 

breeding duck pairs will be the primary determinant 

for prioritizing grassland easements. Although the 

long-term goal for grassland protection includes all 

grasslands accessible to >25 duck pairs, plus a 1-mile 

buffer, short-term objectives were developed. These 

objectives were set to prioritize grasslands accessible 

to the greatest number of breeding ducks. Grasslands 

were divided into the following three categories: 

QQ grassland accessible to >60 duck pairs 

grassland accessible to 40–60 duck pairs 

grassland accessible to 25–40 duck pairs 

QQ

QQ

Risk Factors 

Threats to grasslands are extremely high throughout 

the Prairie Pothole Region due to (1) the pervasive 

and dynamic nature of grassland loss resulting from 

changes in landowner demographics, (2) farm 

implement size, efficiency, and capability, (3) crop 

genetics and types, and (4) markets for agricultural 

commodities. In addition to these risk factors, 

waterfowl distribution varies spatially and temporally 

due to variations in precipitation. 

Because of the high degree and broad distribution of 

risks and the spatial and temporal variation in habitat 

conditions in the Prairie Pothole Region, the Service’s 
166 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

best strategy for grassland protection is to apply the 

above prioritization within each district to protect the 

best areas within each district, rather than focusing 

efforts on any particular district. 

The Service adopted short-term objectives for new 

grassland easement acquisitions to allow a reasonable 

level of flexibility to accommodate local opportunities 

and needs, maximize acquisition of the highest priority 

grasslands, and remain consistent with biological 

priorities. Three priority levels are based on the risk 

of grassland conversion and the accessibility of 

grasslands to nesting ducks. Within these priority 

levels, annual targets will ensure that new grassland 

easements are accessible to the greatest number of 

duck pairs. 

QQ Priority 1: Acquire >80% of new acres in areas 

accessible to >60 duck pairs per square mile. 

Priority 2: Acquire <15% of new acres in areas 

accessible to 40–60 duck pairs per square mile. 

Priority 3: Acquire <5% of new acres in areas 

accessible to 25–40 duck pairs per square mile. 

QQ

QQ

Non-duck Biological Factors 

Secondary priorities focus on grassland easements 

that would benefit recovery efforts for listed species 

(endangered or threatened); these are noted as A or B 

in the decision tree (figure 15, chapter 4). Grassland 

easements that would be appropriate conservation 

actions for migratory birds (excluding the five 

primary upland-nesting duck species) are the third 

highest priority; these are noted as C or D in the 

decision tree (figure 15, chapter 4). 

Managers will determine when and which species to 

incorporate into the prioritization process for their 

respective areas of responsibility. The HAPET will 

provide assistance with model development and 

integration of these additional species. 

Pending incorporation of endangered species or 

other migratory bird priorities, grassland easement 

prioritization will occur based solely on the duck 

prioritization criterion. Inclusion of endangered 

species and other migratory birds will further refine 

selections within, but not between, priority 1–3 

grassland tracts (for example, priority 2 or 3 tracts 

with endangered species or other migratory bird 

benefits do not rise to a higher priority than priority 

1 tracts without these additional species benefits). 

additional Criteria 

After using the decision tree to identify the biological 

priority zone for a tract, the following criteria will be 

applied prior to final acceptance of a tract for easement 

purchase. These criteria provide additional guidance 

on current policies and logistical and economic 

considerations relevant to grassland easement 

acquisition. 

Highest Habitat Value per Dollar Spent 

For tracts within the same biological priority zone, 

preference will be given to parcels where the Service 

can acquire the best habitat at the lowest financial 

and administrative cost. The “Government Accounting 

Office Report of September 2007” (page 31) stated 

that “analysis indicate that an important opportunity 

for gains in efficiency would be for the Service to 

target the lowest cost easements in the high priority 

zone.” In addition to biological prioritization, the 

following guidance will further aid in reaching the 

Service’s acquisition goals as quickly and efficiently 

as possible: 

1.	 When funds are limiting, place emphasis on 

acquisition of tracts that are the lowest cost per 

acre. 

2.	 When personnel needed to complete the required 

evaluations, site visits, document preparation, 

etc., are limiting, place emphasis on acquisition 

of larger tracts. 

Vegetation Type 

For tracts within the same biological priority zone, 

preference will be given to unbroken prairie. 

Protection of all grassland habitats within priority 

areas is necessary to meet the conservation strategy 

goals. Tame grass is not precluded from acquisition; 

however, preference will be given to unbroken prairie 

for the following reasons: 

1.	 The biological diversity and ecological functions 

associated with native prairie habitats are of 

value to numerous trust species. Although 

some of the diversity and functionality can be 

restored, it is unlikely that the full functionality 

of native prairie ecosystems can ever be fully 

restored once lost. 

2.	 Planted grass requires greater long-term 

management input by landowners and, therefore, 

increased support and enforcement efforts by 

the Service. 

3.	 Conservation of unbroken prairie is more 

acceptable to state and local governments, 

and, therefore, receives greater support than 

conservation of planted grass. Many view 

conservation of unbroken prairie as being 

supportive of the ranching industry, while 

others view conservation of planted grass as a 

conflict with the farming industry. Sensitivity 

to these views will enable the Service to more 

effectively acquire grassland easements. 

Other Funding Sources 

If a district has secured a partner(s) and additional 

funding and the proposed acquisition lies in a 

biological priority area, the Service may consider 

meeting the terms of the partner’s contribution. For 

example, if a tract would be excluded based on the 

“highest habitat value per dollar” criterion, but the 
partner(s) are willing to contribute adequate support 

to overcome the deficit, the tract should be acquired. 

Circumstances in a particular district may require 

the easement acquisition be completed using grants 

through the North American Wetlands Conservation 

Act, Ducks Unlimited contributions, Pheasants 

Appendix K—Evaluation Criteria for Easements 167 

Forever monies, or any other special funds that may 

become available. Acquisitions of this type need to be 

coordinated with the regional realty division chief, to 

make the realty division aware of the special monies 

available. 

Appendix L 

North Dakota’s Threatened and Endangered Species 

Group Common Name Scientific Name Status 

Plants western prairie fringed orchid Platanthera praeclara threatened 

Insects Dakota skipper Hesperia dacotae candidate 

Birds interior least tern Sterna antillarum endangered 

whooping crane Grus americana endangered 

piping plover Charadrius melodus threatened 

Fishes pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus endangered 

Mammals black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes endangered 

gray wolf Canis lupus endangered 

Appendix M 

Priority-setting Example for Native Prairie Portions of Fee-title Lands 

The following is an example of a district-specific stepdown plan (from J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management 

District) for setting priorities for native prairie portions 

of fee-title lands. The example is based on vegetative 

data collected by district staff using the belt-transect 

method. 

(Example) Grassland Objective 1 

By 3 years after CCP approval, use current vegetation 

inventory data and landscape considerations to 

prioritize each grassland tract with ≥55 acres of native 

prairie as either high or low management priority. 

Identify areas that are in the most pristine condition 

and areas with the highest restoration potential. 

criteria for hiGh-Priority uNits 

Floristic composition: Vegetation is characterized by 

>30% mean frequency of pristine, native herbaceous 

types (plant groups 41–43, and 46–48 (Grant et al. 

2004), plus native herbaceous-dominated vegetation 

with Kentucky bluegrass as the main subdominant 

(plant group 53). 

Floristic potential: Vegetation is characterized by 

<30% mean frequency of smooth brome-dominated 

vegetation (plant groups 61–62). 

Landscape context: (1) The unit is contiguous with 

the best examples of local native prairie habitat; or 

(2) the unit is adjacent to other high-priority, prairie 

tracts or tracts of native prairie adjacent to district 

lands under non-Service ownership (especially 

important if the unit has relatively little native prairie, 

that is <40 acres). 

criteria for low-Priority uNits 

Floristic composition: Vegetation is characterized by 

<30% mean frequency of pristine, native herbaceous 

types (plant groups 41–43 and 46–48 (Grant et al. 

2004), plus native herbaceous-dominated vegetation 

with Kentucky bluegrass as the main subdominant 

(plant group 53). 

Floristic potential: Vegetation is characterized by 

>30% mean frequency of smooth brome-dominated 

vegetation (plant groups 61–62). 

Landscape context: The unit is small (<100 acres) and/ 

or is not contiguous with significant native prairie 

habitat. 

ratioNale 

Target threshold percentages for determining highpriority units and low-priority units is subjective and 

based on district lands’ grassland intactness or 

resources. Staff at J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management 

District used recent inventory data to set threshold 

percentages for floristic composition and floristic 

potential. As staff increases, threshold levels could 

be lowered as more time and resources are dedicated 

to restoration. Recent inventory data suggest that 

relatively intact native herbaceous flora is uncommon 

in the district—about 13% of tracts are dominated 

by native grasses and forbs. Native warm-season 

grasses are especially uncommon. Under appropriate 

management, warm-season grasses can displace 

introduced cool-season grasses such as smooth brome 

or Kentucky bluegrass, if the former are sufficiently 

abundant (>20% frequency) (Todd Grant, biologist, 

USFWS, North Dakota, personal communication). 

(Example) Grassland Objective 2 

On high-priority units, use precisely timed disturbance 

(principally fire and grazing) to restore or maintain 

vegetation to the following standards: 

QQ	 Composition on each unit includes (1) >75% 

pristine native and native-dominated/bluegrasssubdominant vegetation (plant groups 41–43, 

46–48, and 53), (2) <30% smooth brome-dominated 

vegetation (plant groups 61–62), and (3) <20% 

low shrub-dominated vegetation (plant groups 

11–17) (based on percentage frequency of 

occurrence on belt transects, per Grant et al. 

2004). 

Native trees and tall shrubs are absent or nearly 

so, comprising <0.1% land cover on each unit; 

nonnative or planted vegetation is rare. 

Leafy spurge is decreased by >50% on each unit, 

to <1% frequency (frequencies per belt transects; 

most high-priority units currently have little 

to no spurge), absinth wormwood is actively 

controlled, and yellow toadflax and other newly 

appearing species of noxious weed that pose a 

threat to the drift prairie are eliminated within 

5 years of initial detection. 

QQ	 

QQ	 

strateGies 

— 	 Defoliate, typically by livestock grazing or fire, 

at least 2 of every 3 years. An ideal management 
172 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

sequence over 5 years might be BGGGR (burn, 

graze, graze, graze, rest), and then reinitiate 

the sequence. The area covered by trees, tall 

shrubs, and low shrubs would be incrementally 

reduced with this burning frequency. 

Primarily use prescribed fire when smooth brome 

plants are at least in the 4- to 5-leaf stage, but 

not yet showing an inflorescence, this generally 

occurs during a narrow mid-May through early 

June window (may vary by area). A less preferred 

option is to burn in fall in anticipation of a 

negative, winter drought effect on smooth brome 

and Kentucky bluegrass. 

Graze mainly during May through August or 

September, via a rotation approach with many 

(7–10) relatively small grazing cells (for example, 

40–60 acres) per unit and short grazing periods 

(4–7 days per cell). Adjust stocking rates to 

facilitate regrazing of individual smooth brome 

plants at least once within a grazing period, but 

move livestock to the next cell before native 

plants are regrazed. Season-long grazing may 

be acceptable when logistics preclude rotational 

grazing. 

Apply early season, high-intensity grazing that 

targets brome grass. 

Annually survey for noxious weeds on native 

prairie tracts. 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

— 	 

ratioNale 

This objective focuses on the restoration of floristic 

composition. Smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, 

and other introduced plants are prevalent in native 

prairie across North Dakota. Kentucky bluegrass 

tends to increase under prolonged rest or with grazing, 

but decreases with fire especially when burning occurs 

during stem elongation or in dry years. Smooth brome 

also increases under rest, but (in contrast to Kentucky 

bluegrass) appears sensitive to repeated grazing but 

unaffected or variably affected by prescribed fire. A 

strategy to improve competitive abilities of native 

herbaceous plants should match the types, timing, and 

frequencies of disturbances under which these plants 

evolved. Target threshold percentage goals for the 

high-priority units are subjective and based on the 

district’s grassland intactness and staff resource levels. 

The district staff used recent inventory data to set 

the threshold percentages for floristic composition and 

floristic potential. It is anticipated these threshold 

levels are based on grassland intactness specific to 

J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District and 

will not change due to staff or resources. 

At the district, smooth-brome-dominated plant groups 

may be less dominant than Kentucky-bluegrassdominated plant groups. This may not be true in other 

districts in North Dakota. Smooth brome may be less 

competitive than native plants or Kentucky bluegrass 

in the relatively poor sandy soils of McHenry and 

Pierce counties, where the majority of the WPAs are 

located within J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management 

District. Of the two invasive grass species, smooth 

brome generally seems more difficult to control once 

established and more significantly alters the quality 

and structure of native prairie. Therefore, restoration 

management should focus on strategies to reduce 

brome. 

(Example) Grassland Objective 3 

On low-priority prairie units, apply disturbance 

(principally fire or grazing) every 5–8 years to remove 

plant litter, restore plant vigor, reverse woody plant 

expansion, and provide a mix of structural types that 

include (1) relatively short–sparse vegetation for species 

such as northern pintail, killdeer, horned lark, and 

Brewer’s blackbird, (2) moderately short vegetation 

for species such as blue-winged teal and upland 

sandpiper, and (3) tall–dense vegetation for species 

such as mallard, short-eared owl, Le Conte’s sparrow, 

and bobolink. 

Although varying widely across units, total area (the 

sum of all units) should have the following characteristics: 

QQ	 One-fourth of the area in 0- to 1-year 

postdisturbance, one-fourth in 2–3 years 

postdisturbance, and one-half in 4–6+ years 

postdisturbance—corresponding roughly to a 

structure of <2 inches VOR, 2–3.9 inches VOR, 

and >3.9 inches VOR (mean VORs in early 

spring, per Robel et al. 1970). 

Native trees and tall shrubs compose <0.2% land 

cover on each tract and all nonnative woody 

vegetation and planted, native woody vegetation 

is eliminated from at least half of the units. 

Leafy spurge frequency is maintained at <2% 

frequency, absinth wormwood is actively 

controlled and yellow toadflax and other newly 

appearing species of noxious weed that pose 

a threat to native prairie are eliminated within 

5 years of initial detection. 

QQ	 

QQ	 

ratioNale 

This objective focuses on providing vegetation 

structural diversity, emphasizing structure that is 

moderately short to tall–dense. Given current and 

projected staff and funding, low-priority native prairie 

tracts are unlikely to be restored to a state where 

native herbaceous vegetation is a widely noticeable 

or otherwise common vegetative component. However, 

with modest effort, the prevalent, introduced coolseason grasses and scattered low shrub can be managed 

to provide a mix of postdisturbance structural types 

attractive to a broad array of waterfowl and other 

grassland bird species. 

These units can provide structural diversity in 

vegetation height and density, while preserving 

extensive grasslands used by species of birds that 

require large undisturbed grassland patches. Effects 

associated with edge-dominated, highly fragmented 

grassland are also reduced. 
 

 

Bibliography 

Adamus P.R. 1996. Bioindicators for assessing 

ecological integrity of prairie wetlands. 

EPA/600/R-96/082. Corvallis, OR: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, National 

Health and Environmental Effects Research 

Laboratory, Western Ecology Division. [Pages 

unknown.] 

Anderson, R.C. 1990. The historic role of fire in 

the North American grassland. In: Collins, S.L.; 

Wallace, L.L.; editors. Fire in North American 

tallgrass prairies. Norman, OK: University of 

Oklahoma Press. 8–18. 

Austin, J.E. 1998. Highlight box: waterfowl in the 

Prairie Pothole Region. In: Mac, M.J.; Opler, P.A.; 

Puckett Haecker, C.E.; Doran, P.D.; editors. Status 

and trends of the nation’s biological resources, vol. 

2. [Internet]. Version 21JAN2000. Jamestown, 

ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/ 

grlands/grlands.htm> 456–7. 

Baer, N.W. 1989. Shelterbelts and windbreaks in the 

Great Plains. Journal of Forestry 87:32–6. 

Bakker, K.K. 2003. A synthesis of the effect of 

woody vegetation on grassland-nesting birds. 

In: Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of 

Science; [Date of conference unknown]; [Location 

of conference unknown]. [Location of publisher 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 119–41. 

Bakker, K.K.; Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F. 2002. 

Incorporating landscape attributes into models 

for migratory grassland bird conservation. 

Conservation Biology 16:1638–46. 

Balser, D.S.; Dil, H.H.; Nelson, H.K. 1968. Effect of 

predator reduction on waterfowl nesting success. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 32:669–82. 

Barker, William T.; Whitman, Warren C. 1988. 

Vegetation of the northern Great Plains. 

Rangelands 10(6):266–72. 

Bartonek, J.C. 1968. Summer foods and feeding habits 

of diving ducks in Manitoba [PhD dissertation]. 

Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Bartonek, J.C. 1972. Summer foods of American 

wigeon, mallards, and a green-winged teal near 

Great Slave Lake, N.W.T. Canadian Field-Naturalist 

86:373–6. 

Batt, B.D.; Anderson, M.G.; Anderson, C.D.; Caswell, 

F.D. 1989. The use of prairie potholes by North 

American ducks. In: van der Valk, A.; editor. 

Northern prairie wetlands. Ames, IA: Iowa State 

University Press. 204–27. 

Beauchamp, W.D.; Koford, R.R.; Nudds, T.D. [et al.] 

1996. Long-term declines in nest success of prairie 

ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:247–57. 

Bedunah, D.J. 1992. The complex ecology of weeds, 

grazing, and wildlife. Western Wildlands 18:6–11. 

Berkey, G.; Crawford, R.; Galipeau, S.; Johnson, D.H. 

[et al.] 1993. A review of wildlife management 

practices in North Dakota [unpublished report]. 

On file at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood, 

CO. 51 p. 

Blumenthal, D.M.; Jordan, N.R.; Svenson, E.L. 2003. 

Weed control as a rationale for restoration: the 

example of tallgrass prairie. Conservation Ecology 

7(1):6. 

Borthwick, S.M. 1988. Impacts of agricultural 

pesticides on aquatic invertebrates inhabiting 

prairie wetlands [master’s thesis]. Fort Collins, 

CO: Colorado State University. [Pages unknown]. 

Bragg, T.B. 1982. Seasonal variations in fuel and fuel 

consumption by fires in a bluestem prairie. Ecology 

63(10):7–11. 

Bragg, T.B. 1995. The physical environment of Great 

Plains grasslands. In: Keeler, K.; Joern, A.; editors. 

The changing prairie. New York: Oxford University 

Press. 49–81. 

Bragg, T.B.; Steuter, A.A. 1996. Prairie ecology—the 

mixed prairie. In: Samson, F.B.; Knopf, F.L.; 

editors. Prairie Conservation. Washington DC: 

Island Press. 53–65. 

Bryce, S.A.; Omernik, J.M.; Pater, D.A. [et al.] 1996. 

Ecoregions of North Dakota and South Dakota 

[color poster with map, descriptive text, summary 

tables, and photographs]. Reston, VA: U.S. 

Geological Survey. [Map scale 1:1,500,000]. 

Burger, L.D.; Burger, L.W., Jr.; Faaborg, J. 1994. 

Effects of prairie fragmentation on predation on 

artificial nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 

58:249–54. 

Carpinellil. M.F. 2001. Designing weed-resistant plant 

communities by maximizing niche occupation and 

resource capture [PhD dissertation]. Bozeman, 

MT: Montana State University. [Pages unknown]. 

Caudill, James; Henderson, Eric. 2005. Banking on 

nature 2004: the economic benefits to local 

communities of national wildlife refuge visitation. 

[Location of publisher unknown]: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, division of economics. [Pages 

unknown]. 
174 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Charnov, E.L. 1976. Optimal foraging, the marginal 

value theorem. Theoretical Population Biology 

9:129–36. 

Conner, R.; Seidl, A.; VanTassell, L.; Wilkins, N. 2001. 

U.S. grasslands and related resources: an economic 

and biological trends assessment. Texas Cooperative 

Extension Reports and Publications. [Location of 

publisher unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 153 p. 

Cook, H.H.; Powers, C.F. 1958. Early biochemical 

changes in the soils and waters of artificially 

created marshes in New York. New York Game 

and Fish Journal 5:9–65. 

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States 

1780s to 1980s. Washington DC: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 13 p. 

Dai, X.; Boutton, T.W.; Hailemichael, M. [et al.] 2006. 

Soil carbon and nitrogen storage in response to 

fire in a temperate mixed-grass savanna. Journal 

of Environmental Quality 35:1620–8. 

Daubenmire R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of 

vegetational analysis. Northwest Science 33:43–64. 

Davis, S.; Brigham, R.M.; Shaffer, T.L.; James, P.C. 

2006. Mixed-grass prairie passerines exhibit weak 

and variable responses to patch size. The Auk 

123(3):807–21. 

Dion, N.; Hobson, K.A.; Lariviere, S. 2000. Interactive 

effects of vegetation and predators on the success 

of natural and simulated nests of grassland songbirds. 

The Condor 102:629–34. 

Dixon, C.; Hollevoet, R. 2005. Ground-nesting bird 

management on cropland dominated landscapes 

within the prairie pothole region of North and 

South Dakota: a step-down plan from the Prairie 

Pothole Joint Venture [unpublished report]. 

[Location where on file unknown]. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Domek, Tom. 1998. Last call for tallgrass in North 

Dakota. [Internet]. Version 02OCT1998. Jamestown, 

ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/ 

plants/tallgras/lastcall.htm> North Dakota Outdoors 

60(10):14–19. 

Dornfeld, R. 1988. Wetland restoration; a mid-continent 

waterfowl management project final activity report. 

Twin Cities, MN: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 36 p. 

Duebbert, H.F.; Frank, A.M. 1984. Value of prairie 

wetlands to duck broods. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

12:27–34. 

Duebbert, H.F.; Jacobson, E.T.; Higgins, K.F.; Podoll, 

E.B. 1981. Establishment of seeded grasslands for 

wildlife habitat in the prairie pothole region. Special 

Scientific Report—Wildlife No. 234. Washington 

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown]. 

Duebbert, H.F.; Lokemoen, J.T. 1980. High duck 

nesting success in a predator-reduced environment. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 44:428–37. 

Espie, R.H.M.; Brigham, R.M.; James, Paul C. 1996. 

Habitat selection and clutch fate of piping plovers 

(Charadrius melodus) breeding at Lake Diefenbaker, 

Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

74:1069–75. 

Estey, Mike. 2007. [Title of unpublished report unknown]. 

[Location where on file unknown]. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat 

and Population Evaluation Team. [Pages unknown]. 

Euliss, N.H., Jr.; LaBaugh, J.W.; Fredrickson, L.H. 

[et al.] 2004. The wetland continuum: a conceptual 

framework for interpreting biological studies. 

Wetlands 24:448–58. 

Euliss, N.H., Jr.; Wrubleski, D.A.; Mushet, D.M. 1999. 

Wetlands of the prairie pothole region: invertebrate 

species composition, ecology, and management. In: 

Batzer, D.; Rader, R.B.; Wissinger, S.A.; editors. 

Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands of North 

America—ecology and management. New York: 

John Wiley and Sons. 471–514. 

Flannery, T. 2001. The eternal frontier. [Location 

of publisher unknown]: Atlantic Monthly Press. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Fredrickson, L.H. 1991. Strategies for water level 

manipulations in moist-soil systems. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Waterfowl Management 

Handbook, Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.4.6. 

Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Friend M.; Franson, J.C. 1999. Field manual of wildlife 

diseases, general field procedures and diseases of 

birds. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological 

Survey, Information and Technology Report 1999­

001. [Pages unknown]. 

Garrettson, P.R.; Rohwer, F.C. 2001. Effects of 

mammalian predator removal on production of 

upland-nesting ducks in North Dakota. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 65:398–405. 

Garrettson, P.R.; Rohwer, F.C.; Zimmer, J.M. [et al.] 

1996. Effects of mammalian predator removal on 

waterfowl and non-game birds in North Dakota. 

In: Transactions of the North American Wildlife 

and Natural Resources Conference; [Date of 

conference unknown]; [Location of conference 

unknown]. [Location of publisher unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 61:94–101. 

Gazda, R.J.; Meidinger, R.R.; Ball, I.J.; Connelly, J.W. 

2002. Relationships between Russian olive and 

duck nest success in southeastern Idaho. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 30:337–44. 

Grant, T.A.; Madden, E.; Berkey, G.B. 2004. Tree and 

shrub invasion in northern mixed-grass prairie: 

implications for breeding grassland birds. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 32:807–18. 

Greenwood, R.J.; Sargeant, A.B.; Johnson, D.H. [et al.] 

1995. Factors associated with duck nest success 

in the Prairie Pothole Region of Canada. Wildlife 

Monograph 128. [Pages unknown]. 
Greenwood, R.J.; Sargeant, A.B.; Piehl, J.L. [et al.] 

1999. Foods and foraging of prairie striped skunks 

during the avian nesting season. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 27:823–32. 

Greenwood, R.J.; Sovada, M.A. 1996. Prairie duck 

populations and predation management. In: 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and 

Natural Resources Conference; [Date of conference 

unknown]; [Location of conference unknown]. 

[Location of publisher unknown]: [Publisher 

unknown]. 61:31–42. 

Grondahl, C.; Evelsizer, A. 2002. Prairie wildflowers 

and grasses of North Dakota. Jamestown, ND: 

North Dakota Game and Fish Department– 

Bismarck, ND. 

Grue, C.E.; Tome, M.W.; Messmer, T.A. [et al.] 1989. 

Agricultural chemicals and prairie pothole wetlands: 

meeting the needs of the resource and the farmer— 

U.S. perspective. In: Transactions of the North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference; [Date of conference unknown]; 

[Location of conference unknown]. [Location of 

publisher unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 54:43–58. 

Gruell, G.E.; Loope, L.L. 1974. Relationships among 

aspen, fire, and ungulate browsing in Jackson Hole, 

Wyoming. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, 

Intermountain Region. [Pages unknown.] 

Guo, Q.; Shaffer, T. 2006. Community maturity, species 

saturation and the variant diversity–productivity 

relationships in grasslands. Ecology Letters 9:1–9. 

Haig, S.M.; Plissner, J.H. 1993. Population status of 

the threatened/endangered piping plover in 1991. 

In: Higgins, K.F.; Brashier, M.R.; editors. 

Proceedings, the Missouri River and its tributaries: 

piping plover and least tern symposium; [Date of 

symposium unknown]; Brookings, SD. Brookings, 

SD: South Dakota State University. 32–5. 

Hanowski, J.M.; Christian, D.P.; Niemi, G.J. 2000. 

Landscape requirements of prairie sharp-tailed 

grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus campestris in 

Minnesota, USA. Wildlife Biology 6:257–63. 

Helmers, D.L. 1993. Shorebird management manual. 

Manomet, MA: Western Hemisphere Shorebird 

Reserve Network. [Pages unknown]. 

Helmers, D.L.; Gratto-Trevor, C.L. 1996. Effects of 

predation on migratory shorebird recruitment. 

In: Transactions of the North American Wildlife 

and Natural Resources Conference; [Date of 

conference unknown]; [Location of conference 

unknown]. [Location of publisher unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 61:50–61. 

Herkert, J.R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation 

on Midwestern grassland bird communities. 

Ecological Applications 4:461–71. 

Herkert, J.R. 1995. An analysis of Midwestern breeding 

bird population trends: 1966–1993. American 

Midland Naturalist 134:41–50. 

Higgins, K.F. 1986. Interpretation and compendium 

of historical fire accounts in the northern Great 

Bibliography 175 

Plains. Resource Publication 161. Washington DC: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. [Pages unknown]. 

Higgins, K.F.; Barker, W.T. 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. Washington 

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown]. 

Hoff, M.J. 1999. Predator trapping on township-sized 

blocks: does duck nesting success increase? [master’s 

thesis]. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Howell, E.A. 1988. The role of restoration in 

conservation biology. Endangered Species 5:1–4. 

Hutchinson, M. 1992. Vegetation management 

guideline: Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense [L.] 

Scop.). Natural Areas Journal 12:160–1. 

Igl, L.D.; Johnson, D.H. 1995. Migratory bird 

population changes in North Dakota. In: LaRoe, 

E.T.; Farris, G.S.; Puckett, C.E. [et al.]; editors. 

Our living resources. [Location of publisher 

unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior. 298–300. 

Info Please. 2007. North Dakota almanac. [Internet]. 

<http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108256.html> 

[access date unknown]. 

Jensen, Ray E. [No date]. Climate of North Dakota. 

[Internet]. Version 02APR98. Fargo, ND: National 

Weather Service, North Dakota State University. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/ 

habitat/climate/index.htm> 

Johnson, D.H.; Igl, L.D. 2001. Area requirements 

of grassland birds: a regional perspective. Auk 

118:24–34. 

Johnson, Douglas H. 2006a. Terrestrial bird communities 

on the Woodworth study area. [Internet]. Revised 

August 3, 2006. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center online. <http://www.npwrc. 

usgs.gov/resource/habitat/woodwort/johnson.htm> 

Johnson, Douglas H. 2006b. Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) grassland bird use of conservation 

reserve program fields in the Great Plains. In: Farm 

Bill Contributions to Wildlife Conservation. 

[Internet]. Wildlife Habitat Management Institute 

online. <ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WHMI/WEB/ 

CompRev/Johnson19-34.pdf> 19–33. 

Johnson, Douglas H.; Haseltin, Susan S.D.; Cowardin, 

Lewis M. 1994. Wildlife habitat management on 

the northern prairie landscape. [Internet]. Version 

30APR2001. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center online. <http://www. 

npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/whabmgt/index. 

htm> Landscape and Urban Planning 28:5–21. 

Johnson, Douglas H.; Igl, Lawrence D.; Dechant 

Shaffer, Jill A. [series coordinators]. 2004. Effects 

of management practices on grassland birds. 

[Internet]. Version 12AUG2004. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center online. 
176 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/ 

grasbird/index.htm> 

Johnson, R.G.; Temple, S.A. 1990. Nest predation and 

brood parasitism of tall grass prairie birds. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 54(1):106–11. 

Kadlec, J.A.; Smith, L.M. 1992. Habitat management 

for breeding areas. In: Batt, B.D.J.; Afton, A.D.; 

Anderson, M.G. [et al.]; editors. Ecology and 

management of breeding waterfowl. Minneapolis: 

University of Minnesota. [Pages unknown]. 

Kantrud, H.A. 1993. Duck nest success on Conservation 

Reserve Program land in the prairie pothole region. 

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 48:238–42. 

Kantrud, H.A.; Higgins, K.F. 1992. Nest and nest 

site characteristics of some ground-nesting nonpasserine birds of northern grasslands. Prairie 

Naturalist 24:67–84. 

Kantrud, Harold A. 1983. An environmental overview 

of North Dakota: past and present. [Internet]. 

Version 16JUL97. Jamestown, ND: Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center online. <www. 

npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/envovrvw/index. 

htm> 

Kantrud, Harold A.; Krapu, Gary L.; Swanson, George 

A.; Allen, James A. 1989. Prairie basin wetlands of 

the Dakotas: a community profile. [Internet]. Version 

16JUL97. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center online. <http://www.npwrc. 

usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/basinwet/index.htm> 

Kelsey, K.W.; Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F.; Bakker, 

K.K. 2006. Planting trees in prairie landscapes: do 

the ecological costs outweigh the benefits? Natural 

Areas Journal 26(3):254–60. 

Klett, A.T.; Duebbert, H.F.; Heismeyer, G.L. 1984. Use 

of seeded native grasses as nesting cover by ducks. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:134–8. 

Knopf, F.L. 1994. Avian assemblages on altered 

grasslands. Studies in Avian Biology. 15:247–57. 

Knopf, F.L. 1995. Declining grassland birds. In: LaRoe, 

E.T.; Farris, G.S.; Puckett, C.E. [et al.]; editors. Our 

living resources. [Location of publisher unknown]: 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 296–98. 

Knutsen, G.A.; Euliss, N.H. 2001. Wetland restoration 

in the Prairie Pothole Region of North America: 

a literature review. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Biological Science Report. [Location of publisher 

unknown]: U.S. Geological Survey. 55 p. 

Koper, N.; Schmiegelow, F. 2006. A multi-scaled 

analysis of avian response to habitat amount and 

fragmentation in the Canadian dry mixed-grass 

prairie. Landscape Ecology 21:1045–59. 

Krapu, G.L.; Swanson, G.A. 1975. Some nutritional 

aspects of reproduction in prairie nesting pintails. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 39:156–62. 

Krull, J.N. 1970. Aquatic plant–macroinvertebrate 

associations and waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 34:707–18. 

Kuehl, A.K.; Clark, W.R. 2002. Predator activity 

related to landscape features in northern Iowa. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 66:1224–34. 

Larson, M.A.; Ryan, M.R.; Murphy, R.K. 2002. 

Population viability of piping plovers: effects of 

predator exclusion. Journal of Wildlife Management 

66:361–71. 

Laubhan, M.K.; Gleason, R.A.; Euliss, N.H., Jr. [et al.] 

2006. A preliminary biological assessment of Long 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Biological Technical Publication, FWS/ 

BTP-R6006-2006. Washington DC. [Pages unknown]. 

Laubhan, M.K.; Roelle, J.E. 2001. Managing wetlands 

for waterbirds. In: Rader, R.B.; Batzer, D.P.; 

Wissinger, S.; editors. Biomonitoring and 

management of North American freshwater 

wetlands. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 387–411. 

Lokemoen, J.T. 1984. Examining economic efficiency 

of management practices that enhance waterfowl 

production. In: Transactions of the North American 

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference; [Date 

of conference unknown]; [Location of conference 

unknown]. [Location of publisher unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 49:584–607. 

Lorenzana, J.C.; Sealy, S.G. 1999. A meta-analysis 

of the impact of parasitism by the brown-headed 

cowbird on its hosts. Studies in Avian Biology 

18:241–53. 

Lynch, J.; Evans, C.D.; Conover, V.C. 1963. Inventory 

of waterfowl environments of the prairie Canada. 

In: Transactions of the North American Wildlife 

and Natural Resources Conference; [Date of 

conference unknown]; [Location of conference 

unknown]. [Location of publisher unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 28:93–109. 

Mabee, T.J.; Estelle, V.B. 2000. Assessing the 

effectiveness of predator exclosures for plovers. 

Wilson Bulletin 112:14–20. 

Madden, E.M.; Murphy, R.K.; Hansen, A.J.; Murray, 

L. 2000. Models for guiding management of prairie 

birds habitat in northwestern North Dakota. The 

American Midland Naturalist 144(2):377–92. 

Martin, T.E. 1988. Processes organizing open-nesting 

bird assemblages: competition or nest predation? 

Evolutionary Ecology 2:37–50. 

Martin, T.E. 1995. Avian life history evolution in 

relation to nest sites, nest predation and food. 

Ecological Monographs 65:101–27. 

Mense, B. 1996. The effects of predator removal and 

nest-site selection on productivity of overwater 

nesting birds in North Dakota [master’s thesis]. 

Pittsburg, KS: Pittsburg State University. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Meyer, M.I.; Swanson, G.A. 1982. Mosquitoes (Diptera: 

Culicidae) consumed by breeding Anatidae in south 

central North Dakota. Prairie Naturalist 14:27–31. 
Milchunas, D.G.; Sala, O.E.; Lauenroth, W.K. 1988. A 

generalized model of the effects of grazing by large 

herbivores on grassland community structure. 

American Midland Naturalist 132(1):87–106. 

Murkin, H.R.; Batt, B.D.J. 1987. The interactions of 

vertebrates and invertebrates in peatlands and 

marshes. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of 

Canada 140:15–30. 

Murphy, R.K.; editor. 2005. Conservation strategy and 

guidelines for Dakota skippers on Service lands in 

the Dakotas [unpublished report]. Bismarck, ND: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, refuges and wildlife and ecological services, 

Dakota skipper committee. 23 p. 

Murphy, R.K.; Grant, T.A. 2005. Land management 

history and floristics in mixed-grass prairie, North 

Dakota, USA. Natural Areas Journal 25:351–8. 

Murphy, R.K.; Michaud, I.M.G.; Prescott, D.R.C. 

[et al.] 2003. Predation on adult piping plovers at 

predator exclosure cages. Waterbirds 26:150–5. 

National Wildlife Federation. 2001. The American 

prairie: going, going, gone? A Status Report on the 

American Prairie. [Location of publisher unknown]: 

National Wildlife Federation. [Pages unknown]. 

Naugle, David E.; Higgins, Kenneth F.; Bakker, Kristel 

K. 2000. A synthesis of the effects of upland 

management practices on waterfowl and other birds 

in the northern Great Plains of the United States 

and Canada. University of Wisconsin–Stevens 

Point, College of Natural Resources, Wildlife 

Technical Report No. 1. Stevens Point, WI. 39 p. 

Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F.; Nusser, S.M. 1999. 

Effects of woody vegetation on prairie wetland 

birds. Canadian Field-Naturalist 113:487–92. 

Naugle, D.E.; Quamen, F. 2007. Assessing the impacts 

of tree plantings on grassland birds in North and 

South Dakota. Completion Report for North Dakota 

State Wildlife Grant #T19. [Location where on file 

unknown]. 25 p. 

Nelson, J.G.; Leege, T.A. 1982. Nutritional requirements 

and food habitats. In: Thomas, J.W.; Toweill, D.E.; 

editors. Elk of North America. Harrisburg, PA: 

Stackpole Books. [Pages unknown]. 

Newcombe, C.P.; MacDonald, D.D. 1991. Effects of 

suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:72–82. 

Niemuth, N.D. 2000. Land use and vegetation 

associated with greater prairie chicken leks in 

an agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 64:278–86. 

Niemuth, N.D.; Estey, M.E.; Loesch, C.R. 2005. 

Developing spatially explicit habitat models for 

grassland bird conservation planning in the Prairie 

Pothole Region of North Dakota. In: Ralph, C.J.; 

Rich, T.D.; editors. Bird conservation implementation 

and integration in the Americas: proceedings of the 

third international Partners in Flight conference 

2002; [Date of conference unknown]; [Location of 

Bibliography 177 

conference unknown]. PSW-GTR-191. Albany, CA: 

USDA Forest Service. 469–77. 

Niemuth, N.D.; Estey, M.E.; Reynolds, R.E. [et al.] 

2006. Use of wetlands by spring-migrant shorebirds 

in agricultural landscapes of North Dakota’s Drift 

Prairie. Wetlands 26:30–9. 

North Dakota Department of Agriculture. 2006. 2005 

Noxious weed list survey: reported acres. [Location | 

where on file unknown]. 

North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 2005. 

Mixed-grass prairie (Missouri Coteau). In: North 

Dakota comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. 

[Internet]. <http://gf.nd.gov/conservation/docs/ 

section%205.3%20mixed-grass%20prairie-missouri 

%20coteau.pdf> 54–7. 

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. 

[No date]. North Dakota prairie—our natural 

heritage. [Internet]. Version 05MAY99. Jamestown, 

ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/ 

habitat/heritage/index.htm> 

O’Leary, C.H.; Nyberg, D.W. 2000. Treelines between 

fields reduce the density of grassland birds. Natural 

Areas Journal 20:243–9. 

Patten, M.A.; Shochat, E.; Reinking, D.L. [et al.] 2006. 

Habitat edge, land management, and rates of brood 

parasitism in tallgrass prairie. Ecological Applications 

16:687–95. 

Pedlar, J.H.; Fahrig, L.; Merriam, G.H. 1997. Raccoon 

habitat use at 2 spatial scales. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 61:102–12. 

Peterjohn, B.G.; Sauer, J.R. 1999. Population status 

of North American grassland birds. Studies in 

Avian Biology 19:27–44. 

Plissner, J.H.; Haig, S.M. 2000. Status of a broadly 

distributed endangered species: results and 

implications of the second International Piping 

Plover Census. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

78:128–39. 

Pokorny, M.L. 2002. Plant functional group diversity 

as a mechanism for invasion resistance [master’s 

thesis]. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Pokorny, M.L.; Sheley, R.L.; Zabinski, C.A. [et al.] 

2005. Plant functional group diversity as a mechanism 

for invasion resistance. Restoration Ecology 

13(3):448–59. 

Prindiville-Gaines, E.; Ryan, M.R. 1988. Piping plover 

habitat use and reproductive success in North 

Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:266–73. 

Recher, H.F. 1966. Some aspects of the ecology of 

migrating shorebirds. Ecology 47:393–407. 

Remele, Larry. 1988. North Dakota history: overview 

and summary. In: North Dakota Blue Book. Bismarck, 

ND: North Dakota Secretary of State’s Office. 2–5. 

Ribic, C.A.; Sample, D.W. 2001. Associations of 

grassland birds with landscape factors in southern 

Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 146:105–21. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

178 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Rich, T.D.; Beardmore, C.J.; Berlanga, H. [et al.] 2004. 

Partners in Flight North American landbird 

conservation plan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology. [Pages unknown]. 

Ringelman, James K.; editor. 2005. Prairie Pothole 

Joint Venture 2005 implementation plan. Bismarck, 

ND: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 160 p. 

Robel, R.J.; Briggs, J.N.; Dayton, A.D.; Hulbert, L.C. 

1970. Relationships between visual obstruction 

measurements and weight of grassland vegetation. 

Journal of Range Management 23:295–7. 

Robinson, Elwyn B. 1966. History of North Dakota. 

Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 58, 

67–8, 113–5, 129, 134. 

Romig, G.P.; Crawford, R.D. 1995. Clay-colored 

sparrows in North Dakota parasitized brownheaded cowbirds. Prairie Naturalist 27:193–205. 

Rosenberg, D.M.; Danks, H.V. 1987. Aquatic insects 

of peatlands and marshes in Canada: introduction. 

Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 

140:1–4. 

Royer, R.A.; Austin, J.E.; Newton, W.E. 1998. Checklist 

and “pollard walk” butterfly survey methods on 

public lands. American Midland Naturalist 140:358–71. 

Rumble, M.A.; Flake, L.D. 1983. Management 

considerations to enhance use of stock ponds by 

waterfowl broods. Journal of Range Management 

36:691–4. 

Ryan, M.R.; Root, B.G.; Mayer, P.M. 1993. Status of 

piping plovers in the Great Plains of North America: 

a demographic simulation model. Conservation 

Biology 7:581–5. 

Samson, F.; Knopf, F. 1994. Prairie conservation in 

North America. BioScience 44:418–21. 

Samson, Fred B., Knopf, Fritz L.; Ostlie, Wayne R. 

1998. Grasslands. In: Mac, M.J.; Opler, P.A.; Puckett 

Haecker, C.E.; Doran, P.D.; editors. Status and 

trends of the nation’s biological resources, vol. 2. 

[Internet]. Version 21JAN2000. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center online. 

<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/grlands/ 

grlands.htm> 437–72. 

Sargeant, A.B. 1972. Red fox spatial characteristics 

in relation to waterfowl predation. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 36:225–36. 

Sargeant, A.B.; Allen, S.H.; Hastings, J.O. 1987. 

Spatial relations between sympatric coyotes and 

red foxes in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 51:285–93. 

Sargeant, A.B.; Arnold, P.M. 1984. Predator management 

for ducks on waterfowl production areas in the 

northern plains. In: Proceedings of the Vertebrate 

Conference; [Date of conference unknown]; 

[Location of conference unknown]. [Location of 

publisher unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 11:161–7. 

Sargeant, A.B.; Greenwood, R.J.; Sovada, M.A.; 

Shaffer, T.L. 1993. Distribution and abundance of 

predators that affect duck production in the Prairie 

Pothole Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Resource Publication 194. [Location of publisher 

unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown]. 

Sargeant, A.B.; Raveling, D.G. 1992. Mortality during 

the breeding season. In: Batt, B.D.J.; Afton, A.D.; 

Anderson, M.G. [et al.]; editors. Ecology and 

management of breeding waterfowl. Minneapolis: 

University of Minnesota Press. 396–422. 

Sargeant, A.B.; Sovada, M.A.; Shaffer, T.L. 1995. 

Seasonal predator removal relative to hatch rate 

of duck nests in waterfowl production areas. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(3):507–13. 

Schmitz, R.A.; Clark, W.R. 1999. Survival of ringnecked pheasant hens during spring in relation 

to landscape features. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 63:147–54. 

Schroeder, R.L.; Holler, J.I.; Taylor, J.P. 2004. 

Managing national wildlife refuges for historic or 

non-historic conditions: determining the role of 

the refuge in the ecosystem. Natural Resources 

Journal 44(4):1183–1210. 

Severson, K.E.; Sieg, C.H. 2006. The nature of eastern 

North Dakota: pre-1880 historical ecology. Fargo, 

ND: North Dakota State University, North Dakota 

Institute for Regional Studies. 308 p. 

Shaffer, J.A.; Goldade, C.M.; Dinkins, M.F. [et al.] 

2003. Brown-headed cowbirds in grasslands: their 

habitat, hosts, and response to management. 

Prairie Naturalist 35(3):145–186. 

Sheley R.L.; Half, M.L. 2006. Enhancing native forb 

establishment and persistence using a rich seed 

mixture. Restoration Ecology 12(4):627–35. 

Shutler, D.; Mullie, A.; Clark, R.G. 2000. Bird 

communities of prairie uplands and wetlands in 

relation to farming practices in Saskatchewan. 

Conservation Biology 14:1441–51. 

Sims, P.I. 1988. Grasslands. In: Barbour, M.G.; Billings, 

W.D.; editors. North American terrestrial vegetation. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 266–86. 

Skagen, S.K.; Oman, H.D. 1996. Dietary flexibility of 

shorebirds in the Western Hemisphere. Canadian 

Field-Naturalist 10:419–44. 

Snyder, W.D. 1984. Ring-necked pheasant nesting 

ecology and wheat farming on the high plains. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 48:878–88. 

Sovada, M.A.; Anthony, R.M.; Batt, B.D. J. 2001. 

Predation on waterfowl in arctic tundra and prairie 

breeding areas: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

29(1):6–15. 

Sovada, M.A.; Burns, M.J.; Austin, J.E. 2005. Predation 

of waterfowl in prairie breeding areas. Jamestown, 

ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 

70 p. 

Sovada, M.A.; Sargeant, A.B.; Grier, J.W. 1995. 

Differential effects of coyotes and red foxes on duck 

nest success. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:1–9. 
 

 

 

 

Stephens, D.W.; Krebs, J.R. 1986. Foraging theory. 

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Steuter, A.A.; McPherson, G.R. 1995. Fire as a 

physical stress. In: Bedunah, D.J.; Sosebee, R.E.; 

editors. Wildland plants: physiological ecology and 

developmental morphology. 550–79. 

Stewart, R.E.; Kantrud, H.A. 1971. Classification of 

natural ponds and lakes in the glaciated prairie 

region. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 

Resource Publication 92. Washington DC. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Stewart, Robert E. 1975. Breeding birds of North 

Dakota. [Internet]. Version 06JUL2000. Fargo, ND: 

Tri-College Center for Environmental Studies. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/ 

birds/bbofnd/biog.htm> 295 p. 

Sugden, L.G.; Beyersbergen, G.W. 1984. Farming 

intensity on waterfowl breeding grounds in 

Saskatchewan parklands. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

12:22–6. 

Svedarsky, D.; Van Amburg, G. 1996. Integrated 

management of the greater prairie chicken and 

livestock on the Sheyenne National grassland. 

Bismarck, ND: North Dakota Game and Fish 

Department. [Pages unknown]. 

Swanson, G.A. 1978. A water column sampler for 

invertebrates in shallow wetlands. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 42:670–2. 

Swanson, G.A.; Adomaitis, V.A.; Lee, F.B. [et al.] 

1984. Limnological conditions influencing duckling 

use of saline lakes in south-central, North Dakota. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 48:340–9. 

Swanson, G.A.; Krapu, G.L.; Serie, J.R. 1979. Foods 

of laying female dabbling ducks on the breeding 

grounds. In: Bookhout, T.A.; editor. Proceedings 

of a 1977 symposium waterfowl and wetlands—an 

integrated review; [Date of symposium unknown]; 

[Location of symposium unknown]. Madison, WI: 

North-central Section of the Wildlife Society. 47–57. 

Tilman, D. 1996. Community invisibility, recruitment 

limitations, and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 

78(1):81–92. 

Trammell, M.A.; Butler, J.L. 1995. Effects of exotic 

plants on native ungulate use of habitat. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 59:808–16. 

Transeau, E. 1935. The prairie peninsula. Ecology 

16(3):423–7. 

[DOI] U.S. Department of the Interior. 2004. The 

United States Department of the Interior budget 

justification and performance information, fiscal 

year 2004, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington 

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. [Pages 

unknown]. 

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Interior 

population of the least tern recovery plan. [Location 

of publisher unknown]: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown]. 

Bibliography 179 

———. 1994a. Draft revised recovery plan for piping 

plovers breeding on the Great Lakes and northern 

Great Plains of the U.S. [Location of publisher 

unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 1994b. Whooping crane recovery plan. [Location 

of publisher unknown]: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 1996. Western prairie fringed orchid 

(Plantanthera praeclara) recovery plan. [Location 

of publisher unknown]: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 101 p. 

———. 1999. National strategy for management of 

invasive species, WH-7. In: Fulfilling the promise. 

Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 94 p. 

———. 2001. 2000–2001 contingency plan: federal– 

state cooperative protection of whooping cranes 

[unpublished report]. On file at U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in Albuquerque, NM. 42 p. 

———. 2002. Status assessment and conservation 

guidelines, Dakota skipper. [Location of publisher 

unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 2004. Chronic wasting disease plan for U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service lands in the Dakotas 

[unpublished report]. [Location where on file 

unknown]. 17 p. 

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Ecoregions 

of North Dakota and South Dakota. [Internet]. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs. 

gov/resource/habitat/ndsdeco/ecotext.htm> [Date 

accessed unknown]. 

———. 2007. Wetlands of North Dakota. [Internet]. 

Water Science Center. <http://nd.water.usgs.gov/ 

wetlands/index.html> [accessed March 2007]. 

U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

Committee. 2007. Bird conservation region 11. 

[Internet]. <http://www.nabci-us.org/bcr11.html> 

[Date accessed unknown]. 

Vallentine, J.F. 1990. Grazing management. New York: 

Academic Press. [Pages unknown]. 

Vogl, R.J. 1974. Effect of fire on grasslands. In: 

Kozlowski, T.T.; Ahlgren, C.E.; editors. Fire and 

ecosystems. New York: Academic Press. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Voigts, D.K. 1976. Aquatic invertebrates abundance 

in relation to changing marsh vegetation. American 

Midland Naturalist 95:313–22. 

Watson, A.K. 1985. Introduction: the leafy spurge 

problem. In: Watson, A.K.; editor. Leafy spurge. 

Weed Science Society of America Monograph 3:1–6. 

Weaver, J.E. 1954. North American prairie. Lincoln, 

NE: Johnsen Publishing Company. [Pages unknown]. 

Weaver, J.E.; Albertson, F.W. 1936. Effects of the 

great drought on the prairies of Iowa, Nebraska 

and Kansas. Ecology 17(4):567–639. 
 

 

 

 

180 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts 

Weaver, J.E.; Albertson, F.W. 1956. Grasslands of the 

Great Plains: their nature and use. Lincoln, NE: 

Johnsen Publishing Company. [Pages unknown]. 

Weller, M.W.; Spatcher, C.S. 1965. Role of habitat in 

the distribution and abundance of marsh birds. 

Department of Zoology and Entomology Special 

Report Number 43. Ames, IA: Iowa State University, 

Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment 

Station. [Pages unknown]. 

Williams, M.A.; Crawford, R.D. 1989. Use of earthen 

islands by nesting ducks in North Dakota. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 53:411–7. 

Wilson, S.D.; Belcher, J.W. 1989. Plant and bird 

communities of native prairie and introduced 

Eurasian vegetation in Manitoba, Canada. 

Conservation Biology 3(1):39–44. 

Winter, M.; Johnson, D.H.; Faaborg, J. 1999. Patterns 

of area sensitivity in grassland nesting birds. 

Conservation Biology 13:1424–36. 

Winter, M.; Johnson, D.H.; Faaborg, J. 2000. Evidence 

for edge effects on multiple levels: artificial nests, 

natural nests, and distribution of nest predators 

in Missouri tallgrass prairie fragments. Condor 

102:256–66. 

Witmer, G.W.; Bucknall, J.L.; Fritts, T.H.; Moreno, D.G. 

1996. Predator management to protect endangered 

avian species. In: Transactions of the North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference; [Date of conference unknown]; 

[Location of conference unknown]. [Location of 

publisher unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 61:102–8. 

Wollheim, W.M.; Lovvorn, J.R. 1996. Effects of 

macrophyte growth forms on invertebrates 

communities in saline lakes of the Wyoming High 

Plains. Hydrobiolgia 323:83–96. 

Wyoming Partners in Flight. 2002. Growing grassland 

birds: best management practices for grasslands to 

benefit birds in Wyoming. Lander, WY: Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department. [Pages unknown]. 

Zimmer, J.M. 1996. Effects of predator reduction on 

the survival and movements of northern shoveler 

broods [master’s thesis]. Baton Rouge, LA: 

Louisiana State University. [Pages unknown].