Glacial Ridge

National Wildlife Refuge

Environmental Assessment 

and Comprehensive

Conservation Plan

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 3 (Midwest Region)

Branch of Conservation Planning; 

Bloomington, MN

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Cover Photograph: Peter Eades

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

conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American people.

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, 

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

their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for 

management decisions; set forth goals, objectives and strategies needed to 

accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Fish and Wildlife Service's best 

estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are 

sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are 

primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. 

The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational 

and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.

(This page intentionally left blank)
Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

i

Glacial Ridge

National Wildlife Refuge

Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan

Table of Contents

Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Executive 

Summary .................................................................................................................................vii

Refuge Vision Statement......................................................................................................................viii

Refuge Goals........................................................................................................................................viii

Public Involvement................................................................................................................................viii

Issues .................................................................................................................................................... ix

Implementation of the Plan..................................................................................................................... x

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action.................................................... 1

The Process and the Plan ...................................................................................................................... 1

The Refuge............................................................................................................................................. 1

Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action....................................................................................... 2

Decisions to be Made ............................................................................................................................. 2

Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context...................................................................................... 4

Refuge System Planning Guidance........................................................................................................ 4

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

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

Legal and Policy Compliance........................................................................................................... 6

Brief History of Refuge Establishment and Acquisition.................................................................... 6

Refuge Purposes ............................................................................................................................. 8

Refuge Vision Statement ................................................................................................................. 9

Refuge Goals ................................................................................................................................... 9

Relationship to Other Conservation Initiatives ....................................................................................... 9

Glacial Ridge Master Plan..............................................................................................................10

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Recovery Plan (1996) .................................................................10

Dakota Skipper and Poweshiek Skipperling Conservation Guidelines..........................................10

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ..........................................................................................11

Strategic Habitat Conservation ......................................................................................................14

North American Waterfowl Management Plan...............................................................................15

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan .......................................................................15

Tomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and Rare.....................................................................................15

A Vision for Wildlife and its Use-Goals and Outcomes 2006–2012...............................................15

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Long Range Duck Recovery Plan .........................15

Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan (2011) .................................................................................15

Wetland Reserve Program (Natural Resources Conservation Service)........................................16

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities........................................................................18

Climate Change Planning ..............................................................................................................18

The Planning Process ..........................................................................................................................19

Public Involvement.........................................................................................................................19

Step-Down Management Plans .....................................................................................................20

Inventory, Monitoring, and Research.............................................................................................20
Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii

Plan Review and Revision .............................................................................................................20

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

Public Review of the EA/Draft CCP ...............................................................................................21

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management...............................................................22

Geographic/Ecoregional Setting...........................................................................................................22

The Refuge and Local Context ......................................................................................................22

Land Cover: Past and Present.......................................................................................................22

Topography and Geology ..............................................................................................................25

Climate..................................................................................................................................................26

Predicted Change ..........................................................................................................................26

Physical Environment ...........................................................................................................................27

The Soil Resource..........................................................................................................................27

Water Resources ...........................................................................................................................27

Habitat ..................................................................................................................................................27

Wetlands ........................................................................................................................................28

Prairie.............................................................................................................................................30

Forest .............................................................................................................................................32

Savanna/Successional...................................................................................................................32

Agriculture ......................................................................................................................................33

Wildlife ..................................................................................................................................................34

Birds ...............................................................................................................................................34

Mammals........................................................................................................................................35

Reptiles and Amphibians ...............................................................................................................35

Fish and Other Aquatics.................................................................................................................35

Focal Species.................................................................................................................................36

Threatened and Endangered Species ...........................................................................................37

Invasive Species ............................................................................................................................38

People...................................................................................................................................................39

Socioeconomic Setting...................................................................................................................39

Visitor Services/Public Use ............................................................................................................39

Historic and Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................41

Refuge Administration....................................................................................................................42

Refuge Support ..............................................................................................................................43

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction .............................................................................44

Development of the Management Alternatives ....................................................................................44

Selecting the Preferred Alternative.......................................................................................................44

Elements Common to All Alternatives ..................................................................................................47

Description of the Alternatives..............................................................................................................47

Environmental Consequences..............................................................................................................52

Effects Common to All Alternatives................................................................................................52

Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative ...................................................55

GOAL 1: Habitat and Wildlife................................................................................................................55

GOAL 2: People....................................................................................................................................67

GOAL 3: Refuge Administration ...........................................................................................................69

Appendix B: Priority Species.................................................................................................71

Priority Species List ..............................................................................................................................71

Appendix C: Species Lists .....................................................................................................73

Birds......................................................................................................................................................73

Mammals ..............................................................................................................................................79

Mammals of Glacial Ridge NWR ...................................................................................................79

Plants....................................................................................................................................................81

Essential Plant Species Lists of Glacial Ridge NWR* ...................................................................81

Lowland Essential Species ............................................................................................................84

Invertebrates of Glacial Ridge NWR.....................................................................................................88

Appendix D: Abbreviations and Glossary.............................................................................93
Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iii

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................93

Glossary................................................................................................................................................94

Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance.............................................................................104

Appendix F: Literature Cited................................................................................................117

Appendix G: Appropriate Use Designations.......................................................................129

Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations.........................................................................140

Appendix I: List of Preparers and Contributors..................................................................176

Preparers ............................................................................................................................................176

Station Staff..................................................................................................................................176

Midwest Regional Office ..............................................................................................................176

List of Figures

Figure 2-1: Location of Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge.................................................................... 7

Figure 2-2: Conservation Lands Inside Glacial Ridge NWR......................................................................... 8

Figure 2-3: Conservation Lands near Glacial Ridge NWR .........................................................................10

Figure 2-4: Bird Conservation Regions.......................................................................................................13

Figure 2-5: Wetland Reserve Program Permanent Easements .................................................................17

Figure 3-1: Potential Historic Natural Vegetation of Glacial Ridge NWR (Based on Soil Types)...............23

Figure 3-2: Land Cover of Glacial Ridge NWR and the Surrounding Area (National Land Cover Data 

2001) ...........................................................................................................................................................26

Figure 3-3: Soil Drainage on Glacial Ridge NWR.......................................................................................29

Figure 3-4: Watershed of the Glacial Ridge NWR ......................................................................................30

Figure 3-5: Current Vegetation on Glacial Ridge NWR (2011)...................................................................32

Figure 3-6: Current Visitor Facilities at Glacial Ridge NWR .......................................................................40

Figure A-1: Future Vegetation on Glacial Ridge NWR (2100)....................................................................66

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Step-Down Management Plan Completion Time ......................................................................20

Table 3-1: The Composition of Farm Land use in Polk County, MN Compared to the U.S. Average........33

Table 3-2: A 30-year View of the Cash Receipts from Livestock/Products and Crops in Polk County, MN

....................................................................................................................................................................34

Table 3-3: Focal Species Associated with Glacial Ridge NWR..................................................................36

Table 4-1: Summary of Actions by Alternative............................................................................................50

Table 4-2: Summary of Impacts by Alternative...........................................................................................54
Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iv

(This page intentionally left blank)
Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

v
Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

vi

(This page intentionally left blank)
Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

vii

Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge Final 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Executive 

Summary

In this chapter:

Refuge Vision Statement

Refuge Goals

Public Involvement

Issues

Implementation of the Plan

The Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Glacial Ridge National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR, refuge) is now complete. A separate Environmental Assessment (EA) and CCP 

documents the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for developing the CCP. 

In general, scoping revealed issues that drove alternative ways of managing the refuge. 

Implementation of each of those alternative management styles (including the No Action 

Alternative) had different effects on the physical, biological, and socio-economic environment. 

Analysis of those effects revealed the “preferred” alternative, which constitutes the CCP. The 

plan includes goals, objectives, and strategies for the refuge to guide overall management for 

the next 15 years.

The document can be viewed and downloaded at: 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/GlacialRidge/index.html

A compact disk or paper copy of the plan can be requested by:

E-mail at: r3planning@fws.gov (Please include “Glacial Ridge NWR CCP” in the subject 

line)

Mail at: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Division of Conservation Planning

Attention: Glacial Ridge NWR CCP

5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990

Bloomington, MN 55437-1458

Telephone at: 612-713-5429

Glacial Ridge NWR is located 10 miles east of Crookston, MN in Polk County. The refuge is 

bordered by U.S. Highway 2 to the north and is bisected by MN State Highway 32 (north/south) 

and Polk County Road 45 (east/west).

Glacial Ridge NWR is located on the eastern edge of the Prairie Pothole Region and within the 

Partners in Flight Northern Tallgrass Prairie/Aspen Parklands physiographic areas (40 and 30 

respectively). The Nature Conservancy identified this refuge as “ecologically significant” in the 

Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecoregional Plan in 1998 as it exists within an area containing the 
Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

viii

most important pieces of remaining native prairie along the Red River Valley (Brown et al. 

2005). Glacial Ridge NWR is especially important because approximately 5,000 acres of virgin 

(remnant) prairie and savanna and 12,000 acres of wetlands exist within the acquisition 

boundary. Glacial Ridge NWR represents a remarkable opportunity to restore disrupted 

ecological processes, species, and function on a landscape scale. The importance of this is 

amplified, because tallgrass prairie and savanna are globally endangered ecosystems.

Refuge Vision Statement

A wildlife chorus of prairie-chickens, upland sandpipers, sandhill cranes, and bobolinks 

welcomes visitors to America’s most grand prairie and wetland restoration project. Glacial Ridge 

National Wildlife Refuge is a masterpiece, where tallgrass prairie and a myriad of wetlands 

function to support an amazing diversity of flora and fauna. This piece of restored Northern 

Tallgrass Prairie landscape serves as a model of how partnerships can reclaim a lost haven, 

and through a suite of applied science and management, maintain a working grassland that 

restores lost ecological function, while benefitting the local economy.

Refuge Goals

The goals are broad statements that describe the desired future conditions of the refuge.

Goal 1: Habitat and Wildlife

Protect, restore, and manage the unique prairie-wetland habitats found within Glacial 

Ridge NWR using a variety of strategies to emulate the ecological processes and native 

plant communities that once existed across the Agassiz Beach Ridge landscape. The 

above conservation actions will result in a diversity of resilient tallgrass prairie and 

wetland habitats for the benefit of migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, 

and other native wildlife. 

Goal 2: People

Provide a safe environment for visitors of all abilities to enjoy wildlife-dependent 

recreation, while increasing their knowledge and appreciation of the Northern Tallgrass 

Prairie ecosystem and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Goal 3: Refuge Administration

Maintain and enhance refuge infrastructure and operations responsibly and sustainably 

for wildlife, the American public, and employees. 

Public Involvement

The Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP and EA for Glacial Ridge NWR was published in the 

Federal Register dated January 17, 2013 (Vol. 78, No.12, page 3909–3910). 

Internal scoping began in January 2013 when U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service)

planning staff and Glacial Ridge NWR staff developed a preliminary list of issues, concerns, and 

opportunities associated with management of the refuge. A second internal scoping session 
Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ix

was held with the Service’s Midwest Regional Office staff at Bloomington, MN in March 2013 to 

get input on issues from regional supervisors, biologists, planners, and other program 

specialists.

Public scoping began in April 2013 when refuge staff hosted open house events in Crookston, 

MN and at the Rydell NWR headquarters to inform the public of the planning process and to 

solicit their input on issues of concern. About 20 people attended. In addition, a news release

was distributed to area media, and informational posters were displayed in local communities.

Written comments were received from 12 stakeholders.

In August 2013, the refuge convened a team of resource professionals to share their 

perspectives on the biological and visitor services programs at Glacial Ridge NWR. Participants 

outside the Service included partner agencies, researchers, educators, and refuge volunteers. 

Purposes of the workshop were to define significant issues and opportunities facing the refuge

and identify potential options for addressing them: share knowledge, ideas, and perspectives to 

ensure that best available information is considered, and begin to develop a shared vision for 

the future of the refuge and the ecosystem.

Issues

Initial issues and opportunities identified by the planning team, partners and interested 

individuals included:

Wildlife

• Limited information on wildlife population levels

• Status of endangered butterfly species

• Effects of climate change on wildlife and habitat

Habitat

• Control of invasive plant species

• Cattail control in restored wetlands

• Conversion of forested areas to native prairie

People

• Future growth of the hunting program

• Law enforcement

• Outreach and guidance for non-hunting visitors

• Visitor contact facilities and signage
Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

x

Implementation of the Plan

Alternative B: Focused Habitat Management

Under this alternative, refuge management actions would approximate ecological processes 

that maintained native habitats prior to European settlement, emphasizing the use of multiple 

habitat disturbance regimes (e.g., fire, grazing, mowing). These actions would maintain and 

increase the diversity of native vegetation and wildlife communities that mimic pre-settlement 

conditions. Management activities would be “focused” via a refuge prioritization effort to 

maximize the intended impacts on priority units, given reduced refuge staff and funding. 

Public use opportunities would continue, with hunting being the primary use. Staff time and 

funding would focus on improving opportunities for self-guided interpretation of refuge habitats 

and wildlife, using existing infrastructure (e.g., 13 parking lot kiosks). 

The following are key elements of Alternative B:

• Active management would be focused on the highest priority habitat management units 

to emulate pre-European settlement conditions.

• Control of invasive species would focus on specific sites to protect native plant 

communities.

• Land acquisition from willing sellers would continue within the approved refuge 

acquisition boundary.

• Prairie and wetland restoration would continue on newly-acquired sites. The short-term 

use of genetically modified crops would be allowed in compliance with current FWS 

Region 3 policy.

• Existing partnerships would be maintained, and new partnerships would be developed 

with a focus on high priority habitat and resource information needs.

• Priority public use activities would focus on existing infrastructure and emphasize selfguided experiences.
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed 

Action

In this chapter:

The Process and the Plan

The Refuge

Proposed Action

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

Decisions to be Made

The Process and the Plan

This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) process for developing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Glacial Ridge 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, refuge). The planning process to develop a CCP includes eight 

steps (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS, Service] 2000):

1. Preplanning: Planning the Plan

2. Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping

3. Review Vision Statement and Goals and Determine Significant Issues

4. Develop and Analyze Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

5. Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA Document

6. Prepare and Adopt Final Plan

7. Implement Plan, Monitor, and Evaluate

8. Review and Revise Plan

The Refuge

Glacial Ridge NWR was established in 2004 as the 545th refuge in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (NWRS, Refuge System). The approved acquisition boundary encompasses a total of 

35,670 acres. Glacial Ridge NWR is located 10 miles east of Crookston, MN in Polk County. 

The refuge is bordered by U.S. Highway 2 to the north and is bisected by MN State Highway 32 

(north/south) and Polk County Road 45 (east/west).

Proposed Action

The Service proposes to prepare and implement a CCP for Glacial Ridge NWR. Per the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) (Public Law, 

1997), the CCP must identify and describe the following:

• Purposes of the refuge
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2

• Fish, wildlife, and plant populations, their habitats, and the archeological and cultural 

values found in the refuge

• Significant problems that may adversely affect wildlife populations and habitats and 

ways to correct or mitigate those problems

• Areas suitable for administrative sites or visitor facilities

• Opportunities for fish and wildlife-dependent recreation

More specifically per Service Manual direction (FWS 2000), the CCP includes the following:

• A vision for the refuge, which is a concise statement of what the refuge should be, or 

what it is desired to be, based primarily upon the Refuge System mission and specific 

refuge purposes, and other mandates

• Goals, which are broad statements of desired future conditions

• Objectives, which are concise statements of what, how much, when, and where to 

achieve something and who is responsible for the work

• Strategies, which are specific actions, tools, techniques, etc. to meet the objectives

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

The Improvement Act requires the development of a CCP for each refuge of the Refuge 

System. No CCP currently exists for the refuge, so there is a need to develop one. The purpose 

then, of the proposed action is to determine the desired future conditions of Glacial Ridge NWR 

and develop long-range (15-year) guidance and management direction to achieve the purposes 

of the refuge. This management direction will provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their related habitats, as well as opportunities for compatible wildlifedependent recreational uses especially in the face of a changing climate. 

Per the Service Manual (FWS 2000), the CCP for the refuge will not only describe the desired 

future conditions and management direction to achieve those conditions but will also:

• Help fulfill the NWRS Mission; 

• Maintain and where appropriate restore the ecological integrity of the refuge and the 

greater Refuge System of which it is a part; 

• Help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and 

• Meet other mandates, especially Secretarial Order 3289 Amendment 1: Addressing the 

Impacts of Climate Change on America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural 

Resources of 2010.

Decisions to be Made

The Regional Director for the Service’s Midwest Region (Region 3) will make the following two 

decisions based on this EA: 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3

• Select a management alternative to serve as the CCP and provide long-term 

management direction for the refuge; and 

• Determine if the selected alternative is a major federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment, thus requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact 

Statement.

The planning team recommends Alternative B, the preferred alternative, to the Regional 

Director. The CCP, as described in chapter 3 and appendix A, was developed for 

implementation based on this recommendation.
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4

Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

In this chapter:

Refuge System Planning Guidance

Relationship to Other Conservation Initiatives

The Planning Process

Refuge System Planning Guidance

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, refuge) is administered by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS, Service), the primary federal agency responsible for conserving, 

protecting, and enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. The 

Service oversees the enforcement of federal wildlife laws, management and protection of 

migratory bird populations, restoration of nationally significant fisheries, administration of the 

Endangered Species Act, restoration of wildlife habitat such as wetlands, collaboration with 

international conservation efforts, and the distribution of conservation funding to states, 

territories, and tribes. Through its conservation work, the Service also provides a healthy 

environment in which Americans can engage in outdoor activities. Additionally, as one of three 

land managing agencies in the Department of the Interior, the Service is responsible for the 

Nation’s National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System).

FWS Mission

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

for the continuing benefit of the American people.

The National Wildlife Refuge System

The National Wildlife Refuge System was founded in 1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt 

designated a three-acre island off the Florida coast, Pelican Island, as a sanctuary for colonial 

nesting birds. Today, the Refuge System has grown to a network of 560 national wildlife 

refuges, 38 wetland management districts, and 49 coordination areas covering over 150 million 

acres of public lands and waters. Over 50 percent of these lands (over 76 million acres) are 

contained within Alaska’s 16 national wildlife refuges, with the remainder distributed throughout 

the other 49 states and U.S. territories. Since 2006, Marine National Monuments have been 

added to the Refuge System, bringing over 50 million additional acres in the Pacific Ocean 

under federal protection and conservation management.

The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and waters specifically designated 

and managed for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat for more than 700 species of birds, 

220 species of mammals, 250 reptile and amphibian species, 200 species of fish, and more 

than 280 threatened or endangered plants and animals. As a result of international treaties for 

migratory bird conservation and related legislation (e.g., Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 

1929), many refuges have been established to protect migratory waterfowl and their migration 
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5

flyways that extend from nesting grounds in the north to wintering areas in the south. Refuges 

also play a vital role in preserving threatened and endangered species. 

Refuges also provide important recreation and education opportunities for visitors. When public 

uses are deemed appropriate and compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation, they are 

places where people can enjoy hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

environmental education and interpretation, and other recreational activities. Many refuges have 

visitor centers, wildlife trails, automobile tours, and environmental education programs. 

Nationwide, over 41 million people visit national wildlife refuges annually.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

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

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

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

National Wildlife Refuge System Goals

Revised goals for the Refuge System were adopted on July 26, 2006 and incorporated into Part 

601, Chapter 1, of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (FWS, 601 FW 1). The goals are:

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

are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered;

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

interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed 

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

ranges;

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

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

underrepresented in existing protection efforts;

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

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

education and interpretation); and

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

fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

National Wildlife Refuge System Guiding Principles

• We are land stewards, guided by Aldo Leopold's teachings that land is a community of 

life and that love and respect for the land is an extension of ethics. We seek to reflect 

that land ethic in our stewardship and to instill it in others;

• Wild lands and the perpetuation of diverse and abundant wildlife are essential to the 

quality of the American life;

• We are public servants. We owe our employers, the American people, hard work, 

integrity, fairness, and a voice in the protection of their trust resources;
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

6

• Management, ranging from preservation to active manipulation of habitats and 

populations, is necessary to achieve Refuge System and Service missions;

• Wildlife-dependent uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

interpretation, and education, when compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses of 

the Refuge System;

• Partnerships with those who want to help us meet our mission are welcome and indeed 

essential;

• Employees are our most valuable resource. They are respected and deserve an 

empowering, mentoring, and caring work environment; and

• We respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of our neighbors.

Legal and Policy Compliance

Wilderness Review

Refuge planning policy mandates that wilderness reviews be conducted through the 

comprehensive conservation planning process (FWS 2000). The wilderness review process 

consists of three phases: inventory, study, and recommendation. In the inventory phase, 

Service-owned lands and waters within the Glacial Ridge NWR that are not currently designated 

wilderness are analyzed for areas that meet the criteria for wilderness established by Congress. 

The criteria are size, naturalness, opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation, and 

supplemental values. Areas that meet the criteria become Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). In 

the study phase, a range of management alternatives are developed and evaluated for the 

WSAs to determine if they are suitable for recommendation for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. In the recommendation phase, the suitable recommendations 

are forwarded in a Wilderness Study Report that moves from the Director through the Secretary 

and the President to Congress.

No lands within Glacial Ridge NWR meet the criteria for wilderness established by Congress 

and described in Service policy (FWS 2008). The refuge does not contain 5,000 contiguous 

acres of roadless, natural lands, nor does the refuge possess any units of sufficient size to 

make their preservation practicable as wilderness. Refuge lands and waters have been 

substantially altered by humans, especially by agriculture, industrial, and transportation 

developments.

Brief History of Refuge Establishment and Acquisition

Glacial Ridge NWR was established in 2004 to restore and preserve the character of the historic 

prairie and savanna landscape (Figure 2-1). The refuge started with an initial transfer of 1,993 

acres of land from The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to the Service. These parcels were enrolled

in the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) administered by the Natural Resource Conservation 

Service.

The initial transfer in 2004 was followed by 5,113 more acres in 2008, 7,056 acres in 2010, and

a total of 5,947 acres in 2012 and 2013. The approved acquisition boundary encompasses a 

total of 35,670 acres. Some of the land inside of the 35,670 acre acquisition boundary is owned 

the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and by TNC, and is likely to continue to be 
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

7

held by conservation partners as state wildlife management areas and TNC preserves (Figure 

2-2).

Figure 2-1: Location of Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8

Figure 2-2: Conservation Lands Inside Glacial Ridge NWR

Refuge Purposes

Glacial Ridge NWR was created under the legal authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act, Feb. 18, 1929, 16 U.S.C. 715d and the Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986, 16 

U.S.C. 3901b. Funds appropriated by Congress, and the sale of Federal Duck Stamps were 

used to acquire land. The lands authorized for acquisition include:

“Sec. 715d. Purchase or rental of approved areas or interests therein; gifts and devises; United 

States lands. The Secretary of the Interior may –

(2) acquire, by gift or devise, any area or interests therein; which he determines to be suitable 

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

“The primary purpose for the refuge under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act is ‘for use as an 

inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.’”
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

9

Refuge Vision Statement

A wildlife chorus of prairie-chickens, upland sandpipers, sandhill cranes, and bobolinks 

welcomes visitors to America’s most grand prairie and wetland restoration project. Glacial Ridge 

National Wildlife Refuge is a masterpiece, where tallgrass prairie and a myriad of wetlands 

function to support an amazing diversity of flora and fauna. This piece of restored Northern 

Tallgrass Prairie landscape serves as a model of how partnerships can reclaim a lost haven, 

and through a suite of applied science and management, maintain a working grassland that 

restores lost ecological function, while benefiting the local economy.

Refuge Goals

The goals are broad statements that describe the desired future conditions of the refuge.

Goal 1: Habitat and Wildlife

Protect, restore, and manage the unique prairie-wetland habitats found within Glacial 

Ridge NWR using a variety of strategies to emulate the ecological processes and native 

plant communities that once existed across the Agassiz Beach Ridge landscape. The 

above conservation actions will result in a diversity of resilient tallgrass prairie and 

wetland habitats for the benefit of migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, 

and other native wildlife. 

Goal 2: People

Provide a safe environment for visitors of all abilities to enjoy wildlife-dependent 

recreation, while increasing their knowledge and appreciation of the Northern Tallgrass 

Prairie ecosystem and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Goal 3: Refuge Administration

Maintain and enhance refuge infrastructure and operations responsibly and sustainably 

for wildlife, the American public, and employees. 

Relationship to Other Conservation Initiatives

Glacial Ridge NWR contributes approximately 36,000 acres to the conservation landscape. By 

itself, the refuge will have limited impact on the retention of open space, the persistence of 

wildlife species, and the maintenance of ecosystem services. However, refuge efforts combined 

with activities and partnerships across the larger conservation network have great potential to 

provide a measure of sustainability to the Nation’s natural resources and provide the 

mechanism for the Service to meet its critical mission. The following sections identify a number 

of conservation initiatives that overlap and complement the vision and goals outlined in this plan

(Figure 2-3). Where possible, the refuge collaborates with these efforts and incorporates shared 

objectives.

The refuge works in concert with several state and regional partners in the conservation of our 

trust resources through the participatory development of the following plans and programs.
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

10

Figure 2-3: Conservation Lands near Glacial Ridge NWR

Glacial Ridge Master Plan

The Master Plan for Glacial Ridge was developed by TNC in 2005. This document is a guide 

TNC has followed to “restore ecological processes” to Glacial Ridge. The plan includes key 

ecological attributes, objectives, monitoring plans, etc.

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Recovery Plan (1996)

This orchid is federally threatened and Minnesota State endangered. The major cause of 

decline of this species is the conversion of prairie to cropland. The Red River Valley of North 

Dakota and Minnesota contains 90 percent of the current population. The recovery plan 

includes protecting existing populations, developing effective management plans, research and 

monitoring, and public education.

Dakota Skipper and Poweshiek Skipperling Conservation Guidelines

The Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae) and Poweshiek skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek) have 

recently been listed as Threatened and Endangered, respectively, under the Endangered 
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

11

Species Act. No known populations currently exist on Glacial Ridge NWR, but the habitat they 

require is found on the refuge. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

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

effort to restore waterfowl populations to historic levels through habitat conservation. The 2004 

plan update states that its purpose is to “sustain abundant waterfowl populations by conserving 

landscapes, through partnerships, that are guided by sound science.” NAWMP is international in 

scope but is implemented through regional partnerships called "joint ventures." Glacial Ridge 

NWR lies within the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture, which includes 100,000 square miles in 

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa.

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

and habitats that most urgently need conservation action. The national assessment was 

stepped down into 11 regional conservation plans. Glacial Ridge NWR lies within the Northern 

Plains/Prairie Potholes Region, which is especially critical to long-distance migrants that need 

suitable stopover sites along their migratory routes, such as American golden-plover, Hudsonian 

godwit, white-rumped sandpiper, pectoral sandpiper, and stilt sandpiper.

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

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

and their habitats. The continental area is organized into several planning regions. Species of 

high concern in the Northern Prairie and Parkland Region, where Glacial Ridge NWR is located, 

include western grebe, Franklin’s gull, black tern, horned grebe, American bittern, and yellow 

rail.

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

plans in response to growing concerns about population declines of many landbird species. 

Glacial Ridge NWR lies within the Northern Tallgrass Prairie physiographic region, which 

occupies parts of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Manitoba, Canada. Priority bird species 

in the 1998 Northern Tallgrass Prairie Plan include greater prairie-chicken, Nelson’s (sharptailed) sparrow, sedge wren, bobolink, and yellow rail. In 2004, PIF published a North American 

landbird conservation plan that established population objectives and recommended actions for 

Species of Continental 

Importance. 

The North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative 

(NABCI) is a continental 

effort to integrate all 

migratory bird 

conservation programs 

under one umbrella. The 

goal is to facilitate bird 

conservation through 

regionally based, 

biologically driven, 

landscape-oriented 

partnerships. NABCI has Setting up a prairie-chicken viewing blind; photo: USFWS
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

12

defined Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) as its planning units. Glacial Ridge NWR lies within 

BCR 11, the Prairie Potholes. In 2000, the U.S. NABCI Committee agreed to promote 

conservation delivery via existing and new Joint Ventures nationwide, thus eliminating 

redundant partnership structures and separate biological planning processes. The Service is a 

member of the U.S. NABCI Committee.

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

migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally 

threatened or endangered) that represent the Service’s highest conservation priorities. The list 

encompasses three distinct geographic scales—NABCI Bird Conservation Regions, FWS 

Regions, and National—and uses assessment scores from three bird conservation plans: the 

North American Landbird Conservation Plan, the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. The assessment scores are based on several 

parameters including population trend, threats, distribution, abundance, and the importance of 

an area to a species. 

More specifically, the refuge lies within the Prairie Potholes Bird Conservation Region (Bird 

Conservation Region [BCR] 11) (Figure 2-4). The Prairie Pothole Region is a glaciated area of 

mixed-grass prairie in the west and tallgrass prairie in the east. This is the most important 

waterfowl production area on the North American continent, despite extensive wetland drainage 

and tillage of native grasslands. Breeding dabbling duck density may exceed 100 pairs per 

square mile in some 

areas during years with 

favorable wetland 

conditions. The region 

comprises the core of the 

breeding range of most 

dabbling duck and 

several diving duck 

species, as well as 

providing critical breeding 

and migration habitat for 

over 200 other bird 

species, including such 

priority species as 

Franklin’s gull, yellow rail, 

and piping plover. Baird’s 

sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, 

chestnut-collared 

longspur, Wilson’s 

phalarope, marbled 

godwit, and American avocet are among the many priority non-waterfowl species breeding in 

this region. Wetland areas also provide key spring migration sites for Hudsonian godwit, 

American golden-plover, white-rumped sandpiper, and buff-breasted sandpiper. Continued 

wetland degradation and fragmentation of remaining grasslands threaten future suitability of the 

Prairie Pothole Region for all of these birds.

Ducks on prairie pond; photo: USFWS
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

13

Figure 2-4: Bird Conservation Regions
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

14

Strategic Habitat Conservation

Strategic habitat conservation (SHC) is a science-based approach to conservation focused on 

providing landscapes capable of sustaining trust species populations at objective levels. This 

approach is founded on an adaptive, iterative process of biological planning, conservation 

design, conservation delivery, monitoring, and research. SHC is an application of the scientific 

method and adaptive management to conservation at multiple spatial scales. This strategic 

conservation approach will include all Service programs and address both habitat and nonhabitat factors limiting fish and wildlife populations.

As a leader in fish and wildlife and habitat conservation and management, the Service is 

embracing a framework designed to maximize agency efficiency and increase on the ground 

conservation impacts. SHC enables the Service to:

• Respond to new environmental challenges;

• Advance opportunities with new and existing partners;

• Utilize science-based tools and resources to plan and evaluate our conservation efforts; 

and

• Continue to ensure conservation successes locally, while advancing landscape 

objectives.

The Service mission can be met at a landscape scale, especially in the face of climate change, 

by:

• Fully utilizing existing technology such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS);

• Becoming trained in better decision making through the Structured Decision Making 

process;

• Reaching out to even more partners that have the necessary expertise to advance 

knowledge of the resource and its needs at multiple spatial and temporal scales; and 

• Being diligent and transparent in planning and decision making processes. 

SHC Guiding Principles

• Habitat conservation is simply a means to attain the Service’s true goal—the 

conservation of populations and ecological functions that sustain them.

• Defining measurable population objectives is a key component of SHC, at any scale.

• Biological Planning must use the best scientific information available, both as a body of 

knowledge and a method of learning. Service understanding of ecological conditions is 

never perfect. An essential element of SHC is managing uncertainty through an iterative 

cycle of planning, doing, and evaluating.

• Management actions, decisions, and recommendations must be defensible and explicit 

about the nature and magnitude of potential errors.

• Conservation strategies consist of dynamic suites of objectives, tactics, and tools that 

change as new information enters the SHC cycle.
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

15

• Partnerships are essential, both for management and for developing conservation 

strategies. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) was first signed in 1986 and has 

been updated several times since then. The most recent version states that “the purpose of the 

Plan is to sustain abundant waterfowl populations by conserving landscapes, through 

partnerships that are guided by sound science” (NAWMP, Plan Committee 2004).

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan

The Prairie Pothole Joint Venture was established under the NAWMP but has since expanded 

from a focus on waterfowl to planning for “all-bird” conservation. The most recent 

implementation plan (Ringelman et al. 2005) provides stepped-down objectives from the four 

major species group plans described earlier (waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, and landbirds). 

Tomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and Rare

Tomorrow's Habitat for the Wild and Rare (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

[MNDNR] 2006a) is the Minnesota State Wildlife Action Plan. This strategic plan guides 

management for species in greatest conservation need: “native animals whose populations are 

rare, declining, or vulnerable to decline and are below levels desirable to ensure their long-term 

health and stability.” 

A Vision for Wildlife and its Use-Goals and Outcomes 2006–2012

Minnesota DNR’s strategic wildlife plan is working to conserve wildlife and their habitat 

throughout the state for the public’s use.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Long Range Duck 

Recovery Plan

The Minnesota Duck Recovery Plan (MNDNR 2006b) identifies both challenges and strategies 

to recover “historical breeding and migrating populations of ducks in Minnesota for their 

ecological, recreational, and economic importance to the citizens of the state.” The Duck 

Recovery Plan sets a 50-year goal to sustain a breeding duck population of one million birds.

Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan (2011)

The Prairie Conservation Plan focuses efforts on grassland and wetland and demonstrates 

unprecedented cooperation between federal agencies, state agencies, and the state’s most 

active conservation organizations. The plan identifies core conservation areas and creates a 

vision of a connected landscape from Canada to Iowa. The unified 25-year plan by multiple 

partners provides a more efficient future direction while also building on past conservation 

actions of a wide array of organizations and agencies.
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

16

Wetland Reserve Program (Natural Resources Conservation Service)

The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) was a voluntary program that offered landowners the 

opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provided technical and financial 

support to help landowners with their wetland restoration efforts through WRP. This program 

offered landowners an opportunity to establish long-term conservation and wildlife practices and 

protection. Landowners had the option to enroll their land in a permanent easement, which paid 

100 percent of the appraised agricultural land value, or a 30-year easement, which paid 75 

percent. Under a WRP easement, the landowner controls the access and use of the land, as the 

tax liability remains with the landowner. 

Congress first authorized the WRP in the 1990 Farm Bill and reauthorized it in three subsequent 

farm bills which altogether restored over a million acres of wetlands and associated habitats. 

The 2014 Farm Bill realigned WRP, now called the Wetlands Reserve Easement (WRE), under 

the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. WRP remains an important part of habitat 

management at Glacial Ridge NWR as 91percent of refuge lands (20,790 acres) were enrolled 

in WRP easements prior to The Nature Conservancy or private landowners transferring parcels 

to the Service (Figure 2-5). Enrolled lands are subject to certain management restrictions to 

protect wetland habitats. 
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

17

Figure 2-5: Wetland Reserve Program Permanent Easements
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

18

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities

Every species is important; however, the number of species in need of attention exceeds the 

resources of the Service. To focus effort effectively, Region 3 of the Service compiled a list of 

Resource Conservation Priorities in 2002. The list includes: 

• All federally listed threatened and endangered species and proposed and candidate 

species that occur in the region;

• Migratory bird species derived from Service-wide and international conservation 

planning efforts; and 

• Rare and declining terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals that represent an 

abbreviation of the Endangered Species Program’s preliminary draft “Species of 

Concern” list for the region. 

Climate Change Planning

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Service’s Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating 

Climate Change (FWS 2010) establishes a basic framework within which the Service will work 

as part of the larger conservation community to help ensure the sustainability of fish, wildlife, 

plants, and habitats in the face of accelerating climate change. It was developed in an effort to 

rise up and respond to, as well as in recognition of, what is perhaps the 21st century’s largest 

stressors on fish, wildlife, and plants: climate change. Part of the plan’s primary purposes is to 

lay out a vision for accomplishing the Service mission to “work with others to conserve, protect, 

and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people” in the face of accelerating climate change. In this plan, a commitment to the 

Service’s vision is expressed through strategic goals and objectives that must be accomplished 

to sustain fish and wildlife nationally and internationally. A 5-Year Action Plan for Implementing 

the Climate Change Strategic Plan identifies specific actions that will lead to the 

accomplishment of these goals and objectives. The goals and objectives most relevant to this 

planning effort include the following: 

• Goal 2: Develop long-term capacity for biological planning and conservation design and

apply it to drive conservation at broad, landscape scales.

• Objective 2.1: Access regional climate science and modeling expertise through regional 

climate science partnerships.

• Objective 2.2: Develop landscape conservation cooperatives to acquire biological 

planning and conservation design expertise.

• Objective 2.3: Develop expertise in and conduct adaptation planning for key species and 

habitats.

• Objective 2.4: Incorporate climate change in service activities and decisions.

• Objective 2.5: Provide requested support to state and tribal managers to address climate 

change issues that affect fish and wildlife service trust resources.
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

19

• Objective 2.6: Evaluate fish and wildlife service laws, regulations, and policies to identify 

barriers to and opportunities for successful implementation of climate change actions.

The Conserving the Future: Wildlife Refuges and the Next Generation (FWS 2011b) document 

is the Service’s bold, new vision for the Refuge System. This 21st-century strategic vision for 

the Refuge System acknowledges the broad social, political, and economic changes that have 

made habitat conservation more challenging since the agency last set comprehensive goals in 

1999. In the intervening 12 years, the new vision states the Nation’s population has grown 

“larger and more diverse . . . and the landscape for conservation has changed—there is less 

undeveloped land, more invasive species, and we are experiencing the impacts of a changing 

climate.” The document includes 24 recommendations to guide the future of the Refuge 

System. The recommendation most relevant to this planning effort concerning climate change 

is:

Recommendation 2: Develop a climate change implementation plan for the Refuge 

System that dovetails with other conservation partners’ climate change action plans and 

specifically provides guidance for conducting vulnerability assessments of climate 

change impacts to refuge habitats and species as well as direction for innovation in the 

reduction of emissions and improved energy efficiency on federal lands.

The Planning Process

Public Involvement

The Notice of Intent to prepare a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental 

Assessment (EA) for Glacial Ridge NWR was published in the Federal Register dated January 

17, 2013 (Vol. 78, No.12, page 3909–3910). 

Internal scoping began in January 2013 when Service planning staff and Glacial Ridge NWR 

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

management of the refuge. A second internal scoping session was held with the Service’s 

Midwest Regional Office staff at Bloomington, MN in March 2013 to get input on issues from 

regional supervisors, biologists, planners, and other program specialists.

Public scoping began in April 2013 when refuge staff hosted open house events in Crookston, 

MN and at the Rydell NWR headquarters to inform the public of the planning process and to 

solicit their input on issues of concern. About 20 people attended. In addition, a news release

was distributed to area media and informational posters were displayed in local communities.

Written comments were received from 12 stakeholders.

In August 2013, the refuge convened a team of resource professionals to share their 

perspectives on the biological and visitor services programs at Glacial Ridge NWR. Participants 

outside the Service included partner agencies, researchers, educators, and refuge volunteers. 

Purposes of the workshop were to define significant issues and opportunities facing the refuge

and identify potential options for addressing them: share knowledge, ideas, and perspectives to 

ensure that best available information is considered, and begin to develop a shared vision for 

the future of the refuge and the ecosystem.
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

20

Step-Down Management Plans

The CCP is a plan that provides general concepts and specific wildlife, habitat, and peoplerelated objectives. Step-down management plans provide detail to managers and employees 

who will carry out the strategies described in the CCP. The refuge staff will develop the following 

step-down plans after completion of this CCP (Table 2-1):

Table 2-1: Step-Down Management Plan Completion Time

Step-Down Management Plan Amount of Time for Completion after CCP Approval

Habitat Management Plan(HMP) 1 year

Inventory and Monitoring Plan(IMP) 1 year

Visitor Services Plan (VSP) 2 years

Inventory, Monitoring, and Research

Following approval of the CCP and public notification of the decision, implementation will begin. 

Funding and staff time will be allocated to implementation of the CCP as appropriations and 

budgets allow. Development of a stepped down Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and other 

plans (e.g., Visitor Services Plan) will begin and serve to guide habitat management, restoration 

and reconstruction priorities and public use. A companion Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP)

or additional chapters on inventory and monitoring appended to the HMP will be written to guide 

the refuge’s priorities for monitoring. Information gained via inventories, monitoring, or research 

activities will allow the station to evaluate its progress in achieving the planning unit purposes, 

vision, and goals. The associated step-down plans will address habitat and/or population 

objectives and provide a means for evaluating the effects of management activities and public 

use. Through adaptive management, evaluation of monitoring ,and research results may 

indicate the need to modify refuge objectives or strategies.

Plan Review and Revision

The CCP is meant to provide guidance to the refuge manager and staff over the next 15 years. 

However, the CCP is also a dynamic and flexible document, and several of the strategies 

contained in this plan are subject to uncontrollable events of nature. Likewise, many of the 

strategies are dependent upon Service funding for staff and projects. For these reasons, the 

recommendations in the CCP will be reviewed annually and revised if necessary. The annual 

plan review process will include an evaluation of changing information and ecological conditions 

related to climate change. If significant changes are identified that compromise the refuge’s 

purpose, vision, or goals, then the CCP will be revised. The CCP will be revised every 15 years 

or sooner when significant new information becomes available, ecological conditions change, 

major refuge expansion occurs, or when determined necessary by the periodic review. All plan 

revisions will follow the Service’s planning process and will be compliant with NEPA. Minor plan 

revisions that meet the criteria of a categorical exclusion will be handled in that manner; 

however, if the plan requires a major revision, then the CCP process starts anew at the 

preplanning step.
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

21

Planning Issues

An issue is any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, such as an initiative, 

opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition. Issues arise from both 

within and outside of the Service. Public scoping as well as scoping of refuge and regional 

Service staff and other agencies produced many issues that suggest alternative ways of 

managing the refuge.

The planning team sorted the issues into the categories of wildlife, habitat and people.

Wildlife

• Limited information on wildlife population levels

• Status of endangered butterfly species

• Effects of climate change on wildlife and habitat

Habitat

• Control of invasive plant species

• Cattail control in restored wetlands

• Conversion of forested areas to native prairie

People

• Future growth of the hunting program

• Law enforcement

• Outreach and guidance for non-hunting visitors

• Visitor contact facilities and signage

Public Review of the EA/Draft CCP

The EA/Draft CCP was officially released for public review on May 10, 2016; the 42-day 

comment period ended on June 20, 2016. A notice of availability and news release were sent 

via e-mail to numerous individuals, organizations, and local media outlets. During the comment 

period the refuge hosted two 3-hour open house events at the Rydell NWR Visitor Center to 

receive public comments on the EA/Draft CCP. Attendance was minimal at these events, and 

no written comments were received. 

Written comment letters were received from one federal agency and one non-governmental 

organization during the comment period. Both respondents endorsed the selection of Alternative 

B and the general approach of the proposed future management of the refuge. No specific 

changes were suggested for the EA/Draft CCP. Consequently, we did not produce a formal 

Response to Comments Appendix for the final plan.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

22

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

In this chapter:

Geographic/Ecoregional Setting

Climate

Physical Environment

Habitat

Wildlife

People

Geographic/Ecoregional Setting

Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, refuge) is located on the eastern edge of the 

Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) and within the Partners in Flight Northern Tallgrass Prairie/Aspen 

Parklands physiographic areas. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) identified this refuge as 

“ecologically significant” in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecoregional Plan in 1998 (TNC) as it 

exists within an area containing the most important pieces of remaining native prairie along the 

Red River Valley (Brown et al. 2005). Glacial Ridge NWR is especially important because 

approximately 5,000 acres of virgin (remnant) prairie and savanna and 12,000 acres of wetlands 

exist within the acquisition boundary. Remnant prairie includes “communities that have some 

components of their natural character surviving, although often in a highly degraded form” 

(Packard and Mutel 2005). In addition, 18,000 acres of prairie have been restored (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service [FWS, Service] 2005a). Within one mile of the Glacial Ridge NWR 

boundary lies 7,800 acres of remnant grassland in a combination of private and public 

ownership (Brown et al. 2005). As such, Glacial Ridge NWR represents a remarkable 

opportunity to restore disrupted ecological processes, species, and function on a landscape 

scale. The importance of this is amplified, because tallgrass prairie and savanna are globally 

endangered ecosystems.

The Refuge and Local Context

Glacial Ridge NWR is located 10 miles east of Crookston, MN in Polk County. The refuge is 

bordered by U.S. Highway 2 to the north and is bisected by MN State Highway 32 (north/south) 

and Polk County Road 45 (east/west). Other county and township roads offer access, such that 

approximately 23,000 acres are less than 1⁄2 mile from the nearest road (FWS 2005a).

Land Cover: Past and Present

The refuge landscape is the product of a long and complex series of climatic changes and 

glaciations (Figure 3-1). The final retreat of the Red River Lobe of the Laurentide Ice Sheet 

occurred during the late Pleistocene Epoch approximately 12,000 years ago, forming the large 

Glacial Lake Agassiz. Small, nomadic bands of big game hunters dominated the landscape of 

northern Minnesota during this time. The refuge acquisition area was not accessible to human 

settlement until the recession of Glacial Lake Agassiz started around 11,500 Before the Present 

(BP) and was not fully accessible until at least 9,500 BP. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

23

Figure 3-1: Potential Historic Natural Vegetation of Glacial Ridge NWR (Based on Soil 

Types)

The Archaic Tradition (8,000 to 4,000 BP) generally is characterized by the development of 

efficient hunting and gathering cultures and greater exploitation of local environments for food 

and tools. The large mammals of the Pleistocene Epoch (mammoth, horse, camel, etc.) were by 

then extinct, and environmental conditions had largely stabilized. Increasing regionalization 

occurred throughout the Archaic that appears to be linked in part to major biomes (e.g., prairie, 

deciduous forest, lake-forest). 

Pre-settlement, northern Minnesota was occupied by the Cheyenne in the west and by the 

ancestors of the historic Sioux, or Dakota/Lakota in the east. French Jesuits and fur traders first 

arrived there at the end of the 17th Century. By the mid-1700s, the Ojibwe (or Chippewa) moved 

into Minnesota from the east as a direct result of the spread of the French fur trade. The 

Cheyenne were decimated by smallpox during the early 1780s, leaving the upper Red River 

Valley open for the Ojibwe who became the dominant people in the region until the mid-1800s.

At the end of the French and Indian War in 1763, the French abandoned fur trading activities in 

the Red River Valley to British- and American-born traders. The British regime ended with the 

purchase of the Louisiana Territory by the United States in 1803. The period between 1803 and 

1837 was characterized by the exploration and mapping of the region. The first land cession by 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

24

the southern Ojibwe was made in 1837. Multiple treaties with the Ojibwe, Dakota, and 

Winnebago tribes soon opened up central Minnesota to logging and settlement.

Settlers arrived in the Glacial Ridge NWR area in the early 19th century. European settlement of 

the prairie meant a change from the natural landscape to row crops and cattle pastures. 

Farmsteads were established along beach ridges and used for hay production, and wetlands 

were used as water sources for livestock. Livestock grazing was a major use of this prairie, 

especially in the early years of European settlement. The land was interspersed with wetlands, 

and what was dry often quickly became wet when abundant rainfall occurred, as the water table 

is close to the surface throughout much of this landscape. Cattle were often pastured in high 

concentrations in the area, and resulted in sparse vegetation and densely compacted soils. 

Sheet runoff of rainfall resulted in extensive erosion under these conditions but was less 

intensive than that occurring in cropland, as perennial plant roots buffered the effects of erosion. 

Beginning in 1920, however, large wetlands in the Tilden Township area were drained and small 

grain crops began to replace native prairie. Over 100 miles of private ditches were established 

in the early 1980s to drain wetlands, making these former wetlands suitable for row-crop 

agriculture. Tile lines were established in three locations within what is currently the refuge; 

further disrupting the hydrology of the area. However, the fluctuating hydrology that sustained 

the natural landscape could not be entirely controlled by man. Farming in the area is still limited 

due to periodic flooding and high water tables (FWS 2005a). 

When TNC purchased the majority of the land now designated as Glacial Ridge NWR in 2001, 

approximately 17,000 acres were in row crops. Tile lines established to accommodate 

agriculture were an impediment to TNC’s intended restoration plans. As such, tiles have all 

been either broken or 

plugged for 

conservation purposes. 

Farming rights ended 

after the 2009 field 

season. At that time, 

prairie and prairie 

wetland seed mixes 

were scheduled to be 

planted on remaining 

croplands (Brown et al. 

2005). 

In addition to grazing 

and farming practices, 

gravel mining has had 

an impact on the prairie 

that is now Glacial 

Ridge NWR. The course 

gravel laid down in 

strips as Glacial Lake Agassiz receded was valuable for construction purposes, and eventually 

mines were established. Gravel mining was deemed an inappropriate use by TNC and mining 

activity was reduced to four beach ridges. This has reduced the mining pressure from the 

remaining beach ridges (Brown et al. 2005) and has allowed TNC to restore the dry prairies 

affected by mining.

Glacial Ridge NWR; photo: USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

25

Topography and Geology

Glacial Ridge NWR lies in the footprint of ancient Glacial Lake Agassiz, formed 12,000 to 9,000 

years ago. The wave action of this lake created beach ridges that still exist. The Agassiz beach 

ridges encompass an area greater than 600,000 acres in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie 

ecoregion (Teller and Clayton 1983). The beach ridges run from northeast to southwest with a 

glacial moraine located on the east side of the refuge. This moraine helped form lakes which in 

turn created a “fire shield.” The fire shield stopped the frequent fires that occurred throughout 

the beach ridge landscape and allowed forests to develop where fire was rare, with grasslands 

in the fire-prone area. Thus, the refuge is situated with its eastern edge bordered by lakes and 

hardwood forests and the 

western edge adjacent to 

the Red River Valley, 

historically occupied by 

tallgrass prairie (FWS

2005a). Non-wooded 

areas east of the refuge 

are now almost entirely 

farmed (Figure 3-2).

North American 

hydrology is influenced 

by continental divides 

causing water to flow in 

general directions and 

drain into various water 

bodies. Among these is 

the Northern or 

Laurentian Divide that 

causes water to flow to 

the Arctic Ocean. Glacial 

Ridge NWR is located 

north of this divide and so water flowing through the refuge drains toward the Hudson Bay. 

Native peoples referred to the ridge causing this divide and running from east of Grand Rapids 

to Hoyt Lakes as the “sleeping giant” or “Mesabi” (Continental divides in North Dakota and North 

America 2008).

Winter on Glacial Ridge NWR; photo: USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

26

Figure 3-2: Land Cover of Glacial Ridge NWR and the Surrounding Area (National Land 

Cover Data 2001)

Climate

The current climate of Glacial Ridge NWR is sub-humid continental with an average of 20.79 

inches of precipitation annually. There are 13.9 inches of precipitation during the May through 

September growing season. The average temperature is 4.3 °F in January and 69.5 °F in July 

(Cowdery et al. 2008). Prevailing winds are generally westerly. 

Predicted Change

Some potential impacts of climate change on the prairie pothole ecosystem in Minnesota have 

been identified that may need to be considered and addressed in the future. For example:

• If climate conditions continue to be warmer and wetter in the Glacial Ridge area, more 

water may enter the refuge, resulting in decreased water quality and increased 

sedimentation in wetland habitats. Downstream flooding and nutrient loading could be 

exacerbated unless regional land use changes and water discharge/runoff could be 

mediated.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

27

• More frequent drought conditions in the western portion of the PPR could shift waterfowl 

use eastward, making habitat restoration in the eastern portion of the PPR (including 

Glacial Ridge NWR) even more important for waterfowl populations.

• Many plant and animal communities may change as species’ ranges shift due to 

changes in climate, with less adaptable species becoming threatened by the changing 

conditions and more tolerant species moving in to take their place. Invasive, non-native 

species often are tolerant to changing conditions and may out-compete native species 

for resources. Climate changes (e.g., increased growing season precipitation) can result 

in more favorable conditions for exotic invaders, such as smooth brome and Kentucky 

bluegrass. 

Physical Environment

Glacial Ridge NWR is located in the outwash plain of the historic Glacial Lake Agassiz. Ancient 

beach ridges, which run northeast to southwest, were created by wave action of the massive 

body of freshwater. Over time, lake outlets formed in the lake and water levels receded allowing 

the creation of an extensive tallgrass prairie and wetland complex. Natural forces such as floods 

and fire were constantly at work to maintain the balance of this ecosystem as water levels within 

the beach ridge wetlands adjusted to the seasonal deposition of rainfall and snow. A glacial 

moraine node exists immediately to the east of the refuge. The resulting collection of lakes 

within the node created a “fire shield” on the edge of the prairie that resulted in the 

establishment of a maple-basswood forest community, the farthest west extension of this habitat 

type in the United States. 

The Soil Resource

The typical soils of Polk County are generally dark and range in texture from clayey to sandy. 

Soils in the western half of the county where Glacial Ridge NWR is located formed in silty and 

clayey lacustrine sediments. Soils in the eastern half of the county in the forest-prairie transition 

zone formed in loamy glacial till and sandy and gravelly outwash material (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture [USDA]).

Water Resources

The retreat of Glacial Lake Agassiz and gravel beach ridges, which the massive lake left behind 

have greatly influenced the hydrology and the mosaic of habitats found today. Dry and mesic 

prairies formed on the well-drained ridge tops while groundwater discharges from the western 

slope of the ridges created fens, wet meadows, wet prairies, and shallow wetlands. In recent 

times, agriculture has severely altered the natural hydrology of the refuge as the drainage of 

wetlands has allowed more productive farmland and has set the foundation for development in 

some areas. Approximately 125 miles of drainage ditches existed at the time TNC purchased 

the property in 2000. In addition to the construction of drainage ditches, portions of the beach 

ridges throughout the refuge acquisition area have been mined for gravel (Brown et al. 2005).

Habitat

Glacial Ridge NWR is situated on the edge of the PPR of western Minnesota between the flat 

Red River Valley floodplain on the west and the rolling hardwood forest and lakes region on the 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

28

east. The acquisition area is a mosaic of pastures, cropland, small aspen woodlots, ungrazed 

prairie, numerous undrained and drained wetland basins, fen habitat, and several gravel/sand 

operations. The original goal of the Glacial Ridge Project is to facilitate restoration of the 

grasslands and wetlands to as close to pre-settlement conditions as practical.

Wetlands

The retreat of the Wisconsin glacier left approximately 25 million depressional wetlands of all 

shapes and sizes in the PPR. A variety of typical wetland types are found on Glacial Ridge

NWR, defined by soil type, duration of standing water, and vegetation communities. Some are 

fed by groundwater, but most are fed by rain and snowmelt. Temporary and seasonal wetlands, 

those that hold water for a few days to a couple months after thaw, make up the greatest 

number but the least acreage of the all wetland types. Semi-permanent and permanent 

wetlands, which typically hold water for an entire growing season or longer, are found at lesser 

densities but have the most surface acres of water (Stewart and Kantrud 1971; Kantrud and 

Stewart 1977). 

Historically, numerous wetlands and fens were located between the beach ridges, however 

many of these have been either completely or partially drained (Figure 3-3). Wetlands of the 

PPR are extremely important to North American waterfowl populations. The availability of 

wetlands (Kantrud and Stewart 1977) and distribution of emergent cover (Weller and Spatcher 

1965; Murkin et al. 1982) drive the numbers of breeding waterfowl in the PPR. Hemi-marsh 

(equal interspersion of open water and emergent vegetation) has been shown to support the 

greatest waterfowl breeding pair density and species diversity (Weller and Spatcher 1965; 

Kaminski and Prince 1981; Murkin et al. 1982) and can be present in seasonal and semipermanent wetlands. Although only 10 percent of the available waterfowl breeding habitat is 

found in the PPR, nearly 50 percent of waterfowl production occurs there (Batt et al. 1989). 

Historically, when the Dakotas and Saskatchewan experienced drought conditions, waterfowl 

shifted to the eastern and northern fringes of the PPR to breed, including the area of Glacial 

Ridge NWR. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

29

Figure 3-3: Soil Drainage on Glacial Ridge NWR

Many wetlands were drained for farming as settlers began making their livelihood in the PPR. 

Rudimentary drainage ditches were dug to release water from small temporary or seasonal 

basins. As technology advanced, larger networks of surface ditches were created or subsurface 

tile installed to more efficiently drain all types of wetlands. Despite the extensive drainage, many 

former wetland sites still retain enough water to make crop production very difficult during wet 

years. Many farmers in this area have trouble with planting crops in wet fields and flooding 

losses are common. Today, interconnected temporary, seasonal, and semi-permanent wetlands 

are drained into basins at lower elevations, which increases their water level and permanence—

a process known as consolidation drainage (Krapu et al. 2004).

Consolidation drainage changes the hydrology and chemistry of wetlands, favoring the 

establishment and proliferation of cattail (Kantrud 1986c), sustaining introduced fish 

communities (Anteau 2011), and ultimately diminishing wetland quality for waterfowl breeding 

and brood rearing (Krapu et al. 2004; Anteau 2011) and shorebird foraging (Anteau 2011). This 

practice continues in force today. It is estimated that over 85 percent of wetlands in Minnesota’s 

PPR have been lost to drainage (Johnson et al. 2008). The former wetlands on the east side of 

the acquisition area once served as a major groundwater recharge location for the prairie 

habitats located on the west side. The instream waters of Burnham, Badger/Maple Creek and 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

30

the Gentilly River, the field drainage ditches, gravel pit ponds, and a few remaining natural 

basins comprise the extent of permanent wetland types in the study area (Figure 3-4). 

Figure 3-4: Watershed of the Glacial Ridge NWR

Prairie

The prairies found throughout the refuge acquisition area are in varying states of health; 

remnant prairies showcase the diversity that was once abundant throughout the landscape, 

whereas other sites have experienced a high rate of degradation. Prairie plants can be divided 

into three groups: grasses, shrubs, and forbs. Grasses make up 90 percent or more of the 

biomass of the prairie, but there are relatively few species. Shrubs make up a small percentage 

of the biomass, and like grasses, there are few species. Forbs account for 90 percent or more of 

the diversity in high quality remnant prairies. Therefore, utilizing remnant prairies as reference 

sites enables managers to set a level of quality and establish a benchmark for prairie 

assessment and measuring restoration success.

Prior to refuge establishment, pasture and croplands, including cultivated row crop fields, alfalfa, 

and agricultural lands enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), encompassed over 

80 percent of the acquisition area. The CRP is a voluntary program that offers annual rental 

payments and cost-share assistance to establish long-term resource-conserving covers on 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

31

eligible land. Annual rental payments are made based on the agriculture rental value of the land. 

The program also provides cost-share assistance for establishing natural vegetative cover and 

for other approved conservation practices. The cultivated fields are planted primarily to 

soybeans or wheat. Additional tracts of tallgrass prairie have been cleared of boulders to 

facilitate future cultivation. 

Historically, fires and bison herds were major sources of disturbance on the prairie landscape 

(Collins and Wallace 1990; Biondini et al. 1998). Tallgrass prairie is a fire-dependent ecosystem 

(Collins and Wallace 1990). The climate is actually wet enough to support trees (Briggs 2005), 

but fire kept the trees in check and favored grasses (Leopold 1949). Fire removes residual 

vegetation and litter layers, allowing seeds to germinate and new plants to become established. 

It also revitalizes the soil, building up nutrients important for flower and seed production. When 

fire is removed from the system, prairie eventually succeeds to trees and forests (Heisler et al. 

2003). 

Most accounts from the historic literature show that fires in the tallgrass prairie region were most 

common in the fall (Wilcox 1907; Higgins 1986; McClain and Elzinga 1994; Pyne 1997), 

primarily the month of October. These same sources show that fires were quite frequent, with 

fires often referred to as “annual,” but not necessarily in the same location. Given the 

topography of the tallgrass prairie, Wright and Bailey (1980) suggest a fire frequency of five to 

ten years is reasonable. However, a more recent literature review suggests fire frequencies in 

the tallgrass region of Minnesota and Wisconsin were between two and three years but were 

highly dependent on the climate (Dickmann and Cleland 2002).

While lightning is the primary source of ignition in western forests, lightning in the Midwest is 

usually accompanied by heavy rains. Lightning does cause fires in tallgrass prairie, but only 

rarely. The vast majority of historic fires were set by indigenous people. The frequent records of 

October fires are during a time of the year when lightning storms are rare, lending more 

evidence that most fires were started by people. As Europeans settled the tallgrass prairie 

region, most fires were caused by locomotives and equipment used to clear the land, and fire 

frequencies remained high. By the 1920s, fire frequency and intensity waned as settlement 

increased and effective fire suppression programs began.

Grazing also is important to the maintenance of tallgrass prairie (Biondini et al. 1998). Bison 

were the primary grazers in western Minnesota, with deer browsing on shrubs and young woody 

vegetation and elk never being widespread and abundant like bison. Over 95 percent of the 

bison diet is grasses (Plumb and Dodd 1993). Removal of these grasses releases the forb 

community from competition, dramatically increasing plant species diversity in grazed prairie 

(Hartnett et al. 1996; Towne et al. 2005). The increased plant diversity increases the diversity 

and abundance of invertebrates (Joern 2005). Grazing creates a patchwork of vegetation 

structure from ungrazed to lightly grazed to heavily grazed areas. Patterns of standing 

vegetation affect fire pattern and behavior.

Fire and grazing interactions were important in the distribution of prairie vegetation communities 

across the landscape. Based on historical fire and grazing patterns, animals preferentially 

selected burned areas because of the young, green shoots and grazed them heavily. When 

another area burned, they moved to the newly burned patch. The interaction between fire and 

grazing created a shifting mosaic of microhabitats for grassland birds, prairie invertebrates, 

other wildlife, and vegetation (Figure 3-5).
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

Figure 3-5: Current Vegetation on Glacial Ridge NWR (2011)

Forest

Immediately to the east of the refuge, the Des Moines ice lobe deposited a number of moraines 

from the last glaciation (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2005). The resulting 

collection of lakes along the node created a “fire shield” on the edge of the prairie that resulted 

in the development of a maple–basswood forest community, the farthest north and west 

extension of this habitat type in Minnesota (Kuchler 1964). In addition, a few wooded areas are

scattered throughout the acquisition area—mostly on state and private lands.

Savanna/Successional

Locally, sandy flat areas that received periodic disturbance from fire-formed sand plains which 

occur locally within the moraines. These areas were dominated by prairie, savanna, and oak 

and aspen woodlands. This is especially true of the Anoka Sand Plains and the sandy terraces 

along the major rivers. In these areas, droughty soils and absence of impediments to the spread 

of fire promoted fire-dependent prairie and woodland vegetation.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

33

Agriculture

According to the 2012 USDA Census, Polk County had 1,322 farms totaling nearly 1.1 million 

acres which encompasses over 87 percent of the county’s total land base. The average farm 

size is about 828 acres, which is almost double the national average. Crops are planted on 

991,405 acres which is higher than the national average, while buildings, woodland, and 

pasture/rangeland compose the remaining 100,000 acres (Table 3-1). Cash receipts from 

livestock and products has remained relatively stable for the past 30 years while cash receipts

from crops has greatly fluctuated through time (Table 3-2). Farm employment accounts for 9.6

percent of the jobs in Polk County, which has remained relatively stable for the past 30 years. 

Table 3-1: The Composition of Farm Land use in Polk County, MN Compared to the U.S. 

Average

Data was obtained from the 2014 National Agricultural Statistics Service of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34

Table 3-2: A 30-year View of the Cash Receipts from Livestock/Products and Crops in 

Polk County, MN

Data was obtained from the 2014 National Agricultural Statistics Service of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture.

Wildlife

Birds

The tallgrass prairie and wetlands in the area that is now Glacial Ridge NWR are key habitats 

for resident birds, migratory birds, and other wetland- and grassland-obligate species. An 

estimated 98 percent of the tallgrass prairie and 90 percent of the wetlands have vanished from 

the prairie pothole region of Minnesota that once existed prior to settlement (Minnesota Prairie 

Plan Working Group 2011). Greater prairie-chickens and sharp-tailed grouse are residents of 

the refuge. In 1999, at least 21 greater prairie-chicken booming grounds were documented 

within the acquisition area (Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society). Booming grounds, also known 

as dancing grounds or Leks, are gathering sites for male greater prairie-chickens and sharptailed grouse trying to attract females during the breeding season. Use of the recorded sites 

ranged from three to 30 individual males. Other birds known to use the area include Le Conte’s 

sparrow, clay-colored sparrow, vesper sparrow, Wilson’s snipe and western meadowlark. 

Farming practices have changed dramatically in the past 30 years. Much of the grazing of the 

past has given way to large-scale row crop farming. The loss of hay and pasture acreage is 

strongly correlated with declines in grassland bird populations throughout the Midwest (Herkert 

1995). 

The existing beach ridge wetlands are an important stopover in spring and fall for many 

migratory birds. Puddle ducks—primarily mallards, some wood ducks, American wigeon, and 

blue-winged teal—and Canada geese are frequently observed where water is available. The 

refuge is used during the migration periods by numerous shorebirds, waterfowl, sandhill cranes 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

35

and tundra swans. Large 

numbers of sandhill crane 

(estimates of over 20,000) 

also frequent the area to 

refuel on their journey 

from wintering to nesting 

grounds and again during 

their return south each 

autumn. A small number 

currently nest in the area 

each summer. Large 

flocks of American white 

pelicans and tundra 

swans are also seen in 

the spring when water 

conditions are favorable. 

Resident Canada geese 

(giant) use the open water wetlands, including the gravel pit located in the center of the 

acquisition area. Concentrations of geese are often observed on the pit during the fall migration 

period and provide local hunting opportunities.

Mammals

The refuge supports a variety of resident mammals that are locally abundant depending on the 

availability of food sources, loafing areas and security habitat. White-tailed deer and white-tailed

jackrabbits are common throughout the acquisition area. Furbearers, including fox, coyote, longand short-tailed weasels, skunk, mink, beaver and raccoons also are locally common and seen 

in the area on a regular basis. All of these species are very familiar to local farmers, hunters and 

highway motorists. Mammals tend to be most abundant in “edge” habitats, especially those that 

border agricultural fields. Agricultural crops are seasonally important food sources to some of 

the resident mammals, especially deer. However, the availability of natural foods during winter, 

spring, and early summer places a strict limit on local mammal populations. Moose were 

common inhabitants of what is now Glacial Ridge NWR through the mid-1990s, but they are 

now uncommon due to a widespread population decline throughout Minnesota.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Streams, ditches and wetland basins provide the aquatic habitat required for a variety of turtles, 

frogs, toads, salamanders, and snakes. Site-specific abundance data is limited for the refuge;

however, at least 18 species of amphibians and reptiles have been documented at the nearby 

Rydell NWR (FWS 2000). These species are important food sources for many mammals, birds 

and fish. Their numbers and diversity are often indicators of the health of an ecosystem. Many 

species of reptiles and amphibians are declining on state and national levels.

Fish and Other Aquatics

Three drainage systems occur within Glacial Ridge NWR. A fishery survey of the Red Lake 

River system documented 46 species. No current information is available on the Sandhill River 

system. In addition, no surveys have been conducted on the streams or lakes within the refuge. 

Populations of gamefish, such as perch, sunfish, and northern pike are probably restricted to 

Sandhill Cranes; photo: USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36

Bakken Lake and the scattered deepwater lakes on the southeast end of the acquisition area. 

The extensive drainage that has occurred throughout the study area has left limited fish habitat;

however, some small native species, such as white sucker and creek chub can be observed in 

the drainage ditches and in pools near road culverts.

Focal Species

Priority resources of concern and other benefiting species on Glacial Ridge NWR are 

represented in the table below (Table 3-3). The bird habitat requirements in this table are 

summarized from the respective species accounts in Johnson et al. (2002), Johnson et al. 

(2004), Poole (2005), and expert opinion (S. Lewis, R. Russell, and T. Will, FWS, personal 

communication). Information for prairie butterflies is from the Service (2007), Selby (2010), and 

expert opinion (P. Delphey, FWS, personal communication). Additional resources of concern will 

be identified during the Habitat Management Plan process using the Rocstar method developed 

by the Service and Cardno.

Table 3-3: Focal Species Associated with Glacial Ridge NWR

Focal Species Habitat 

Type Habitat Structure Life History Requirement

Other Benefitting 

Species

Dakota skipper

Poweshiek 

skipperling

Dry prairie

Stubble heights ≥20 

cm in tallgrass 

prairies; low to 

moderate litter

Whole life 

cycle

Regal fritillary,

sharp-tailed grouse, 

dicksissel, prairie vole, 

plains pocketmouse, 

Richardson’s ground 

squirrel, northern harrier, 

savannah sparrow, 

chestnut-collared 

longspur, western 

meadowlark

Grasshopper 

sparrow

Greater prairiechicken

Upland sandpiper

Clumped vegetation 

interspersed with 

bare ground; 

moderate litter

Full season

Breeding

Foraging

Upland sandpiper

Greater prairiechicken

Moderate to tall, 

patchy

Brood rearing 

and nesting

Sedge wren, savannah 

sparrow, clay-colored 

sparrow, western 

meadowlark

Greater prairiechicken

Western 

meadowlark

Mesic prairie

Short, open 

vegetation

Breeding

Full season

Short-eared owl, plains 

pocketmouse, marbled 

godwit

Dakota skipper

Poweshiek

skipperling

Moderate to tall, 

patchy

Whole life 

cycle

Henslow’s sparrow, regal 

fritillary, northern harrier

Greater prairiechicken

Blue-winged teal

Western 

meadowlark

Nesting and 

brood rearing

Nesting

Full season
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

37

Focal Species Habitat 

Type Habitat Structure Life History Requirement

Other Benefitting 

Species

Mallard

Northern harrier

Sedge wren

Tall, dense

Nesting

Full season

Full season

Henslow’s sparrow, 

common yellowthroat, 

bobolink, American 

bittern, badger

Marbled godwit

Wet prairie

Disturbed prairie –

hayed or grazed 

areas with low 

vegetation

Breeding

Hudsonian godwit, 

Wilson’s phalarope, 

LeConte’s sparrow (wet 

years), black-crowned 

night heron

Mallard

Sedge wren

Tall, dense

Nesting

Full season

Sandhill crane, bobolink, 

American bittern, 

Henslow’s sparrow

Marbled godwit

Depressional 

wetlands

Shallow water, 

short/sparse to open 

shoreline vegetation

Short to intermediate

height grassland with 

<40% dead 

vegetation

and average cover

height 17 cm

Foraging

Virginia rail, sora, 

trumpeter swan, 

American bittern, least 

bittern, black tern, blackcrowned night heron, 

pied-billed grebe

Waterfowl

Mallard

Blue-winged teal

Hemi-marsh, 

interspersed 

vegetation and open 

water, shallow

Breeding, 

brood 

rearing, 

molting

Northern harrier

Sedge wren

Tall, dense Full season Marsh wren, greater 

prairie-chicken

Mallard Shallow 

lakes Hemi-marsh, 

submerged 

vegetation

Molting, 

staging, and 

migration

Waterfowl, western 

grebe, Forster’s tern, 

green heron, Virginia rail, 

sora, trumpeter swan, 

least bittern, black tern, 

black-crowned night 

heron, great egret, great 

blue heron, marsh wren

Threatened and Endangered Species

The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 

1976–1982, 1984 and 1988) designates the Service as the responsible agency through which 

the authority of the Endangered Species Act will be carried out. Section 7(a)(1) of the Act further

requires all federal agencies and departments to use their authority in furtherance of the 

purposes of this Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and 

threatened species.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38

To identify federally threatened or endangered species of relevance to Glacial Ridge NWR we 

reviewed:

• Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List

• Recovery Plans for federally listed species in the FWS Midwest Region

Poweshiek Skipperling

The endangered Poweshiek skipperlings (Oarisma poweshiek) are small butterflies most often 

found in remnants of native prairie in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and 

Wisconsin and in fens in Michigan. This moth-like butterfly is closely tied to high quality remnant 

prairies in which critical habitat has been designated in Polk County but not on the refuge. 

Unfortunately, this skipperling may have been extirpated from the Dakotas, Minnesota, and 

Iowa within the last 10 years—an area that, until recently, contained the vast majority of the 

surviving populations. It is now known to exist only in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Manitoba. 

During surveys in 2014, the species could be found only at a few sites in a single Michigan 

county, in very limited numbers at one site in Wisconsin, and in Canada at the single Manitoba 

site.

Dakota Skipper

The threatened Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae) is a small butterfly that lives in high-quality 

mixed and tallgrass prairie. It has been extirpated from Illinois and Iowa and now occurs in 

remnants of native mixed and tallgrass prairie in Minnesota, the Dakotas, and southern Canada. 

Critical habitat exists in Polk County; however, critical habitat has not been designated on 

Glacial Ridge NWR. To recover the species, its remaining habitats must be managed with 

grazing, fire, or haying to maintain the diversity of native prairie plant species on which Dakota 

skipper relies. Unless implemented appropriately, however, these practices may also result in 

levels of mortality that are not sustainable, or they may degrade habitat conditions to the degree 

that the species is extirpated. 

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid 

The threatened western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara) has been documented at 

several sites on the refuge. This orchid occurs most often in mesic to wet unplowed tallgrass 

prairies and meadows but it has also been found in old fields and roadside ditches. Threats to 

this species in the region include land conversion, competition with alien invaders, wetland 

destruction, intensive haying, fire suppression, and overgrazing.

Invasive Species

Non-native invasive plants are organisms that are introduced into a foreign ecosystem and that 

cause, or are likely to cause, harm to the economy, environment, or human health. These 

invaders are a major threat to the habitats of Glacial Ridge NWR, and currently, a host of 

invasive plants can be found at varying levels across the entire refuge. Executive Order 13112 

(Invasive Species 1999) directs federal agencies to prevent introduction while detecting, rapidly 

responding to, and controlling new invasions in a cost effective and environmentally sound 

manner. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

39

In the uplands of Glacial Ridge NWR, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and plumeless thistle 

(Carduus acanthoides) are present only in young restorations and rarely pose a threat to the 

long-term quality of the uplands, although they are easily visible. Birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus 

corniculatus), crown vetch (Securigera varia), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), wild 

parsnip (Pastinaca sativa), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), and common tansy (Tanacetum 

vulgare) are problematic species for refuge staff as they are prolific seeders, have a long-lasting 

seedbank and are easily moved around by mowing or other means. Smooth brome (Bromus 

inermis) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) are problem exotic grass species common on

refuge uplands.

Problematic invasives found in or near wetlands on the refuge include reed canary grass 

(Phalaris arundinacea), narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia) and hybrid cattail (Typha x 

glauca). Reed canary grass is extremely aggressive and forms dense monocultures, offering 

little habitat to wildlife seeking structural diversity. Hybrid cattail, an aggressive invasive 

emergent, forms dense stands when the correct hydrology is present and can become 

established during drawdowns or on the perimeter of wetland with permanent water.

People

Socioeconomic Setting

Glacial Ridge NWR is located in Polk County in northwestern Minnesota, east of Crookston, 

MN. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the total population in Polk County was 31,600, which 

is about a 0.01 percent increase since the 2000 U.S. Census. The population is 93 percent from 

a European descent, primarily German and Norwegian, 5.4 percent Hispanic or Latino, and 1.4

percent Native American. Twenty percent of the population has attained a bachelor’s degree or 

higher, and about 17 percent of the population is over the age of 65.

The median income in 2009 for Polk County was $43,731, which is lower than the state median. 

From 2000 to 2010 Polk County’s unemployment rate increased from 4.8 percent to 5.7 percent. 

A total of 14,610 housing units exist in which 72.7 percent are owner occupied. Equipment 

manufacturing, crop farming, and wholesale trade are the major industries in Polk County. Polk 

county is highly ranked within the state of MN in terms of total value of agricultural goods sold. 

The major crops of Polk County include oilseed, sunflowers, small grains, sugar beet, corn, and 

soybean. 

Visitor Services/Public Use

Facilities

A Service-owned visitor contact station is conveniently located off MN State Highway 32 where 

visitors can receive information about the refuge from an interpretive kiosk. Currently, Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resource staff is housed at this contact station, and refuge staff is not 

present on site. Other infrastructure, including wildlife observation blinds, accessible hunting

blinds, and information panels are located throughout the refuge in close proximity to 

designated parking areas (Figure 3-6).
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

40

Figure 3-6: Current Visitor Facilities at Glacial Ridge NWR

Hunting

Glacial Ridge NWR is open to the hunting of white-tailed deer, waterfowl (ducks, geese, coots), 

other migratory birds (rails, snipe, woodcock, mourning doves), and upland game (prairiechicken, sharp-tailed grouse) as compatible with the purpose for the establishment of the refuge 

and where appropriate, in concurrence with the State of Minnesota. Federal law generally 

prohibits the Service from opening over 40 percent of a national wildlife refuge (acquired with 

the approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission) to migratory bird hunting. Hunting 

activities can only occur in designated areas identified in the Hunting Management Plan, which 

will be updated as needed. Hunter access parking lots are located at several convenient and 

safe locations where various information (maps, regulations) can be found. Accessible hunting 

blinds are available in two locations to make hunting accessible for hunters with mobility 

disabilities.

Fishing

The restored shallow wetland basins within the refuge are unsuitable to support consistent

populations of game fish; therefore, this use is currently not permitted on the refuge.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

41

Wildlife Observation and Photography

The combination of diverse wildlife and landscape beauty creates excellent wildlife observation 

and photography opportunities at several sites around the refuge. Minimally developed parking 

areas throughout the refuge offer visitors access points to the refuge while reducing the impact 

to the habitat and reducing the amount of annual maintenance. The refuge staff work with the 

local communities and private conservation groups to develop public wildlife celebrations and 

participate in citizen science projects like International Migratory Bird Day and the Christmas 

Bird Count. These events help build community awareness of the refuge while connecting 

people of all ages to the tallgrass prairie and wetland areas of the refuge.

Environmental Education

At the present time, Glacial Ridge NWR does not have an established environmental education 

program. Staff opportunistically provide programs that focus on understanding of the Northern 

Tallgrass Prairie ecosystem, the ecological significance of the area, and developing a life-long 

appreciation of prairie, wetlands, and associated biological diversity at off-refuge locations or 

Rydell NWR. These opportunities may include school field trips, guided tours, and classroom 

presentations.

Interpretation

National wildlife refuges across the country provide opportunities for visitors to make their own 

connections to the natural world. Glacial Ridge NWR has limited on-site interpretive facilities,

and currently refuge staff are not present on-site. A kiosk and 1/2 mile walking trail located 3 1/4 

miles south of U.S. Hwy 2 on MN State Highway 32, at the Glacial Ridge Project Headquarters, 

provides an introduction of the refuge and a starting point for other places to explore. The major 

themes for Glacial Ridge NWR include interpreting the tallgrass prairie ecosystem, the refuge’s 

habitat restoration and management, and the refuge’s place in the Refuge System. These 

themes are the core messages of the refuge’s limited interpretive program and will be included 

in different forms of interpretive signs, leaflets, exhibits, and potentially staff or volunteer led 

programs and events. 

Historic and Cultural Resources

As of September 26, 2000, Polk County contains six properties on the National Register of 

Historic Places, and all are historic period structures located in cities. European settlement of 

the Glacial Ridge area was slow and sparse compared to other regions of Minnesota. During 

the mid-19th century the study area was part of the historic Red River oxcart trail system. The 

oxcart trails were used by immigrants traveling between St. Paul, MN and the Selkirk Settlement 

near present day Winnipeg, Manitoba. The Woods (Pembina) Trail, a segment of the main 

route, traversed the west end of the study area (Minnesota Historical Society 1979). Despite 

such a limited data base, the assumption must be made that undiscovered prehistoric sites are 

likely, especially for the Woodland culture (500 BP to anno Domini [AD] 1650), as well as the 

sites of former buildings and structures. The Cheyenne tribe is the earliest historic period tribe in 

the area, replaced by the Ojibwa.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

42

Cultural Resource Management

Cultural resources (archaeological sites, historic structures, and Native American traditional 

cultural properties) are important parts of the nation’s heritage. The Service strives to preserve 

evidence of these human occupations, which can provide valuable information regarding 

interactions between individuals, as well as between early peoples and the natural environment. 

Protection of cultural resources is accomplished in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to 

protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources.

The Service is charged with the responsibility, under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, of identifying historic properties (cultural resources that are potentially 

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places) that may be affected by Service 

actions. The Service is also required to coordinate these actions with the State Historic 

Preservation Office, Native American tribal governments, local governments, and other 

interested parties. Cultural resource management in the Service is the responsibility of the 

Regional Director and is not delegated for the Section 106 process when historic properties 

could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing archaeological permits, and for tribal

involvement.

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) Section 14 requires plans to 

survey lands and a schedule for surveying lands with “the most scientifically valuable 

archaeological resources.” This Act also affords protection to all archeological and historic sites 

more than 100 years old (not just sites meeting the criteria for the National Register) on federal 

land and requires archeological investigations on federal land be performed in the public interest 

by qualified persons.

The Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) advises the Regional Director about 

procedures, compliance, and implementation of these and other cultural resource laws. The 

actual determinations relating to cultural resources are to be made by the RHPO for 

undertakings on Service fee title lands and for undertakings funded in whole or in part under the 

direct or indirect jurisdiction of the Service, including those carried out by or on behalf of the 

Service; those carried out with federal financial assistance; and those requiring a federal permit, 

license, or approval.

The responsibility of the refuge manager is to identify undertakings that could affect cultural 

resources and coordinate the subsequent review process as early as possible with the RHPO 

and state, tribal, and local officials. Also, the refuge manager assists the RHPO by protecting 

archeological sites and historic properties on Service managed and administered lands, by 

monitoring archaeological investigations by contractors and permittees, and by reporting ARPA 

violations.

Refuge Administration

Glacial Ridge NWR is managed by five permanent service staff stationed on Rydell NWR, 

located east of Mentor, MN. Both refuges are complexed with Detroit Lakes Wetland 

Management District, which is also responsible for the management of Hamden Slough NWR. 

The average budget the past five years for the Glacial Ridge and Rydell NWRs is about 

$700,000.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

43

Refuge Support

The Friends of Rydell and Glacial Ridge Refuges Association, a not for profit refuge advocate 

group, has a long history with Rydell NWR and has recently adopted Glacial Ridge NWR. This 

association has the ability to reach out to the community for support and assistance for refuge 

projects and conservation issues. The Friends of Rydell and Glacial Ridge Refuges Association

coordinates numerous events and projects throughout the year. Currently, the board consists of 

10 members including a president, vice-president, treasurer, and secretary. 

Glacial Ridge NWR was established through a partnership of 30 

non-profit organizations, universities, government and other 

agencies. Partners continue to play a critical role in the function and 

future of Glacial Ridge NWR. These partnerships will enable staff to 

accomplish goals that any one organization could not achieve 

alone. The objectives outlined in this CCP need the support and the 

partnerships of federal, state, and local agencies, non-governmental 

organizations, and individual citizens. This broad-based approach to 

managing fish and wildlife resources extends beyond social and 

political boundaries and requires a foundation of support from many. 

The refuge works with a wide variety of partners including but not 

limited to: The Nature Conservancy, Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources, Minnesota Sharp-tailed Grouse Society, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, Minnesota Pollution Control 

Agency, Ducks Unlimited, Audubon Minnesota, Minnesota Prairie 

Chicken Society, University of Minnesota – Crookston, Bemidji 

State University, University of North Dakota, and more. Many of 

these partners were instrumental in the initial establishment and 

restoration of the refuge. The staff at Glacial Ridge NWR will 

continue to seek creative partnership opportunities to achieve its 

vision for the future. 

Partners play a critical role at 

Glacial Ridge NWR; photo: 

USFWS
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

In this chapter:

Development of the Management Alternatives

Selecting the Preferred Alternative

Elements Common to All Alternatives

Description of the Alternatives

Environmental Consequences

This chapter describes and compares three management alternatives for Glacial Ridge National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR, refuge): the No Action Alternative, which is the continuation of the 

current management direction; and two action alternatives including Alternative B, the preferred 

alternative. Each of the three alternatives describes general management direction for the entire 

planning area. It is separate from site-specific direction, which is not part of this planning 

process, but which will occur in subsequent step-down management planning. The No Action 

Alternative is the baseline for analysis. The descriptions of the action alternatives as well as 

their environmental consequences are relative to those of the No Action Alternative. The 

preferred alternative is the one identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) 

as best meeting the purpose and need described in chapter 1.

Development of the Management Alternatives

Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management objectives and strategies 

designed to achieve refuge purposes, the vision and goals identified in the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP), and the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(NWRS, Refuge System) and the Service. Alternatives are formulated to address the significant 

issues, concerns, and opportunities identified by the Service and by the public during the 

scoping period. 

The three alternatives identified and evaluated represent different approaches to protecting, 

restoring, and managing refuge wildlife, plants, habitats, and other resources as well as 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. The planning team assessed the existing biological 

conditions and external relationships affecting the refuge. This information contributed to the 

development of refuge goals and, in turn, helped to formulate the alternatives.

Selecting the Preferred Alternative

In selecting a preferred alternative, we considered environmental, economic, and social factors 

and our ability to implement the actions necessary to accomplish the alternatives. We based our 

decision on how well each alternative met the goals of the refuge and the environmental 

consequences of each alternative. We selected Alternative B as our preferred alternative.

Alternative B will fulfill our statutory mission and responsibilities, and we have adequate 

authority to implement it.

Alternative A: Current Direction (No Action)

The Council of Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the National Environmental 

Policy Act require that all environmental assessments include the alternative of taking no action. 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

45

In the case of a CCP, no action means that the refuge will continue on the same path of 

management.

Current management is focused on providing a variety of upland and wetland habitats to benefit 

an array of migratory and resident wildlife species. Uplands are actively managed to benefit 

grassland-nesting birds and other wildlife. 

Public use under current management is limited, with hunting being a priority visitor use. Efforts 

have recently been made to increase visitor use and interpretation through the construction of a 

one-half mile long walking trail and interpretive panel development at the Glacial Ridge Project 

Office.

The following are key elements of Alternative A:

• Control of noxious weed species is a priority.

• The primary upland management tool is prescribed fire. Limited grazing and tree 

removal activities also occur.

• Land acquisition from willing sellers occurs within the approved refuge acquisition 

boundary.

• Habitat restoration occurs on newly-acquired agricultural sites.

• Hunting is a priority use with two accessible waterfowl hunting blinds. Refuge visitors 

have one accessible walking trail near the Glacial Ridge Project Office.

• Partnerships are a key component of habitat management. Existing partnerships would 

be maintained, and new partnerships would be developed with a focus on high priority 

habitat and resource information needs.

Alternative B: Focused Habitat Management (Preferred)

Under this alternative, refuge management actions would approximate ecological processes 

that maintained native habitats prior to European settlement, emphasizing the use of multiple 

habitat disturbance regimes (e.g., fire, grazing, mowing). These actions would maintain and 

increase the diversity of native vegetation and wildlife communities that mimic pre-settlement 

conditions. Management activities would be “focused” via a refuge prioritization effort to 

maximize the intended impacts on priority units, given reduced refuge staff and funding. 

Public use opportunities would continue with minimal changes. Staff time and funding would 

focus on improving opportunities for self-guided interpretation of refuge habitats and wildlife, 

using existing infrastructure (e.g., 13 parking lot kiosks). 

The following are key elements of Alternative B:

• Active management would be focused on the highest priority habitat management units 

to emulate pre-European settlement conditions.

• Control of invasive species would focus on specific sites to protect native plant 

communities.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

46

• Land acquisition from willing sellers would continue within the approved refuge

acquisition boundary.

• Prairie and wetland restoration would continue on newly-acquired sites. The short-term 

use of genetically modified crops would be allowed in compliance with current FWS 

Midwest Region (Region 3) policy (see appendix H – Cooperative Farming Compatibility 

Determination).

• Existing partnerships would be maintained, and new partnerships would be developed 

with a focus on high priority habitat and resource information needs.

• Priority public use activities would focus on existing infrastructure and emphasize selfguided experiences.

Alternative C: Woody Vegetation Reduction Focus

The focus of Alternative C would be the reduction of invasive woody vegetation cover (e.g., 

willow, aspen) across the refuge landscape during the lifespan of this CCP. The extent of woody 

cover is increasing due to a lack of regular vegetative disturbance and other factors. 

Management actions would focus on refuge units exhibiting woody vegetation cover that 

exceeds the amount found prior to European settlement.. 

Public use opportunities would continue with minimal changes. Staff time and funding would 

focus on improving opportunities for self-guided interpretation of refuge habitats and wildlife, 

using existing infrastructure (e.g., 13 parking lot kiosks). 

The following are key elements of Alternative C:

• Habitat management units determined to have greater woody vegetation cover, as 

compared to pre-settlement conditions, would receive management priority over other 

refuge units.

• Management units without woody vegetation issues would not be actively managed on a 

regular basis.

• Multiple management tools, including fire and cutting, would be used to meet objectives 

in priority areas.

• Land acquisition from willing sellers would continue within the approved refuge

acquisition boundary.

• Prairie and wetland restoration would continue on newly-acquired sites. The short-term 

use of genetically modified crops would be allowed in compliance with current FWS 

Region 3 policy (see appendix H – Cooperative Farming Compatibility Determination).

• Existing partnerships would be maintained, and new partnerships would be developed 

with a focus on woody cover reduction and related information needs.

• Priority public use activities would focus on existing infrastructure and emphasize selfguided experiences.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

47

Elements Common to All Alternatives

Since Glacial Ridge NWR is a relatively new refuge and in the early stages of development, a 

lot of the information that is needed to make management decisions has yet to be compiled. 

Therefore, many of the objectives for Glacial Ridge NWR will be to obtain this information to 

make informed decisions. 

Although the alternatives differ in many ways, there are similarities as well. These common 

features are listed below to reduce the length and redundancy of the individual alternative 

descriptions. 

• The Service would ensure that refuge management complies with all federal laws and 

regulations that provide direction for managing units of the Refuge System.

• No adjacent landowners would be adversely impacted by any action taken by the 

Service without a mutual agreement and adequate compensation.

• All alternatives would provide equal protection and management of cultural resources.

Description of the Alternatives

(A summary of actions by alternatives (Table 4-1) is located later in this section.)

Alternative A: Current Direction (No Action)

The Council of Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the National Environmental 

Policy Act require that all environmental assessments include the alternative of taking no action. 

In the case of a CCP, no action means that the refuge will continue on the same path of 

management.

Current management is focused on providing a variety of upland and wetland habitats to benefit 

an array of migratory and resident wildlife species. Uplands are actively managed to benefit 

grassland-nesting birds and other wildlife. 

Public use under current management is limited. Efforts have recently been made to increase 

visitor use and interpretation through the construction of a half-mile mile long walking trail and 

interpretive panel development at the Glacial Ridge Project Office.

The following are key elements of Alternative A:

• Control of noxious weed species is a priority.

• The primary upland management tool is prescribed fire. Limited grazing and tree 

removal activities also occur.

• Land acquisition from willing sellers occurs within the approved refuge acquisition 

boundary.

• Habitat restoration occurs on newly-acquired agricultural sites.

• Continued maintenance of the two accessible waterfowl hunting blinds. Refuge visitors 

have one accessible walking trail near the Glacial Ridge Project Office.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

48

• Partnerships are a key component of habitat management. Existing partnerships would 

be maintained, and new partnerships would be developed with a focus on high priority 

habitat and resource information needs.

Alternative B: Focused Habitat Management (Preferred)

Under this alternative, refuge management actions would approximate ecological processes 

that maintained native habitats prior to European settlement, emphasizing the use of multiple 

habitat disturbance regimes (e.g., fire, grazing, mowing). These actions would maintain and 

increase the diversity of native vegetation and wildlife communities that mimic pre-settlement 

conditions. Management activities would be “focused” via a refuge prioritization effort to 

maximize the intended impacts on priority units, given reduced refuge staff and funding. 

Public use opportunities would continue with minimal change. Staff time and funding would 

focus on improving opportunities for self-guided interpretation of refuge habitats and wildlife, 

using existing infrastructure (e.g., 13 parking lot kiosks). 

The following are key elements of Alternative B:

• Active management would be focused on the highest priority habitat management units 

to emulate pre-European settlement conditions.

• Control of invasive species would focus on specific sites to protect native plant 

communities.

• Land acquisition from willing sellers would continue within the approved refuge

acquisition boundary.

• Prairie and wetland restoration would continue on newly-acquired sites. The short-term 

use of genetically modified crops would be allowed in compliance with current FWS 

Region 3 policy (see appendix H – Cooperative Farming Compatibility Determination).

• Existing partnerships would be maintained, and new partnerships would be developed 

with a focus on high priority habitat and resource information needs.

• Priority public use activities would focus on existing infrastructure and emphasize selfguided experiences.

Alternative C: Woody Vegetation Reduction Focus

The focus of Alternative C would be the reduction of invasive woody vegetation cover (e.g., 

willow, aspen) across the refuge landscape during the lifespan of this CCP. The extent of woody 

cover is increasing due to a lack of regular vegetative disturbance and other factors. 

Management actions would focus on refuge units exhibiting woody vegetation cover that 

exceeds the amount found prior to European settlement.

Public use opportunities would continue with minimal change. Staff time and funding would 

focus on improving opportunities for self-guided interpretation of refuge habitats and wildlife, 

using existing infrastructure (e.g., 13 parking lot kiosks). 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

49

The following are key elements of Alternative C:

• Habitat management units determined to have greater woody vegetation cover, as 

compared to pre-settlement conditions, would receive management priority over other 

refuge units.

• Management units without woody vegetation issues would not be actively managed on a 

regular basis.

• Multiple management tools, including fire and cutting, would be used to meet objectives 

in priority areas.

• Land acquisition from willing sellers would continue within the approved refuge

acquisition boundary.

• Prairie and wetland restoration would continue on newly-acquired sites. The short-term 

use of genetically modified crops would be allowed in compliance with current FWS 

Region 3 policy (see appendix H – Cooperative Farming Compatibility Determination).

• Existing partnerships would be maintained, and new partnerships would be developed 

with a focus on woody cover reduction and related information needs.

• Priority public use activities would focus on existing infrastructure and emphasize selfguided experiences.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

50

Table 4-1: Summary of Actions by Alternative

Issue/Topic

Alternative A

Current Direction

(No Action)

Alternative B

Focused Habitat Management

Alternative C

Woody Vegetation Reduction 

Focus

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT

Wetlands Continue to restore drained 

wetlands. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

Prairies

Convert acquired cropland to 

native prairie vegetation.

Prescribed fire in spring is 

primary tool for upland habitat 

management.

Same as Alternative A with 

emphasis on the highest 

priority habitat management 

units to emulate pre-European 

settlement conditions.

Convert cropland to native 

prairie vegetation. 

Habitat management units 

determined to have greater 

woody vegetation cover, as 

compared to pre-settlement 

conditions, would receive 

management priority over other 

refuge units.

Control of 

Invasive Plant 

Species

Control of noxious weed 

species is a priority and is 

completed based on staff 

observation of need. 

Focus on highest priority 

habitat management units to 

emulate pre-European 

settlement conditions.

Habitat management units 

determined to have greater 

invasive woody vegetation 

cover, as compared to presettlement conditions, would 

receive management priority 

over other refuge units.

PEOPLE

Welcome and 

orient visitors

Continue to provide current 

leaflets, directional signs, 

kiosks, and website.

Continue to provide current 

leaflets, directional signs, 

kiosks, and website.

Staff time and funding would 

focus on improving 

opportunities for self-guided 

interpretation of refuge

habitats and wildlife, using 

existing infrastructure (e.g., 13 

parking lot kiosks).

Same as Alternative B.

Hunting

Refuge is open to the hunting 

of white-tailed deer, waterfowl 

(ducks, geese and coots), 

other migratory birds (rails, 

snipe, woodcock, mourning 

doves) and upland game 

(prairie-chicken and sharptailed grouse).

Develop annual youth hunting 

program and investigate the 

adoption of state hunting rules 

and regulations on the refuge.

Same as Alternative B.

Wildlife 

observation 

and 

photography

Maintain existing facilities 

including parking areas and 

Project Office trail. Refuge is 

open from sunrise to sunset.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

Environmental 

education and 

interpretation

Work with local schools and 

organizations by request 

when staff is available.

Continue current 

environmental education 

programs. 

Continue current interpretive 

events. Expand opportunities 

for self-guided interpretation.

Same as Alternative B. 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

51

Issue/Topic

Alternative A

Current Direction

(No Action)

Alternative B

Focused Habitat Management

Alternative C

Woody Vegetation Reduction 

Focus

Outreach

Continue current level of 

outreach to off-site audiences 

including community group 

presentations by request, 

news releases for special 

events, and participation in 

local community events.

Continue current outreach 

activities and expand when 

resources allow.

Same as Alternative B.

Volunteers 

and 

community 

partnerships

Existing partnerships would 

be maintained, and new 

partnerships would be 

developed with a focus on 

high priority habitat and 

resource information needs.

Same as Alternative A. Existing partnerships would be 

maintained, and new 

partnerships would be 

developed with a focus on 

woody cover reduction and 

related information needs.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

52

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

(A summary of impacts by alternative (Table 4-2) is located later in this section.)

Air Quality

None of the management alternatives would have appreciable, long-term impacts on ambient 

air quality conditions in the area. Habitat management involving prescribed fire would occur 

under each alternative, but prescribed fire would be used only under ideal weather conditions. 

Approved smoke management practices developed by state and federal land management 

agencies would be implemented in all burning events. Nevertheless, under each alternative 

there would be some potential for temporary air quality impacts from smoke in areas near the 

refuge.

Actions to manage smoke include altering ignition techniques and sequence, halting ignition, 

suppressing the fire, use of local law enforcement as traffic control, and roadway signs. Burning 

will be done only on days that the smoke will not be blown across nearby communities and/or 

refuge neighbors or when the wind is sufficient as not to cause heavy concentrations. The 

Annual Prescribed Fire Plan for each unit will have specific mitigation measures to deal with 

unexpected smoke management problems. Refuge staff will work with neighboring agencies 

and in consultation with Minnesota air quality personnel to address smoke issues that require 

additional mitigation.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Bill Clinton on February 11, 

1994, to focus federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority 

and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all 

communities. The Order directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to 

aid in identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their program, policies, and activities on minority and low-income 

populations. The Order is also intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs 

substantially affecting human health and the environment and to provide minority and lowincome communities with access to public information and participation in matters relating to 

human health or the environment.

None of the alternatives described in this Environmental Assessment (EA) will 

disproportionately place any adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on 

minority and low-income populations. Public use activities that would be offered under each of 

the alternatives would be available to any visitor regardless of race, ethnicity, or income level.

Cultural Resources

The Service is responsible for managing archaeological and historic sites found on refuges. 

Under each of the alternatives evaluated in this EA, refuge management would ensure 

compliance with relevant federal laws and regulations, particularly Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. Prior to all habitat and facility projects, appropriate efforts will be 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

53

made to identify and protect cultural resources within the area of potential impact by contacting 

the Regional Historic Preservation Officer for project review.

Climate Change

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies 

under its direction that have land management responsibilities to consider potential climate 

change impacts as part of long-range planning endeavors. Some potential impacts of climate 

change on the prairie pothole ecosystem in Minnesota have been identified that may need to be 

considered and addressed in the future. For example: 

• If climate conditions continue to be warmer and wetter in the Glacial Ridge NWA area, 

more water may enter the refuge, resulting in decreased water quality and increased 

sedimentation in wetland habitats. Downstream flooding and nutrient loading could be 

exacerbated unless regional land use changes and water discharge/runoff could be 

mediated.

• More frequent drought conditions in the western portion of the Prairie Pothole Region 

(PPR) could shift waterfowl use eastward, making habitat restoration in the eastern 

portion of the PPR (including Glacial Ridge NWR) even more important for waterfowl 

populations.

• Many plant and animal communities may change as species’ ranges shift due to 

changes in climate, with less-adaptable species becoming threatened by the changing 

conditions and more-tolerant species moving in to take their place. Invasive non-native 

species often are tolerant to changing conditions and may out-compete native plants for 

resources.

Managers and resource specialists on the refuge need to be aware of the potential effects of 

climate change. When feasible, documenting long-term vegetation, wildlife, and hydrologic 

changes should become a part of research and monitoring programs. Adjustments in 

management direction may be necessary over time to adapt to a changing climate.

Carbon Sequestration

Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been linked to global climate change. In 

relation to comprehensive conservation planning for refuges, carbon sequestration is one of the 

primary climate-related management strategies that can be considered despite uncertainty 

surrounding site-specific climate change effects. The U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE 

1999) defines carbon sequestration as “ . . . the capture and secure storage of carbon that 

would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.” 

Vegetation is an important factor in global carbon sequestration. Both wetlands and grasslands 

have been shown to be carbon sinks, capturing and storing carbon, thereby removing a portion 

of the atmospheric carbon dioxide. The USDOE report notes that ecosystem protection is 

important to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in 

the terrestrial biosphere.

Prescribed burning releases carbon dioxide directly to the atmosphere from plants consumed 

during combustion. However, new vegetation quickly replaces the burned vegetation and, over 

multiple years of burns, an increasing root network develops below the soil surface in prairies, 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

54

effectively capturing large quantities of carbon. No net decrease in the amount of carbon 

sequestered on the refuge will occur due to prescribed burning. Restoration of uplands and 

wetlands previously cleared for agriculture will increase the total quantity of sequestered carbon 

on the refuge under all alternatives. All alternatives would result in increased carbon storage 

due to continuing land acquisition and restoration. Grasses and forbs characteristic of the refuge

ecosystem are effective at capturing and storing carbon both above and below the ground.

Table 4-2: Summary of Impacts by Alternative 

Issues

Alternative A

Current Direction

(No Action)

Alternative B

Focused Habitat Management

(Preferred)

Alternative C

Woody Vegetation Reduction

Focus

HABITAT AND WILDLIFE

Wetland

Small increase in acreage.

Stable plant diversity. 

Stable wetland wildlife habitat.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

Prairie

Stable or small increase in 

acreage. 

Stable plant diversity.

Stable habitat structure.

Some increase in acreage.

Increase in plant diversity.

Some increase in structural 

habitat diversity.

Some increase in acreage. 

Increased plant diversity

Significant increase in 

structural habitat diversity.

Undesired 

Woody 

Vegetation

Increase in acreage. Stable or slightly decreased. Decreased in acreage.

Water 

quantity and 

quality

Little or no change. Improved. Improved. 

Waterfowl 

populations Stable or small increase. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

Grassland 

bird 

populations

Stable or small increase. Same as Alternative A. Increased.

PEOPLE

Hunting Stable opportunities. No 

program changes.

Increase opportunities for

hunting according to state 

regulations/seasons.

Same as Alternative B.

Wildlife 

observation 

opportunities

Stable. Some increases with future 

habitat conversions. Same as Alternative B.

Quality of 

environmental 

education and 

interpretation

Stable Increase in self-guided 

interpretation. Same as Alternative B.

Visitor 

contact 

facilities and 

signage

Stable onsite with Rydell NWR 

headquarters as primary 

contact station.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

55

Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred 

Alternative

In this appendix:

GOAL 1: Habitat and Wildlife

GOAL 2: People

GOAL 3: Refuge Administration

The purpose of this appendix is to make it easier for the reader to understand the preferred 

alternative and what would be required to implement it. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, 

Service) policy directs that certain elements be included in a Comprehensive Conservation Plan

(CCP). Most of those elements are included in the Environmental Assessment / Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan/ (EA/ CCP). Elements dealing with the implementation of the plan, not 

included in the EA/ CCP, are included in this appendix. Following public review and comment of 

the EA/ CCP, we will produce a stand-alone CCP that draws on much of the information in the 

EA.

GOAL 1: Habitat and Wildlife

Protect, restore, and manage the unique prairie-wetland habitats found within Glacial Ridge 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, refuge) using a variety of strategies to emulate the ecological 

processes and native plant communities that once existed across the Agassiz Beach Ridge 

landscape. The above conservation actions will result in a diversity of resilient tallgrass prairie 

and wetland habitats for the benefit of migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and 

other native wildlife. 

Objective 1-1: Prioritize management unit needs through a peer-developed ranking system 

assessing biological integrity, connectivity, and value to priority species within three years of 

plan approval. Review prioritization rankings on an annual basis while incorporating recent land 

acquisitions.

Strategies

a. Develop a Habitat Management Plan to further guide management direction and set 

annual habitat work plans.

b. Complete a native plant community inventory throughout the refuge. 

c. Conduct baseline wildlife surveys to assess diversity and identify species of concern.

d. Create a centralized management unit database to store biologically relevant information 

for each management unit. 

e. Inventory baseline habitat and wildlife data while establishing a comprehensive 

monitoring framework for management units.

f. Develop an adaptive ranking model to provide support for refuge management actions. 

g. Use model rankings to develop annual refuge work plans to assist with management 

prioritization.
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

56

h. Create detailed management action reports while including future monitoring actions into 

a centralized database.

i. Acquire/review high resolution Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) to aid in planning 

and restoration efforts. 

j. Investigate new technologies (unmanned aerial vehicles, thermal imaging) to acquire 

and monitor habitat needs and wildlife population trends.

k. Develop an Inventory and Monitoring Plan for the refuge. 

Rationale

Baseline biotic and abiotic information is the foundation of information required for credible longterm refuge planning and management. An integrated effort to collect baseline data will fill 

critical information gaps and will help managers prioritize and evaluate the effectiveness of 

annual conservation strategies while reducing uncertainties. A defensible prioritization plan will 

assist staff in making informed management decisions while maintaining a high level of 

efficiency during times of limited staff and resources. Glacial Ridge NWR was created through 

the success of partnerships; therefore, continuing this effort and including stakeholders 

throughout the process will allow transparency and collaboration on management efforts. 

Objective 1-2: Over the next five years, contact all private individuals who own land within 

Glacial Ridge NWR’s acquisition boundary to gauge their interest in selling these lands to the 

Service. 

Strategies

a. Contact private landowners, either in-person or in written form (e.g., for absentee 

landowners) to gauge their interest in for future land purchase.

b. Hold a meeting/forum annually for landowners located within the acquisition area to 

promote transparency on land management activities and reinforce that land will only be 

purchased from willing sellers. 

c. Develop partnerships in the communities to facilitate communication and promote a 

positive public image. 

Rationale

A number of privately held inholdings are present within the acquisition area of Glacial Ridge 

NWR. Inholdings can fragment habitats, be a source of invasive species, and be problematic for 

management actions due to irregular boundaries. In order to make positive steps in land 

acquisition, refuge staff must foster a positive relationship with landowners as well as the 

communities in order to build support for future acquisitions.

Objective 1-3: Manage and enhance fen habitat (according to the Field Guide to the Native 

Plant Communities of Minnesota; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources [MNDNR]

2005b) on a minimum of 25 percent of the high priority management units throughout the life of 

the CCP. 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

57

Strategies

a. Inventory known fen locations refuge wide in order to effectively prioritize management, 

enhancement, and restoration needs. 

b. Identify high quality fen locations to use as reference sites for future restorations. 

c. Compile and prioritize invasive species treatment needs on all identified fens located on 

Glacial Ridge NWR. 

d. Maintain or restore hydrologic function in high priority management units. 

e. Develop a fen inventory protocol with identifying metrics to aid in future inventory, 

management, enhancement, and restoration.

Rationale

The existence and maintenance of fens almost entirely depend upon the hydrologic function that

forms in thick peat soil fed by groundwater. The rich peat fens of Glacial Ridge NWR contain 

primarily bog birch in addition to an abundance of herbaceous species and mosses. Fens were 

likely grazed by large herbivores as were the other natural communities comprising the tallgrass 

prairie. In fens, soil compaction is an issue in areas where concentrated cattle herds replaced 

bison and elk herds. Agriculture, with altered hydrology, pollution, and the installation of tile lines 

and ditches has threatened the integrity of fens at Glacial Ridge NWR. Development, fire 

suppression, and the invasion of exotic species like reed canary grass and purple loosestrife 

continue to affect the quality and subsistence of fens resulting in very little habitat representation 

across the refuge.

Objective 1-4: Protect known populations of the western prairie fringed orchid while increasing 

the overall population on the refuge by 10 percent over the life of the CCP. 

Strategies

a. Continue refuge-scale inventory to identify unknown populations or areas where suitable 

habitat may exist to aid in the repatriation of populations.

b. Place a higher model weight on threatened and endangered species in the refuge 

prioritization model to focus limited resources on areas critical to the survival of the 

western prairie fringed orchid. 

c. Limit prescribed fire once prairie fringed orchids emerge from the soil on management 

units where known populations exist. This will be potentially in early–mid April, but it will 

need to be adjusted annually.

d. Schedule prescribed grazing activities on management units where the western prairie 

fringed orchid is known to occur before or after periods when the plant is most 

susceptible (June 1–September 15). 

e. Control invasive species in fen habitats using a variety of herbicide mixes that have been 

proven to not harm populations of the western prairie fringed orchid.

f. Provide private landowners within the acquisition area of Glacial Ridge NWR information 

on the best management practices of the western prairie fringed orchid including land 

conversion, overgrazing, intensive hay mowing, drainage, woody encroachment, and 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

58

herbicide use to aid populations that may exist outside the boundary of Glacial Ridge 

NWR.

g. Prioritize land acquisition efforts on parcels that contain populations or suitable habitat 

for the western prairie fringed orchid. 

Rationale

The western prairie fringed orchid was classified as threatened under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 and is known to occur in 41 counties of 6 states, in addition to a population in 

Manitoba (FWS 2009). Historically, populations of the western prairie fringed orchid decreased 

largely due to the conversion its preferred habitats of unplowed, calcareous prairies and sedge 

meadows to cropland (FWS 2009). Today, populations are also threatened by overgrazing, 

intensive haying, invasive species, drainage, and herbicide/pesticide use. Therefore, the refuge 

staff will evaluate management options on an annual basis to incorporate new research 

management in order to effectively manage the population.

Objective 1-5: Restore 173 acres of wetlands over the life of the CCP, to provide suitable 

habitat for focal species, such as blue-winged teal, marbled godwits, mallards, and sedge 

wrens. This acreage represents 50 percent of the total acres of wetlands indicated as being 

“restorable” on all private land within the Glacial Ridge NWR acquisition boundary (Polk Co. 

Restorable Wetland Inventory [RWI], FWS Habitat and Population Evaluation Team). 

Strategies

a. Assess historic wetland condition, and identify reference sites on Glacial Ridge NWR.

b. Complete a hydro geomorphic analysis to effectively evaluate the wetland ecosystem.

c. Use wetland restoration strategies that require minimal maintenance.

d. Prioritize wetland restoration in all refuge management units.

e. Cost-share restoration efforts whenever possible with partners or adjacent landowners. 

f. Coordinate restorations with adjacent landowners to ensure that project outcomes will 

not alter water resources/hydrology on privately held land, without their concurrence. 

g. Ground-truth the condition of wetland basins indicated as being “restorable” in the Polk 

Co. RWI, either as land is acquired by the Service or on private land where landowners 

are willing to work with the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.

Rationale

Depressional wetlands were a dominant feature of the tallgrass prairie landscape of western 

Minnesota prior to European settlement. However, presently throughout much of Minnesota, 

fewer than 10 percent of the original wetlands still exist (Dahl 2011). The other 90 percent has

been drained or filled, largely to facilitate intensive agricultural production. Consequences of this 

loss of aquatic habitats are widespread, including the loss of habitat critical for wetlanddependent wildlife, as well as impacts to water quality and flood attenuation capabilities on a 

watershed scale.
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

59

The majority of temporary and seasonal wetlands within what is now Glacial Ridge NWR were

drained via surface ditches or subsurface drain tile prior to the land being acquired by The 

Nature Conservancy (TNC) in 2000. TNC and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

partnered to accomplish widespread wetland restorations throughout this area, prior to the land 

ownership transfer to the Service.

As we acquire private land within the Glacial Ridge NWR acquisition boundary, refuge staff will 

complete the necessary wetland restorations in order to further provide multiple natural resource 

and socioeconomic benefits to the area. Continuing to restore wetlands, as opportunity exists 

within the refuge’s acquisition boundary, will ultimately help to restore some level of hydrological 

function on a watershed scale, in addition to providing important habitat to multiple focal wildlife 

species identified in this CCP.

Objective 1-6: Reduce populations of invasive cattail (Typha angustifolia and Typha x glauca) 

and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) by 10 percent in seasonal/temporary wetlands 

located in 50 percent of the high priority management units, over the life of this CCP.

Strategies

a. Assess invasive species cover and diversity in each wetland.

b. Use a combination of prescribed fire, grazing, mechanical and chemical treatments, and 

native plantings to reduce invasive coverage and restore wetlands to the desired species 

composition and structure. 

c. Investigate alternative methods for non-native and hybrid cattail and reed canary grass 

removal and control.

d. Monitor the success of management actions through collaboratively developed protocols 

or remote sensors. 

e. Maintain transparency with partners on proposed treatment cycles while developing 

collaborative management efforts on a large scale. 

f. Educate private landowners on adjacent tracts about the threat of invasive species and 

programs to aid in the control of invasive species to help prevent the spread of invasives 

on refuge lands. 

Rationale

Invasive cattail and reed canary grass are highly adaptable, spread quickly, and form dense 

litter mats that restrict wildlife use. A multi-faceted management approach has been successful 

in reducing populations on localized scales. Shifting this success to the landscape scale has 

been difficult due to management costs, repetitive treatment requirements, and the high rate of 

spread of these species. Prioritizing management unit needs while utilizing an adaptive 

framework for control will help managers determine the quality and success of actions to reduce 

these invasive populations through extended time frames.

Objective 1-7: Provide between 30–70 percent coverage of emergent vegetation on semipermanent wetlands within the refuge on average, over 10 of the 15 years to provide for a 

variety of migratory and breeding waterbird species.
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

Strategies

a. Estimate percent coverage of emergent vegetation through either visual estimation or 

GIS-area determination using available aerial imagery.

b. Reduce extent of emergent vegetation through a combination of tools, including 

chemical application, prescribed fire, grazing, mashing, mowing, and haying.

c. On wetlands with some level of water management capability, manipulate water levels in 

order to promote the desired vegetative response.

Rationale

Previous research has indicated that wetlands with an approximate 50:50 ratio of open water 

and emergent vegetation (e.g., cattails, bulrushes), often termed “hemi-marshes,” attract the 

highest densities and diversity of wetland birds (Weller and Spatcher 1965). Wetland birds that 

utilize Glacial Ridge NWR and find hemi-marsh conditions favorable include various waterfowl 

and shorebird species, herons, terns, blackbirds, and cranes. Refuge staff anticipate being able 

to achieve open water to emergent vegetation ratios close to the 50:50 ratio (i.e., 30:70 ratio, 

70:30 ratio) as recommended by Weller and Spatcher (1965), in most years (approximately 10 

of 15), through targeted vegetation management. Because of the dynamics involved with 

prairie-wetland conditions over time, in certain years the coverage of emergent wetland 

vegetation may fall well outside of our target range (30–70 percent coverage). During periods of 

extreme drought, cover of wetland emergents may exceed the upper-end target of 70 percent, 

whereas during extremely wet periods, refuge wetlands may revert to a more open water state, 

supporting far less than 30 percent coverage of emergent vegetation.

Objective 1-8: Restore new acquisitions in the refuge uplands within five years. Strive to 

achieve 75 percent comparability to the native plant communities in 50 percent of the 

restorations, within 10 years of each initial seeding effort—as described in the Field Guide to the 

Native Plant Communities of Minnesota (MNDNR 2005b).

Strategies

a. Identify remnant prairie reference sites to create restoration seed lists.

b. Use local ecotype seeds for tallgrass prairie restoration efforts.

c. Follow best restoration practices while annually incorporating new research and 

techniques.

d. Use a farming cooperator to prepare seedbed, if applicable, with traditional or genetically 

modified crops as outlined in the compatibility determination for cooperative farming (see 

appendix H – Cooperative Farming Compatibility Determination).

e. Include stakeholders throughout the design and restoration phase.

f. Cost-share restoration efforts whenever possible.

Rationale

An estimated 98 percent of the tallgrass prairie and 90 percent of the wetlands have vanished 

from the Prairie Pothole Region of Minnesota that once existed prior to settlement (Minnesota 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

61

Prairie Plan Working Group 2011). Grassland obligate species have exhibited sharp declines 

throughout their respective ranges, likely due to the drastic reduction in available habitat. It is of 

the utmost importance that the remaining habitat be protected, enhanced, or restored in an 

effort to mitigate these population declines. The remnant prairies and wetlands of Glacial Ridge 

NWR contain a number of regional priority species, in addition to some of the largest remaining 

populations of the federally threatened western prairie fringed orchid. 

Objective 1-9: Reduce the frequency of occurrence of exotic cool-season grasses (e.g., smooth 

brome, Kentucky bluegrass) by five percent, over a 15-year period on 50 percent of all refuge 

upland acres. Correspondingly, increase the frequency of occurrence of both cool- and warmseason native grasses (e.g., little bluestem, porcupine grass, Junegrass) by five percent over 

the same timeframe on the same acreage. 

Strategies

a. Collect baseline inventory data on the occupancy of cool-season grasses and prioritize 

management actions to mitigate the rate of spread. 

b. Manage refuge units with prescribed fire, grazing, mowing, haying, chemical, or some 

combination of these actions.

c. Interseed (no till) a mix of cool- and warm-season native grass seed.

d. Monitor change over time by collecting, analyzing, and evaluating monitoring data 

collected from collaboratively developed protocols. 

Rationale

Prairies throughout North America continue to decline in quality and quantity, due in part to 

invasion by exotic plant species (Samson and Knopf 1994, Bragg and Steuter 1995). Many 

areas of native and reconstructed prairie on the refuge have been heavily invaded by several 

exotic cool-season grass species, primarily smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass. Numerous 

scientific studies suggest that a number of grassland-dependent birds, including marbled 

godwits, upland sandpipers, and western meadowlark, favor areas dominated by native 

vegetation (Lindmeier 1960, Fairfield 1968, Owens and Myres 1973, Maher 1974, Stewart 1975, 

Kaiser 1979, Ryan 1982, Faanes 1983, White 1983, Ryan et al. 1984, Wilson and Belcher 1989, 

Kantrud and Higgins 1992, Dhol et al. 1994, Anstey et al. 1995, Skeel et al. 1995, Prescott and 

Murphy 1996, Davis and Duncan 1999). Johnson and Igl (2001) consider the degradation of 

remaining grassland areas in the northern Great Plains, due to inadequate or improper 

management, as one of the principal factors in the declining populations of numerous grassland 

bird species. 

Objective 1-10: Reduce the total acreage of noxious weeds (e.g., leafy spurge, spotted 

knapweed, crown vetch) by a total of 10 percent, over a 15-year period in 50 percent of high 

priority refuge units.

Strategies

a. Complete refuge-wide inventory of invasive species, assessing the cover and diversity 

throughout each management unit.
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

62

b. Adopt the idea of early detection and rapid response for new or highly noxious invasive 

species. 

c. Assign a larger weight to management units where highly noxious invasive species have 

been detected in the management prioritization model. 

d. Coordinate with partners on assessing the severity of new invasions while developing a 

simple framework for a coordinated response. 

e. Treat invasives using best management practices with or a combination of chemical, 

mechanical, or biological applications. 

f. Use prescribed fire to treat areas infested with invasive species to prepare the site for 

other control practices (e.g., biological control agents, chemical control).

g. Investigate new or alternative biological control agents, and release when appropriate 

(e.g., leafy spurge flea beetles).

h. Monitor change over time utilizing a variety monitoring methods or protocols that have 

been collaboratively developed with partners or through project initiatives for vegetation 

monitoring (e.g., Grassland Monitoring Team, Native Prairie Adaptive Management, or 

the Prairie Reconstruction Initiative). 

Rationale

Invasive species are one of the biggest threats to lands in the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The current distribution of invasives on a refuge scale is unknown at this point, which creates 

uncertainties in regard to treatment prioritization and early detection and rapid response. In 

order to maintain a healthy prairie community, the spread of invasive species must be stopped 

while significant effort is made to reduce invasive populations in high quality prairie sites. 

Objective 1-11: Restore and maintain savanna habitat by the removal of at least 50 percent of 

species not commonly found within the overstory and midstory of the savanna community as 

described in the Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota (MNDNR 2005b), 

over the life of the CCP. 

Strategies

a. Use a combination of prescribed fire, grazing, chemical, mechanical, and biological 

management actions to reach the desired understory community and structure.

b. Alter the forest overstory on current refuge lands and future acquisitions through logging 

activities to restore the desired canopy cover. 

c. Create sub-management units, where required, to implement unique fire-return intervals 

and other management activities to promote the regeneration of oak seedlings. 

d. Plant tree seedlings at savanna restoration sites that exhibit low species diversity using 

species that have been identified at reference locations or species listed in the Field 

Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota (MNDNR 2005b).

e. Investigate and use other timber stand improvement techniques such as cull tree 

removal, sanitation cutting, and release to improve the quality of the savanna. 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

63

Rationale

Savannas, typically located in the prairie-forest transition zone, now only occur in a fraction of 

the historical range in North America. The east side of Glacial Ridge NWR supported savanna 

habitat in areas that received periodic fires, which promoted the oak dominated community. Fire 

was highly important in the development and maintenance of this community, which has been 

widely suppressed since European settlement. The lack of frequent fires, in addition to invasive 

species, timber harvest, agriculture, overgrazing, habitat fragmentation, and development, have 

severely degraded the few remaining savanna sites.

Objective 1-12: On 75 percent of high priority refuge units, decrease the woody vegetation (tall 

brush, trees) by a minimum of 15 percent over the life of the CCP.

Strategies

a. Assess woody encroachment on a refuge scale while incorporating this data into the 

overall prioritization model.

b. Use a variety of disturbance techniques including fire, grazing, mechanical, and 

chemical treatments to meet desired habitat structure and species composition 

objectives. 

c. Manage all units with appropriate herbicides to minimize damage to the prairie 

community. 

d. Mow woody vegetation with a variety of heavy equipment, with a temporal focus that 

minimizes impacts to nesting birds and sod disturbance. Areas that are mowed will 

typically receive follow-up management (e.g., fire, grazing, chemical) as part of a tiered 

management approach to reducing woody vegetation.

e. Monitor change over time by collecting, analyzing, and evaluating data collected from 

collaboratively developed protocols or remote sensors. 

f. Develop and pilot a framework for prescribed fire monitoring to test and evaluate 

conditions for maximum woody vegetation control. 

g. Coordinate with partners identified in the Minnesota Prairie Landscape Conservation 

Plan on management strategies and activities. 

Rationale

In addition to the negative effects on the biodiversity of native prairie caused by the invasion of 

exotic grasses (e.g., smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass) and forbs (e.g., leafy spurge), 

expansion of native woody vegetation (e.g., willow, aspen) has occurred over time since 

European settlement and the subsequent loss or misapplication of historical ecological 

disturbance regimes (e.g., fire, herbivory). Extirpation of bison and wildfire suppression are 

factors that have been tied to expansion of woody vegetation (Samson and Knopf 1994). 

Multiple studies have documented the negative effects of woody cover to multiple bird species 

of importance on the refuge, including the bobolink (Johnson and Temple 1986, Helzer 1996, 

Sample 1989, Bollinger and Gavin 1992, Madden 1996), grasshopper sparrow (Johnson and 

Odum 1956, Smith 1963, Bent 1968, Wiens 1969, Wiens 1970, Kahl et al. 1985), marbled 

godwit (Renken and Dinsmore 1987), upland sandpiper (Buss and Hawkins 1939, Rotenberry 

and Wiens 1980, Renken 1983, Skinner et al. 1984, Sample 1989, Kantrud and Higgins 1992, 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

64

Hull et al, 1996), and western meadowlark (Sample 1989, George and McEwen 1991, Kimmel 

et al. 1992, Anstey et al. 1995, Hull et al. 1996, Madden 1996). Additionally, Arnold and Higgins 

(1986) found that brown-headed cowbirds, which are obligate nest parasites (Johnsgard 1979), 

were one of the most abundant species in woody study sites.

Objective 1-13: Maintain a minimum of 35 percent of all upland acres in a high visual 

obstruction reading (VOR) category (>8 inches; Robel et al. 1970), a minimum of 25 percent in 

a medium VOR category (4–8 inches), and a minimum of 10 in a low VOR category (<4 inches).

Strategies

a. Manage units or portions of units with prescribed fire, grazing, or a combination of both.

b. Manage units with a rotational herbicide disturbance regime, where applicable, to 

remove noxious or unwanted species. 

c. Measure VOR using a methodology outlined in protocols developed by the Grassland 

Management Team (Grant 2004), Native Prairie Adaptive Management, or the Prairie 

Reconstruction Initiative. 

d. Measure VOR annually, for a period of 15 years, at a representative sample of high 

priority management units

Rationale

The structure of idled vegetation is extremely important for waterfowl and a number of other 

grassland nesting birds (Naugle et al. 1999). According to Robel et al. (1970), vegetative 

species composition alone does not typically provide all of the information necessary to 

appraise the habitat potential of a grassland. Further, Emlen (1977) suggested that vegetative 

density and screening efficiency were at least as important as species composition in describing 

avian habitats. This is particularly true for birds that are vegetative species generalists, such as 

upland nesting ducks. Sample and Mossman (1997) suggest that diversity of structure (and 

cover types) should be promoted at a variety of landscape scales, and that the structural 

diversity should be achieved by planting and managing for a diverse plant community. 

Objective 1-14: Within three years, work with the Habitat and Population Evaluation Team 

(HAPET) office to create a step down management plan for the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 

Waterfowl Implementation Plan (2005) population targets specific to Glacial Ridge NWR. Once 

refuge-specific target populations have been identified, ensure that population levels meet or 

exceed target population goals in at least 50 percent of the years, over the life of this CCP. 

Strategies

a. In cooperation with HAPET, investigate waterfowl use on Glacial Ridge NWR to collect 

baseline population levels. 

b. Acquire land from willing sellers to perpetually protect habitat for waterfowl conservation.

c. Develop a systematic approach to wetland restoration to increase available habitat on 

the refuge scale.

d. Manage and restore upland habitat to high quality native tallgrass prairie. 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

65

e. Work with partners and adjacent landowners to develop a collaborative approach for 

water management and prairie conservation, where applicable. 

f. Improve wetland species composition and structure using a variety of disturbance 

regimes to benefit breeding waterfowl. 

g. Monitor populations through protocols identified in the Refuge Inventory and Monitoring 

Plan. 

Rationale

Wetland restoration within the acquisition boundary and follow-up management of all wetlands 

are critical for the refuge to reach its full potential as a breeding place for waterfowl. The Service 

will acquire land within the acquisition boundary from willing sellers and restore all wetlands 

within the acquired tracts through time. In addition, the Service will work with partners and 

private landowners to restore wetlands within the boundary on lands remaining in private 

ownership. Once restored, the focus will be improving the quality of wetland habitat, especially 

the distribution of emergent vegetation, making all wetlands more attractive to pairs (Weller and 

Spatcher 1965, Murkin et al. 1982). Indirect manipulation of wetland vegetation will occur using 

grazing, prescribed burning, or haying on associated uplands. The acquisition and restoration of 

all remaining wetlands within the acquisition boundary along with habitat improvements will 

sustain a higher number breeding pairs annually. Refuge staff aims to meet this goal in 50 

percent of the years outlined in this CCP to account for climatic conditions that are beyond the 

control of the staff, such as prolonged drought. Implementing these strategies will also benefit 

many other priority wetland and grassland dependent species (Figure A-1).
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

66

Figure A-1: Future Vegetation on Glacial Ridge NWR (2100)
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

67

GOAL 2: People

Provide a safe environment for visitors of all abilities to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation, 

while increasing their knowledge and appreciation of the northern tallgrass prairie ecosystem 

and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Objective 2-1: Develop and provide high quality hunting opportunities for the public while 

creating an educational and inclusive youth hunt program within five years of CCP approval.

Strategies

a. Increase outreach efforts about hunting opportunities on public land.

b. Update the refuge Hunt Plan.

c. Clarify existing hunt boundaries and provide additional signage to minimize user group 

conflicts. 

d. Work with partners to develop an annual youth waterfowl hunt.

e. Develop a contingency plan with a permitting system if hunter interest exceeds capacity 

limits.

Rationale

Hunting is one of the priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge 

System) and is to be facilitated under the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 

when compatible. Hunting in northwestern Minnesota is a popular outdoor tradition and plays a 

major role in the culture of the local community. By promoting responsible hunting practices 

along with the mission of the Service, individuals can gain a unique understanding and 

appreciation for wildlife conservation and protection. 

Objective 2-2: Increase the opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife photography within

five years of plan approval.

Strategies

a. Develop a self-guided auto tour using existing roads to provide wildlife viewing 

opportunities that will have minimal disturbance to wildlife populations. 

b. Work with partners to manage greater prairie-chicken viewing blinds located on the 

refuge. 

c. Coordinate with partners and develop a network of birding stops throughout the refuge. 

d. Promote opportunities for wildlife photography and viewing through coordinated events 

with partners and the local communities. 

Rationale

Wildlife observation and photography are two of the six priority public uses of the Refuge 

System under the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. Both uses enable visitors 

to gain a better understanding and appreciation of the value of and need for the fish and wildlife 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

68

habitat conservation. Avitourism or birding-based travel is a rapidly emerging and popular sector 

of the tourism industry. In addition to providing greater awareness about the Refuge System; 

increased refuge attendance and publicity will also likely result in greater socioeconomic gains 

for the local communities. 

Objective 2-3: Provide environmental education programs and interpretation opportunities while 

developing partnerships with local educational institutions within five years of plan approval.

Strategies

a. Offer simple yet high quality interpretive programs about the unique habitat and wildlife 

of Glacial Ridge NWR.

b. Develop a self-guided auto tour using existing roads with interpretation panels located

throughout the route.

c. Maintain straightforward yet effective exhibits at the visitor contact station of Glacial 

Ridge NWR. 

d. Partner with the Friends of Rydell and Glacial Ridge Refuges Association for 

environmental education and interpretation programs.

e. Work with partners to obtain sustained funding for youth to visit the refuge.

f. Provide guest lectures for community events and educational institutions.

g. Actively recruit, train, and educate youth interns on the mission of the Service and 

wildlife conservation principles.

Rationale

Environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses of the Refuge System under 

the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. Interpreting the resources and 

challenges of wildlife management to education institutions and the general public can be an 

effective way to share the mission of the Service. Studies have shown that fewer Americans 

hunt, participate in shooting sports, or spend time outside in general (Clements 2004,

Responsive Management/National Shooting Sports Foundation 2008). Through the use of 

interpretation, refuge staff and their partners can create a lasting connection with visitors while 

providing them a deeper understanding of the Refuge System and the natural world. 

Objective 2-4: Increase community support and participation through a systematic outreach 

effort aimed to raise awareness of the mission of Glacial Ridge NWR as well as the mission of 

the Service and its partners. 

Strategies

a. Promote community events and national initiatives at Glacial Ridge NWR. 

b. Continue to gain broad support for the refuge and the Service through a variety of social 

media outlets. 

c. Develop an efficient visitor survey tool that will provide timely feedback to refuge staff. 

d. Develop a working relationship with local county tourism boards.
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

69

Rationale

Although national wildlife refuges are managed first and foremost for the conservation of fish 

and wildlife, it is recognized that increasing the public’s awareness on purpose and programs is 

essential. Communities that are informed on the mission of the Service and the refuge will be 

able to take full advantage of the recreation opportunities allowed on the refuge in addition to 

influencing the future management direction. 

GOAL 3: Refuge Administration

Maintain and enhance refuge infrastructure and operations responsibly and sustainably for 

wildlife, the American public, and employees.

Objective 3-1: Incorporate universal access, safety, and efficiency into the design, construction, 

and retrofitting of facilities and infrastructure while minimizing the disturbance footprint to natural 

resources.

Strategies

a. Ensure that all new facilities are compatible with the American Disabilities Act, and 

retrofit existing facilities whenever feasible. 

b. Incorporate refuge facilities that double as severe weather shelters for visitors and staff. 

c. Use sustainable design and source local materials whenever possible.

d. Design and construct facilities and infrastructure using methods that will require minimal 

maintenance and ease of repair. 

e. Conduct a building energy audit. 

f. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis and create a long-term maintenance schedule before 

the construction of new facilities. 

Rationale

The Refuge System must be a leader of accessibility, efficiency, and sustainable use in their 

communities in order to effectively share its mission. In order to sufficiently manage and 

improve current facilities with a nationwide decrease in staffing, refuges will be required to 

analyze current operational methods and rigorously plan future expansion.

Objective 3-2: Continue to fill any vacancies and otherwise sustain current levels of staffing and 

volunteer program to achieve refuge purposes. 

Strategies

a. Maintain current positions as outlined in the Region 3 Workforce Plan.

b. Maintain positive relationship with the Friends of Rydell and Glacial Ridge Refuges 

Association.

c. Continue to develop partnerships with the Student Conservation Association. 

d. Continue to work with community volunteer groups.
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

Rationale

The Refuge System must continue to be adequately staffed in order to effectively protect wildlife 

and habitat while providing for public use opportunities. Current staffing throughout the Refuge 

System is supplemented by volunteers who donate thousands of hours of service in an effort to 

enhance federal lands. The continuation of successful community partnerships and offering 

rewarding volunteer opportunities will enable refuge staff to accomplish annually set objectives 

in times of budgetary setbacks. 

Objective 3-3: Replace equipment that is past its service life with items that will increase staff 

efficiency and minimize the amount of required maintenance. 

Strategies

a. Replace any facility equipment with ENERGY STAR certified or equivalent rating. 

b. Investigate alternative modes of transportation on refuge.

c. Compile service records into a centralized database to aid in condition and usage 

reporting. 

d. Consolidate under-utilized or inefficient equipment, and trade in or replace with modern 

and efficient models.

Annually update station equipment needs to reflect the past year’s equipment malfunctions and 

failures. 

Rationale

In many instances, equipment throughout the Refuge System is aging and is in need of 

replacement. Nationwide or even region-wide replacement is not feasible due to limited budgets 

and other priorities refuges must consider. Refuge staff must make strategic decisions to 

replace aging and malfunctioning equipment in a manner that will sustain or enhance current 

efficiency levels without exceeding regional budgets.
Appendix B: Priority Species

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

71

Appendix B: Priority Species

In this appendix:

Priority Species List

Priority Species List

Priority resources of concern and other benefiting species on Glacial Ridge National Wildlife 

Refuge. The bird habitat requirements in this list are summarized from the respective species 

accounts in Johnson et al. (2002), Johnson et al. (2004), Poole (2005), and expert opinion (S. 

Lewis, R. Russell, and T. Will, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS, Service], personal 

communication). Information for prairie butterflies is from FWS (2007), Selby (2010), and expert 

opinion (P. Delphey, FWS, personal communication). Additional resources of concern will be 

identified during the Habitat Management Plan process using the Rocstar method developed by 

the FWS and Cardno.

Focal Species Habitat 

Type Habitat Structure Life History Requirement

Other Benefitting 

Species

Dakota skipper

Poweshiek 

skipperling

Dry prairie Stubble heights ≥20 

cm in tallgrass 

prairies; low to 

moderate litter

Whole life 

cycle 

Regal fritillary, 

sharp-tailed grouse, 

dicksissel, prairie vole, 

plains pocketmouse, 

Richardson’s ground 

squirrel, northern harrier, 

savannah sparrow, 

chestnut-collared 

longspur, western 

meadowlark

Grasshopper 

sparrow

Greater prairiechicken

Upland sandpiper

Clumped vegetation 

interspersed with 

bare ground; 

moderate litter

Full season

Breeding

Foraging

Upland sandpiper 

Greater prairiechicken

Moderate to tall, 

patchy

Brood rearing 

and nesting

Sedge wren, savannah 

sparrow, clay-colored 

sparrow, western 

meadowlark

Greater prairiechicken

Western 

meadowlark

Mesic prairie Short, open 

vegetation

Breeding

Full season

Short-eared owl, plains 

pocketmouse, marbled 

godwit

Dakota skipper

Poweshiek 

skipperling

Moderate to tall, 

patchy

Whole life 

cycle

Henslow’s sparrow, regal 

fritillary, northern harrier
Appendix B: Priority Species

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

72

Focal Species Habitat 

Type Habitat Structure Life History Requirement

Other Benefitting 

Species

Greater prairiechicken

Blue-winged teal

Western 

meadowlark

Nesting and 

brood rearing

Nesting

Full season

Mallard

Northern harrier

Sedge wren

Tall, dense Nesting

Full season

Full season

Henslow’s sparrow, 

common yellowthroat, 

bobolink, American 

bittern, badger 

Marbled godwit Wet prairie Disturbed prairie –

hayed or grazed 

areas with low 

vegetation

Breeding Hudsonian godwit, 

Wilson’s phalarope, 

LeConte’s sparrow (wet 

years), black-crowned 

night heron

Mallard

Sedge wren

Tall, dense Nesting

Full season

Sandhill crane, bobolink, 

American bittern, 

Henslow’s sparrow

Marbled godwit Depressional 

wetlands

Shallow water, 

short/sparse to open 

shoreline vegetation

Short to intermediate

height grassland with 

<40% dead 

vegetation

and average cover

height 17 cm

Foraging Virginia rail, sora, 

trumpeter swan, 

American bittern, least 

bittern, black tern, blackcrowned night heron, 

pied-billed grebe

Waterfowl

Mallard

Blue-winged teal

Hemi-marsh, 

interspersed 

vegetation and open 

water, shallow

Breeding, 

brood 

rearing, 

molting

Northern harrier

Sedge wren

Tall, dense Full season Marsh wren, greater 

prairie-chicken

Mallard Shallow 

lakes

Hemi-marsh, 

submerged 

vegetation

Molting, 

staging, and 

migration

Waterfowl, western 

grebe, Forster’s tern, 

green heron, Virginia rail, 

sora, trumpeter swan, 

least bittern, black tern, 

black-crowned night 

heron, great egret, great 

blue heron, marsh wren
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

73

Appendix C: Species Lists

In this appendix:

Birds

Mammals

Plants

Invertebrates of Glacial Ridge NWR

Birds

Glacial Ridge NWR Birds

SE = State endangered C = Common

ST = State Threatened U = Uncommon

SSC = Species of special concern in the State of Minnesota O = Occasional

i = Irregular; annual abundance varies R = Rare

Common Name Scientific Name

SpringSummerFallWinter

Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum U U U

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana U O O

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus C C U

American Black Duck Anas rubripes O R O

American Coot Fulica americana C C C

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos C C C O

American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica U U

American Goldfinch, i Spinus tristis C C C O

American Kestrel Falco sparverius U C U R

American Pipit Anthus rubescens O U

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla U U U

American Robin Turdus migratorius C C C

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea C C O

American White Pelican, SSC Pelecanus erythrorhynchos U O U

American Wigeon Anas americana C U C

American Woodcock Scolopax minor O O O

Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii U R U

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus C C C C

Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula U O U

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia U O U

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica C C C

Bay-breasted Warbler Setophaga castanea O O

Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon U U U

Black Tern Chlidonias niger U U U

Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia O R O

Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus R R R R

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola U U

Black-billed Cuckoo, i Coccyzus erythropthalmus O O O
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

74

Common Name Scientific Name

SpringSummerFallWinter

Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia U U U U

Blackburnian Warbler Setophaga fusca U R U

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus C C C C

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax U U U

Blackpoll Warbler Setophaga striata O O

Black-throated Blue Warbler Setophaga caerulescens R R

Black-throated Green Warbler Setophaga virens U R U

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata U U U U

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius O O

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors C C C

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus C C C

Bohemian Waxwing, i Bombycilla garrulus O O O

Bonaparte's Gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia R R

Boreal Owl, i, SSC Aegolius funereus R

Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus C C U

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus O O

Brown Creeper Certhia americana O O O R

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum U U U

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater C C C

Buff-breasted Sandpiper Calidris subruficollis R O

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola U R U

Burrowing Owl, SE Athene cunicularia R R R

Cackling Goose Branta hutchinsii U U

California Gull Larus californicus R

Canada Goose Branta canadensis C C C O

Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis U U

Canvasback Aythya valisineria U O U

Cape May Warbler Setophaga tigrina U U

Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia R R

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis R R

Cedar Waxwing, i Bombycilla cedrorum U U U U

Chestnut-sided Warbler Setophaga pensylvanica U O U

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica R R R

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina U U U

Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida C C C

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota U U U

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula U U R

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula C U C

Common Loon Gavia immer O O O

Common Merganser Mergus merganser U U R

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor U U U

Common Raven Corvus corax O

Common Redpoll, i Acanthis flammea U U C

Common Tern, ST Sterna hirundo R R

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas C C C

Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis R R

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii O O O R

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis C C O

Dickcissel Spiza americana O O O
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

75

Common Name Scientific Name

SpringSummerFallWinter

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus O O O

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens U U U U

Dunlin Calidris alpina O O

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis O O O

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis U O U

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus C C C

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna O O

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe U U U

Eastern Screech-Owl Megascops asio R R R R

Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus R R R

Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens U U U

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris O O O O

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus O

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis R

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla R R R

Forster's Tern, SSC Sterna forsteri U R U

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca O O

Franklin's Gull, SSC Leucophaeus pipixcan C C

Gadwall Anas strepera C C C

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos R R

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa R R

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera R R R

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum C C O

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis U U U

Gray Partridge Perdix perdix O O O O

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus O O

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias C C U

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus U U U

Great Egret Ardea alba O U

Great Gray Owl, i Strix nebulosa R

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus C C C C

Greater Prairie-Chicken, SSC Tympanuchus cupido C C C C

Greater Scaup Aythya marila R R

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons U O

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca C U C

Green Heron Butorides virescens O O O

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca C U C

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus U U U U

Harris's Sparrow Zonotrichia querula O O O

Henslow's Sparrow, SE Ammodramus henslowii O O O

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus O O

Herring Gull Larus argentatus U U

Hoary Redpoll, i Acanthis hornemanni O

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus C U U

Horned Grebe, SE Podiceps auritus R R R

Horned Lark, i Eremophila alpestris U U U O

House Finch Haemorhous mexicanus O O O O

House Sparrow Passer domesticus U U U U

House Wren Troglodytes aedon U U U
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

76

Common Name Scientific Name

SpringSummerFallWinter

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica O

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea O O O

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus C C C

Lapland Longspur, i Calcarius lapponicus O

Lark Bunting, i Calamospiza melanocorys R R R

Lark Sparrow, SSC Chondestes grammacus R R R

Le Conte's Sparrow, i Ammodramus leconteii C C C

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis O O O

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus U U U

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla C C

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis U O U

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes C O C

Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii U U

Loggerhead Shrike, SE Lanius ludovicianus R R R

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus U U

Long-eared Owl Asio otus R R R

Magnolia Warbler Setophaga magnolia U U

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos C C C R

Marbled Godwit, SSC Limosa fedoa U U U

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris C C C

Merlin Falco columbarius O O O

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura C C C

Mourning Warbler Geothlypis philadelphia U U

Nashville Warbler Oreothlypis ruficapilla U R U

Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow, SSC Ammodramus nelsoni O O O

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis R

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus U U U

Northern Goshawk, SSC Accipiter gentilis R

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus C C C

Northern Hawk Owl, i Surnia ulula R

Northern Parula Setophaga americana O O

Northern Pintail Anas acuta U O U

Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis U O U

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata C U C

Northern Shrike, i Lanius excubitor O O U

Northern Waterthrush Parkesia noveboracensis U U

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi O O

Orange-crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata O O

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius R R R

Osprey Pandion haliaetus O O

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla U U U

Palm Warbler Setophaga palmarum U U

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos U U

Peregrine Falcon, SSC Falco peregrinus O O

Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus R R

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps C C C

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus O O O O

Pine Grosbeak, i Pinicola enucleator U

Pine Siskin, i Spinus pinus U C
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

77

Common Name Scientific Name

SpringSummerFallWinter

Pine Warbler Setophaga pinus R R

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus R R R

Purple Finch Haemorhous purpureus O O O

Purple Martin, SSC Progne subis R R R

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra R

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus R R R R

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator R R

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis R

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus O O O

Redhead Aythya americana U U U

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus O O O

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena U U U

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus O O

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis C C C R

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus C C C R

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis U U U

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris U U U

Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus R R R R

Rock Pigeon Columba livia O O O O

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus R R R

Ross's Goose Chen rossii R R

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus R O U

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula O O

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris U U U

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis U U U

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres O O

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus O O O O

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus U U

Sanderling Calidris alba O O

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis C C C

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis C C C

Say's Phoebe Sayornis saya O O

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea O R O

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis C C C

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus U U

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla C C

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus U O U

Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus C C C C

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus U U

Short-eared Owl, i, SSC Asio flammeus U U U O

Smith's Longspur Calcarius pictus O O O

Snow Bunting, i Plectrophenax nivalis U U U

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens R R

Snowy Egret Egretta thula R R

Snowy Owl, i Bubo scandiacus R O O

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria U U

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia C C C

Sora Porzana carolina C C C

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius O O O
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

78

Common Name Scientific Name

SpringSummerFallWinter

Sprague's Pipit Anthus spragueii R R R

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus O O

Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni O R O

Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus O O

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana C C C

Tennessee Warbler Oreothlypis peregrina U U

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor C C C

Trumpeter Swan, SSC Cygnus buccinator C U U

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus O O

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura R R R

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda C C U

Veery Catharus fuscescens R R R

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus C C C

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola U U U

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus U U U

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis O O O

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis R R R

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta C C C

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus O O O

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis U U U U

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys O O

White-faced Ibis, i Plegadis chihi R R

White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis C

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis U U

White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera R

Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo O O O O

Willet Tringa semipalmata U U

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii O O O

Wilson's Phalarope, ST Phalaropus tricolor U U

Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata C C C

Wilson's Warbler Cardellina pusilla U U

Winter Wren Troglodytes hiemalis R R

Wood Duck Aix sponsa U O U

Yellow Rail, SSC Coturnicops noveboracensis U U U

Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia C C C

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris O O

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius O O O

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus C C C

Yellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata U U

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons U U U
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

79

Mammals

Mammals of Glacial Ridge NWR

Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal Status

Sorex arcticus Arctic shrew

Sorex cinereus Masked shrew

Sorex palustris American water shrew

Microsorex hoyi Pygmy shrew

Blarina brevicauda Northern short-tailed shrew

Condylura cristata Star-nosed mole

Myotis lucifugus Little brown bat (myotis)

Special 

Concern

Eptesicus fuscus Big brown bat

Special 

Concern

Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail

Lepus townsendii White-tailed jackrabbit

Marmota monax Woodchuck

Spermophilus franklini Franklin’s ground squirrel

Urocitellus richardsonii Richardson's ground squirrel

Special 

Concern

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus Thirteen-lined ground squirrel

Sciurus carolinensis Eastern gray squirrel

Sciurus niger Eastern fox squirrel

Geomys bursarius Plains pocket gopher

Castor canadensis American Beaver

Peromyscus leucopus White-footed mouse

Peromyscus maniculatus Deer mouse

Mus musculus House mouse

Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole

Ondatra zibethicus Common muskrat

Zapus hudsonius Meadow jumping mouse

Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine

Canis latrans Coyote

Canis lupus Gray wolf

Vulpes vulpes Red fox

Ursus americanus American black bear

Procyon lotor Northern raccoon

Ermine; Mustela erminea Short-tailed weasel

Mustela frenata Long-tailed weasel

Mustela nivalis Least weasel

Special 

Concern

Mustela vison American mink
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

80

Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal Status

Taxidea taxus American badger

Mephitis mephitis Striped skunk

Lynx rufus Bobcat

Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer

Alces alces Moose 

Special 

Concern
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

81

Plants

Essential Plant Species Lists of Glacial Ridge NWR*

*Essential species lists were developed by The Nature Conservancy for restoration and 

monitoring purposes.

Scientific Name Common Name Dry 

Prairie

Mesic 

Prairie

Wet 

Prairie

Achillea millefolium Yarrow X X

Agoseris glauca 

Glaucous false 

dandelion X

Agropyron trachycaulum var.

unilaterale Slender wheatgrass X X

Agrostis scabra Rough bentgrass X

Allium stellatum Prairie wild onion X X

Amorpha canescens Leadplant X X

Amorpha nana Fragrant false indigo X

Andropogon gerardii Big bluestem X X X

Antennaria plantaginifolia 

Plantain-leaved 

pussytoes X

Apocynum sibiricum Clasping dogbane X X

Artemisia dracunculus Tarragon X

Artemisia frigida Sage wormwood X

Asclepias incarnata Swamp milkweed X

Aster ericoides Heath aster X X X

Aster laevis Smooth blue aster X

Aster lanceolatus Eastern panicled aster X

Aster novae-angliae New England aster X

Aster sericeus Silky aster X

Aster umbellatus Flat-topped aster X

Astragalus adsurgens var.

robustior Prairie milk vetch X

Astragalus crassicarpus Ground plum X

Betula glandulifera Bog birch X

Bouteloua curtipendula Side-oats grama X

Bouteloua gracilis Blue grama X

Bromus kalmii Kalm's brome X

Calamagrostis inexpansa var.

brevior Northern reedgrass X

Calamovilfa longifolia Sand reedgrass X

Calylophus serrulatus 

Toothed evening 

primrose X
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

82

Scientific Name Common Name Dry 

Prairie

Mesic 

Prairie

Wet 

Prairie

Campanula rotundifolia Harebell X X

Carex buxbaumii Buxbaum's sedge X

Carex filifolia Thread-leaved sedge X

Carex heliophila Sun-loving sedge X

Carex tetanica Rigid sedge X

Castilleja coccinea Indian paintbrush X

Castilleja sessiliflora Downy paintbrush X

Cerastium arvense Field chickweed X

Cicuta maculata Spotted water hemlock X

Cirsium flodmanii Flodman's thistle X X

Comandra umbellata Bastard toadflax X X

Dalea candida White prairie clover X X

Dalea purpurea Purple prairie clover X X

Deschampsia cespitosa var.

glauca Tufted hair grass X X

Echinacea angustifolia 

Narrow-leaved purple 

coneflower X

Eleocharis compressa Flattened spikerush X

Erigeron strigosus var.

strigosus Daisy fleabane X

Euthamia graminifolia Grass-leaved goldenrod X

Fragaria virginiana Common strawberry X X

Gaillardia aristata Blanketflower X

Galium boreale ssp.

septentrionale Northern bedstraw X X X

Geum triflorum Prairie smoke X X

Glycyrrhiza lepidota Wild licorice X

Helenium autumnale Autumn sneezeweed X

Helianthus giganteus Giant sunflower X

Helianthus maximiliani Maximilian's sunflower X X

Helianthus rigidus Stiff sunflower X

Helictotrichon hookeri Spike oat X

Heliopsis helianthoides Ox-eye X

Heterotheca villosa Hairy golden aster X

Heuchera richardsonii Alumroot X

Juncus balticus var. littoralis Baltic rush X

Koeleria macrantha Junegrass X X

Lathyrus palustris Marsh vetchling X

Liatris aspera Rough blazing star X
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

83

Scientific Name Common Name Dry 

Prairie

Mesic 

Prairie

Wet 

Prairie

Liatris ligulistylis 

Northern plains blazing 

star

X

Liatris punctata Dotted blazing star X

Liatris pycnostachya Great blazing star X X

Lilium philadelphicum var.

andinum Wood lily X

Linum sulcatum Grooved yellow flax X

Lithospermum canescens Hoary puccoon X X

Lysimachia quadriflora Prairie loosestrife X X

Muhlenbergia cuspidata Plains muhly X

Muhlenbergia richardsonis Mat muhly grass X X

Panicum leibergii Leiberg's panic grass X

Panicum virgatum Switchgrass X

Panicum wilcoxianum Wilcox's panic grass X

Pedicularis canadensis Wood betony X

Pedicularis lanceolata Swamp lousewort X

Penstemon gracilis Slender beard tongue X

Physalis virginiana Virginia ground cherry X

Poa palustris Fowl bluegrass X

Potentilla arguta Tall cinquefoil X X

Potentilla pensylvanica Pennsylvania cinquefoil X

Prenanthes racemosa Smooth rattlesnakeroot X

Prunus pumila Sand cherry X

Psoralea argophylla Silverleaf scurfpea X

Psoralea esculenta Prairie turnip X

Puccinellia nuttalliana Nuttall's alkali grass X

Pulsatilla nuttalliana Pasque flower X

Pycnanthemum virginianum Virginia mountain mint X X

Rosa arkansana Prairie rose X

Rosa woodsii Western wild rose X

Rudbeckia hirta var.

pulcherrima Black-eyed Susan X

Salix bebbiana Bebb's willow X

Salix discolor Pussy willow X

Salix gracilis Slender willow X

Schizachyrium scoparium Little bluestem X X

Senecio plattensis Prairie ragwort X
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

84

Scientific Name Common Name Dry 

Prairie

Mesic 

Prairie

Wet 

Prairie

Senecio pseudaureus var.

semicordatus

Western heart-leaved 

groundsel X

Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod X X

Solidago missouriensis Missouri goldenrod X

Solidago nemoralis Gray goldenrod X X

Solidago ptarmicoides Upland white aster X

Solidago riddellii Riddell's goldenrod X

Solidago rigida Stiff goldenrod X X

Sorghastrum nutans Indian grass X

Spartina pectinata Prairie cordgrass X X

Sporobolus heterolepis Prairie dropseed X X

Stipa comata

Needle-and-thread 

grass

X

Stipa spartea Porcupine grass X X

Thalictrum dasycarpum Tall meadow-rue X X

Triglochin maritima Seaside arrowgrass X

Viola nephrophylla Northern bog violet X

Viola pedatifida Bearded birdfoot violet X

Zigadenus elegans White camass X

Zizia aptera Heart-leaved Alexander X

Zizia aurea Golden Alexander X X

Lowland Essential Species

Scientific Name Common Name Wet 

Prairie

Wet 

Meadow Fen

Amorpha nanaw Fragrant false indigo

Andropogon gerardii Big bluestem X

Apocynum sibiricum Clasping dogbane X X X

Asclepias incarnata Swamp milkweed X X X

Aster borealis Bog aster X

Aster ericoides Heath aster X

Aster lanceolatus Eastern panicled aster X X

Aster novae-angliae New England aster X

Aster umbellatus Flat-topped aster X X

Betula glandulifera Bog birch X X

Bromus ciliatus Fringed brome X

Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint X
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

85

Scientific Name Common Name Wet 

Prairie

Wet 

Meadow Fen

Calamagrostis inexpansa var.

brevior Northern reedgrass X X X

Caltha palustris 

Common marsh 

marigold X

Campanula aparinoides Marsh bellflower X

Carex aquatilis Aquatic sedge X

Carex atherodes Slough sedge X

Carex buxbaumii Buxbaum's sedge X X X

Carex lanuginosa Woolly sedge X X

Carex lasiocarpa var.

americana Wiregrass sedge X

Carex praegracilis Very slender sedge X

Carex prairea Prairie sedge

Carex rostrata Beaked sedge X

Carex sartwellii Sartwell's sedge X X

Carex sterilis Sterile sedge

Carex tetanica Rigid sedge X X

Cicuta maculata Spotted water hemlock X X X

Cornus stolonifera Red-osier dogwood X X

Deschampsia cespitosa var.

glauca Tufted hair grass X X

Eleocharis compressa Flattened spikerush X X

Eleocharis erythropoda Red-stalked spikerush X

Epilobium leptophyllum 

Linear-leaved willow 

herb X X

Eriophorum angustifolium Tall cottongrass X

Eupatorium maculatum Spotted Joe pye weed X

Euthamia graminifolia 

Grass-leaved 

goldenrod X X

Fragaria virginiana Common strawberry X X

Galium boreale ssp.

septentrionale Northern bedstraw X

Glyceria striata Fowl manna grass X X

Helenium autumnale Autumn sneezeweed X

Helianthus giganteus Giant sunflower X X

Helianthus maximiliani Maximilian's sunflower X
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

86

Scientific Name Common Name Wet 

Prairie

Wet 

Meadow Fen

Juncus alpino-articulatus Alpine rush X

Juncus balticus var. littoralis Baltic rush X X X

Lathyrus palustris Marsh vetchling X X

Liatris pycnostachya Great blazing star X

Lobelia kalmii Kalm's lobelia X

Lycopus americanus Cut-leaved bugleweed X X

Lycopus asper Rough bugleweed X X

Lycopus uniflorus Northern bugleweed X

Lysimachia quadriflora Prairie loosestrife X

Mentha arvensis var. glabrata Common mint X X

Muhlenbergia glomerata Clustered muhly grass X

Muhlenbergia richardsonis Mat muhly grass

X X

Parnassia glauca 

American grass-ofParnassus

Parnassia palustris var. 

neogaea

Marsh grass-ofParnassus X

Pedicularis lanceolata Swamp lousewort X X

Poa palustris Fowl bluegrass X

Polygonum amphibium var.

stipulaceum Water smartweed X

Polygonum coccineum Swamp smartweed X

Potentilla fruticosa Shrubby cinquefoil X

Pycnanthemum virginianum Virginia mountain mint X

Rhynchospora capillacea Hair-like beak rush

Rosa woodsii Western wild rose X

Salix bebbiana Bebb's willow X

Salix candida Sage-leaved willow X

Salix discolor Pussy willow X X X

Salix gracilis Slender willow X X X

Salix serissima Autumn willow X

Scirpus acutus Hardstem bulrush X

Scirpus cespitosus var.

callosus Tufted bulrush

Scolochloa festucacea Whitetop X
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

87

Scientific Name Common Name Wet 

Prairie

Wet 

Meadow Fen

Senecio pseudaureus var.

semicordatus

Western heart-leaved 

groundsel X

Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod X

Solidago riddellii Riddell's goldenrod X

Spartina pectinata Prairie cordgrass X X

Stachys palustris Woundwort X X

Thalictrum dasycarpum Tall meadow-rue X

Triadenum fraseri Marsh St. John's wort X

Triglochin maritima Seaside arrowgrass X X

Triglochin palustris Marsh arrowgrass

Typha latifolia Broad-leaved cattail X X

Viola nephrophylla Northern bog violet X X

Zizia aurea Golden alexanders X
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

88

Invertebrates of Glacial Ridge NWR

Scientific Name Common Name

Fire-colored Beetles (Hanley et al. 2006)

Pedilus elegans A pedilid beetle

Schizotus cervicalis A fire-colored beetle

Denroides Canadensis A fire-colored beetle

Beetles of Glacial Ridge NWR (Hanley et al. 2008)

Acupalus carus (LeConte) 

Acupalus nanellus Casey 

Acupalus pumilus Lindroth

Acupalus canadensis Casey 

Agonum covus LeConte 

Agonum harrisii LeConte 

Agonum mutatum Gemminger and Harold 

Agonum trigenimum Lindroth 

Agonum gratiosum (Mannerheim)

Agonum propinquum Gemminger and Harold 

Agonum thoreyi Dejean 

Agonum errans (Say) 

Agonum anchomenoides Randall 

Agonum cupreum Dejean 

Agonum lutulentum (LeConte) 

Agonum placidum (Say) 

Amara musculis (Say) 

Amara convexa LeConte 

Amara littoralis Mannerheim 

Amara obesa (Say) 

Amara pallipes Kirby 

Anisodactylus discoideus Dejean 

Anisodactylus harrisii LeConte 

Anisodactylus kirbyi

Anisodactylus nigrita Dejean 

Badister neopulchellus Lindroth 

Badister transversus LeConte

Badister grandiceps Casey 

Bembidion mimus Hayward 

Bembidion muscicola Hayward 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

89

Scientific Name Common Name

Bembidion patruele Dejean

Bembidion patricola

Bembidion timidum (LeConte) 

Bembidion castor Lindroth 

Bembidion concretum Casey 

Bembidion fortestriatum Motschulsky

Bembidion versicolor (LeConte) 

Bembidion bifossulatum (LeConte) 

Bembidion nigriceps (Kirby) 

Bembidion rapidum LeConte

Bembidion trasparens (Gebler) 

Bembidion nitidum Kirby 

Bembidion quadrimaculatum oppositium

Blethisa quadricollis Haldeman 

Brachinus cyanochroaticus Erwin 

Brachinus cyanipennis Say 

Bradycellus lecontei Csiki 

Bradycellus nigriceps LeConte 

Bradycellus congener (LeConte) 

Bradycellus semipubescens

Calleida punctata LeConte 

Calosoma calidum (Fabricius) 

Carabus meander Fischer von Waldheim 

Carabus serratus Say 

Chlaenius niger Randall 

Chlaenius alternatus G.H. Horn 

Chlaenius impunctifrons Say 

Chlaenius pennsylvanicus Say 

Chlaenius platyderus Chaudoir 

Chlaenius sericeus Forster 

Chlaenius sericeus sericeus LeConte 

Cicindela duodecimguttata Dejean 

Cicindela tranquebarica Herbst 

Diplocheila striatopunctata (LeConte) 

Diplocheila undulata Carr 

Dyschirius integer LeConte 

Dyschirius setosus LeConte 

Elaphropus incurvus Say 

Elaphrus clairvillei Kirby 

Elaphrus californicus Mannerheim 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

90

Scientific Name Common Name

Harpalus compar LeConte 

Harpalus eraticus Say 

Harpalus herbivagus Say 

Harpalus opacipennis (Haldeman) 

Harpalus reversus Casey 

Lebia moesta LeConte 

Lebia viridis Say 

Lebia atriventris Say 

Lebia solea Hentz 

Lebia pumila Dejean 

Loricera pilicornia (Fabricius) 

Omophron americanum Dejean 

Oxypselaphus pusillus (LeConte) 

Pasimachus elongatus LeConte 

Patrobus longicornis (Say) 

Poecilus lucublandus (Say) 

Pterostichus corvinus (Dejean) 

Pterostichus luctuosus (Dejean) 

Pterostichus patruelis (Dejean) 

Pterostichus melanarius Illiger 

Pterostichus novus Staneo 

Pterostuchus commutabilis (Motschulsky) 

Stenolophus fuliginosus Dejean 

Stenolophus comma (Fabricius) 

Stenolophus ochropezus (Say) 

Stenolophus conjunctus (Say) 

Syntomus americanus (Dejean) 

Bees of Glacial Ridge NWR

Agapostemon texanus

Agapostemon virescens

Apis mellifera

Andrena sigmundi

Augochlorella aurata

Bombus fervidus

Bombus griseocollis

Bombus ternarius

Ceratina mikmaqi

Ceratina spp.
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

91

Scientific Name Common Name

Colletes americanus

Halictus confusus

Halictus rubicundus

Hoplitis pilosifrons

Hoplitis product

Hoplitis spoliata

Hylaeus mesillae group

Lasioglossum coriaceum

Lasioglossum leucozonium

Lasioglossum paraforbesii

Lasioglossum pectoral

Lasioglossum quebecense

Lasioglossum semicaeruleum

Lasioglossum succinipenne

Lasioglossum zonulum

Melissodes agilis

Melissodes trinodis

Megachili latimanus

Osmia simillima

Odonata of Glacial Ridge NWR (Zygoptera) (Hanley et al. 2006)

Amphiagrion saucium Eastern Red Damsel

Calopteryx aequabilis River Jewelwing

Coenagrion angulatum Prairie Bluet

Coenagrion resolutum Taiga Bluet

Enallagma boreale Boreal Bluet

Enallagma carunculatum Tule Bluet

Enallagma civile Familiar Bluet

Enallagma clausum Alkalai Bluet

Enallagma cyathigerum Northern Bluet

Enallagma ebrium Marsh Bluet

Enallagma hageni Hagen's Bluet

Hetaerina americana (observed) American Rubyspot

Ischnura verticalis Eastern Forktail

Lestes disjunctus Northern Spreadwing

Lestes dryas Emerald Spreadwing

Lestes eurinus (vigilax) Amber-winged Spreadwing

Lestes unguiculatus Lyre-Tipped Spreadwing

Nehalennia irene Sedge Sprite
Appendix C: Species Lists

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

92

Scientific Name Common Name

Unidentified Coenagrion/Enallagma

Unidentified Lestes

Odonata of Glacial Ridge NWR (Anisoptera) (Hanley et al. 2006)

Aeshna canadensis Canada Darner

Aeshna constricta Lance-tipped Darner

Aeshna interrupta Variable Darner

Aeshna umbrosa Shadow Darner

Anax junius Common Green Darner

Dorocordulia libera Racket-tailed Emerald

Ladona julia Chalk-fronted Corporal

Leucorrhinia frigida Frosted Whiteface

Leucorrhinia hudsonica Hudsonian Whiteface

Leucorrhinia intacta Dot-tailed Whiteface

Leucorrhinia proxima Red-waisted Whiteface

Libellula pulchella Twelve-spotted Skimmer

Libellula quadrimaculata Four-spotted Skimmer

Sympetrum corruptum Varigated Meadowhawk

Sympetrum costiferum Saffron-winged Meadowhawk

Sympetrum danae Black Meadowhawk

Sympetrum internum Cherry-faced Meadowhawk

Sympetrum madidum Red-veined Meadowhawk

Sympetrum obtrusum White-faced Meadowhawk

Sympetrum rubicundulum Ruby Meadowhawk

Sympetrum semicinctum Band-winged Meadowhawk

Sympetrum vicinum Yellow-legged Meadowhawk

Tetragoneuria spinigera Spiny Baskettail
Appendix D: Abbreviations and Glossary

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

93

Appendix D: Abbreviations and Glossary

Abbreviations

The following is a quicklist of the most frequently used abbreviations in this document. More 

detail on some of them is in the Glossary that follows.

NOTE: “Abbreviations” is used generically to refer to abbreviations (shortened version of a term 

or series of words), acronyms (word formed from letters or parts of a series of words), and 

initialisms (initial letters pronounced separately).

BCA: Bird Conservation Areas

BCC: Birds of Conservation Concern

BCR: Bird Conservation Region

CCP: Comprehensive Conservation Plan (also plan)

CD: Compatibility Determination

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

CRP: U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program

DNR: Department of Natural Resources (usually preceded by state 

abbreviation)

DOI: U.S. Department of the Interior

DU: Ducks Unlimited

EA: Environmental Assessment

EAS: Environmental Action Statement

EE: Environmental Education

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement

EO: Executive Order

EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA: Endangered Species Act

FONSI: Finding of No Significant Impact

FR: Federal Register

FTE: Full-time equivalent

FWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also USFWS and Service)

FY: Fiscal Year

GAP: Gap Analysis Program

GIS: Geographic Information System

HAPET: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Habitat and Population Evaluation Team

IBA: Audubon Society’s Important Bird Area

IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LCC: Landscape Conservation Cooperative

MOA: Memorandum of Agreement

MOU: Memorandum of Understanding

NABCI: North American Bird Conservation Initiative

NAI: Natural Areas Inventory

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act

NRHP: National Register of Historic Places

NWR: National Wildlife Refuge (also Refuge)

NWRS: National Wildlife Refuge System (also Refuge System)

PFT: Permanent full-time

PPJV: Prairie Pothole Joint Venture
Appendix D: Abbreviations and Glossary

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

94

PPR: Prairie Pothole Region

R3: Region 3 (Midwest) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin)

ROD: Record of Decision

SGCN: Species of (in) Greatest Conservation Need

SHC: Strategic Habitat Conservation

TFT: Temporary full-time

UMR/GLR JV: Upper Mississippi River & Great Lakes Region Joint Venture

USC: United States Code

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS: U.S. Geologic Survey

WMA: Wildlife Management Area (usually State owned)

WMD: Wetland Management District (also District)

WPA: Waterfowl Production Area

WRP: U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wetland Reserve Program

WSA: Wilderness Study Areas

Glossary

Adaptation: Adjustment in natural or human systems to a new or changing environment. 

Adaptation to climate change refers to adjustment in natural or human systems in response to 

actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial 

opportunities. Various types of adaptation can be distinguished, including anticipatory and 

reactive adaptation, private and public adaptation, and autonomous and planned adaptation.

Adaptive Management: The rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring to 

gain information and experience necessary to assess and modify management activities. A 

process that uses feedback from refuge research and monitoring and evaluation of 

management actions to support or modify objectives and strategies at all planning levels (FWS, 

602 FW1 1.6).

Alternatives: Different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes 

and goals, helping fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, and resolving issues 

(FWS, 602 FW1 1.6). 

Appropriate Use: A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the 

following four conditions (FWS, 603 FW1 1.6):

• The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Fish and Wildlife 

Improvement Act of 1978.

• The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission, or goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan 

approved after October 9, 1997, the date the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 was signed into law.

• The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under state regulations.

• The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11.
Appendix D: Abbreviations and Glossary

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

95

Approved Acquisition Boundary: A project boundary that the Director of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service approves upon completion of the planning and environmental compliance 

process. An approved acquisition boundary only designates those lands that the Service has 

authority to acquire and/or manage through various agreements. Approval of an acquisition 

boundary does not grant the Service jurisdiction or control over lands within the boundary, and it 

does not make lands within the refuge boundary part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Lands do not become part of the Refuge System until they are purchased or are placed under 

an agreement that provides for management as part of the Refuge System. 

Biological Control: The use of organisms or viruses to control weeds or other pests. 

Biological Diversity: The variety of life, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic 

differences among them, and the communities in which they occur (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6). 

Biological Integrity: Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at the genetic, organism, 

and community levels consistent with natural conditions, including the natural biological 

processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Candidate Species: Plants and animals for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but for which development of a proposed listing 

regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities.

Carbon Sequestration: The uptake and storage of carbon. Trees and plants, for example, 

absorb carbon dioxide, release the oxygen, and store the carbon. Fossil fuels were at one time 

biomass and continue to store the carbon until burned.

Climate Change: Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such 

as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). 

Climate change may result from 1) natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or 

slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun; 2) natural processes within the climate system 

(e.g., changes in ocean circulation); 3) human activities that change the atmosphere's 

composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, 

reforestation, urbanization, desertification, etc.).

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): The codification of the general and permanent rules 

published in the Federal Register by the departments and agencies of the federal government. It 

is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation. The 50 subject 

matter titles contain one or more individual volumes, which are updated once each calendar 

year, on a staggered basis. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An Executive Office of the President whose 

members are appointed by the President. CEQ recommends national policies to promote the 

improvement of the quality of the environment.

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of 

a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional judgment, will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the 

purposes of the national wildlife refuge (FWS, 603 FW 2 2.6). 
Appendix D: Abbreviations and Glossary

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

96

Compatibility Determination (CD): A written determination signed and dated by the refuge 

manager and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regional chief signifying that a proposed or 

existing use of a national wildlife refuge is a compatible use or is not a compatible use. The 

director of the Service makes this delegation through the regional director (FWS, 603 FW 2 2.6).

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP): A document that describes the desired future 

conditions of a refuge or planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

maintains and, where appropriate, restores the ecological integrity of each refuge and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System; helps achieve the goals of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System; and meets other mandates (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Consumptive Use: Use of a refuge resource that removes the resource from the refuge (e.g., 

killing an animal to eat, catching and keeping fish, harvesting berries or plants, or removal of 

mineral or other specimens).

Cultural Resource Inventory: A professionally conducted study designed to locate and 

evaluate evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic area. Inventories 

may involve various levels, including background literature search, comprehensive field 

examination to identify all exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample 

inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area. Evaluation of identified 

cultural resources to determine eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places follows the 

criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4. 

Cultural Resources: “Those parts of the physical environment—natural and built—that have 

cultural value to some kind of sociocultural group . . . [and] those non-material human social 

institutions . . . .” Cultural resources include historic sites, archeological sites and associated 

artifacts, sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, cultural items (human remains, funerary 

objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony), and buildings and structures.

Easement: A privilege or right that is held by one person or other entity in land owned by 

another. 

Ecological Integrity: The integration of biological integrity, natural biological diversity, and 

environmental health; the replication of natural conditions (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Ecosystem: A biological community together with its environment, functioning as a unit. For 

administrative purposes, 53 ecosystems covering the United States and its possessions have 

been designated. These ecosystems generally correspond with watershed boundaries, and their 

sizes and ecological complexity vary (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6). 

Effects (Impacts): Effects include:

• Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

• Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed 

in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growthinducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural 

systems, including ecosystems.
Appendix D: Abbreviations and Glossary

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

97

• Cumulative effects, which result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions that, collectively, become significant over time.

Effects and impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous. Effects includes ecological 

(such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of 

affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, 

indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions that may have both 

beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effect will be 

beneficial (40 CFR 1508.8).

Endangered Species: Any species of plant or animal defined through the Endangered Species 

Act as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and 

published in the Federal Register.

Endangered Species Act (ESA): Through federal action and by encouraging the establishment 

of state programs, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 provided for the conservation of 

ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend. 

The act authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened; 

prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species; provides 

authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and water 

conservation funds; authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to 

states that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for 

violating the act or regulations; and authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing 

information leading to arrest and conviction for any violation of the act or any regulation issued 

thereunder. 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to insure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

listed species or modify their critical habitat. 

Environmental Action Statement (EAS): The decision document for an environmental 

assessment for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The EAS will consist of a one-page 

document indicating the proposal, the Service decision, references to supporting documents (if 

any), and a signature block. The purposes of the EAS are to establish a process for internal 

review of National Environmental Policy Act-related decision documents and to provide an 

appropriate administrative record of NEPA-related decisions at all management levels of the 

Service (FWS, 550 FW3 3.3 C).

Environmental Analysis: The process associated with preparing documents such as 

environmental assessments and environmental impact statements and the decision whether to 

prepare an environmental impact statement. It is an analysis of alternative actions and their 

predictable short-term and long-term effects, which include physical, biological, economic, and 

social factors and their interactions.

Environmental Assessment (EA): A systematic analysis to determine if proposed actions 

would result in a significant effect on the quality of the environment.

Environmental Consequences: The scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of 

alternatives. The environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any 
Appendix D: Abbreviations and Glossary

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

98

adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the 

relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 

resources that would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented (40 CFR 1502.16). 

Environmental Health: Abiotic composition, structure, and functioning of the environment 

consistent with natural conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the 

environment (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A detailed written statement, required by section 

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts of a 

proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of 

action, short-term uses of the environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 

1508.11).

Environmental Justice: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in the 

development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income.

Extirpation: The local extinction of a species that is no longer found in a locality or country but 

exists elsewhere in the world.

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): A document prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act and supported by an environmental assessment that briefly 

presents why a federal action will have no significant effects on the human environment and for 

which an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13).

Global Warming: Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere 

near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global 

climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human 

induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a 

result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.

Goal: A descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that 

conveys purposes but does not define measurable units (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Greenhouse Gas (GHG): Any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere. 

Greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane 

(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), 

ozone (O3 ), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride 

(SF6).

Habitat: The physical and biological resources required by an organism for its survival and 

reproduction; these requirements are species-specific. Food and cover are major components 

of habitat and must extend beyond the requirements of the individual to include a sufficient area 

capable of supporting a viable population.

Incompatible: Any use (recreational or nonrecreational) of a refuge that, in the sound 

professional judgment of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will materially 
Appendix D: Abbreviations and Glossary

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

99

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

or the purposes of the refuge. Incompatible uses are not allowed to occur on Service areas.

Indicator: In effects analysis, a way for measuring effects from management alternatives on a 

particular resource or issue.

Interjurisdictional Fish: Fish that occur in waters under the jurisdiction of one or more states, 

for which there is an interstate fishery management plan or which migrates between the waters 

under the jurisdiction of two or more states bordering on the Great Lakes.

Invasive Species: Invasive species are organisms that are introduced into a non-native 

ecosystem and that cause, or are likely to cause, harm to the economy, environment, or human 

health.

Inventory: Accepted biological methods to determine the presence, relative abundance, and/or 

distribution of species (FWS, 702 FW2 2.6).

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision—that is, a U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, a threat to the resources 

of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition 

(FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Major Federal Action: Includes action with effects that may be major and that are potentially 

subject to federal control and responsibility. “Major” reinforces but does not have a meaning 

independent of significantly. “Actions” include new and continuing activities. Federal actions 

include adoption of official policy, formal plans, programs, and approval of specific projects (40 

CFR 1508.18).

Memorandum of Understanding or Agreement (MOU or MOA): A legal document outlining 

the terms and details of an agreement between parties (often U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

a state natural resource agency), including each party’s requirements and responsibilities. It 

sets forth the basic principles and guidelines under which the parties will work together to 

accomplish their goals. A memorandum of understanding or agreement are generally 

recognized as binding, even if no legal claim could be based on the rights and obligations laid 

down in them. 

Migratory Birds: Birds that follow a seasonal movement from their breeding grounds to their 

wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and songbirds are all migratory birds.

Monitoring: Accepted biological methods to determine the status and/or demographics of 

species over time (FWS, 702 FW2 2.6). 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): This act, promulgated in 1969, requires all 

federal agencies to disclose the environmental effects of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all 

actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements and must 

prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decisionmaking (40 

CFR 1500). The law also established the Council on Environmental Quality to implement the 

law and to monitor compliance with the law.
Appendix D: Abbreviations and Glossary

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

100

National Wilderness Preservation System: A network of federally owned areas designated by 

Congress as wilderness and managed by one of four federal agencies: the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, or the U.S. Forest 

Service. Includes over 600 areas and more than 105 million acres. The National Wildlife Refuge 

System includes over 20 million acres of wilderness in more than 60 refuges (FWS, 610 FW1 

1.9).

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge): A designated area of land, water, or an interest in 

land or water within the National Wildlife Refuge System, but does not include Coordination 

Areas. A complete listing of all units of the Refuge System is located in the current Report of 

Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System): All lands, waters, and interests 

therein administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, 

wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas, and other areas for the protection and 

conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (improvement act): Sets the 

mission and administrative policy for all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Clearly 

defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; establishes the legitimacy and 

appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation); establishes a formal process for 

determining compatibility; establishes the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for 

managing and protecting the Refuge System; and requires a Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

for each refuge by the year 2012. This act amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.

Native Species: A species, subspecies, or distinct population that occurs within its natural 

range or natural zone of potential dispersal (i.e., the geographic area the species occupies 

naturally or would occupy in the absence of direct or indirect human activity or an environmental 

catastrophe). 

No Action Alternative: In the context of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan, this refers to the 

current management direction. With this alternative, no change from the current CCP would be 

implemented.

Non-consumptive Uses: Recreational activities (e.g., hiking, photography, and wildlife 

observation) that do not involve the taking or catching of fish, wildlife, or other natural resources.

Non-native Species: A species, subspecies, or distinct population that has been introduced by 

humans (intentionally or unintentionally) outside its natural range or natural zone of potential 

dispersal.

Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, 

when and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives derive 

from goals and provide the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge 

accomplishments, and evaluating the success of strategies. Objectives are to be attainable, 

time-specific, and measurable (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Ozone (O3): Ozone, the triatomic form of oxygen (O3), is a gaseous atmospheric constituent. In 

the troposphere, it is created both naturally and by photochemical reactions involving gases 
Appendix D: Abbreviations and Glossary

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

101

resulting from human activities (photochemical smog). In high concentrations, tropospheric 

ozone can be harmful to a wide range of living organisms. Tropospheric ozone acts as a 

greenhouse gas. In the stratosphere, ozone is created by the interaction between solar 

ultraviolet radiation and molecular oxygen (O2). Stratospheric ozone plays a decisive role in the 

stratospheric radiative balance. Depletion of stratospheric ozone, due to chemical reactions that 

may be enhanced by climate change, results in an increased ground-level flux of ultraviolet (UV) 

B radiation. 

Planning Area: The area upon which the planning effort will focus. A planning area may include 

lands outside existing planning unit boundaries currently studied for inclusion in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and/or partnership planning efforts. It also may include watersheds or 

ecosystems outside of our jurisdiction that affect the planning unit. At a minimum, the planning 

area includes all lands within the authorized boundary of the refuge (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Planning Team: A planning team is interdisciplinary in membership and function. A team 

generally consist of a planning team leader, refuge manager, staff biologists, a state natural 

resource agency representative, and other appropriate program specialists (e.g., social 

scientist, ecologist, recreation specialist). Other federal and tribal natural resource agencies 

may also be asked to provide team members, as appropriate. The planning team prepares the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and appropriate National Environmental Policy Act 

documentation (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Prescribed Burning: Controlled application of fire to the landscape that allows the fire to be 

confined to a predetermined area while producing the intensity of heat and rate of spread 

required to achieve planned management objectives.

Preferred Alternative: A proposed action in the National Environmental Policy Act document 

for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan identifying the alternative that the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service believes best achieves planning unit purposes, vision, and goals; helps fulfill the 

National Wildlife Refuge System mission; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; addresses the significant issues and 

mandates; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management.

Priority Public Uses: Six uses authorized by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 to have priority and are found to be compatible with the refuge purposes. This 

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

and interpretation.

Proposed Action: In the context of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan, this is the same as 

the Preferred Alternative.

Public Involvement: A process that offers affected and interested individuals and organizations 

opportunities to become informed about, and to express their opinions on, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service actions and policies. In the process, these public views are studied thoroughly and are 

thoughtfully considered in shaping decisions for refuge management.

Purposes of the Refuge: The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative 

memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. 

For refuges that encompass congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the 

Wilderness Act are additional purposes of the refuge (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).
Appendix D: Abbreviations and Glossary

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

102

Record of Decision (ROD): A concise public record of a decision prepared by the federal 

agency, pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act, that contains a statement of the 

decision, identification of all alternatives considered, identification of the environmentally 

preferable alternative, a statement whether all practical means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted (and if not, why they were 

not), and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where applicable for any mitigation (40 

CFR 1505.2). 

Resident Species: A nonmigratory species inhabiting a given locality throughout the year. 

Examples include white-tailed deer, muskrat, raccoon, mink, and fox.

Scoping: A process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed by a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and for identifying the significant issues. Involved in the scoping process are 

federal, state, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals.

Shorebird: Long-legged birds, also known as waders, belonging to the order Charadriiformes 

that use shallow wetlands and mud flats for foraging and nesting. 

Significant Issue: A significant issue is typically: within Service jurisdiction, suggests different 

actions or alternatives, and will influence the decision (FWS, 602 FW3 3.4 3b). 

Species: A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable characteristics, and that 

can interbreed and produce young. A category of biological classification.

Sound Professional Judgment: A finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with 

principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and 

resources, and adherence to the requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act and other applicable laws. 

Stakeholder: A person or group who has an interest in activities within the Planning Area.

Step-down Management Plan: A plan that provides specific guidance on management 

subjects (e.g., habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It describes 

strategies and implementation schedules for meeting Comprehensive Conservation Plan goals 

and objectives (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC): A structured, science-driven approach for making 

efficient, transparent decisions about where and how to expend Service resources for species, 

or groups of species, that are limited by the amount or quality of habitat. It is an adaptive 

management framework integrating planning, design, delivery, and evaluation.

Strategy: A specific action, tool or technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques

used to meet unit objectives (FWS, 602 FW 1.6).

Threatened Species: Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered species 

throughout all of or a significant portion of their range within the foreseeable future. A plant or 

animal identified and defined in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and 

published in the Federal Register.
Appendix D: Abbreviations and Glossary

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

103

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be or hope to do, 

based primarily upon the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, specific refuge purposes, 

and other mandates. The vision statement for the refuge should be tied to the mission of the 

Refuge System; the purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the ecological 

integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and other mandates (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Waterfowl: A group of birds that include ducks, geese, and swans (belonging to the order 

Anseriformes). 

Waterfowl Production Area (WPA): Prairie wetlands with associated uplands managed to 

provide nesting areas for waterfowl and owned in fee title by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

These lands are purchased from willing sellers with funds from federal Duck Stamp sales. They 

are open to public hunting, fishing, and trapping according to state and federal regulations.

Watershed: The entire land area that collects and drains water into a river/stream or 

river/stream system.

Wetland: A wetland is land transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water 

table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For the purposes 

of this classification a wetland must have one or more of the following three attributes: 1) at 

least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; 2) the substrate is 

predominantly undrained hydric soil; and 3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water 

or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year (Cowardin et 

al., 1979).

Wetland Management District (WMD): An area covering several counties that acquires (with 

federal Duck Stamp funds), restores, and manages prairie wetland habitat critical to waterfowl 

and other wetland birds. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use: A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation. These are the six 

priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System as established in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act, as amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other 

than the six priority public uses, are those that depend on the presence of wildlife. These other 

uses will also be considered in the preparation of refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans; 

however, the six priority public uses always will take precedence (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Wildlife Diversity: A measure of the number of wildlife species in an area and their relative 

abundance.

Waterbirds: This general category includes all birds that inhabit lakes, marshes, streams and 

other wetlands at some point during the year. The group includes all waterfowl, such as ducks, 

geese, and swans and other birds such as loons, rails, cranes, herons, egrets, ibis, cormorants, 

pelicans, shorebirds, and passerines that nest and rely on wetland vegetation. 
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

104

Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Administrative Procedures Act of 1946

Outlines administrative procedures to be followed by federal agencies with respect to 

identification of information to be made public; publication of material in the Federal Register; 

maintenance of records; attendance and notification requirements for specific meetings and 

hearings; issuance of licenses; and review of agency actions. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

Establishes as policy of the United States the protection and preservation for American Indians 

of their inherent right to freedom to believe, express, and practice their traditional religions. The 

act directs federal agencies to evaluate their policies and procedures, in consultation with native 

traditional religious leaders, in order to determine changes required to protect and preserve 

Native American religious cultural rights and practices. 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 

2008

Prohibits discrimination of individuals based on disability. It requires that public transportation 

services be accessible to individuals with disabilities and prohibits discrimination in employment 

of qualified individuals with disabilities. It requires the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission to issue regulations relating to discrimination of disabled individuals, and requires 

the National Council on Disability to conduct a study of areas designated as wilderness to 

determine the effect of the designation on the ability of individuals to enjoy such areas. The ADA 

Amendments Act of 2008 restored the intent and protections of the original act.

Antiquities Act of 1906

Authorizes the President to designate as National Monuments objects or areas of historic or 

scientific interest on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The act requires that a 

permit be obtained for examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological sites, and the 

gathering of objects of antiquity on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior, 

Agriculture, and Army; and provides penalties for violations.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Largely supplanted the resource protection provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological 

items. This act established detailed requirements for issuance of permits for any excavation for 

or removal of archaeological resources from federal or Indian lands. It also established civil and 

criminal penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of any such resources; 

for any trafficking in such resources removed from federal or Indian land in violation of any 

provision of federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in such resources acquired, 

transported or received in violation of any state or local law. This act also required the land 

managing agencies to establish public awareness programs regarding the value of 

archaeological resources to the Nation. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1960, as amended

This act carries out the policy established by the Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 

1935 (known as the Historic Sites Act). It directs federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the 

Interior whenever they find a federal or federally assisted, licensed, or permitted project may 

cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric, or archaeological data. The act

authorizes use of appropriated, donated, and/or transferred funds for the recovery, protection,

and preservation of such data. 
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

105

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological data in federal construction projects.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1969 

Ensures that certain buildings financed or leased by federal agencies are constructed (or 

renovated) so that they will be accessible to the physically handicapped.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended 

Prohibits the possession, sale, or transport of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, or part, 

nest, or egg except as permitted by the Secretary of the Interior for scientific or exhibition 

purposes or for the religious purposes of Indians.

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937

Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land conservation and utilization in 

order to correct maladjustments in land use and thus assist in such things as control of soil 

erosion, reforestation, preservation of natural resources, and protection of fish and wildlife. 

Some early refuges and hatcheries were established under authority of this act.

Clean Air Act of 1970 

Regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. The act and its amendments 

charge federal land managers with direct responsibility to protect the “air quality and related 

values” of land under their control. These values include fish, wildlife, and their habitats.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986

Authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water Conservation Fund moneys, 

removing a prior prohibition on such acquisitions. Requires the Secretary of the Interior to 

establish a National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, requires the states to include 

wetlands in their comprehensive outdoor recreation plans, and transfers to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund amounts equal to import duties on arms and ammunition. It established 

entrance fees at national wildlife refuges. It also extended the Wetlands Loan Act authorization 

through 1988 and required the Secretary to report to Congress on wetlands loss. 

In addition, it directed the Secretary, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to continue the 

National Wetlands Inventory; to complete mapping of the contiguous United States; and to 

produce at ten-year intervals reports to update and improve in the September 1982 "Status and 

Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat in the Coterminous United States, 1950s to 1970s." 

This act also increased the price of Duck Stamps.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

Directs federal agencies to take actions that would further the purposes of the act and to ensure 

that actions they carry out, authorize, or fund do not jeopardize endangered species or their 

critical habitat. The act also provides authority for land acquisition. Conservation of threatened 

and endangered species has become a major objective of both land acquisition and refuge 

management programs. 

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969

This act expanded the provisions of the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 to 

include the listing of species in danger world-wide and added mollusks and crustaceans to the 

animals that could be listed.

Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

106

This act was the predecessor to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and directed the 

Secretary of the Interior to produce a list of native U.S. vertebrate species in danger of 

extinction for the limited protection of those animals. 

Environmental Education Act of 1990

Established the Office of Environmental Education within the Environmental Protection Agency 

to develop and administer a federal environmental education program in consultation with other 

federal natural resource management agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (1971)

States that if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes any development activities that may 

affect the archaeological or historic sites, the Service will consult with federal and state Historic 

Preservation Officers to comply with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended.

Executive Order 11644: Use of Off-road Vehicles on the Public Lands (1972)

Established policies and procedures to ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands 

will be controlled and directed to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of 

all users of those lands, and minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands. EO 

11989 (1977) amends section 2 of EO 11644 and directs agencies to close areas negatively 

impacted by off-road vehicles.

Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management (1977)

Prevents federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse impacts associated with occupancy 

and modification of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of floodplain development.” In 

the course of fulfilling their respective authorities, federal agencies “shall take action to reduce 

the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.

Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands (1977)

Directs federal agencies to: (1) minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands; and (2) 

preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a practical alternative 

exists.

Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs (1982)

Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by requiring federal agencies to use the state 

process to determine and address concerns of state and local elected officials with proposed 

federal assistance and development programs.

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (1994 )

Mandates that each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its 

mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations. This order also creates an Interagency Working Group on Environmental 

Justice to provide guidance to federal agencies in overcoming these issues. 

Executive Order 12906: Coordinating Geographical Data Acquisition and Access: The 

National Spatial Data Infrastructure (1994), as amended by Executive Order 13286:

Amendment of Executive Orders, and Other Actions, in Connection With the Transfer of 

Certain Functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security (2003)
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

107

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in cooperation with state, local, and tribal 

governments, and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial Data Infrastructure to 

support public and private sector applications of geospatial data. Of particular importance to 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans is the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS), 

which is the adopted standard for vegetation mapping. Using NVCS facilitates the compilation of 

regional and national summaries, which, in turn, can provide an ecosystem context for individual 

refuges.

Executive Order 12962: Recreational Fisheries (1995)

Directs federal agencies to improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and 

distribution of United States aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities in 

cooperation with states and tribes.

Executive Order 12996: Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (1996)

Defines a conservation mission for the National Wildlife Refuge System, six compatible wildlifedependent recreational activities, and four guiding principles for management of the Refuge 

System. Directs the Secretary of the Interior to undertake several actions in support of 

management and public use and to ensure the maintenance of the biological integrity and 

environmental health of the Refuge System. It also provides for the identification of existing 

wildlife-dependent uses that will continue to occur as lands are added to the Refuge System.

Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites (1996)

Directs federal land management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of 

Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the physical 

integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Executive Order 13061: Federal Support of Community Efforts Along American Heritage 

Rivers (1997)

Established the American Heritage Rivers initiative for the purpose of natural resource and 

environmental protection, economic revitalization, and historic and cultural preservation. The act

directs federal agencies to preserve, protect, and restore rivers and their associated resources 

important to our history, culture, and natural heritage.

Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 

(2000)

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration 

with tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications.

Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species (1999)

Directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species, detect and respond 

rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost effective and environmentally sound 

manner, accurately monitor invasive species, provide for restoration of native species and 

habitat conditions, conduct research to prevent introductions, to control invasive species, and to 

promote public education on invasive species and the means to address them. This EO 

replaces and rescinds EO 11987: Exotic Organisms (1977).

Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 

(2001)

Instructs federal agencies to conserve migratory birds by several means, including the 

incorporation of strategies and recommendations found in Partners in Flight Bird Conservation 
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

108

plans, the North American Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, 

and the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, into agency management plans and 

guidance documents.

Executive Order 13443: Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation (2007)

Directs federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable effect on 

public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the 

Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and 

enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, as amended

Minimizes the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of 

farmland to nonagricultural uses. Federal programs include construction projects and the 

management of federal lands.

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, as amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for committees that provide advice to the federal 

government. Advisory committees may be established only if they will serve a necessary, 

nonduplicative function. Committees must be strictly advisory unless otherwise specified and 

meetings must be open to the public.

Federal-Aid Highways Act of 1968

Establishes requirements for approval of federal highways through wildlife refuges and other 

designated areas to preserve the natural beauty of such areas. The Secretary of Transportation 

is directed to consult with the Secretary of the Interior and other federal agencies before 

approving any program or project requiring the use of land under their jurisdiction.

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act) of 1950

Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance for state fish restoration 

and management plans and projects. It is financed by excise taxes paid by manufacturers of 

rods, reels, and other fishing tackle. 

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act) of 1937

Taxes the purchase of ammunition and firearms and earmarks the proceeds to be distributed to 

the states for wildlife restoration. 

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988

Established requirements for the management and protection of caves and their resources on 

federal lands, including allowing the land managing agencies to withhold the location of caves 

from the public and requiring permits for any removal or collecting activities in caves on federal 

lands.

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) of 2004

Allows the government to charge a fee for recreational use of public lands managed by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies. The recreation fee program is a program by which 

fees paid by visitors to certain federal recreation sites are retained by the collecting site and 

used to improve the quality of the visitor experiences at those sites. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1975, as amended

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to designate plants as noxious weeds and 

to cooperate with other federal, state, and local agencies; farmers associations, and private 
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

109

individuals in measures to control, eradicate, prevent, or retard the spread of such weeds. The 

act requires each federal land-managing agency, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to 

designate an office or person to coordinate a program to control such plants on the agency’s 

land and implement cooperative agreements with the states, including integrated management 

systems to control undesirable plants.

Federal Records Act of 1950

Directs the preservation of evidence of the government's organization, functions, policies, 

decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other information.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, as frequently amended particularly by the 

Clean Water Act of 1977 

This act and its amendments have as their objectives the restoration and maintenance of the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters and, therefore, regulates the 

discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States. The act protects fish and wildlife, 

establishes operation permits for all major sources of water pollution, limits the discharge of 

pollutants or toxins into water, and makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant 

from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit is obtained under the Clean Water 

Act. Section 404 charges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with regulating discharge of dredge 

or fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The "Clean Water Act" 

became the common name with amendments in 1977.

Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, as amended

Declares the intent of Congress that recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement be given full 

consideration as purposes of federal water development projects. The act also authorizes the 

use of federal water project funds for land acquisition in order to establish refuges for migratory 

waterfowl when recommended by the Secretary of the Interior, and authorizes the Secretary to 

provide facilities for outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife at all reservoirs under his control, 

except those within national wildlife refuges. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as frequently amended 

Establishes a comprehensive national fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources policy with emphasis 

on the commercial fishing industry but also with a direction to administer the act with regard to 

the inherent right of every citizen and resident to fish for pleasure, enjoyment, and betterment 

and to maintain and increase public opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife 

resources. The 1998 amendments to the act modified the powers of the Secretary of the Interior 

in regard to volunteer service, community partnerships, and education programs. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, as amended

Requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species, identify species of management 

concern, and implement conservation measures to preclude the need for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934

Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife conservation with other water 

resource development programs by requiring consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the state fish and wildlife agencies where the “waters of a stream or other body of 

water are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted . . . or 

otherwise controlled or modified” by any agency under federal permit or license. This act also 

authorized use of surplus federal property for wildlife conservation purposes and authorized the 

Secretary of the Interior to provide public fishing areas and accept donations of lands and funds. 
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

110

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 

Improves the administration of fish and wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws 

including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, 

and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept gifts 

and bequests of real and personal property on behalf of the United States. It also authorizes the 

use of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry out a volunteer program.

Food Security Act of 1985 (Farm Bill), as amended

Known as the Farm Bill, this act contains several provisions that contribute to wetland 

conservation. The Swampbuster provisions state that farmers who convert wetlands for the 

purpose of planting after enactment of the law are ineligible for most farm program subsidies. 

The act also established the Wetlands Reserve Program to restore and protect wetlands 

through easements and restoration of the functions and values of wetlands on such easement 

areas.

Freedom of Information Act of 1966

Requires all federal agencies to make available to the public for inspection and copying 

administrative staff manuals and staff instructions; official, published and unpublished policy 

statements; final orders deciding case adjudication; and other documents. Special exemptions 

have been reserved for nine categories of privileged material. The act requires the party seeking 

the information to pay reasonable search and duplication costs.

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended 

Authorizes and governs the lease of geothermal steam and related resources on public lands. 

Section 15(c) of the act prohibits issuing geothermal leases on virtually all U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service-administered lands.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 1935 

Popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended in 1965, declared it a national policy to 

preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. It 

provided procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites. 

Among other things, National Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under authority of 

this act. 

Lacey Act of 1900, as amended

Originally designed to help states protect their native game animals and to safeguard U.S. crop 

production from harmful foreign species. The act prohibits interstate and international transport 

and commerce of fish, wildlife, or plants taken in violation of domestic or foreign laws. It 

regulates the introduction to the United States of foreign species into new locations.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

Provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus federal land, appropriations from oil 

and gas receipts from the outer continental shelf, and other sources for land acquisition under 

several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may be used for matching grants to states for 

outdoor recreation projects and for land acquisition by various federal agencies including the 

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

Establishes a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve areas recommended by the 

Secretary of the Interior for acquisition with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds. Authorizes the 
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

111

Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with local authorities in wildlife conservation and to 

conduct investigations, to publish documents related to North American birds, and to maintain 

and develop refuges. The act provides for cooperation with states in enforcement. It establishes 

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the Commission for 

migratory birds. This act includes acquisition authority for purchase or rental of a partial interest 

in land or waters and requires the Secretary of the Interior to consult with the appropriate units 

of local government and with the governor of the state concerned, or the appropriate state 

agency, before recommending an area for purchase or rental. This provision was subsequently 

amended in 1983, 1984, and 1986 to require that either the governor or the state agency 

approve each proposed acquisition. The role of the Commission was expanded by the North 

American Wetland Conservation Act to include approving wetlands acquisition, restoration, and 

enhancement proposals recommended by the North American Wetlands Conservation Council.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp Act) of 1934

Known as the Duck Stamp Act, this act requires every waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older 

to carry a stamp, and earmarks proceeds of Duck Stamps to buy or lease waterfowl habitat. A 

1958 amendment authorizes the acquisition of small wetland and pothole areas to be 

designated as “Waterfowl Production Areas,” which may be acquired without the limitations and 

requirements of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 

Implements various treaties and conventions between the United States and Canada, Japan, 

Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Except as allowed by 

special regulations, the act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, capture, possess, buy, sell, 

purchase, barter, export, or import any migratory bird, part, nest, egg, or product. 

Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended

Authorizes and governs mineral leasing on acquired public lands.

Minerals Leasing Act of 1920, as amended

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of deposits of coal, oil, gas, and 

other hydrocarbons, sulphur, phosphate, potassium, and sodium. Section 185 of this act

contains provisions relating to granting rights-of-way over federal lands for pipelines.

Mining Act of 1872, as amended

Authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for the so-called “hardrock” minerals (such as 

gold and silver) on public lands.

National and Community Service Act of 1990

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the United States in full and/or part-time 

projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job skills, enhance educational skills, 

and fulfill environmental needs. Among other things, this law established the American 

Conservation and Youth Service Corps to engage young adults in approved human and natural 

resource projects, which will benefit the public or are carried out on federal or tribal lands.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended

This act and the implementing regulations developed by the Council on Environmental Quality 

(40 CFR 1500–1508) require federal agencies to integrate the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process with other planning at the earliest possible time to provide a systematic 

interdisciplinary approach to decisionmaking; to identify and analyze the environmental effects 

of their actions; to describe appropriate alternatives to the proposed actions; and to involve the 
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

112

affected state and federal agencies, tribal governments, and public in the planning and 

decisionmaking process. This act requires the disclosure of the environmental impacts of any 

major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

Repeatedly amended, the act provides for preservation of significant historical features 

(buildings, objects, and sites) through a grant-in-aid program to the states. It established a 

National Register of Historic Places and a program of matching grants under the existing 

National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468–468d). The act established an Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, which was made a permanent independent agency in 1976 

(90 Stat. 1319). That act also created the Historic Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are 

directed to take into account the effects of their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for 

listing in the National Register. Section 110 requires federal agencies to manage historic 

properties, e.g., to document historic properties prior to destruction or damage; section 101 

requires federal agencies consider Indian tribal values in historic preservation programs and 

requires each federal agency to establish a program leading to inventory of all historic 

properties on its land.

National Trails System Act of 1968

Established the National Trails System to protect the recreational, scenic, and historic values of 

some important trails. National Recreation Trails may be established by the Secretaries of the

Interior or Agriculture on land wholly or partly within their jurisdiction, with the consent of the 

involved state(s) and other land managing agencies, if any. National scenic and national historic 

trails may only be designated by an act of Congress. Several national trails cross units of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997)

This act consolidates the authorities relating to the various categories of lands for the 

conservation of fish and wildlife administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the U.S 

Fish and Wildlife Service by designating all such areas part of a single National Wildlife Refuge 

System. Areas include wildlife refuges, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and 

wildlife threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas,

and waterfowl production areas. The law also prohibits knowingly disturbing any area within the 

system or the take of Refuge System wildlife without a permit. The act addresses the growing 

need for recreational opportunities by providing a decision framework for allowing appropriate 

and compatible uses of the Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act of 2000

Establishes a commission to promote awareness by the public to develop a long-term plan to 

meet priority needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System, require an annual report on the 

needs, and improve public use programs and facilities. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

This act, which amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, serves 

as the "organic act" for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The act states first and foremost 

that the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is focused singularly on wildlife 

conservation. It establishes a unifying mission for the Refuge System, reinforces the importance 

of refuge purposes to guide management direction, articulates a process for determining 

compatible uses of refuges, identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreation uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation), 
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

113

and adds a requirement for preparing comprehensive conservation plans through a public 

planning process. The act requires the Secretary of the Interior to maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement 

Act of 1998 

Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to encourage the use of volunteers to help in the 

management of refuges within the National Wildlife Refuge System; facilitates partnerships 

between the Refuge System and nonfederal entities to promote public awareness of the 

resources of the Refuge System and public participation in the conservation of the resources; 

and encourages donations and other contributions.

National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer Improvement Act of 2010 

Maintains the current funding authorization level for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

volunteer and community partnerships programs that are vital to national wildlife refuges but 

makes a number of important amendments. The law amends the National Wildlife Refuge 

Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 to direct the Service to carry 

out a National Volunteer Coordination Program within the National Wildlife Refuge System. It 

also requires the Director of the Service to publish a national strategy for the coordination and 

utilization of volunteers within the Refuge System and provide at least one regional volunteer 

coordinator for each Service region to implement the strategy. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990

Requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession. This act imposes serious delays on a project 

when human remains or other cultural items are encountered in the absence of a plan.

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 2000

Establishes a matching grants program to fund projects that promote the conservation of 

neotropical migratory birds in the United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989

Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between the United 

States, Canada, and Mexico. North American Wetlands Conservation Council is created to 

recommend projects to be funded under the act to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Available funds may be expended for up to 50 percent of the United States’ share cost of 

wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent of the 

cost of projects on federal lands).

Partnerships for Wildlife Act of 1992

Established a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund to receive appropriated funds and 

donations from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to assist the 

state fish and game agencies in carrying out their responsibilities for conservation of non-game 

species. The funding formula is no more than 1/3 federal funds, at least 1/3 foundation funds, 

and at least 1/3 state funds. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended

Requires that any recreational use on areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System be 

"compatible" with the primary purpose(s) for which the area was acquired or established. This 
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

114

act also requires that sufficient funding be available for the development, operation and 

maintenance of recreational uses that are not directly related to the area's primary purpose(s). 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935

Provides for payments to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the sale of 

products from refuges. A major revision in 1964 requires all revenues received from refuge 

products be distributed to counties for public schools and roads (this stipulation later removed). 

Another revision in 1974 requires that any remaining funds be transferred to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund for land acquisition. A 1978 amendment stated payments to counties were 

established as: 

• on acquired land, the greatest amount calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre, 

three-fourths of one percent of the appraised value, or 25 percent of the net receipts 

produced from the land, and

• on land withdrawn from the public domain, 25 percent of net receipts and basic 

payments.

This amendment also required counties to pass payments along to other units of local 

government within the county that suffer losses in revenues due to the establishment of U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service areas.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability under any program or activity receiving federal 

financial assistance. 

Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899, as amended

Requires the authorization by the Chief of Engineers prior to any work in, on, over, or under 

navigable waters of the United States. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides authority 

for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to review and comment on the effects on fish and wildlife 

activities proposed to be undertaken or permitted by the COE. Service concerns include 

contaminated sediments associated with dredge or fill projects in navigable waters.

Secretarial Order 3289 Amendment 1: Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on 

America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources (2010)

Secretarial Order 3285, issued in March 2009, made production and transmission of renewable 

energy on public lands a priority for the Department of the Interior. This Secretarial Order, 

3289A1, issued in February 2010 establishes a Department-wide approach for applying 

scientific tools to increase understanding of climate change and to coordinate an effective 

response to its impacts on tribes and on the land, water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and cultural 

resources that the Department manages.

Sikes Act of 1960, as amended

Provides for the cooperation by the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Defense with state 

agencies in planning, development, and maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor 

recreation facilities on military reservations throughout the United States. It requires the 

Secretary of each military department to use trained professionals to manage the wildlife and 

fishery resource under his jurisdiction and requires federal and state fish and wildlife agencies 

be given priority in management of fish and wildlife activities on military reservations.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

115

Regulates surface mining activities and reclamation of coal-mined lands. Further regulates the 

coal industry by designating certain areas as unsuitable for coal mining operations.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948

Provides that upon a determination by the Administrator of the General Services Administration, 

real property no longer needed by a federal agency can be transferred without reimbursement 

to the Secretary of the Interior if the land has particular value for migratory birds or to a state 

agency for other wildlife conservation purposes.

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998

Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation planning that includes public 

involvement, and provides funding for approved public use roads and trails and associated 

parking lots, comfort stations, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities.

Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2000

In December 2002, Congress required federal agencies to publish their own guidelines for 

ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information that they 

disseminate to the public (44 U.S.C. 3502). The amended language is included in section 

515(a). The Office of Budget and Management directed agencies to develop their own 

guidelines to address the requirements of the law. The Department of the Interior instructed 

bureaus to prepare separate guidelines on how they would apply the act. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service has developed “Information Quality Guidelines” to address the law.

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell their homes, businesses, or 

farms to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The act requires that any purchase offer be no less 

than the fair market value of the property.

Water Resources Planning Act of 1965

Established the Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet representatives, including 

the Secretary of the Interior. The Council reviews river basin plans with respect to agricultural, 

urban, energy, industrial, recreational, and fish and wildlife needs. The act also established a 

grant program to assist states in participating in the development of related comprehensive 

water and land use plans.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968

Established a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and prescribes the methods and 

standards through which additional rivers may be identified and added to the system. Section 

5(d)(1) requires that in all planning by federal agencies for the use and development of water 

and related land resources, consideration be given to potential wild, scenic, and recreation 

rivers. Rivers are added to the national system based on their free-flowing character and their 

outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreation, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, 

ecological, or other values. Rivers in the system are managed to maintain and protect these 

outstandingly remarkable values for present and future generations. 

Wilderness Act of 1964

Defined the Wilderness resource and established the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

It directed the Secretary of the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 

or more acres and every roadless island (regardless of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and 

National Park Systems and to recommend to the President the suitability of each such area or 

island for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, with final decisions made 
Appendix E: Legal and Policy Guidance

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

116

by Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture was directed to study and recommend suitable areas 

in the National Forest System. This act also prescribes the management of new inclusions as 

wilderness. 

Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970

Established a permanent Youth Conservation Corps program within the Departments of the

Interior and Agriculture. Within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, YCC participants perform 

many tasks on refuges, fish hatcheries, and research stations.
Appendix F: Literature Cited

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

117

Appendix F: Literature Cited

Agricultural Marketing Services Division, Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 2008. 

“Minnesota Northwest 14 Counties.” Retrieved November 23, 2008. 

http://www.bah.state.mn.us/tb/files/NW-MN-cattle-industry-final.pdf.

Allen, C.D., M. Savage, D.A. Falk, K.F. Suckling, T.W. Swetnam, T. Schulke, P.B. Stacey, P. 

Morgan, M. Hoffman, and J.T. Klingel. 2002. “Ecological restoration of southwestern Ponderosa 

pine ecosystems: A broad perspective.” Ecological Applications, 12(5): 1418–133.

Allen, L. 2008. “Wildlife watching, photography turning into big business.” Inside Tucson 

Business, 18(7): 17.

Anstey, D.A., S.K. Davis, D.C. Duncan, and M. Skeel. 1995. “Distribution and habitat 

requirements of eight grassland songbird species in southern Saskatchewan.” Saskatchewan 

Wetland Conservation Corporation, Regina, Saskatchewan, 11pp.

Anteau, M. J. 2011. “Do interactions of land use and climate affect productivity of waterbirds and 

prairie-pothole wetlands?” Wetlands, 32:1–9.

Arnold, T.W. and K.F. Higgins. 1986. “Effects of shrub coverages on birds of North Dakota 

mixed-grass prairies.” Canadian Field-Naturalist ,100:10–14.

Bailey, R. 1995. “Description of the Ecoregions of the United States.” United States Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service.

Batt, B.D.J., M.G. Anderson, C.D. Anderson, and F.D. Caswell. 1989. The use of prairie 

potholes by North American ducks in vand der Valk, A., editor, Northern prairie wetlands,

Amers, Iowa, Iowa State University, 204–227.

Bent, A.C. 1968. “Life histories of north American cardinals, grosbeaks, buntings, towhees, 

finches, sparrows and allies.” Dover Publications, Inc., New York, New York.

Biondini, M. E., A. A. Steuter, and R. G. Hamilton. 1999. “Bison use of fire-managed remnant 

prairies.” Journal of Range Management, 52: 454–461.

Bollinger, E.K., and T.A. Gavin. 1992. “Eastern Bobolink populations: ecology and conservation 

in an agricultural landscape.” Ecology and conservation of neotropical landbirds, ed. J.M. Hagen 

III and D.W. Johnston. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C., 497–506. 

Bragg, T.B. and A.A. Steuter. 1995. Mixed prairie of the North American Great Plains. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, 60:335–348.

Briggs, J., A. Knapp, J. Blair, J. Heisler, G. Hoch, M. Lett, and J. McCarron. 2005. “An 

ecosystem in transition: causes and consequences of the conversion of mesic grassland to 

shrubland.” BioScience, 55(3): 243–254.

Brown, J., M. Cornett, J. Ekstein, P. Gerla, and S. Wahl. 2005. “Master
Appendix F: Literature Cited

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

118

plan for restoration, management, and monitoring at Glacial Ridge.” The Nature Conservancy. 

99 pages + appendices.

Brown, J. and B. Winter. 2003. “Northern Tallgrass Prairie Reconstructions – A Summary and 

Synthesis of Monitoring Data collected between 1997 and 2001 (June 2003).” The Nature 

Conservancy internal report, 37.

Brye, K.R., J.M. Norman, L.G. Bundy, and S.T. Gower. 2000. “Water-Budget Evaluation of 

Prairie and Maize Ecosystems.” Soil Science Society of America Journal, 64: 715–724.

Buss, I.O., and A.S. Hawkins. 1939. “The Upland Plover at Faville Grove, Wisconsin.” Wilson 

Bulletin, 51:202–220. 

Clements, R. 2004. “An Investigation of the Status of Outdoor Play.” Contemporary Issues in 

Early Childhood, 5(1).

Collins, S. L. and L. L. Wallace. 1990. “Fire in North American tallgrass prairies.” University of 

Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.

Coppedge, B.R., and J.H. Shaw. 1998. “Bison grazing patterns on seasonally burned tallgrass 

prairie.” Journal of Range Management, 51: 258–264.

Cowdery, T.K., and Lorenz, D.L, with Arntson, A.D., 2008. “Hydrology prior to wetland and 

prairie restoration in and around the Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge, northwestern 

Minnesota, 2002–5.” U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5200, 68.

Davis, S.K., and D.C. Duncan. 1999. “Grassland songbird abundance in native and crested 

wheatgrass pastures of southern Saskatchewan.” Ecology and conservation of grassland birds 

of the Western Hemisphere. Studies in Avian Biology 19, J. Herkert and P. Vickery, editors,

211-218.

Davis, M.B., R.G., Shaw. 2001. “Range Shifts and Adaptive Responses to Quaternary Climate 

Change.” Science, Vol. 292 Issue 5517.

Dechant, J.A., M.F. Dinkins, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, B.D. Parkin, and B.R. Euliss. 

1999 (revised 2002). “Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Upland Sandpiper.” 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 34 . 

Dhol, S., J. Horton, and R.E. Jones. 1994. 1994 non-waterfowl evaluation on Manitoba’s North 

American Waterfowl Management Program. Unpublished report. Wildlife Branch, Manitoba 

Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 12pp. 

Dickmann, D. I. and D.T. Cleland. 2002. “Fire return intervals and fire cycles for historic fire 

regimes in the Great Lakes Region: A synthesis of the literature.” Great Lakes Ecological 

Assessment, 21.

Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act of 1918. 
Appendix F: Literature Cited

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

119

Edry, S.L. 2005. “Hi-tech treasure hunts.” Newsweek (Atlantic Edition), 145: 23.

Emlen, J.T. 1977. “Estimating breeding season bird densities from transect counts.” Auk,

94:455–468. 

Faanes, C.A. 1983. “Breeding birds of wooded draws in western North Dakota.” Prairie 

Naturalist ,15:173–187. 

Falk. D.A. 1990. “Discovering the past, creating the future.” Restoration and Management 

Notes, 8(2): 71–72.

Faber-Langendoen, D., editor. 2001. “Plant communities of the Midwest: Classification in an 

ecological context.” Association for Biodiversity Information, Arlington, VA. 61 pages. + 

appendix (705).

Fairfield, G.M. 1968. “Chestnut-collared longspur.” Life histories of North American cardinals, 

grosbeaks, buntings, towhees, finches, sparrows, and allies, O. L. Austin, Jr. editor, Dover 

Publications, Inc., New York, New York,1635–1652 . 

Fitzgerald, J.A., D.N. Pashley, S.J. Lewis, and B. Pardo. 1998. “Partners in flight bird 

conservation plan for the northern tallgrass prairie (physiographic area 40).” American Bird 

Conservancy, 49.

Gagnon, P., P. Gerla, B. Schreurs, M. Cornett, M. Khoury, J. Hall. 2004. “The Northern 

Tallgrass Prairie Ecoregion: A River and Stream Conservation Portfolio.” The Nature 

Conservancy.

George, T.L., and L.C. McEwen. 1991. “Relationships between bird density, vegetation 

characteristics, and grasshopper density in mixed-grass prairie of western North Dakota.” D. R. 

McCullough and R. H. Barrett, editors, Wildlife 2001: populations, Elsevier Science Publishers 

LTD, Essex, England.,465–475.

Grace, J.B., M.D. Smith, S.L. Grace, S.L. Collins, and T.J. Stohlgren. 2001. “Interactions 

between fire and invasive plants in temperate grasslands of North America.” Galley, K.E.M. and 

T.P. Wilson, editors, Proc. of the Invasive Species Workshop: The role of fire in the control and 

spread of invasive species, Fire Conf. 2000: The First National Congress on Fire Ecology, 

Prevention, and Management. Misc. Publ. No. 11, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, 

FL, 40–65.

Grant, T.A., E.M. Madden, R.K. Murphy, K.A. Smith, and M.P. Nenneman. 2004. “Monitoring 

native prairie vegetation: The belt transect method.” Ecological Restoration, 22:106–112.

Grossman, D.H., D. Faber-Langendoen, A.S. Weakley, M. Anderson, P. Bourgeron, R. 

Crawford, K. Goodin, S. Landaal, K. Metzler, K.D. Patterson, M. Pyne, M. Reid, and L. 

Sneddon. 1998. “International classification of ecological communities: terrestrial vegetation of 
Appendix F: Literature Cited

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

120

the United States. Volume I. The National Vegetation Classification System: development, 

status, and applications.” The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

Hanley, R.S., I. Foster, K. Babcock and T. Janke. 2006. “Annual Progress Report: Year 1 for

Constructing a regional species pool: a preliminary survey of insects associated with restored 

and natural wetlands of the Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge.” University of North Dakota. 

Hanley, R.S., I. Foster, and K. Babcock. 2008. “Annual Progress Report: Year 2 for 

Constructing a regional species pool: a preliminary survey of insects associated with restored 

and natural wetlands of the Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge.” University of North Dakota. 

Hartnett, D. C., K. R. Hickman, and L. E. Fischer Walter. 1996. “Effects of bison grazing, fire, 

and topography on floristic diversity in tallgrass prairie.” Journal of Range Management, 

49:413–420.

Heisler, J. L., J. M. Briggs, and A. K. Knapp. 2003. “Long-term patterns of shrub expansion in a

C4-dominated grassland: fire frequency and the dynamics of shrub cover and abundance.” 

American Journal of Botany, 90:423–428.

Helzer, C. J. 1996. “The effects of wet meadow fragmentation on grassland birds.” M.S. thesis. 

University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, 65.

Herkert, J.R. “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 Plains.” Resource Publication 161. Washington D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service.

Hull, S.D., R.J. Robel, and K.E. Kemp. 1996.” Summer avian abundance, invertebrate biomass, 

and forbs in Kansas CRP.” Prairie Naturalist ,28:1–12.

Invasive Species. 1999. Executive Order No. 13112, 3 C.F.R. Print. 

Joern, A. 2005. “Disturbance by fire frequency and bison grazing modulate grasshopper 

assemblages in tallgrass prairie.” Ecology, 86: 861–873.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1979. Birds of the Great Plains. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 

Nebraska, 539pp.

Johnson, D.H. and L.D. Igl. 2001. “Area requirements of grassland birds: a regional 

Perspective.” Auk, 118:24–34. 

Johnson, R. G., and S. A. Temple. 1986. “Assessing habitat quality for birds nesting in 

fragmented tallgrass prairies.” J. Verner, M. L. Morrison, and C. J. Ralph, editors, Wildlife 2000: 

modeling habitat relationships in terrestrial vertebrates, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison,

245–249.
Appendix F: Literature Cited

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

121

Johnson R.R., F.T. Oslund, and D. R. Hertel. 2008. “The past, present, and future of prairie 

potholes in the United States.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 63: 84a–87a.

Johnston, D.W. and E.P. Odum. 1956. “Breeding bird populations in relation to plant succession 

on the Piedmont of Georgia.” Ecology, 37: 50-62.

Kahl, R.B., T.S. Baskett, J.A. Ellis, and J.N. Burroughs. 1985. “Characteristics of summer 

habitats of selected nongame birds in Missouri.” University of Missouri-Columbia, Agricultural 

Experiment Station Research Bulletin 1056, Columbia, Missouri. 

Kaiser, P.H. 1979. “Upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) nesting in southeastern South 

Dakota, USA.” Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science, 58:59–68. 

Kaminski, R. M. and H. H. Prince. 1981. “Dabbling duck activity and foraging responses to 

aquatic macroinvertebrates.” Auk, 98: 115–126.

Kantrud, H. A. and R. E. Stewart. 1977. “Use of natural basin wetlands by breeding waterfowl in 

North Dakota.” Journal of Wildlife Management, 41:243–253.

Kantrud, H. A. 1986. “Effects of vegetation manipulation on breeding waterfowl in prairie 

wetlands: A literature review.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Technical Report 3.

Kantrud, H.A., and K.F. Higgins. 1992. “Nest and nest site characteristics of some groundnesting, non-passerine birds of northern grasslands.” Prairie Naturalist, 24:67–84. 

Kimmel, R. O., A. H. Berner, R. J. Welsh, B. S. Haroldson, and S. B. Malchow. 1992. 

“Population responses of grey partridge (Perdix perdix), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus 

colchicus), and meadowlarks (Sturnella spp.) to farm programs in Minnesota.” Gibier Faune 

Sauvage, 9:797–806. 

Klaas, B.A., K.A. Moloney, and B.J. Danielson. 2000. “The tempo and mode of gopher mound 

production in a tallgrass prairie remnant.” Ecography, 23: 246.

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

1999. “The keystone role of bison in North American tallgrass prairie: Bison increase habitat 

heterogeneity and alter a broad array of plant, community, and ecosystem processes.” 

BioScience, 49(1): 39–50.

Knopf, F.L. 1994. “Avian assemblages on altered grasslands.” Studies in Avian Biology, 15: 

247–257.

Krapu, G. L., P. J. Pietz, D. A. Brandt, and R. R. Cox. 2004. “Does presence of permanent fresh 

water affect recruitment in prairie-nesting dabbling ducks?” Journal of Wildlife Management, 68: 

332–341.

Küchler, A.W. 1964. “Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States.”
Appendix F: Literature Cited

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

122

Special publication number 36. American Geographical Society. New York, NY.

Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, 226pp.

Lindmeier, J.P. 1960. “Plover, rail, and godwit nesting on a study area in Mahnomen County, 

Minnesota.” Flicker, 32:5–9. 

Madden, E. M. 1996. “Passerine communities and bird-habitat relationships on prescribeburned, mixed-grass prairie in North Dakota.” M.S. thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, 

Montana, 153pp. 

Maher, W.J. 1974. “Matador Project: Birds II.” Avifauna of the Matador area. Canadian 

Committee for the International Biological Programme, Matador Project, Technical Report 58. 

University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, 31pp. 

Martin, L.M., and B.J. Wilsey. 2006. “Assessing grassland restoration success: relative roles of 

seed additions and native ungulate activities.” Journal of Applied Ecology, 43: 1098–1109.

McClain, W.E. and S.L. Elzinga. 1994. “The occurrence of prairie and forest fires in Illinois and 

other Midwestern states, 1679–1854.” Erigenia ,13:79–90.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2005. “Field guide to the native plant communities 

of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province.” Ecological Land Classification Program, 

Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN, U.S.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2005b. “Field guide to the native plant 

communities of Minnesota: the prairie parkland and tallgrass aspen parklands provinces.”

Ecological land classification program, Minnesota county biological survey, and natural heritage 

and nongame research program, MNDNR, St. Paul, MN. 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2006a. “A Vision for Wildlife and its Use – Goals 

and Outcomes 2006–2012.” Division of Fish and Wildlife.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2006b. “Tomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and 

Rare: An Action Plan for Minnesota Wildlife, Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.” 

Division of Ecological Services.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2009. “Rare species guide.” Retrieved January 4, 

2009. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html.

Minnesota Historical Society. 1979. “The Red River Trails: Oxcart routes between St. Paul

and the Selkirk Settlement 1820-1870.” St. Paul, Minnesota.

Minnesota Prairie Plan Working Group. 2011. “Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan.” Minnesota 

Prairie Plan Working Group, Minneapolis, MN. 55.
Appendix F: Literature Cited

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

123

Murkin, H. R., R. M. Kaminski, and R. D. Titman. 1982. “Responses by dabbling ducks and 

aquatic invertebrates to an experimentally manipulated cattail marsh.” Canadian Journal of 

Zoology, 60:2324–2332.

National Audubon Society. “Important Bird Areas Program.” (Internet, updated 2009 April, cited 

2009 May 2). Available from http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba/index.html.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2008. “National American Indian 

Heritage Month.” Retrieved November 23, 2008,

http://www.nps.gov/history/archeology/months/november08.htm.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. No Date Available. “The Plains Indians.” 

Retrieved November 23, 2008, http://www.nps.gov/archive/fola/indians.htm.

National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2008. “Minnesota DataChemical Usage Field Crops.” Retrieved December 19, 2008,

http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/PullData_US.jsp.

Natural Resource Conservation Service. (2005). Restoring Iowa wetlands A snapshot of Iowa’s 

wetland types, benefits, restoration processes and programs for land users [Brochure]. Des 

Moines, Iowa.

Naugle, D. E., K. F. Higgins, S. M. Nusser, and W. C. Johnson. 1999. “Scale-dependent habitat 

use in three species of prairie wetland birds.” Landscape Ecology, 14:267–276.

Owens, R.A. and M.T. Myres. 1973. “Effects of agriculture upon populations of native passerine 

birds of an Alberta fescue grassland.” Canadian Journal of Zoology, 51:697–713.

Packard, S. and C.F. Mutel. The tallgrass restoration handbook for prairies, savannas, and 

woodlands. 2nd ed. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 2005.

Palmer, M.A., E. Bernhardt, J.D. Allan, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, S. Clayton, J. Carr, C. Dahm, 

J. Follstad-Shah, D.L. Galat, S. Gloss, . Goodwin, D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, G.M. 

Kondolf, S. Lake, R. Lave, J.L. Meyer, T.K. O’Donnell, L. Pagano, P. Srivastava and E. 

Sudduth. 2005. “Standards for the ecologically successful river restoration.” Journal of Applied 

Ecology, 42: 208–217.

Parmesan, C. 2006. “Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change.” Annual 

Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 37: 637–69.

Peterson, R.T. Birds of eastern and central North America. 5th ed. Singapore: Houghton Mifflin 

Company, 2002.

Plumb, G. E. and J. L. Dodd. 1994. “Foraging ecology of bison and cattle.” Rangelands,

16:107–109.
Appendix F: Literature Cited

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

124

Prescott, D.R.C., and A.J. Murphy. 1996. “Habitat associations of grassland birds on native and 

tame pastures of the aspen parkland in Alberta.” NAWMP-021, Alberta NAWMP Centre, 

Edmonton, Alberta, 36pp. 

Pyne, S. J. 1982. Fire in America: A Cultural History of Wildland and Urban Fire. University of 

Washington Press, 264.

Renken, R.B. 1983. “Breeding bird communities and bird-habitat associations on North Dakota 

waterfowl production areas of three habitat types.” M.S. thesis. Iowa State University, Ames, 

Iowa, 90pp. 

Renken, R.B., and J.J. Dinsmore. 1987. “Nongame bird communities on managed grasslands in 

North Dakota.” Canadian Field-Naturalist, 101:551–557. 

Responsive Management/National Shooting Sports Foundation. 2008. “The Future of Hunting 

and the Shooting Sports: Research-Based Recruitment and Retention Strategies.” Produced for 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Grant Agreement CT-M-6-0. Harrisonburg, VA.

Riley, M.J., G. Schott, and J. Schultinik. 2001. “Determining Volunteer Motivations-A Key to 

Success.” Michigan State University Extension.

Ringleman, J.K. (editor.), D. Casey, K.J. Forman, D.A. Granfors, R.R Johnson, CA lively, DE 

Naugle, ND Niemuth, RE Reynolds, Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. 2005, Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture: 2005 Implementation Plan.

Robel, R.J., J.N. Briggs, A.D. Dayton, and L.C. Hulbert. 1970. “Relationships between visual 

obstruction measurements and weight of grassland vegetation.” Journal of Range Management, 

23:295–297. 

Rotenberry, J.T. and J.A. Wiens. 1980. “Temporal variation in habitat structure and shrubsteppe 

bird dynamics.” Oecologia ,47:1–9. 

Ryan, M. R. 1982. “Marbled Godwit habitat selection in the northern prairie region.” Ph.D. 

dissertation. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 108pp. 

Ryan, M. R., R. B. Renken, and J. J. Dinsmore. 1984. “Marbled godwit habitat selection in the 

northern prairie region.” Journal of Wildlife Management, 48:1206–1218. 

Ryan, M.R., L.W. Burger Jr., D.P. Jones, and A.P. Wywialowski. 1998. “Breeding ecology of 

greater prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus cupido) in relation to prairie landscape configuration.” 

American Midland Naturalist, 140(1): 111.

Sample, D.W. 1989. “Grassland birds in southern Wisconsin: habitat preference, population 

trends, and response to land use changes.” M.S. thesis. University of Wisconsin, Madison, 

Wisconsin, 588pp. 
Appendix F: Literature Cited

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

125

Sample D.W. and M.J. Mossman. 1997. “Management Habitat for Grassland Birds: A Guide for 

Wisconsin.” Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Samson, F.B. and F.L. Knopf. 1994. “Prairie conservation in North America.” BioScience,

44: 418-421.

Savage, C. Prairie: A Natural History. Vancouver, Canada: Douglas & McIntyre Publishing 

Group, 2004.

Sharma, J., L.W. Zettler, and J.W. Van Sambeek. 2003. “A survey of mycobionts of federally 

threatened Plantanthera praeclara (Orchidaceae).” Symbiosis, 34: 145–155.

Shepherd, S. and D.M. Debinski. 2005. “Reintroduction of Regal Fritillary (Speyeria idalia) to a 

Restored Prairie.” Ecological Restoration, 23: 4.

Skeel, M.A., D.C. Duncan, and S.K. Davis. 1995. “Abundance and distribution of Baird’s 

sparrow in Saskatchewan in 1994.” Saskatchewan Wetland Conservation Cooperation, Regina, 

Saskatchewan, 13 pp. 

Skinner, R.M., T.S. Baskett, and M.D. Blendon. 1984. “Bird habitat on Missouri prairies.”

Terrestrial Series 14, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, 37pp. 

Smith, R.L. 1963. “Some ecological notes on the Grasshopper sparrow.” Wilson Bulletin,

75:159–165. 

Soons, M.B., J.H. Messelink, E. Jongejans, and G.W. Heil. 2005. “Habitat fragmentation 

reduces grassland connectivity for both short-distance and long-distance wind-dispersed forbs.” 

Journal of Ecology, 93: 1214–1225.

Stewart, R.E. and H.A. Kantrud. 1971. “Classification of ponds and lakes in the glaciated prairie 

region.” Resource Publication 92, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. 

http://www.npwrd.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/pondlake/index.htm (Version16APR1998).

Stewart, R.E. 1975. “Breeding birds of North Dakota.z’ Tri-College center for Environmental 

Studies, Fargo, North Dakota. 

Svedarsky, D. and G. Van Amburg. 1996. “Integrated management of the greater prairie 

chicken and livestock on the Sheyenne National Grassland.” North Dakota Game and Fish 

Department, Bismarck, ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/sheyenne/index.htm (Version 16JUL97).

Svedarsky, W.D., J.E. Toepfer, R.L. Westemeier, and R.J. Robel. 2003. “Effects of 

management practices on grassland birds: Greater Prairie-Chicken.” Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 42.
Appendix F: Literature Cited

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

126

Taylor, J.R. Schroeder, K. Granillo, S. Adamowicz, P. Drobney, and K. Lindsey. 2005. “Habitat 

Management Planning.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Conservation Training Center.

Teller, J.T. and L. Clayton (editors) 1983. “Glacial Lake Agassiz. Geological Association of 

Canada Special Paper 26.” 451.

The Nature Conservancy, Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecoregional Planning Team. 1998. 

“Ecoregional planning in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie ecoregion.” The Nature Conservancy, 

Midwest Regional Office, Minneapolis, MN, 208.

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

from bison and cattle grazing.” Ecological Applications 15:1550–1559.

Trager, J. C. 1998. “An introduction to ants (Formicidae) of the tallgrass prairie.” Missouri Prairie 

Journal. Vol. 18:4-8. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/insects/ants/index.htm (Version 17May99).

U.S. Department of the Interior. “Continental divides in North Dakota and North America” 

(Internet, updated 2008 April 29, cited 2009 May 2). Available from http://wwwatlas.usgs.gov/articles/geology/a_continentalDiv.html.

United Nations Environment Programme. 2009. “Climate in peril: a popular guide to the latest 

IPCC reports.”

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. “Fish & Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities, Region 

3, September 1999.”

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. “Fulfilling the Promise: Visions for Wildlife Habitat, 

People, and Leadership.”

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999c. “Minnesota and Iowa Ecotype Zone Development.”

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. “Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and

Environmental Assessment, Rydell National Wildlife Refuge.”

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. “Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge Environmental 

Assessment.”

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. “Birds of Conservation Concern 2002.” Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 99, (Online version available at http://migratory 

birds.fws.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. “Draft Environmental Assessment to the Wildland Fire 

Management Plan for Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge.”

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. “U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 

Environmental Assessment, Proposed Hunting Plan for Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge, 

Polk County, Minnesota.”
Appendix F: Literature Cited

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

127

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Refuge Management. 2006. “Refuge Management Part 601 

National Wildlife Refuge System.” FWS, 601 FW 1.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. “Volunteers.” Retrieved January 31, 2009. 

http://www.fws.gov/volunteers/index.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. “Western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara) 5-

year review: summary and evaluation.” (In-progress draft used.)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. “Midwest Region Who We Are.” Retrieved February 15, 

2009, http://www.fws.gov/midwest/who.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. “Western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara) 5-

year review: summary and evaluation.” Twin Cities Field Office Bloomington, Minnesota. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. “Conserving the Future: Wildlife Refuges and the Next 

Generation.”

U.S. Geologic Survey. 2006. “Wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region: Invertebrate Species 

Composition, Ecology, and Management.” Retrieved May 2, 2009,

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/pothole/prairie.htm.

Weller, M. W. and C. E. Spatcher. 1965. “Role of habitat in the distribution and abundance of 

marsh birds.” Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Special Report 43,

31p.

Whiles, M.R., R.E. Charlton. 2006. “The ecological significance of tallgrass prairie arthropods.” 

Annual Review of Entomology, 51: 387–412.

White, R.P. 1983. “Distribution and habitat preference of the upland sandpiper (Bartramia 

longicauda) in Wisconsin.” American Birds, 37:16–22. 

Wiens, J.A. 1969. “An approach to the study of ecological relationships among grassland birds.”

Ornithological Monographs, 8:1–93. 

Wiens, J.A. 1970. “Avian populations and patterns of habitat occupancy at the Pawnee site, 

1968- 1969.” U.S. International Biological Program, Grassland Biome Technical Report 63,

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 57pp. 

Wilcox, A.H. 1907. A Pioneer History of Becker County. Pioneer Press Company, St. Paul, MN,

757pp.

Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. “Quantifying threats to

imperiled species in the United States.” BioScience, 48(8): 607–615.

Wilhelm, G.,L. Rericha, and Iowa Valley Resource Conservation and Development. 2007. 

“Timberhill Savanna Assessment of Landscape Management.” Southern Iowa RC&D.
Appendix F: Literature Cited

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

128

Wilson, S.D., and J.W. Belcher. 1989. “Plant and bird communities of native prairie and 

introduced Eurasian vegetation in Manitoba, Canada.” Conservation Biology, 3:39–44. 

Willson, G.D., and J.Stubbendieck. 1997. “Fire effects on four growth stages of smooth brome 

(Bromus inermis Leyss.).” Natural Areas Journal, 17:306– 312. 

Willson, G.D. 1990. “Morphological characteristics of smooth brome used to determine a 

prescribed burn date.” Proc. of the Twelfth North American Prairie Conf., 113–116.

Wright, H. A. and A. W. Bailey. 1980. “Fire ecology and prescribed burning in the Great Plains: 

A research review.” USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, INT-77.
Appendix G: Appropriate Use Designations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

129

Appendix G: Appropriate Use Designations

In this appendix:

Introduction

Cooperative Farming

Environmental Education, Interpretation, Special Events, and Other Programs

Fish Rearing

Haying and Grazing

Hunting

Research, Scientific Collecting, and Surveys by Third Parties

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Wood Cutting and Timber Removal

Introduction

National wildlife refuge managers decide if a new or existing use is an appropriate refuge use. 

This appendix provides copies of the appropriate use designations for Glacial Ridge National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR, refuge).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) appropriate use policy (FWS, 603 FW 1) 

explains the decision process the refuge manager follows when first considering whether or not 

to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must first find a use to be appropriate 

before undertaking a compatibility review of the use and outlining the stipulations of the use. 

The appropriate use policy clarifies and expands on the compatibility policy (FWS, 603 FW 2 

2.10D(1)), which describes when the refuge manager should deny a proposed use without 

determining compatibility. If a proposed use is found “not appropriate,” the use will not be 

allowed and a compatibility determination will not be prepared. By screening out proposed uses 

not appropriate to the refuge, the refuge manager avoids unnecessary compatibility reviews. 

Although a use may be both appropriate and compatible, the refuge manager retains the 

authority to not allow the use or modify the use. 

This policy does not generally apply to proposed public use of wetland and grassland easement 

areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System). The rights we have 

acquired on these areas generally do not extend to control over such public uses except where 

those uses would conflict with the conditions of the easement (FWS, 603 FW 1 1.2A).

Background for this policy as it applies to Glacial Ridge NWR is found in the following statutory 

authorities: 

• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (administration act), as 

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

(improvement act) (16 U.S.C. § 668dd–668ee). This law provides the authority for 

establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, including the authority to 

prohibit certain harmful activities. The administration act does not authorize any 

particular use, but rather authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when 

they are deemed compatible. The improvement act provides the Refuge System mission 

and includes specific directives and identifies six wildlife-dependent uses as priorities for 

the Refuge System. 
Appendix G: Appropriate Use Designations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

130

• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, (16 U.S.C. § 460k). This law authorizes the Secretary of 

the Interior to allow public recreation in areas of the Refuge System when the use is an 

“appropriate incidental or secondary use.” 

Refuge or uses must meet at least one of the following four conditions to be deemed 

appropriate: 

1. It is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the improvement act.

2. It contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals or 

objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after the improvement act 

was signed into law.

3. The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under state regulations. 

4. The refuge or has evaluated the use following the guidelines in this policy and found that 

it is appropriate. The criteria used by the manager to evaluate appropriateness can be 

found on each of the appropriate use forms included in this appendix. 

Uses that have been administratively determined to be appropriate but still require compatibility 

determinations are: 

• six wildlife-dependent recreational uses as defined by the improvement act as hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation; and

• take of fish and wildlife under state regulations including hunting, fishing, and trapping.

Also covered under this policy are “specialized uses,” or uses that require specific authorization 

from the Refuge System, often in the form of a special use permit, letter of authorization, or 

other permit document. These uses do not include uses already granted by a prior existing right. 

Appropriateness findings for specialized uses are made on a case-by-case basis.

This policy does NOT apply to: 

• situations where reserved rights or legal mandates provide certain uses must be 

allowed; and 

• refuge management activities conducted by the Refuge System or a Refuge Systemauthorized agent designed to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. These 

activities fulfill refuge or district purpose(s) or the Refuge System mission and are based 

on sound professional judgment. 

Appropriate use findings are made without public review and comment. However, if a proposed 

use is found to be appropriate, we must still determine that the use is compatible. The 

compatibility determination includes an opportunity for public involvement (FWS, 603 FW 1 

1.9B).
Appendix G: Appropriate Use Designations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

131

The following uses are deemed appropriate:

Cooperative Farming

Environmental Education, Interpretation, and Special Events, and Other Programs

Fish Rearing

Haying and Grazing

Hunting

Research, Scientific Collecting, and Surveys by Third Parties

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Wood Cutting and Timber Removal

Refuges are national treasures for the conservation of wildlife. Through careful planning, 

consistent application of regulations and policies, diligent monitoring of the impacts of uses on 

wildlife resources, and preventing or eliminating uses not appropriate, the Refuge System 

conservation mission can be achieved while also providing the public with lasting opportunities 

to enjoy quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation. 
Appendix G: Appropriate Use Designations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

132
Appendix G: Appropriate Use Designations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

133
Appendix G: Appropriate Use Designations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

134
Appendix G: Appropriate Use Designations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

135
Appendix G: Appropriate Use Designations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

136
Appendix G: Appropriate Use Designations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

137
Appendix G: Appropriate Use Designations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

138
Appendix G: Appropriate Use Designations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

139
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

140

Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

In this appendix:

Introduction

Cooperative Farming as a Habitat Management Tool to Enhance and Restore Refuge Grasslands

Environmental Education, Interpretation, and Special Events

Haying for Habitat Management

Prescribed Grazing for Habitat Management

Recreational Fishing

Recreational Hunting

Research, Scientific Collecting, and Surveys by Third Parties

Walleye Rearing in Clifford Lake

Wildlife Observation and Non-Commercial Photography

Wood Cutting and Timber Removal

Introduction

Compatibility determinations are documents written, signed, and dated by the refuge manager 

and the regional chief of refuges that signify whether proposed or existing uses of the National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR, refuge) or Wetland Management District (WMD, district) are compatible 

with its establishing purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, 

Refuge System). This appendix provides copies of the compatibility determinations for Glacial 

Ridge NWR.

Before undertaking a compatibility review of a use, the refuge manager must first determine that 

the use is appropriate. A compatible use is any proposed or existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational use or other use of a refuge by the public or entity other than the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) that, based on sound professional judgment, will not materially 

interfere with or detract from fulfilling the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the 

refuge. The final policy and regulations required by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 provide guidance for determining compatibility.

If a proposed use is not appropriate, the use will not be allowed, and a compatibility 

determination will not be prepared.

A compatibility determination is required for activities on a refuge by the public or entity other 

than the Service including:

• all refuge or district recreational and educational programs;

• construction or expansion of recreational and educational facilities such as boardwalks 

and boat ramps;

• management activities performed by private parties in return for a market commodity, 

such as cooperative farming to provide food for wildlife; and

• granting or modifying rights-of-way through refuges for pipelines, roads, or electrical 

transmission lines.
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

141

Activities when a compatible determination is NOT required include:

• refuge management activities such as prescribed burning, managing water levels, and 

controlling invasive species;

• routine scientific monitoring, studies, surveys, and censuses;

• conducting historic preservation;

• law enforcement activities; and

• maintaining refuge or facilities, structures, or improvements.

Although a refuge use may be both appropriate and compatible, the refuge manager retains the 

authority to not allow the use or modify the use.
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

142
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

143
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

144
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

145
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

146
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

147
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

148
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

149
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

150
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

151
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

152
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

153
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

154
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

155
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

156
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

157
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

158
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

159
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

160
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

161
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

162
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

163
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

164
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

165
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

166
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

167
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

168
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

169
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

170
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

171
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

172
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

173
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

174
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

175
Appendix I: List of Preparers and Contributors

Glacial Ridge NWR / Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

176

Appendix I: List of Preparers and Contributors

Preparers

The following individuals were members of the core planning team, instrumental in the 

development of this document, and/or made major contributions throughout the planning 

process. 

Station Staff

• Gregg Knutsen, Refuge Manager, Glacial Ridge and Rydell NWR

• Benjamin Walker, Wildlife Biologist, Glacial Ridge and Rydell NWR

• Ryan Frohling, Refuge Complex Manager (Detroit Lakes WMD)

• Rebecca Esser, Wildlife Biologist, (Detroit Lakes WMD)

Midwest Regional Office

• Gary Muehlenhardt, Wildlife Biologist/Planner, Refuge Operations Program

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

• Gabriel DeAlessio, Biologist/GIS Specialist, Division of Natural Resources and 

Conservation Planning

• Mark Hogeboom, Writer/Editor, Division of Refuges

Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge

17788 349th St. SE

Erskine, MN 56535

http://www.fws.gov/refuge/glacial_ridge

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

Region 3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov/midwest