U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Litchfield

Wetland Management District

Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and

Environmental Assessment

Litchfield

Wetland Management District

Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and

Environmental Assessment
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.

Cover Photograph Copyright by Jan Eldridge


i

Acknowledgments

Many organizations, agencies and individuals provided invaluable assistance with

the preparation of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan. We gratefully acknowledge the input and support of Tom Larson, Mike Marxen, John Schomaker,

Mary Mitchell, Sean Killen, and Jane Hodgins, Planners with the Division of

Ascertainment and Planning, and all of the dedicated employees of the Wetland

Management Districts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Region 3 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is grateful to the many conservation organizations active in western Minnesota for their dedication to the Wetland Management Districts in making them outstanding examples of cooperation

and partnership with the many local communities. The Region is equally grateful

to every volunteer who contributes time to the programs offered on the Wetland

Management Districts. You are truly the backbone of conservation efforts.

Contents

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................................i

Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................................i

Comprehensive Conservation Planning .................................................................................................................. ii

The Planning Process ................................................................................................................................................. ii

Management Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................iii

Alternatives Development ................................................................................................................................ iii

Alternative 1 – Maintain Management on Current Acres With No Additional Land Acquisition .. iv

Alternative 2 – Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acres and Maintain Current Management Practices (No Action) ........................................................................................................................................... v

Alternative 3 – Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acres and Expand Management for Waterfowl,

Other Trust Species and the Public. (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................... vi

Planning Issues and Management Direction ........................................................................................................ vii

Wildlife and Habitat ......................................................................................................................................... viii

People.................................................................................................................................................................... x

Operations ............................................................................................................................................................ x

Essential Staffing, Mission-Critical Projects and Major Maintenance Needs ................................................. xi

Essential Staffing Needs ............................................................................................................................ xi

Mission-Critical Projects .......................................................................................................................... xii

Major Maintenance Projects .................................................................................................................... xii

Serving People ............................................................................................................................................ xii

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

Overview: History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and Management .................................................. 1

Background .................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ..................................................................... 5

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................................................................... 5

The National Wildlife Refuge System .............................................................................................................. 6

Minnesota Wetland Management Districts Vision Statement ............................................................................. 6

Legal and Policy Guidance ......................................................................................................................................... 7

Existing Partnerships: The Ecosystem Approach ................................................................................................ 7

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

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities ..................................................................... 9

Biological Needs Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 9

Working With Partners .................................................................................................................................... 10

Chapter 2: Planning Process, Issues and Goals ..................................................................................... 11

Description of Planning Process ............................................................................................................................. 11

Planning Issues ......................................................................................................................................................... 12

Wildlife and Habitat .......................................................................................................................................... 12

Public Use ........................................................................................................................................................... 13

Operations .......................................................................................................................................................... 13

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Goals ............................................................................................................. 14

Wildlife and Habitat .......................................................................................................................................... 14

People.................................................................................................................................................................. 14

Operations .......................................................................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 3: The Environment ........................................................................................................................ 16

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting .............................................................................................................................. 16

Prairie Grasslands............................................................................................................................................. 16

Deciduous Woods ............................................................................................................................................... 16

Coniferous Forest .............................................................................................................................................. 18

Climate ................................................................................................................................................................ 18

Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................................... 18

Geology ............................................................................................................................................................... 20

District Resources .................................................................................................................................................... 21

Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................................ 21

Waterfowl .................................................................................................................................................... 21

Migratory Birds .......................................................................................................................................... 25

Vertebrate and Invertebrate Species of Concern ................................................................................. 26

Reptiles, Amphibians, and Insects, Vertebrates and Invertebrates ................................................... 26

Listed Endangered and Threatened Vertebrates and Invertebrates ................................................ 27

Threatened Mammals ........................................................................................................................ 27

Threatened/Endangered Birds ......................................................................................................... 27

Reintroductions .......................................................................................................................................... 27

Management of Resident Species ............................................................................................................ 28

Habitat ................................................................................................................................................................ 28

Wetlands and Riparian Habitat ................................................................................................................ 28

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ................................................................................................. 30

Prairie Restoration.................................................................................................................................... 31

Rare Communities ..................................................................................................................................... 32

Plant Species of Concern .................................................................................................................... 33

Listed Plants ........................................................................................................................................ 34

External Threats ........................................................................................................................................ 34

Drainage and Pesticides..................................................................................................................... 34

Invasive Species .................................................................................................................................. 35

Rural Development ............................................................................................................................. 35

Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................................... 36

Archeological and Cultural Values.................................................................................................................. 36

Context......................................................................................................................................................... 36

Existing Conditions and Cultural Resources Potential ............................................................................... 37

Indian Tribes and Other Interested Parties .................................................................................................. 38

Management of Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 38

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

Public Use of Waterfowl Production Areas ................................................................................................... 39

Disabled User Access ....................................................................................................................................... 40

Operations.................................................................................................................................................................. 41

Individual WPA Development Plans .............................................................................................................. 41

Consistent Use ................................................................................................................................................... 41

Drainage ...................................................................................................................................................... 43

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

Litchfield Wetland Management District .............................................................................................................. 44

Management Direction ............................................................................................................................................ 45

Wildlife and Habitat .......................................................................................................................................... 45

Goal 1: Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................... 45

Goal 2: Habitat ........................................................................................................................................... 48

Goal 3: Acquisition ..................................................................................................................................... 51

Goal 4: Monitoring Goal ............................................................................................................................ 53

Goal 5: Endangered Species / Unique Communities ............................................................................. 54
People.................................................................................................................................................................. 57

Goal 6: Public Use / Environmental Education ..................................................................................... 57

Operations .......................................................................................................................................................... 58

Goal 7: Development Plan ........................................................................................................................ 58

Goal 8: Support Staff, Facilities and Equipment ................................................................................... 59

Goal 9: Annual Capital Development Funds .......................................................................................... 60

Goal 10: Consistency ................................................................................................................................. 60

Chapter 5: Implementation and Monitoring .............................................................................................. 62

Essential Staffing, Mission-Critical Projects and Major Maintenance Needs ................................................ 62

Essential Staffing Needs .................................................................................................................................. 62

Mission-Critical Projects ................................................................................................................................. 62

Major Maintenance Projects ........................................................................................................................... 62

Serving People ................................................................................................................................................... 62

Step-down Management Plans ................................................................................................................................ 64

Partnership Opportunities ....................................................................................................................................... 64

Monitoring and Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................... 65

Appendix A: Authority and Legal Compliance ............................................................................................................. 69

Appendix B: Priority Bird Species ................................................................................................................................. 75

Appendix C: Species List ............................................................................................................................................... 81

Appendix D: National Wetlands Inventory – Minnesota Counties Wetland Types ................................................ 111

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations .................................................................................................................115

Appendix F: RONS Lists ...............................................................................................................................................179

Appendix G: Existing Partnerships .............................................................................................................................. 183

Appendix H: Glossary ...................................................................................................................................................189

Appendix I: Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................. 195

Appendix J: List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................................... 201

Appendix K: Guidance for Acquisition ........................................................................................................................ 205

Appendix L: Goal Acres................................................................................................................................................ 217

Appendix M: Environmental Assessment ..................................................................................................................221

Appendix N: Drainage Policy ....................................................................................................................................... 319

Appendix O: Disposition of Public Comments on the Draft CCP ............................................................................... 323

List of Figures: List of Figures:

Figure 1: Minnesota Wetland Management Districts .......................................................................................... 3

Figure 2: Average Breeding Population for Major Duck Species ...................................................................... 4

Figure 3: Minnesota Wetland Management District Ecosystems .................................................................... 17

Figure 4: Minnesota Wetland Management District Hydrology and Key Rivers .......................................... 19

Figure 5: Estimated Average Duck Pair Density, 1987-1999 ............................................................................ 22

Figure 6: Predicted Settling Density of Dabbling Duck Pairs ........................................................................... 24

Figure 7: Wetland Distribution by Type, Litchfield WMD ................................................................................. 29

Figure 8: Marsh Vegetation Cycles ....................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 9: GIS for Waterfowl Production Area Development Planning ............................................................ 42

Figure 10: Litchfield Wetland Management District .......................................................................................... 45

Figure 11: Litchfield Wetland Management District Staffing Chart ................................................................ 63

Executive Summary

i

Executive Summary

Litchfield Wetland Management District is part of a unique natural ecosystem

and an equally unique legacy of human partnership.

The ecosystem is known as the tallgrass prairie ecosystem, and its combination

of prairie grasslands and small wetlands made it among the most biologically

diverse and intricate landscapes in the world. When European settlers arrived

and discovered the land’s tremendous productivity, the tallgrass prairie ecosystem became one of the most altered ecosystems

on earth. The landscape changed rapidly, and

little of the original prairie was saved. Today

only fragments exist in small, isolated blocks.

Partnerships have been inherent in efforts to

preserve the remaining prairie. From the Duck

Stamp Act of 1934 to the Wetland Loan Act of

1961 to the Small Wetland Acquisition Program

of 1962, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) and hunters, environmentalists, and

communities have worked together to preserve

land and wildlife. Funding for acquisition of

Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA) comes in

large part from funds generated through the Duck Stamp Act, making duck

hunters a key partner in preserving critical habitat within the prairie pothole

region. Waterfowl Production Areas are upland grasslands and wetlands purchased by the Service to provide nesting habitat for waterfowl. Wetland Management Districts (WMD) are the federal administrative units charged with acquiring, overseeing and managing WPAs and easements within a specified group of

counties.

Litchfield WMD is part of this heritage. The District was established in 1978 and

today manages 148 WPAs covering more than 33,0000 acres of fee title lands, 417

easements covering 33,283 acres, and units of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie

National Wildlife Refuge. These tracts are scattered throughout seven central

counties of Minnesota. The District has proposed 102 Conservation Easements

on land on the inventory of the Farmers Home Administration in 16 counties

covering 7,166 acres to date; 36 of these easements totaling 2,871 acres have been

recorded.

Managing the District demands long range planning that reflects vision, science

and people. This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan describes how we

intend to improve wildlife habitat, foster waterfowl production, and expand

opportunities for compatible recreation, including hunting, wildlife observation,

and environmental education.

The management direction identified in this Draft Comprehensive Conservation

Plan charts a course for the next 15 years. This course is summarized in three

broad categories – Wildlife and Habitat, People, and Operations.

USFWS Photo
Executive Summary

ii

Comprehensive Conservation Planning

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan, or CCP, is a guide for management on

the Litchfield WMD over the next 15 years. The document provides an outline

for how we will accomplish our mission and make our vision become a reality.

Several legislative mandates within the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 have guided the development of the Plan. These mandates include:

■ The focus of management on the District is to benefit wildlife conservation.

■ Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, (hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation) are encouraged when they are compatible with wildlife conservation.

The CCP will benefit management of Litchfield WMD by:

■ Providing a clear statement of direction for future management of the

District.

■ Giving District neighbors, visitors and the general public an understanding of the Service’s management actions on and around the Districts.

■ Ensuring that the District’s management actions and programs are

consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

■ Ensuring that District management is consistent with other federal,

state, and local plans when practicable.

■ Establishing that wildlife-dependent recreation uses (compatible uses

including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or

environmental education and interpretation) are the priority public uses

within the Refuge System.

■ Providing a basis for the development of budget requests on the operation, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.

The Planning Process

The planning process for this Comprehensive Conservation Plan began October

1, 1997, when a Notice Of Intent to prepare a comprehensive management plan

was published in the Federal Register (Vol 62: 51482). Because the six Districts

face similar issues, Managers and planners decided to follow a shared CCP

process that would result in separate documents for each District. This chapter

describes the planning process that was employed.

Initially, members of the planning team identified a list of issues and concerns

that were likely to be associated with the management of the District. These

preliminary issues and concerns were based on the team members’ knowledge of

the area, contacts with citizens in the community, and ideas already expressed to

the District staff. District staff and Service planners then began asking District

neighbors, organizations, local government units, schools, and interested citizens

to share their thoughts in a series of open house events.
Executive Summary

iii

Open houses were conducted at each District as well as the Regional Office at Ft.

Snelling, Minnesota.

People were invited to send in written comments describing their support or

concerns about the Districts. Fifty-one written comments were received.

A survey of public use was conducted and focus group

meetings were conducted to develop the issues, goals, and

objectives for the Plan. These meetings included the

District Managers and invited participants from the

University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and the

U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research

Center. Concurrent with the focus group meetings, planning staff met with individual District staff members

numerous times to review issues and discuss District

management.

A wide range of issues, concerns and opportunities were

expressed during the planning process. Numerous discussions among District and planning staff, focus groups and

resource specialists brought to light several recurring

themes. Issues fall into broad categories of wildlife, habitat

and people. Dealing with these issues is at the core of the

development of goals and objectives for the management of

the Wetland Management Districts in Minnesota.

Management Alternatives

An environmental assessment (EA) encompassing all six of

the Minnesota Wetland Management Districts was prepared as part of the planning process. Three management

alternatives were evaluated in the EA, including: maintaining management of

current wetland management district acres but not acquiring more land; increasing land holdings to meet the goal acres and maintain current management

practices; and improving WMDs for waterfowl and other trust species. The

Service has selected the third alternative, improving the Districts for waterfowl

and other trust species, as the preferred alternative. Each alternative is briefly

described in the following paragraphs.

Alternatives Development

Project Leaders on WMDs within the major waterfowl breeding habitats of the

United States have been charged with the responsibility to identify tracts of land

that meet the goals of the Small Wetland Acquisition Program (SWAP) for

inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). Of all the responsibilities Project Leaders carry, identifying lands to include in the NWRS has the

longest lasting implications and is by far the most important. The land, once

acquired, needs to be managed intensively with a variety of tools available to the

managers. The intensity of management is limited by the number of staff

available and the scattered distribution of the land holdings across a wide landscape in 28 counties of western Minnesota. The following alternatives identify

three approaches meeting the goals and responsibilities of land ownership and

management.

Vision Statement for the

Minnesota Wetland

Management Districts

The Districts will emphasize waterfowl production

and ensure the preservation of habitat for migratory birds, threatened and

endangered native species, and resident wildlife.

The Districts will provide

opportunities for the

public to hunt, fish,

observe and photograph

wildlife and increase

public understanding and

appreciation of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie

Ecosystem.
Executive Summary

iv

The main goal of the SWAP has been, and still is, to purchase a complex of

wetlands and uplands that provide habitat in which waterfowl can successfully

reproduce. The basic concept has been to purchase, in fee title, key brood

marshes that include adequate nesting cover on adjacent uplands while protecting under easement surrounding temporary and seasonal wetland basins as

breeding pair habitat. Once this is accomplished the land must be managed

through seeding with native grasses and forbs, burning, and spraying or otherwise controlling exotic and/or invasive species. Additionally, abandoned human

infrastructure (wells, barns, etc.) must be removed. The areas are signed and

sometimes fenced to provide safe public access.

The SWAP began in 1958 and accelerated rapidly in the early 1960s with passage

of the Wetlands Loan Act. The original 1960s delineations were prepared for

each fee title parcel based on their suitability to provide brood rearing habitat for

waterfowl. These delineations designated wetlands as priority A, B, and C for

fee title purchase. These tracts had few upland acres and only existing wetlands

with no drainage facilities were considered for fee or easement purchase. In

some locations, these original delineations

have been reevaluated and revised. In

Minnesota, a 1974 exercise produced maps

showing proposed boundaries of each fee

title delineation, as well as wetlands within

a 2-mile radius that were eligible for easement purchase. A 1984 effort produced

maps of “significant wetland areas” for fee

title purchase. Although dated, these

efforts were biologically sound and provide

valuable information in deciding which

properties to purchase today.

Over the years our understanding of breeding waterfowl biology has increased

and the landscape of the Upper Midwest has changed dramatically. The SWAP

itself has evolved to include purchase of drained wetlands, increased upland

acreage, and grassland easements along with new counties that include lands

within intensely agricultural and urbanized landscapes.

Three possible alternatives to acquisition and management were considered as

we thought about the future of the programs for the wetland management

districts. The three alternatives were (1) manage what lands we currently own;

(2) acquire additional lands and manage them as we currently manage the lands

that we own; and (3) acquire additional lands and expand management beyond

the present level of intensity.

In the following sections we summarize what we would do under each alternative. More detail is provided in Chapter 2 of the EA (Appendix M of this document). The third alternative is our preferred alternative, which is developed in

more detail as the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Alternative 1 – Maintain Management on Current Acres With No Additional Land

Acquisition

Under this alternative we would manage fee title land already in the system and

would not increase the holdings to the agreed goal acres for each county within

the District. We would restore native grasslands using local ecotypes of mixed

USFWS Photograph
Executive Summary

v

native grasses and forbs and improve wetlands by increasing water control and

improving watersheds. We would regularly evaluate our approach to waterfowl

production. We would maintain the recruitment rate of waterfowl and the

current level of inspection of our lands and easements. We would continue to

conduct the 4-square-mile monitoring program and the monitoring of nesting

structures under this alternative. We would continue routine surveys such as the

scent post survey and bird counts and non-routine surveys when requested, such

as the deformed frog survey. We would continue to avoid any actions that would

harm endangered or threatened species, and we would note the presence of any

species that is federally listed as endangered or

threatened.

We would maintain the public access to WPAs

that currently exists. We would complete and

document development plans for every WPA on

the District as time and staffing permit. The

development plans would be recorded in a

geographic information system (GIS) and

document boundaries, habitat, facilities, and

history of management.

Each District would continue with the current level of staffing. We would

identify and replace facilities and equipment that do not meet Service standards.

We would expect that the maintenance backlog would be reduced, but not

eliminated, over the life of the CCP.

Alternative 2 – Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acres and Maintain Current Management

Practices (No Action)

Under this alternative we would continue acquiring land up to the negotiated

goal acres within each county in the District (See Table A). We would expand the

size of WPAs in areas of prime waterfowl use through easements and working

with partners.

We would restore native grasslands using local ecotypes of mixed native grasses

and forbs and improve wetlands by increasing water control and improving

watersheds. We would regularly evaluate our approach to waterfowl production.

File Photograph

Table A: Fee Title Acres Approved and Goal Acres Per District in

Accordance with the Land Exchange Board

Fee Title Acres

Wetland Approved for

Management Purchase by the

Districts Land Exchange Board Goal Acres Remainder

Detroit Lakes 41,615 89,280 47,665

Fergus Falls 43,417 74,675 31,258

Litchfield 33,213 76,220 46,007

Big Stone 2,343 0 0

Morris 51,208 74,830 23,622

Windom 12,669 24,476 11,807
Executive Summary

vi

We would maintain the recruitment rate of waterfowl and the current level of

inspection of our lands and easements. We would continue to conduct the 4-

square-mile monitoring program and the monitoring of nesting structures under

this alternative. We would continue routine surveys such as the scent post

survey and bird counts and non-routine surveys when requested, such as the

deformed frog survey. We would continue to avoid any actions that would harm

endangered or threatened species. We would note the presence of any species

that is federally listed as endangered or threatened.

We would continue current public access on existing areas and add access to new

acquisitions over several years. We would complete and document development

plans for every WPA on the District as time and staffing permit. The development plans would be recorded in a GIS and document boundaries, habitat,

facilities and history of management.

Each District would continue with the current level of staffing. We would

identify and replace facilities and equipment that do not meet Service standards.

We would expect that the maintenance backlog would be reduced, but not

eliminated, over the life of the CCP.

Alternative 3 – Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acres and Expand

Management for Waterfowl, Other Trust Species and the Public. (Preferred

Alternative)

Under this alternative we would continue acquiring land up to the

negotiated goal acres for each county within the District (See Table

A). We would expand the size of WPAs in areas of prime waterfowl

use through easements and working with partners. We would focus

whenever possible on prime habitat as outlined in the Habitat and

Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) “thunderstorm” maps.

These maps reveal high density waterfowl populations and, because

the results are color coded, look somewhat like weather maps.

We would follow the Strategic Growth of the SWAP Guidelines for

Fee and Easement Purchase (See Appendix K). These Guidelines

specify that:

1) The program will focus on providing the mission components for the WMD landscape: wetland complexes, surrounding grasslands and a predator component that approaches a naturally occurring complement (i.e., coyotes vs. red fox).

2) The program will focus on established delineation criteria (size, location,

ratio of upland to wetlands, soil composition, etc.) for all fee title, habitat

and wetland easements (Appendix K).

3) The program will prioritize acquisition based on thunderstorm maps,

land cover (grassland acres), landscape characteristics, and data on

predator populations. Prioritization will be given to tracts that benefit

waterfowl, but other wildlife benefits will be considered in the priorities

such as native prairie, endangered or threatened species and colonial

nesting birds. Additional considerations may include expanding and

protecting large tracts of grassland as Grassland Bird Core Conservation

Areas as proposed by Fitzgerald et al. (1998).

Photo by Bernie Angus
Executive Summary

vii

We would restore native grasslands using local ecotypes of mixed native grasses

and forbs and improve wetlands by increasing water control and improving

watersheds. We would, where practicable, follow HAPET recommendations for

nesting platforms and predator management (electric fencing, predator control,

islands, etc). Cooperating landowners within the District’s watershed would be

offered incentives and/or compensated through cost-sharing agreements for

applying conservation and environmental farming practices on their lands and for

creating, maintaining, or enhancing habitat for wildlife.

We would regularly evaluate our approach to waterfowl production and improve

waterfowl monitoring. We would strive to increase the recruitment rate of

waterfowl and increase inspection of our lands and easements. We would work to

prohibit the introduction of wildlife species that are not native to the Northern

Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem.

We would employ a scientifically defensible means to monitor and evaluate

habitats and populations under this alternative. We would increasingly use GIS

in our monitoring. We would inventory the hydrological systems within the

District, invertebrate communities, and monitor contaminant levels in water

flowing to and from District wetlands. We would increase our surveys and

monitoring of threatened and endangered species, invertebrates, and unique

communities under this alternative. We would seek opportunities to enhance and

reintroduce native species in the District.

Under this alternative we would expand and

improve opportunities for public use through

construction of additional parking lots and interpretive kiosks on existing and acquired lands.

We would complete and document development

plans for every WPA on the District within three

years under this alternative. The development

plans would be recorded in a geographic information system and document

boundaries, habitat, facilities, and history of management.

Staff would be added to the Districts under this alternative. Implementation of

the CCP would rely on partnerships formed with landowners in the watershed,

volunteers and interested citizens, farm and conservation organizations, and with

appropriate government agencies. We would identify and replace facilities and

equipment that do not meet Service standards. Our goal would be to meet the

standards by 2010.

Management of the Districts would be more consistent among the Minnesota

Districts and with the Districts in Iowa, Wisconsin and the Dakotas.

Planning Issues and Management Direction

A wide range of issues, concerns and opportunities were expressed during the

planning process. Numerous discussions among District and planning staff, focus

groups and resource specialists brought to light several recurring themes. Issues

fall into broad categories of wildlife, habitat and people. In the following paragraphs, we list the issues that were identified in this planning process and our

objectives for addressing that issue.

USFWS Photo
Executive Summary

viii

Wildlife and Habitat

Can we improve waterfowl productivity?

We will work to increase waterfowl production through effective monitoring of

populations, evaluating current management actions and increasing recruitment.

We will strive to increase recruitment through cropland conversion to grassland

and artificial structures where appropriate, and protecting existing National

Wildlife Refuge System lands as well as other waterfowl habitats in cooperation

with District partners.

Strategic Acquisition: Can we buy the highest priority land in the most efficient

and cost-effective manner possible?

We will ensure strategic land acquisition by evaluating current acquisition

guidelines, identifying priority acquisition areas, and evaluating acreage goals

while securing rapid responses to sellers through close coordination with the

acquisition office.

Managing Uplands: Can we improve prairie restoration by planting the right

seeds and using the right management tools?

We will seek to reestablish and manage native plant communities by seeding a

diverse mixture of local grasses and forbs each year as determined through the

WPA development plans. We will actively manage to maintain quality grassland

habitats using fire, grazing and/or haying, and haying as viable management

tools.

Managing and Restoring Wetlands: How do we

manage wetlands to maintain or increase productivity?

We will strive to restore and manage wetlands

primarily within identified priority areas, increasing

the amount and quality of water level management,

monitoring hydrological systems, and encouraging and

cooperating in research of these systems.

Can we improve biological inventories and monitoring on WPAs?

We will improve biological inventories and monitoring through planning, training,

expanded species data gathering, research, and use of GIS.

Can we stem the loss of migratory birds in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie

Ecosystem?

We will try to stem the loss of all migratory birds by expanding restoration of

upland wetland and riparian habitats on private lands.

USFWS Photo
Executive Summary

ix

Can we manage District land to preserve, restore and enhance threatened and

endangered species, rare and declining species, and address regional priority

species?

We will preserve, restore and enhance threatened and endangered species and

rare and declining species through the collection of baseline population and

habitat data, tailored management activities, enforcement of regulations, and

increased cooperation with partners.

Under what circumstances should we reintroduce rare native species to District

land?

We will seek to reintroduce rare native species where feasible by identifying,

evaluating and prioritizing opportunities. All reintroduction programs will be

conducted in close cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources.

How do we mitigate negative external influences such as contaminants on WPAs

and reduce its impact on long-term health and productivity of District land?

We will work to mitigate negative external influences on Service lands by

identifying, monitoring and developing action plans to address threats such as

pesticide use, contaminants, soil erosion and poor water quality.

How do we balance management for Federal trust species with the needs of

resident species?

We will balance management of Federal trust species with the needs of resident

species by communicating with state wildlife agencies and local conservation

organizations to provide compatible food and cover sources where

there are documented needs.

How do we reduce crop loss caused by Canada geese foraging on

private land adjacent to WPAs?

We will work to reduce crop loss caused by Canada Geese foraging on private lands adjacent to Waterfowl Production Areas by

developing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources which defines agency responsibilities to provide alternate feeding areas and long-term solutions.

Invasive species, both exotic and native, are negatively impacting the natural

ecological balance of grasslands and wetlands on WPAs.

We will seek to control the negative impacts of invasive species by taking aggressive control measures against exotic plants, documenting and eradicating invasive plant populations, and increasing long-term resolution of these problems

through biological controls.

USFWS Photo
Executive Summary

x

What is the Long Range Goal of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program

(Private Lands) on Wetland Management Districts?

We will identify the long-range goals of the District’s Partners for Fish and

Wildlife Program (private lands) by developing priority action items that could

include identification of partners in key project areas, and developing a brochure

for the public to better define the Partners program and its benefits.

People

There are conflicting views concerning the costs

and benefits of federally owned land in a community. Who benefits? Who pays?

We will identify the benefits and costs of Federally owned land to a community by investigating

the economic value of wetlands and federal land

ownership as well as revenue sharing in relation

to local taxes. We will seek to determine the

social values of wildlife and natural habitats to

people.

How do we provide adequate facilities and programs for the public to fully enjoy

wildlife-related recreation in a way that is compatible with our mission?

We will provide adequate facilities and programs for public enjoyment of compatible wildlife-dependent recreation by enhancing public use experiences with

accessible facilities that meet National Visitor Service Standards as well as

providing current maps and District information. We will increase environmental

education opportunities through additional “hands-on” exhibits, specific on-site

interpretative opportunities, and building volunteer programs.

Operations

Districts need sufficient staff in critical areas to fully meet resource challenges

and opportunities.

We will meet staffing needs for resource challenges and opportunities by hiring

additional administrative, biological, technical, and maintenance personnel.

Districts need office, maintenance, and equipment storage facilities to carry out

their mission.

We will provide adequate maintenance and storage facilities by selecting and

developing a secure maintenance and equipment storage area within the boundaries of the Wetland District.

Vehicles and other necessary equipment need to be replaced on a regular basis

according to Service standards.

We will schedule vehicle and equipment replacements to achieve industry

standards when normal life expectancy is reached and acquire all necessary

equipment to achieve Wetland Management District Goals.

USFWS Photo
Executive Summary

xi

Funding is needed to develop and manage

newly acquired WPA land and facilities.

We will develop newly acquired Waterfowl

Production Areas by identifying these

needs, securing funding, and carrying out

projects immediately after lands are

purchased. We will identify the costs of new

lands to the District’s annual operation and

maintenance budget.

We will maintain existing waterfowl production areas at Service standards including

delineated boundaries, nature trails, parking lots, access trails, water control

structures and fences by maintaining a current inventory of maintenance needs

on the Maintenance Management System database, and updating these costs and

priorities annually.

Individual WPA development plans and record keeping need to be updated.

We will ensure that Waterfowl Production Area Development Plans are current

by performing complete resource inventories and utilizing the most current GIS

technology and complete unit planning to meet trust responsibilities.

The Districts need to be consistent in their application of policy and resource

protection efforts.

We will seek consistency in policy and practices on all Service Wetland Management Districts by attending coordination meetings and following Service policy

when implementing programs.

Essential Staffing, Mission-Critical Projects and Major

Maintenance Needs

The Service relies on two systems to track the needs of the Wetland Management Districts and other units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These

systems are the Refuge Operating Needs System and the Maintenance Management System. Each station has scores of projects in each system, representing a

need which is often beyond the realities of funding. However, each station has

identified its most critical needs which form a realistic assessment of funding

needed to meet many of the goals, objectives, and strategies identified in the

CCP. These needs also form the basis for the President’s budget request to

Congress. These critical needs are listed below in the categories of essential

staff, mission-critical projects, and major maintenance projects. A complete

listing of projects in the Operating Needs System is found in Appendix F of this

document and it represents the long-term needs of the Litchfield Wetland

Management District to operate at optimum levels.

Essential Staffing Needs

Wildlife Biologist

Visitor Services Specialist

Equipment Operator

USFWS Photo
Executive Summary

xii

Mission-Critical Projects

Farming and Native Prairie Restoration Operations Support

Native Prairie Restoration

Wetlands Restoration

Water Level Management

Visitor Services

Major Maintenance Projects

Repair Maintenance Building

Repair WPA Fences

Replace Tractor

16 Additional Projects

Serving People

Rehabilitate Recreational Facilities

Total Funding Needs: $1,671,00

USFWS Photo
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Overview: History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and

Management

The Wetland Management Districts of Minnesota are set in a landscape that was once

a mosaic of prairie and wetlands. From north to south the land varied between

woodland, sandy ridges and hills covered with prairie flowers, dotted with small, blue

wetlands and oak savannah. It was beautiful, rolling country teaming with waterfowl

and other wildlife. Early explorers from Europe described its park-like quality with

wonder. The combination of prairie grasslands and small wetlands made it among the

most biologically productive landscapes in the world; supporting many people and an

abundance of wildlife.

The prairie harbored bison herds estimated at 50 to

60 million. From Alexander Henry’s January 14,

1801, journal reporting from the Red River Valley,

“...At daybreak I was awakened by the bellowing of

buffaloes...I dressed and climbed my oak for a better

view. I had seen almost incredible numbers of

buffalo in the fall, but nothing in comparison to what

I now beheld. The ground was covered at every

point of the compass, as far as the eye could reach,

and every animal was in motion.”

Only 100 years after this entry, the myth of the

prairies’ unlimited abundance was severely tested.

Many important game species were driven to near

extinction by intensive and uncontrolled killing and

commercial over-harvest encouraged by East Coast

and European markets. Free-roaming bison, the

Great Plains wolf, swift fox, pronghorn antelope and

grizzly bear were eliminated from Minnesota. Black bear and elk were removed from

their prairie niche. Many Native American tribes that depended on these resources

were decimated by disease and conflict.

When European settlers arrived on the prairies, they recognized the land’s productivity and rapidly turned it to agriculture. In a few decades it ranked among the richest

agricultural land in the world. The landscape changed so rapidly, little of the original

prairie was saved. Today, only fragments remain in isolated, small blocks. With

fragmentation and the loss of large predators, smaller predators such as raccoon,

striped skunks, and fox increased, much to the detriment of ground-nesting birds and

other native grassland species.

Perhaps no other ecosystem on earth as been so dramatically altered, in such a short

time, as the tallgrass prairie ecosystem of the Midwest.

The early mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service was to protect species from overharvest and manage wildlife for a quality hunt. Waterfowl have been a central focus

from the very beginning. Many species of prairie waterfowl and shorebirds were

saved by legislation formed to protect them from market hunting.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

2

Early surveys of the Prairie Pothole Region revealed a strong correlation between

prairie wetlands and waterfowl breeding habitat. Biologists learned that waterfowl

success is directly linked to the number of wetlands. When winter snows fill the small

wetlands, waterfowl populations soar. Since the wetlands are shallow by nature,

their value to waterfowl varies from year to year depending on the amount of snow

and rain. In years of drought, wetlands dry and waterfowl populations plummet. The

crucial link between wetlands and waterfowl was made during a time when wetlands

throughout the prairies were being drained at an unprecedented rate for agriculture.

In 1934 the Duck Stamp Act was passed, setting the stage for the most aggressive

land acquisition campaign for conservation of wildlife habitat in American history.

Although the original Act did not allow purchase of small wetlands, it created a way

for hunters to actively participate in maintaining waterfowl populations. In 1958 the

Act was amended, making it possible for the Service to buy small wetlands and

uplands for breeding waterfowl and for hunting. The acquired wetlands became

Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) and formed the core of the Wetland Management Districts.

The Act was passed in the nick of time. Between

1780 and 1980 approximately 78.7 percent of

wetlands in the Prairie Pothole and Parkland

Transition areas were drained (Dahl 1990). In

intensive areas of the prairie Pothole Region,

wetland losses often exceed 90 percent. Today over

70,000 miles of ditches drain wetlands in Minnesota

with a continuing annual wetland loss of 2.4 percent

per year.

At the time the Small Wetland Acquisition Program (SWAP) began in 1962, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service entered into a Procedural Agreement with the State of Minnesota. This document laid out the rules for the purchase

of wetlands as required by the Wetland Loan Act of 1961. The agreement was

amended in 1976 when the number of counties authorized for acquisition increased

from 19 to 28, and the goal acreage was increased. In 1991, the Minnesota Land

Exchange Board gave the Service approval to expand its land acquisition program to

all 87 counties of the state. The state goal of 231,000 acres in fee title and 365,170

acres in easements, as established in 1976, remains unchanged (See Appendix A for a

complete listing of the District legal mandates).

In western Minnesota, as of March 31 1999, the Service owned 171,863 acres, of which

56,693 acres were wetlands (Figure 1). In addition, the Service administers perpetual

easement agreements on 266,171 acres, of which 62,098 acres are wetlands. Wetlands

that were once drained have been restored; on Waterfowl Production Areas, more

than 4,000 wetland restorations have impounded 15,900 wetland acres.

The program has been remarkably successful in the face of great odds. The Wetland

Management Districts combine to form a greater land mass than the largest national

wildlife refuge in the lower 48 states. Each District has, on average, 23,400 to 73,400

breeding ducks each year; all Districts combined average 240,600 breeding ducks each

year (Figure 2).

Photo Copyright Jan Eldridge
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background

3

Figure 1: Minnesota Wetland Management Districts
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

4

Figure 2: Breeding Pair Population (Averaged) for Major Duck Species in

Minnesota Wetland Management Districts 1987-2000

Data values are for 13 species (mallard, gadwall, blue-winged teal, northern shoveler, northern pintail,

wigeon, green-winged teal, wood duck, redhead, canvasback, scaup, ringneck and ruddy duck).

Litchfield, Roseau and Windom wetland management districts data are for the years 1989-2000.

Source: Waterfowl Breeding Populations and Production Estimates, for the Prairie Pothole Region of

Minnesota (4 square mile survey). Habitat and Population Evaluation Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Fergus Falls, Minnesota
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background

5

Background

Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan, or CCP, is a guide for management on the

Wetland Management Districts over the next 15 years. The document provides an

outline for how we will accomplish our mission and make our vision become a reality.

Several legislative mandates within the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 have guided the development of the Plan. These mandates include:

■ The focus of management on the Districts is to benefit wildlife conservation.

■ Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,

wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation) are encouraged when they are compatible with wildlife conservation.

This CCP will benefit management of Wetland Management Districts by:

■ Providing a clear statement of direction for future management of the Districts.

■ Giving District neighbors, visitors and the general public an understanding of

the Service’s management actions on and around the Districts.

■ Ensuring that the Districts’ management actions and programs are consistent

with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

■ Ensuring that District management is consistent with federal, state and

county plans.

■ Establishing that wildlife-dependent recreation uses (compatible uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental

education and interpretation) are the priority public uses within the Refuge

System.

■ Communicating that other uses have lower priority on the Refuge System

and are only allowed if they are compatible with the mission of the Refuge

System, and with the purposes of the individual refuge.

■ Providing a basis for the development of budget requests on the District’s

operation, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as we know it today has evolved and changed with

the country’s use of natural resources and the growing respect for the environment.

Today the Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the

American people.

Specific responsibilities include enforcing Federal wildlife laws, managing migratory

bird populations, restoring nationally significant fisheries, administering the Endangered Species Act, and restoring wildlife habitat such as wetlands. The Service also

manages the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

6

The National Wildlife Refuge System

The National Wildlife Refuge System is a significant focus of the Service. Founded in

1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt with the designation of Pelican Island as a

refuge for brown pelicans, the National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest

collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife. The

System is a diverse network of more than 500 national wildlife refuges

encompassing more than 92 million acres of public land and water.

Most of the land – 86 percent – is in Alaska, with approximately 15

million acres spread across the lower 48 states and several island

territories. Refuges provide habitat for more than 5,000 species of

birds, mammals, fish, and insects.

Like Pelican Island, many early national wildlife refuges were created for herons,

egrets, and other water birds. Others were set aside for large mammals like elk and

bison. By far the most refuges have been created to protect migratory waterfowl.

This is a result of the United States’ responsibilities under international treaties for

migratory bird conservation as well as other legislation, such as the Migratory Bird

Conservation Act of 1929. A map of the National Wildlife Refuge System shows

refuges dotting the four major flyways that waterfowl follow from their northern

nesting grounds to southern wintering areas.

National wildlife refuges also play a vital role in preserving endangered and threatened species. Among the refuges that are well known for providing habitat for

endangered species are Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas, the winter home

of the whooping crane; the Florida Panther Refuge, which protects one of the nation’s

most endangered mammals; and the Hawaiian Islands Refuge, home of the Laysan

duck, Hawaiian monk seal and many other unique species.

Refuges also provide unique opportunities for people. When it is compatible with

wildlife and habitat needs, refuges can be used for wildlife-dependent activities such

as hunting, fishing, hiking, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation. Many refuges have visitor centers, wildlife

trails, automobile tours, and environmental education programs. Nationwide, more

than 33 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 1999.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established many

mandates aimed at making the management of national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The preparation of Comprehensive Conservation Plans is one of those mandates. The legislation requires the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that the

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and purposes of the individual refuges

are carried out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the biological integrity,

diversity, and environmental health of the refuge system.

Minnesota Wetland Management Districts Vision Statement

The Districts will emphasize waterfowl production and ensure the preservation of

habitat for migratory birds, threatened and endangered native species, and resident

wildlife. The Districts will provide opportunities for the public to hunt, fish, observe

and photograph wildlife, and increase public understanding and appreciation of the

Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem.
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background

7

Legal and Policy Guidance

Waterfowl Production Areas within the Litchfield Wetland Management District are

acquired under the establishing authority of the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act

(Duck Stamp Act) as amended (16 U.S.C. 718-718h).

“The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to utilize funds made available under

subsection (b) of this section for the purposes of such subsection, and such other funds

as may be appropriated for the purposes of such subsection, or of this subsection, to

acquire, or defray the expense incident to the acquisition by gift, devise, lease, purchase or exchange of, small wetland and pothole areas, interests therein, and rights of

way to provide access thereto. Such small areas, to be designated as “ Waterfowl

Production Areas” may be acquired without regard to the limitations and requirements of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, but all the provisions of such Act

which govern the administration and protection of lands acquired thereunder, except

the inviolate sanctuary provisions of such Act, shall be applicable to areas acquired

pursuant to this subsection.”

In addition to the Litchfield Wetland Management District’s establishing authority

legislation and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997,

several Federal laws, executive orders, and regulations govern its administration. See

Appendix A for a list of the guiding laws and orders.

Existing Partnerships: The Ecosystem Approach

The Service initiated its Ecosystem Approach in March of 1994. The primary goal of

the Ecosystem Approach is conserving natural biological diversity and ecosystem

integrity while supporting a sustainable level of human use. Nationally, the Service

divided the country into 53 ecosystems based upon watersheds. Ecosystem teams,

which include project leaders within each of the ecosystem boundaries, are the

primary forum through which the Service implements the Ecosystem Approach.

The Service has set new standards for teamwork, creativity, flexibility, and communication between and among our operational units and with all partners within the

ecosystem. The Service participates in public and private partnerships at many

levels. Since many of the species under our care do not respect state and national

borders, we also have a role within the larger ecosystem of the Western Hemisphere

via such treaties as the Migratory Bird Treaty with our neighbors in Mexico and

Canada.

In Minnesota, Wetland Management Districts fall within three organized ecosystem

efforts, namely the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Habitat Protection Area, the Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem, and the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture

of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The District programs are

consistent with the goals and objectives of these major projects as well as the plan

objectives for the Partners in Flight, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

Over the last decade, bird conservation planning has become increasingly exciting as

it has evolved from a largely local, site-based focus to a more regional,

landscape-oriented perspective. Significant challenges include locating areas of
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

8

high-quality habitat for the conservation of particular guilds and priority bird species,

making sure no species are inadvertently left out of the regional planning process,

avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort, and identifying unique landscape and

habitat elements of particular tracts targeted for protection, management and restoration. Several migratory bird conservation initiatives have emerged to help guide the

planning and implementation process. Collectively, they comprise a tremendous

resource as refuges engage in comprehensive conservation planning and its translation into effective on-the-ground management.

Signed in 1986, the North American Waterfowl Management

Plan (NAWMP) outlines a broad framework for waterfowl

management strategies and conservation efforts in the United

States, Canada, and Mexico. The goal of the NAWMP is to

restore waterfowl populations to historic levels. The NAWMP

is designed to reach its objectives through key joint venture

areas, species joint ventures, and state implementation plans

within these joint ventures.

The Districts are in the Upper Prairie Pothole Joint Venture.

One of 12 habitat-based joint ventures, this Joint Venture

encompasses the states of Montana, North Dakota, South

Dakota, portions of Minnesota and Iowa, and three Canadian

provinces. The goal of this Joint Venture is to increase populations of waterfowl through habitat conservation projects that improve natural diversity across the U.S. Prairie Pothole landscape.

The objectives of this Joint Venture are:

Objective 1: By the year 2001, conserve habitat capable of supporting 6.8 million

breeding ducks that achieve a recruitment rate of 0.6 under average

environmental conditions, with all managed areas achieving a recruitment rate of 0.49 at a minimum.

Objective 2: Stabilize or increase populations of declining wetland/grasslandassociated wildlife species in the Prairie Pothole Region, with special

emphasis on non-waterfowl migratory birds.

Formed in 1990, Partners in Flight (PIF) Partners in Flight (PIF) is Partners in Flight (PIF) concerned with most landbirds and other

species requiring terrestrial habitats. Partners in Flight has developed Bird Conservation Plans for numerous Physiographic Areas across the U. S. (see http://

www.partnersinflight.org). These plans include priority species lists, associated

habitats, and management strategies.

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

Conservation Plan Conservation Plan are plans that address the concerns for shorebird and waterbirds.

These larger scale plans identify priority species and conservation strategies.

In a continental effort, the Partners in Flight, North American Waterfowl Management, U. S. Shorebird Conservation, and the North American Waterbird Conservation plans are being integrated under the umbrella of the North American Bird

Conservation Initiative (NABCI) Conservation Initiative (NABCI). The g Conservation Initiative (NABCI) oal of NABCI is to facilitate the delivery of

the full spectrum of bird conservation through regionally-based, biologically-driven,

landscape-oriented partnerships (see http://www.dodpif.org/nabci/index.htm). The

NABCI strives to integrate the conservation objectives for all birds in order to

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background

9

optimize the effectiveness of management strategies. NABCI uses Bird Conservation

Regions (BCRs) as its planning units. Bird Conservation Areas are becoming increasingly common as the unit of choice for regional bird conservation efforts; The Districts

lie within Prairie Potholes (BCR 11) and the Boreal Hardwood Transition (BCR 23).

Each of the four bird conservation initiatives has a process for designating conservation priority species, modeled to a large extent on the PIF method of calculating

scores based on independent assessments of global relative abundance, breeding and

wintering distribution, vulnerability to threats, area importance (at a particular scale,

e.g. PA or BCR), and population trend. These scores are often used by agencies in

developing lists of bird species of concern; e.g., the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

based its assessments for its 2002 list of nongame Birds of Conservation Concern

primarily on the PIF, shorebird, and waterbird status assessment scores.

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities

The Resource Conservation Priorities list is a subset of all species that occur in the

Region and was derived from an objective synthesis of information on their status.

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.

Although many species are not included in the priority list, this does not mean that we

consider them unimportant.

The list includes species from the Service’s Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie

Ecosystem. The list can be accessed at http://midwest.fws.gov/pdf/priority.pdf.

Biological Needs Assessment

The National Wildlife Refuge System Biological Needs Assessment (U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service, 1998) resulted from a self-analysis of biology within the System. The

Assessment addressed issues related to the biological aspect of Refuge management

and proposed six goals for their resolution along with actions and strategies for

achieving those goals.

The goals are:

Goal 1: Address inadequate and inconsistent biological program staffing.

Goal 2: Focus biological program activities through goals and objectives.

Goal 3: Integrate evaluation and oversight into the biological program.

Goal 4: Increase the amount and accountability of funding for the biological program.

Goal 5: Provide for career and professional needs of biological program staff.

Goal 6: Meet information needs of the biological program.
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

10

The Biological Needs Assessment provides a benchmark in measuring progress

toward meeting the biological mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997.

Working With Partners

The Wetland Management Districts are composed of small parcels of land throughout

western Minnesota. The effectiveness of this habitat for wildlife is enhanced when

located near other protected areas. Land in programs such as The Nature Conservancy, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and set-asides such as the

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) can add to

“effective habitat size.”

The Districts can not solve the problems posed by habitat fragmentation and contamination on its own and will work to increase “effective habitat size” by combining

efforts with many partners, such as The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited,

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, as well as in programs such as CRP

and RIM.
Chapter 2 / Planning Process, Issues and Goals

11

Chapter 2: Planning Process, Issues and Goals

Description of Planning Process

The planning process for this Comprehensive Conservation Plan began October 1,

1997, when a Notice Of Intent to prepare a comprehensive management plan was

published in the Federal Register (Vol 62: 51482). Because the six Districts face

similar issues, Managers and planners decided to follow a shared CCP process that

would result in separate documents for each District. This chapter describes the

planning process that was employed.

Initially, members of the planning team identified a list of

issues and concerns that were likely to be associated with the

management of the District. These preliminary issues and

concerns were based on the team members’ knowledge of the

area, contacts with citizens in the community, and ideas

already expressed to the District staff. District staff and

Service planners then began asking District neighbors,

organizations, local government units, schools, and interested

citizens to share their thoughts in a series of open house

events.

Open houses were conducted on the following schedule:

November 17, 1997 – Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District, 7 attended

November 18, 1997 – Fergus Falls Wetland Management District, 9 attended

November 19, 1997 – Morris Wetland Management District, 9 attended

November 20, 1997 – Litchfield Wetland Management District, 1 attended

November 25, 1997 – Windom Wetland Management District, 15 attended

February 4, 1998 – Regional Office, Twin Cities, 62 attended

People were also invited to send in written comments describing their support or

concerns about the Districts. Fifty-one written comments were received.

A survey of public use on the Wetland Management Districts was conducted through

contract with Dr. Dorothy Anderson, University of Minnesota. Forty individuals, all

regular users of the Wetland Management Districts, were invited to participated in

this survey. Participants had extensive experience with the Fish and Wildlife Service

managers ( i.e., they contacted WMD managers an average of almost 11 times/year)

and had good working relationships with managers. Almost all participants had

visited waterfowl production areas, and many were members of conservation organizations (e.g. Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and other organizations). Of the 40

people interviewed, 37 were men, averaging 51 years of age and averaging 39 years

living in the area.

The participants were able to list benefits of the Wetland Management District

activities provide to rural communities and citizens. The following list of benefits is

ordered from benefits frequently mentioned, to benefits not as frequently discussed

but still mentioned often.

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

12

■ Provides areas for hunting waterfowl and upland bird species,

■ Protects wetland areas for ecological reasons,

■ Retains water and helps with flood control,

■ Improves water quality

■ Improves communities economically through purchasing of hunting equipment

■ Provides opportunities to introduce children to hunting, and

■ Adds to the overall quality of life for rural residents

Many participants believed that the Wetland Management District managers were

good at acquiring and managing land. They appreciated the habitat provided in the

Waterfowl Production Areas and the work that District managers do with farmers to

increase wildlife habitat by taking drained wetlands out of agricultural production.

Participants also praised the cooperative role managers have with local citizens and

conservation organizations.

In addition to public meetings and survey, the following focus group meetings were

conducted to develop the issues, goals, and objectives for the Plan. These meetings

included the District Managers and invited participants from the University of

Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and the U.S. Geological Survey, Northern

Prairie Wildlife Research Center.

The following focus groups meetings were held:

■ Fergus Falls, Minnesota March 2-4, 1999

■ Alexandria, Minnesota July 27-29, 1999

■ Twin Cities, Minnesota August 26, 1999

Concurrent with the focus group meetings, planning staff met with individual Districts numerous times to review issues and discuss District management.

A wide range of issues, concerns, and opportunities were expressed during the

planning process. Numerous discussions among Refuge and planning staff, focus

groups, and resource specialists brought to light several recurring themes. Issues fall

into broad categories of wildlife, habitat, and people. Dealing with these issues is at

the core of the development of goals and objectives for the management of the Minnesota Wetland Management Districts.

Planning Issues

Wildlife and Habitat

1. Can we improve waterfowl productivity?

2. Strategic Acquisition: Can we buy the highest priority land in the most efficient

and cost-effective manner possible?

3. Managing Uplands: Can we improve prairie restoration by planting the right

seeds and using the right management tools?

4. Managing and Restoring Wetlands: How do we manage wetlands to maintain or

increase productivity?
Chapter 2 / Planning Process, Issues and Goals

13

5. Can we improve biological inventories and monitoring on WPAs?

6. Can we stem the loss of migratory birds in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem?

7. Can we manage District land to preserve, restore, and enhance threatened and

endangered species, rare and declining species, and address Regional priority

species?

8. Under what circumstances should we reintroduce rare native species to District

land?

9. How do we mitigate negative external influences such as contaminants on WPAs

and reduce its impact on long-term health and productivity of District land?

10. How do we balance management for Federal trust species with the needs of

resident species?

11. How do we reduce crop loss caused by Canada geese foraging on private land

adjacent to WPAs?

12: Invasive species, both exotic and native, are negatively impacting the natural

ecological balance of grasslands and wetlands on WPAs.

13. What is the Long Range Goal of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program

(Private Lands) on Wetland Management Districts?

Public Use

14. There are conflicting views concerning the costs and benefits of federally owned

land in a community. Who benefits? Who pays?

15. How do we provide adequate facilities and programs for the public to fully enjoy

wildlife-related recreation in a way that is compatible with our main mission?

Operations

16. Districts need sufficient staff in critical areas to fully meet resource challenges

and opportunities.

17. Districts need office, maintenance, and equipment storage facilities to carry out

their mission.

18. Vehicles and other necessary equipment need to be replaced on a regular basis

according to Service standards.

19. Funding is needed to develop and manage newly acquired WPA land and facilities.

20. Discretionary money is needed for managing newly acquired land. Historic

preservation responsibilities and other cultural resource concerns add cost and

delays.

21. Individual WPA development plans and record keeping need to be updated.

22. The Districts need to be consistent in their application of policy and resource

protection efforts.
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

14

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Goals

The following Goals were identified through a variety of meetings to address the

issues raised during the planning process:

Wildlife and Habitat

Wildlife: Strive to preserve and maintain diversity and increase the abundance of

waterfowl and other key wildlife species in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem.

Preserve, restore, and enhance resident wildlife populations where compatible with

waterfowl and the preservation of other trust species. Seek sustainable solutions to

the impact of Canada geese on adjacent private croplands.

Habitat: Restore native prairie plant communities of the

Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem using local ecotypes

of seed and maintain the vigor of these stands through

various processes. Restore functioning wetland complexes

and maintain the cyclic productivity of wetlands. Continue

efforts for long-term solutions to the problem of invasive

species with increased emphasis on biological control to

minimize damage to aquatic and terrestrial communities.

Continue efforts to better define the role of each District in

assisting private landowners with wetland, upland, and

riparian restorations

Acquisition: Within current acquisition acreage goals, identify the highest priority

acres for acquisition taking into account block size and waterfowl productivity data.

These priority areas should drive acquisition efforts whenever possible. Service land

acquisition should have no negative impact on net revenues to local government.

Understand and communicate the economic effects of federal land ownership on local

communities

Monitoring: Collect baseline information on plants, fish, and wildlife and monitor

critical parameters and trends of key species and/or species groups on and around

District units. Promote the use of coordinated, standardized, cost effective, and

defensible methods for gathering and analyzing habitat and population data. Management decisions will be based on the resulting data.

Endangered Species/Unique Communities: Preserve, enhance, and restore rare

native northern tallgrass prairie, flora, and fauna that are or may become endangered.

Where feasible in both ecological and social/economic terms, reintroduce native

species on WPAs in cooperation with the Minnesota DNR

People

Public Use/ Environmental Education: Provide opportunities for the public to use

the WPAs in a way that promotes understanding and appreciation of the Prairie

Pothole Region. Promote greater understanding and awareness of the Wetland

Management District’s programs, goals, and objectives. Advance stewardship and

understanding of the Prairie Pothole Region through environmental education.

USFWS Photo
Chapter 2 / Planning Process, Issues and Goals

15

Operations

Preparation of WPA Development Plans: Complete Geographic Information System

(GIS) based WPA Development Plans for each unit in each District. Provide Districts

with GIS to assist with acquisition, restoration, management and protection of public

and private lands.

Provide necessary levels of maintenance, technician, and administrative support

staff to achieve other Wetland Management District goals: Provide all Districts with

adequate and safe office, maintenance, and equipment storage facilities. Acquire

adequate equipment and vehicles to achieve other District goals. Maintain District

equipment and vehicles at or above Service standards.

Ensure that annual capital development funds are large enough to meet necessary

development of new WPA land: Have adequate funds available each year to permit

completion of maintenance needs for each Wetland District’s current land base of

Waterfowl Production Areas.

Develop and apply consistent policies for habitat, public use, and resource protection

and ensure frequent coordination among Districts, both in Minnesota and in neighboring states with WPAs (North and South Dakota, Iowa, and Wisconsin).
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

16

Chapter 3: The Environment

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

Three landscapes come together in Minnesota: prairies, deciduous woods, and coniferous forests of the north. This variation in

landscape is caused by changes in climate

and precipitation from north to south and is

reflected in the wide diversity of plants and

animals inhabiting the state (Wendt and

Coffin 1988; Hargrave 1993; Aaseng, et al.

1993). The Districts own land within all

three habitat types and all have changed

dramatically since settlement, none more

than the prairie landscape (Figure 3).

Prairie Grasslands

At one time, the western edge of Minnesota was continuous prairie and scattered

woodlands dotted with small wetlands, known as potholes. Snow melt and spring rains

were contained in these small wetlands and released slowly into surrounding streams.

The wetlands acted like a natural flood control system. All of this has changed since

settlement. Now, only 150,000 acres of native prairie remain out of an original 18

million (Noss, et al. 1995). In some areas, virtually all of the potholes have been

drained. Remnants of prairie and their associated wetlands are scattered and rare.

They form the last refuge for many species of prairie plants and wildlife.

Deciduous Woods

The deciduous forest of Minnesota extends from the northern aspen parkland to

maple basswood forests of the southeast. The term “deciduous” refers to trees that

lose their leaves in the fall. There are many forest communities within this landscape.

The northern aspen parkland is typical of a more Canadian landscape, with open

understory, wet meadows, aspen, willow, and alder thickets. The communities include

wild flowers like the northern gentian and prairie-fringed orchid, wildlife such as the

moose, Sandhill Crane, Sharp-tailed Grouse, Black-billed Magpie and Yellow Rail.

Further south, the deciduous forest changes to one dominated by maple and basswood

and scattered oak savannahs. Birds of these hardwood forests include the Tufted

Titmouse, Scarlet Tanager, Eastern Screech Owl, Broad-winged Hawk, Barred Owl,

Red-eyed Vireo, and Wood Thrush to name just a few. Wild flowers in the spring are

a special feature of these woods including trillium, hepatica, blood root, trout lily,

Dutchman’s breeches, and spring beauty (Moyle and Moyle 1977; Henderson and

Lambrecht 1997).

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 3 / The Environment

17

Figure 3: Minnesota Wetland Management Districts Ecosystems
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

18

Coniferous Forest

The coniferous forests dominate the northeastern portion of Minnesota. They are

characterized by red and white pines, balsam-fir, spruce, and white cedar mixed with

other deciduous species. While the coniferous forests dominate Minnesota landscapes, the Districts own very little in this landscape because it is not particularly

productive for waterfowl.

Climate

The climate of Minnesota is seasonal and highly variable. Average annual precipitation ranges from 20 inches in the northern aspen parklands to 32 inches in the southwestern prairie coteau. Within the eastern Great Plains, precipitation falls during two

peak periods, one in early summer and a less pronounced peak in September. Average

maximum annual temperature ranges from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in the northern

aspen parklands to 58 degrees Fahrenheit in the prairie coteau. Average minimum

annual temperature ranges from 23 degrees F in the aspen parklands to 36 degrees F

in the prairie coteau. The growing season ranges from 125 days in the aspen

parklands to 180 days in the prairie coteau (Hargrave 1993; Ostlie et al. 1996).

Hydrology

Conversion of the prairie to agriculture and the

general development of the area over the past 130

years has greatly changed the region’s hydrology.

The Districts contain five major watersheds: the

Red, the Upper Mississippi, the Minnesota, the

Missouri, the Cedar and Des Moines Rivers (Figure

4). Of these, the Red, Minnesota, and Des Moines are

clearly the most important hydrologically and culturally in terms of water flow, impacts to land use, and

associated water resources. The Minnesota River is considered the state’s most

polluted river. The Red River watershed has been degraded by dam construction,

agricultural practices, channelization, and loss of riparian vegetation.

The Red River is the only major American river that drains northward into Hudson

Bay. Total drainage area in the U.S. is 39,200 square miles, of which 17,806 are in

Minnesota. Due to regional patterns in precipitation, evapotranspiration, soils, and

topography, the Red receives most of its flow from its eastern tributaries. Ten of

these tributaries traverse the Districts.

Many rivers in the Districts have been channelized in the downstream reaches to

improve agricultural drainage. Most of the small wetlands that once held spring melts

have been drained for agriculture through ditches or subsurface tile systems. As a

result of the facilitated drainage, damaging summer floods are becoming more common.

River hydrology has been further altered through the construction of approximately

270 flood control structures within the Minnesota basin of the Red River. Despite

these flood control projects, the Red remains a flood-prone system due to heavy

spring snow melt, the flatness of the area, and snow/ice melting in the upstream area

of the basin before that in the downstream areas.

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 3 / The Environment

19

Figure 4: Minnesota Wetland Management Districts Hydrology and Key Rivers
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

20

The Roseau, Red Lake, Wild Rice, and Buffalo rivers account for three-fourths of the

flood damage on the Minnesota tributaries.

The Minnesota River drains an area of 15,500 square miles within the District area.

The Minnesota River begins in Browns Valley, where it is separated from the watershed of the Red River (Lake Traverse) by the Big Stone Moraine. As it flows toward

its meeting with the Mississippi, the Minnesota River is impeded by four flood control

reservoirs located at Big Stone, Big Stone/Whetstone, Marsh Lake, and Lac Qui

Parle. Two smaller dams near Granite Falls slow the flow, but do not impound any

water within the floodplain. One small hydroelectric dam operates near Mankato on

the Blue Earth River. Flooding along the Minnesota is common within the floodplain,

but does not have the same cultural or ecological impacts as on the Red River because

the steep slopes of the Minnesota contain the river.

Southwestern Minnesota differs dramatically from the flat topography to the north

and east. The Coteau des Prairies region grades from gently undulating to steeply

rolling and hilly. These glacial moraines and ridges are well drained and have few

depressions. This area flows mostly southwest into the Missouri River. The outer

edges of the Coteau are less well drained and contain numerous wetlands and lakes.

The Big and Little Sioux rivers are the two largest rivers in this area. Both flow to

the southwest and into Iowa.

Geology

The area has a varied geological history but throughout the region, the departure of

the last glacier, The Wisconsin, is still evident upon the land. The retreating glacier

left behind gently rolling hills of gravel deposits with many scattered potholes,

remnants left by melting glacial ice. In relative geologic time, the rivers that drain

this land are new and inefficient (Ojakangas and Matsch 1982).

The southwest corner of Minnesota escaped the Wisconsin glaciation and features

more bedrock exposures because that area escaped a blanket of glacial till or drift.

Big Stone District is named after some of the rocky features of the bedrock exposure.

Rivers and streams in this area are better developed, resulting in more efficient

drainage systems.

Thousands of natural basins were left in the wake of thawing ice. Glacial lakes, the

largest of these being Lake Agassiz, left behind a series of beaches and as they

overflowed, they cut huge river channels. Lake Agassiz created a moraine at Browns

Valley that spilled over to become the glacial River Warren, later to become the

Minnesota River. The water volume of the Minnesota is a fraction of the River

Warren, which flowed through its broad river valley with high stream terraces,

dwarfing today’s river. The Minnesota has eroded deeply into the glacial sediment

and has exposed some of the world’s oldest rocks along its narrow valley.

Wind-blown loess was also a major influence in the soils of Minnesota, especially in

southwest Minnesota. The disintegration of the Wisconsin Glacier left a distinctive,

fine-textured till containing a high volume of Paleozoic limestone and Cretaceous

shale fragments. Combined with the loess swept by surface winds, it is the parent

material for most of today’s prairie soils of western and southern Minnesota.
Chapter 3 / The Environment

21

District Resources

Wildlife

Waterfowl

The prairie pothole region has historically been recognized as the most important

waterfowl production area in North America. Surveys have shown that although this

area represents only 10 percent of the breeding habitat, it averages 50 to 75 percent

of the duck recruitment each year in North America.

Waterfowl species that use the prairie wetlands of Minnesota include: Redhead,

Northern Shoveler, Blue-winged Teal, Mallard, Gadwall, Wood Duck, Canvasback, and

Canada Goose. Other waterfowl use the prairie wetlands to a lesser degree: Pintail,

Lesser Scaup, and Ring-necked Duck. These species rely on grains for food most of

the year but during the spring and summer,

they shift to aquatic plants and insects. They

depend on the wetlands for food during the

breeding season.

The Habitat and Population Evaluation Team

(HAPET) Office census waterfowl populations

within the Wetland Management Districts of

western Minnesota. Summary statistics

generated by HAPET provide a necessary

overview of waterfowl production and land

use in the Districts. Their results show the

variability between districts in breeding pair

density. The average duck pair density ranges

from 23.5 in the Fergus Falls WMD to 3.7 in

the Windom WMD (Figure 5).

Rich soils and prairie wetlands make the region ideal for waterfowl, but also highly

productive for agriculture. The corn and soybean belt overlaps extensively with the

southern prairie pothole region. Massive conversion of wetlands and prairie to

agricultural fields has dramatically altered the landscape, the hydrology, and the

region’s carrying capacity for waterfowl

Some waterfowl species are more susceptible than others to the transformation of

prairie into agriculture. Mallards and Blue-winged Teal have been fairly successful in

agricultural landscapes such as western Minnesota. Northern Pintails, on the other

hand, have declined more dramatically than any other waterfowl species in North

America (Ducks Unlimited 1990). At the turn of the century, Pintails were probably

as common in the prairies as Mallards (Roberts 1932). Pintails favor ephemeral

ponds, which were the first and easiest to drain. They often nest far from water and

ducklings have to move overland to get to ponds shortly after they hatch. In the

current landscape, newly hatched ducklings cross plowed agricultural fields in the

spring and they are vulnerable to predation. Like Pintails, Gadwalls were once very

common in this region. In 1879, Gadwalls were reported to be as abundant as mallards if not more so (Roberts 1932, in Galatowitsch and van der Valk 1994). Now,

Gadwalls comprise less than 1 percent of the breeding population in western Minnesota (Green and Janssen 1975). Roberts (1930) reported, the Gadwall “...suffered most

severely from the settling of the country, probably as much from breaking-up of the

prairie, where it commonly nested, as from the hunters.” (Galatowitsch and van der

File Photograph
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

22

Figure 5: Estimated Average Duck Pair Density, 1987-1999
Chapter 3 / The Environment

23

Valk, 1994). At the turn of the century, Canvasback and Redheads were common on

the largest lakes and marshes. Initially, over-hunting depleted Canvasback populations but the decline of wetland habitat, especially the wild celery beds, made it

difficult for them to recover (Galatowitsch and van der Valk 1994). Another diving

duck, the Scaup, was also common but is now primarily a migrant through the region.

Research has shown that ducks nesting in large blocks of grassland habitat (1,000 to

10,000 acres) reproduce more successfully than ducks nesting in smaller blocks (200 to

500 acres) (Burger et al. 1994; Ball et al. 1995). Ron Reynolds of the HAPET Office

in North Dakota found waterfowl production increased on WPAs near large blocks of

CRP land (personal communication). His results show the importance of working

with partners to increase effective habitat block size and offset habitat fragmentation.

A major factor depressing duck numbers is low nest success due to nest destruction

by predators on small units of habitat. Predators are quick to find these remnant

areas and concentrate their hunting activities on the vulnerable ground nests of

waterfowl. In some habitats, predators such as red fox, raccoon, mink, and skunk are

able to take virtually every duck nest and many of the attendant hens.

Although agriculture has been an important feature in this area for over 100 years, it

has been particularly intensive during the last several decades. Conversion from

small, diverse family farms to large agricultural operations specializing in monocultures of small grain and row crops has eliminated habitat on private lands such as

pasture, hayland, and wetlands. Grassland birds are forced to nest in ever-dwindling

fragments of remaining cover. Often the only nesting sites available are small isolated

areas such as roadside ditches, abandoned farmsteads, rock piles or isolated patches of

habitat such as our Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs).

The average block size for Waterfowl Production Areas in western Minnesota is only

210 acres. In part, the small size of most acquisitions is due to the nature of the Small

Wetlands Acquisition Program (SWAP). The original SWAP approach was simple –

purchase only a minimum of acres in fee-title and surround them with permanent

easements.

In truth, it is difficult to purchase large tracts of land in prime agricultural areas.

What research identifies as an optimal size for wildlife is not always possible given the

competing needs for the land. Local county land boards often will not support taking

large blocks of land out of agricultural production and off the tax role. Areas that are

important for waterfowl may not be available or for sale. To purchase land strategically, managers are faced with the difficult task of finding willing sellers in the most

productive areas for waterfowl.

The landscape level monitoring by the HAPET Office shows that waterfowl success

varies depending on location within the state. There is even great variance between

WPAs within a single District. The HAPET Office has produced a map for each

district that ranks locations for waterfowl production. The maps are known as

“thunderstorm maps” because they resemble doppler radar weather maps (Figure 6).

Existing GIS mapping data can be used to evaluate land acquisitions. Available

information can be compiled to pick land parcels that have high potential for waterfowl and that are located near other conservation lands, such as state, county, or CRP

set-aside land to increase the “effective size” of each unit. This approach can aid in

setting priorities of acquisition. Ideally, managers could use these maps to identify

“hot spots” within their district for purchase as WPAs.
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

24

Figure 6: Predicted Settling Density of Dabbling Duck Pairs
Chapter 3 / The Environment

25

The Districts are trying to combat the unnatural impact of predators in small pieces of

habitat by removing abandoned buildings and brush. Abandoned farmsteads are

prime denning sites for major nest predators such as skunks (Lariviere and Messier

1998a, 1998b; Lariviere et al.1999). In addition, the Districts place nesting platforms

in many wetlands, and predator control is practiced on a limited scale in conjunction

with electric fence exclosures on 350 acres in Fergus Falls and 10 acres in the Morris

Wetland Management Districts.

Another threat to waterfowl reproduction is the increasing application of agricultural

chemicals such as fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides on cropland adjacent to

WPAs. Research has identified agricultural chemicals as important factors in decreasing bird populations directly as well as affecting their food resources in wetlands (see

Chapter 3, External Threats).

Not all species of waterfowl are in decline. In recent

years, the population of Giant Canada Geese has

exploded across many of the Districts. Many WPAs

contain the large wetlands favored by geese. These

wetlands are often adjacent to private agricultural

land. Canada Geese are upland grazers and, like

most wildlife, will take advantage of the bounty

planted nearby, whether it be succulent sprouts of

soybeans, corn, or the grass of lawns and golf

courses. On certain areas, geese can cause considerable financial hardship for farmers by wiping out

relatively large areas of crops.

Although the more common species of ducks and geese in Minnesota have increased

over the last decade, many are still below the goals of the North American Plan.

Migratory Birds

Minnesota Wetland Management Districts contain habitat important to bird species

other than waterfowl, including songbirds, marsh and wading birds, shorebirds, raptors,

and upland game birds. Approximately 243 species of birds regularly use the Districts

at some time during the year, with 152 nesting species (Appendix B).

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Partners in Flight, an international bird conservation initiative, and others

have evaluated the status of migratory birds, identifying “species of concern” at the

state, regional, and national levels. Partners in Flight have developed a bird conservation plan that focuses on declining grassland and wetland birds in the Northern

Tallgrass Prairie Bird Conservation Region. This plan provides information on the

habitat needs of these species and proposes a model of landscape-level habitat conservation for grassland birds (Fitzgerald et al. 1998). In the Districts, 48 birds identified as

“species of concern” are rare, declining, or dependent on vulnerable habitats, including

43 that breed there. This list does not include hunted waterfowl or federally-listed

threatened or endangered species, which are dealt with in another section of this

document (Appendix B).

About 44 percent of the species of concern depend on some type of grassland habitat.

Important habitats in the District include native and restored prairies, seeded grasslands (cool- or warm-season grasses), light- to moderately-grazed pastures, Conservation Reserve Program lands (CRP), sedge meadows, old fields, and hayfields (if not

mowed before July 15). In North America, grassland birds have exhibited steeper

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

26

declines than any other avian group. Their decline has a number of causes: loss of

breeding and wintering habitat from agriculture, urbanization, habitat degradation from

fire suppression, inappropriate grazing regimes, woody plantings, pesticides, and nest

predation and Cowbird parasitism.

Within the category of “grassland birds,” individual species show a variety of habitat

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

litter depth, degree of woody vegetation, and plant species composition. It is important

to maintain a mosaic of grassland habitats to meet the varying needs of grassland birds.

Some of the species of concern found in the Districts are area-sensitive, which means

they require large, contiguous blocks of habitat to reproduce successfully. Areasensitive species include the Greater Prairie-Chicken, Northern Harrier, Upland

Sandpiper, Bobolink, Henslow’s Sparrow, and Savannah Sparrow.

Vertebrate and Invertebrate Species of Concern

“Species of concern” refers to those species for which the Service has incomplete and

inconclusive information, but which might be declining in range, numbers, or security.

Service and state agency biologists and other experts confer on and use natural

heritage data bases and other published and unpublished information to follow the

welfare of these species. They have no protection under the Endangered Species Act

(Act) and are not candidates for listing.

Species of concern are a diverse group of animals united by two factors: (1) the

Service is watching them, and (2) they occur within the general area and thus could

appear in or near tracts within the Districts. Some of these animals occur only in

prairie habitats. Some of the arthropods can live only in good tallgrass prairie habitat

and thus are good indicators of high quality prairies. It is not possible to predict

which, if any, of the species may occur on tracts within the Districts, nor predict how

their occurrence would be a factor in decisions regarding individual tracts. They are

necessary components of a healthy, functioning tallgrass prairie ecosystem and are

indicators of prairie tract quality.

Region 3 of the Service has developed a Resource Conservation Priorities (RCP)

document that includes all species of concern within the Region (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources maintains an

official state list of animals being watched for changes in abundance and distribution,

and of animals that are endangered or threatened and protected by state law. The

Service will consider species listed by the State of Minnesota along with Service

species of concern in evaluating prairie sites and developing site protection measures.

Reptiles, Amphibians, and Insects, Vertebrates and Invertebrates

Reptiles, amphibians, and insects may have limited popular appeal, but each species

plays an important role in the prairie ecosystem. The degree of interconnectedness in

the tallgrass prairie ecosystem is high. Landmark species such as the eagle, badger

and coyote find their food sources in these groups. Prairie plant diversity depends

upon pollination and seed dispersal, as well as soil aeration by the great variety of

insects. Grasshoppers (family Orthoptera) are major herbivores in the prairie ecosystem, and many native prairie flowers rely on bees, butterflies and others for pollination. Numerous prairie birds, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals feed exclusively or partly on insects. The web of successes and failures within tallgrass prairie

communities is anchored to every point of diversity within the system, and the

protection of this entire spectrum is necessary for the persistence of its varied parts.
Chapter 3 / The Environment

27

Listed Endangered and Threatened Vertebrates and Invertebrates

This section describes animals that are Federally listed under the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended, and are listed as either endangered or threatened.

Threatened Mammals

Gray wolf, Gray wolf, Canis lupus: Experts estimate approximately 2,000 gray wolves pres- : 

ently occur in Minnesota. Wolf numbers and range appear to be increasing in Minnesota. Wolves are no longer exclusive residents of Minnesota’s forested wilderness

areas, and adult wolves from Minnesota have dispersed through central and western

Minnesota to North and South Dakota. The Service recognizes the improving range

and security of the species and has reclassified the wolf from “endangered” to “threatened.”

Threatened/Endangered Birds

Bald Eagle, Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus: Bald Eagles have increased in abundance :

and distribution across the United States, including Minnesota, and have been reclassified from endangered to threatened. In the 1990s nesting territories increased in

Minnesota every year from 437 in 1990, to 618 in 1995. Increasing numbers of migrating and wintering eagles also occur across Minnesota where they find sheltered night

roosts and feed on waterfowl, smaller wild mammals, and fish in open water areas.

Bald Eagles became endangered because of habitat loss, but especially because of

DDT use following World War II. Today, the DDT threat is largely gone. Now the

challenge is to prevent contamination and loss of sites that eagles depend on for

nesting, feeding, migration, and wintering.

Piping Plover, Chadarius melodus: Piping Plovers are tenuously present in Minnesota. They nest in Lake of the Woods, east of the Districts. Piping Plovers nest in

coastal areas, but they are also prairie birds, nesting across the Great Plains of the

United States and Canada, but in perilously low numbers. The Great Plains population is listed as threatened. The loss of prairie wetland areas contributes to their

decline. Like many shorebirds, Piping Plovers feed on immature and adult insects and

other invertebrates at the water’s edge. They winter primarily along beaches,

sandflats, and algal flats on the Gulf of Mexico.

Least Tern (eastern population), ern (eastern population), Sterna antillarum: Listed as endangered, the :

Least Tern nests along large rivers of the Colorado, Red, Mississippi, and Missouri

River systems. This species is a potential nester in the Missouri River area. It nests

on sand and gravel bars and protected beach areas of large rivers and winters in

coastal Central and South America. The species is endangered because human

disturbance and alteration of river systems has rendered much of its nesting habitat

unusable. Pesticides may reduce food available to the tern by reducing the numbers

of small fish in their feeding areas.

Reintroductions

The public has an interest in seeing presettlement native wildlife species returned to

the landscape. Examples include Greater Prairie Chickens, Trumpeter Swans, bison,

and wolves. Giant Canada Geese, once thought extinct, have returned to the prairies

of Minnesota in numbers as a result of captive breeding and reintroduction programs.

However, at times restoration efforts, and the ensuing adaptability of the species like

the Canada Goose, can create its own set of management problems (see next issue).

Due to the relatively small size of WPAs and the concerns for impacts off of WPAs,

reintroductions of species like bison and wolves are not practical. However, Trumpeter Swan reintroductions have been successful and well-received by the public,

while Prairie Chicken reintroduction is showing some sign of success depending on the
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

28

area. There is also the potential for reintroducing species of prairie plants and native

small mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and even insects like the Dakota Skipper

butterfly on certain units.

Management of Resident Species

Federal trust species are generally those that cross state and international boundaries or are afforded national protection through various laws and treaties, such as the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act. The well-being of

waterfowl populations is a classic Federal trust responsibility and the main purpose

for the creation of the Small Wetland Acquisition Program in the 1960s. This does not

mean that resident species such as white-tailed deer and pheasants found on WPAs

should not receive management attention. Rather it is the degree of management

focus, based on the knowledge that management for trust resources like waterfowl

will usually benefit the myriad of resident wildlife that share the prairie-wetland

landscape.

Local and regional residents, however, may often favor the management for those

species like white-tailed deer and pheasant that provide consumptive recreation

opportunities. Thus, managers are often faced with requests for food plots, tree and

shrub plantings, or direct stockings of game species that may have a negative effect

on the primary purpose of waterfowl production and the broader goals of restoring

native plant communities. The key is to seek the proper balance between practices

focused on trust species and those that can accommodate the public’s desire for

resident wildlife management.

Habitat

Wetlands and Riparian Habitat

Prairie wetlands and prairie streams are an

important part of the prairie ecosystem.

Minnesota is naturally rich in wetland and

riverine habitats (Appendix D). Western

Minnesota is part of the prairie pothole

region, characterized by numerous, shallow

wetlands known as potholes. These wetlands provide essential fish and wildlife habitat, permit ground water recharge, and

act as filters of sediment and pollutants. They reduce floods by storing water and

delaying runoff. The region once included about 20 million acres of these small wetlands. They were unconnected and poorly drained and in the spring they retained

water, acting like a great landscape sponge. Over the course of the season, water

drained slowly.

Settlers found the shallow wetlands difficult to farm. In addition, the wetlands kept

the water table high so much of the land was saturated in a wet year. When the land

was converted to farms, the new owners built drainage ditches, straightened streams

and drained shallow wetlands off their land. Today, only about 5.3 million acres

remain in 2.7 million basins within five states. Now, in the spring, water rushes off

the land and floods the streams and rivers. Drainage has been so extensive that in

many areas the water table has been lowered and the hydrology of the entire region

has been transformed.

More than 78 percent of the remaining wetland basins are smaller than 1 acre in size.

Nearly two out of three of the remaining wetlands in Minnesota are privately owned;

consequently, they are vulnerable to continued drainage, development, and pollution.

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 3 / The Environment

29

The Wetland Management Districts have focused on saving and restoring the small

wetlands of Western Minnesota. They have been remarkably successful in saving a

variety of wetland types (Figure 7). Wetland diversity is important because wetlands

change continuously; a single wetland can not be maximally productive all the time.

Waterfowl use specific types of wetlands at different times during the breeding

season. Laying hens may forage in ephemeral, temporary, and seasonal wetlands

early in the season and shift to semipermanent and permanent wetlands after the

brood is hatched. Marsh birds need a variety of wetlands in close proximity so they

can shift from one wetland to another as the wetlands cycle through different phases.

It is very important that natural wetland complexes be preserved. Wetland complexes include a variety of basins, some shallow and some deep, in close proximity.

Diverse wetland complexes are rare today because most shallow ephemeral, temporary, and seasonal basins have been drained.

Saving single, isolated wetlands is much less valuable than saving several wetlands in

a wetland complex. The Wetland Management Districts focus on acquiring wetland

complexes with a variety of wetland types.

The fluctuating water levels in the shallow wetlands are natural to the dynamic

pattern of precipitation in the prairie. The changing water level results in circular

bands of vegetation around each basin because different plant species have different

tolerances for saturated soils. The depth of the basin also affects the kind of vegetation that grows. The drying pattern is one of the features used to classify wetland

basins (Cowardin et al.). Deeper basins have perennial emergent vegetation such as

cattail and dry every 5 to 10 years. Wetlands that dry every other year or on a

several year cycle are called semi-permanent or permanent wetlands. Basins that dry

every year are temporary and seasonal wetlands. Some very shallow basins dry early

in the spring after the frost leaves the ground and as a result are called ephemeral

wetlands.

Freshwater wetlands like those in the prairie pothole region are among the most

productive in the world (Weller 1982). The dynamic water cycle creates a rich

environment for many waterfowl and other marsh birds. Cycling water accelerates

Figure 7: Wetland Distribution by Type, Litchfield WMD
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

30

decomposition of marsh vegetation, resulting in a natural fertilizer. When the basins

recharge in the spring, the water becomes a soup of nutrients and supports a diverse

and healthy population of aquatic invertebrates, which feed reproducing waterfowl

and marsh birds throughout the spring and summer. In the larger basins, the vegetation changes from densely closed cattail or bullrush cover to completely open over a

period of years (Figure 8). In the process of transition, the cover vegetation moves

through a phase, known as hemi-marsh, when clumps of emergent vegetation are

interspersed with open water (Weller 1982). In this phase, the structure of the

vegetation itself creates habitat and stimulates the production of aquatic invertebrates. The marsh, in this phase, hosts the maximum number of marsh birds. Unfortunately, the phase is only temporary and most wetlands cycle out of it in 1 to 3 years.

The prairie potholes are too shallow to be fish habitat but they have been used in the

past as hatcheries for minnows and walleye fingerlings. Leeches are also harvested

from these shallow ponds. Unfortunately, many of these artificially introduced native

species consume the same aquatic invertebrates as waterfowl. Fathead minnows

occur naturally in some wetlands in the region and have a significant negative effect

on the invertebrate populations of the wetlands (Hanson and Zimmer 1999).

Wetland restoration and management are high priorities in the Districts. In many

areas, the entire hydrology of the area has been altered and restoration is not always

a straightforward matter of plugging drains and filling in ditches (Galatowitsch and

van der Valk 1994). Restored wetlands employ water control structures for water

level management to mitigate the disruptive impact of wide scale drainage that has

altered natural water cycles. Many wetlands on WPAs are flooded because surrounding wetlands on private land have been drained and the excess water moves into the

WPA. Water control structures are often necessary, but these structures require

funding to install and staff to maintain. Neither are in adequate supply to do what is

needed.

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program

Wetland Districts in Minnesota have led the nation in the sheer number of wetlands

restored through the cooperation of private landowners in the Partners for Fish and

Wildlife Program (Private Lands). The program assists private landowners with the

improvement or restoration of wildlife habitat on their land. Technical assistance,

contracting, cost-sharing assistance, and actual earth work is provided to private

landowners throughout the Districts. Since the program’s inception in 1987, 12,000

Figure 8: Marsh Vegetation Cycles
Chapter 3 / The Environment

31

wetlands totaling more than 40,000 acres have been restored. However, some Districts are now finding it more difficult to find landowners willing to restore wetlands.

More staff effort is required with longer trips and greater expense to seek out landowners willing to restore wetlands. Managers have also begun to explore assisting

landowners with efforts to restore native prairie and riparian areas.

Districts have also restored more than 10,000 acres of native grasslands on private

property through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program during the same period.

In the past 2 years, new funding sources within the Partners for Fish and Wildlife

Program have placed added emphasis on riparian and instream habitat restoration,

and this has the potential to create additional opportunities for the Districts to

accomplish habitat restoration on private lands.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs have created many new opportunities for Districts to assist in the restoration of a variety of trust resource habitats on

private lands. The USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has placed an

emphasis on wetland and native prairie restoration as a condition of enrollment, and

many new participants are making their lands available for wildlife habitat restoration. This presents an important role for the Districts to lend their restoration experience and expertise to make these CRP restorations as high-quality as possible. The

USDA’s Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) likewise presents opportunities for

Districts to accomplish migratory bird objectives on private lands utilizing other

agency programs and dollars by making experience and expertise available to implement habitat restoration projects.

The Districts’ perpetual easement program, which encompasses both wetland and

conservation easements (both wetlands and uplands on a property), has greatly

benefited from the success of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program over the

past 10 years. Many of the private landowners who have restored wetlands on their

lands through the Partners Program have since come back to the District seeking

establishment of a permanent easement on their property to offer protection to their

project in future years. In some Districts it is fair to say that the vast majority of new

easements recorded in the past few years first started as Partners projects. This

continues to meet the needs of landowners who wish to improve their land for wildlife,

for themselves and for future generations.

By providing habitat restoration funds to complete restoration projects initiated by

the Districts as well as technical assistance funds to provide restoration experience

and expertise to other agencies’ programs, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program puts the Wetland Management Districts in a wonderful position to accomplish a

multitude of, and a variety of, trust species habitat restoration projects over the next

10 years.

Prairie Restoration

Prairie landscapes are much more diverse than they seem at first glance. They

contain hundreds of species of plants, invertebrates, and wildlife. Some prairies

contain as many as 200 plant species. The landscape is dominated by a relatively small

number of widespread, sod-forming bunch grasses such as big bluestem, northern

dropseed, and porcupine needlegrass, but flowering plants constitute the greatest

number of species (80 percent in some areas). Most abundant members are from the

pea and sunflower families such as wild indigos, prairie clovers and scurf peas (pea

family); and asters, gay-feathers, goldenrods, coneflowers, and sunflowers (aster

family) (Henderson and Lambrecht, 1997).
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

32

Over the past decade, virtually all plantings of upland cover on Waterfowl Production

Areas have been with native grasses. In recent years, a more diverse mixture of

native forbs and warm and cool season native grasses have been used. Plants within a

single species vary with latitude (called ecotypes) and an effort is being made to plant

local ecotypes in restorations. Harvesting techniques of existing tallgrass prairie and

refinement of the cleaning and seeding process has made seed gathering easier.

However, many native prairie forbs remain in short supply and are extremely costly

for large areas.

Prescribed fire remains a critical tool for maintaining the diversity and vigor of

existing and restored prairie plants. Prescribed burns can only be done during a small

window of time in the spring, so the number of acres that can be burned each spring is

limited. As a result, most WPAs can not be burned on a rotation frequent enough to

suppress invading shrubs and trees. Some of the Districts use haying and grazing as

additional means of maintaining grassland integrity.

The Districts also manage grasslands through the selective application of herbicides

during restoration. In 1990, 15,825 pounds of active ingredients representing 20

herbicides were applied to 15,533 acres of Service-managed lands in Minnesota

(USFWS 1990). The most heavily and most frequently used chemical was 2,4-D. In

1987, approximately $100,000 was spent on noxious weed control on approximately

16,000 acres of District lands (USFWS 1992). Because of concern that chemical use

could impact water quality (See Issue 9), the Twin Cites Ecological Services Field

Office conducted a 2-year study beginning in 1992 to determine the impact of the

herbicide application on wetlands in the Districts. Results indicated that concentrations of 2,4-D were consistently low and at concentrations that have not been shown

to have an adverse affect on aquatic life (Ensor and Smith 1994).

Rare Communities

Waterfowl Production Areas provide one of the last bastions of grassland and wetland

habitat in the prairie area of Minnesota. These areas provide some of the last remaining habitat for threatened, endangered, rare or unique wildlife and plants. Examples

include the threatened western prairie fringed orchid and prairie bush clover, and

numerous species of grassland and wetland-dependent species that are declining in

numbers. There is a need to have better baseline information on what species are

present on each WPA, and to monitor the effects of wetland and prairie restoration

efforts on these species of special concern.

Minnesota County Biological Survey (Survey) conducted systematic surveys of rare

biological features from 1987-1995. The goal of the Survey was to identify significant

natural areas and to collect and interpret data on the distribution and ecology of rare

plants, rare animals, and natural communities. The Nature Conservancy, through a

cooperative agreement with the Service, consolidated these data and the data of the

Natural Heritage Information Systems of the Minnesota Natural Heritage, and

Nongame Research Program. From this data, the existing protected areas within

Minnesota were mapped and community types were identified.

Within the northern tallgrass prairie ecoregion (Iowa, Manitoba, Minnesota, North

Dakota, and South Dakota), 97 terrestrial natural communities have been documented.

Rare communities most at risk are the mesic, wet, and dry prairie types. Three

grassland communities (mesic tallgrass prairie, sedge meadow, and lake plain wet
Chapter 3 / The Environment

33

prairie) are critically endangered in the United States (Noss et al., 1995). The

tallgrass prairie ecosystem includes the following community types:

Dry Prairie Mixed Emergent Marsh

Mesic Prairie Shrub Swamp

Wet Prairie Aspen Woodland

Mesic Brush Prairie Aspen Openings

Wet Brush Prairie Dry Oak Savanna

Calcareous Seepage Fen Mesic Oak Savanna

Rich Fen Oak Woodland/Brushland

Some community types are broken down into subtypes, for example: Sand-Gravel

Subtype of the Dry Prairie Type. Others include hill and barrens (dry prairie type),

saline (wet prairie type), and prairie (calcareous seepage fen type). The prairie type

of Calcareous Seepage Fen is one of the most valued of the rare plant communities in

the Districts. These fens typically are surrounded by wet-mesic prairie species. The

seepage area itself commonly contains patches of emergent aquatic species such as

cattail, hard-stemmed bulrush, and common reed. Such areas occur throughout the

Districts but are more common in the Lake Agassiz Beach Ridges.

Prairie community types are diverse, some are rarer than others; but with less than 1

percent of all northern tallgrass prairie remaining, special consideration is warranted

for all types and subtypes. It can be argued that all intact prairie plant communities

are rare. Tallgrass prairies have the highest percentage (65 percent) of rare community types of any group. The importance and uniqueness of individual tracts become

apparent when ecotype variation is considered. For instance, warm season grasses

generally vary one day in flowering time with each 9-14 miles in a north-south gradient. No doubt many more subtle ecotype variations occur.

Due to the disproportionate loss of community types, individual plant species of the

prairie are becoming rare. For example, the western prairie fringed orchid was

historically widespread and common in calcareous mesic to wet mesic prairies and

sedge meadows. Wholesale conversion of its habitat to agriculture has resulted in the

plant being placed on the Federal endangered species list.

Plant Species of Concern

“Species of concern” is an informal term in this document for species which the

Service has incomplete and inconclusive information, but which might be declining in

range, numbers, or security. Service biologists confer with state agency botanists and

other experts, and use state natural heritage program data bases and other published

and unpublished information to follow the welfare of these species. Species of concern

have no standing or protection of any kind under the Endangered Species Act (Act)

and they are not candidates for listing under the Act. Nevertheless, the Service is

interested in them and is alert for need to provide early assistance to these species to

avoid the need to list them under the Act.

These species are a diverse group of plants united by two factors: (1) the Service is

watching them, and (2) they occur within the general area and thus could appear in or

near District tracts. It is impossible to predict which, if any, of the species may occur

on tracts managed by the Districts. It is also impossible to predict how the occurrence of one of these species on or near a tract would factor in decisions regarding

individual tracts beyond the Service’s intent to recognize these species as valid and

necessary components of a healthy, functioning tallgrass prairie ecosystem and as

indicators of prairie tract quality.
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

34

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources maintains an official state list of

plants being watched for changes in abundance and distribution, and of plants that are

endangered or threatened and protected by state law. There are approximately 80

such species in the counties of Minnesota. Biologists of the state natural resource

agency and the Service maintain ongoing communication regarding these species,

some of which are excellent indicators of prairie quality.

Listed Plants

This section describes plants that are federally listed under the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, as amended, and are listed as either endangered or threatened.

Prairie bush clover, Lespedeza leptostachya: Occurs in dry, gravelly hill prairies :

and in thin soil prairies over granite bedrock. Common on prairies with big bluestem

(Andropogon gerardi) and Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans). More sites are known

for this species than were known when it was listed and it appears able to grow in

disturbed areas. The species may be stable or, if declining, declining slowly. The need

for protection remains.

Western prairie fringed orchid, estern prairie fringed orchid, Platanthera praeclara: Platanthera praeclara: Occurs in moist, calcareous

subsaline prairies and prairie sedge meadows and swales (Coffin and Pfannmuller

1988). The species may be stable, but loss of tallgrass prairie habitat has markedly

reduced its original range. Present sites are threatened by human activities and land

use changes and by invasion by leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula).

External Threats

Drainage and Pesticides

Waterfowl Production Areas are often islands in a sea of intensive agriculture.

Natural drainage patterns have been altered throughout the landscape, increasing the

frequency, intensity, and duration of water flowing into many units. Siltation, nutrient

loading, and contamination from point and non-point sources of pollution are a serious

problem on many WPAs. Waterfowl Production Areas are also threatened by farming

trespass, dumping, wildfires, and pesticide applications on adjacent agricultural land.

A recent study in Ontario examined the effects of habitat and agricultural practices on

birds breeding on farmland and determined that the most important variable decreasing total bird species abundance was pesticide use (Freemark and Csizy 1993).

Recent changes in agriculture have accelerated the impact of pesticides on surrounding land. Genetically altered Round-up ready corn, soybeans, cotton and sugar beats

have expanded the window of opportunity for pesticide applications and promises to

kill everything green on fields except the genetically altered crops. Another altered

crop, Bt. Corn, contains a genetically engineered insecticide. Even the pollen from

this plant can kill certain insects, such as monarch butterflies.

Research has shown that insecticides commonly used for sunflowers, soybeans and

corn can kill wildlife directly and indirectly (e.g. by decreasing the amount of food

available to ducks). For example, ducks feed on grain much of the year but in the

spring they shift to aquatic invertebrates (insect larvae, amphipods, snails, etc.) and

depend on this food source for reproduction and survival. Even when aerial pesticide

applications are done carefully and wetlands are avoided, the chemicals drift into

wetlands in measurable amounts and kill aquatic invertebrates (Tome et al. 1991 and

Grue et al. 1986).

Insecticides have a direct effect by killing aquatic invertebrates, but herbicides also

have an indirect effect on food available to waterfowl. The Service conducted a study
Chapter 3 / The Environment

35

of the impact of agricultural chemicals on selected

wetlands in four of the Wetland Management

Districts (Ensor and Smith, 1994). Herbicides

from surrounding agricultural land enter wetlands and disrupt the functional interaction

between vegetation structure and aquatic invertebrate life. The changing dynamic reduces food

available to breeding waterfowl.

Seasonal and semipermanent wetlands (the

majority of WPA wetlands) are the most exposed

to agricultural chemicals. These wetlands are

small and interspersed with croplands, which

increases the probability of pesticides from overspray and aerial drift. Most herbicides and

insecticides are applied to crops in the spring and

early summer, coincident with maximum runoff

and waterfowl breeding. Ensor and Smith (1994)

write:

“A result of our survey... indicates that prairie pothole wetlands may involve

interactions of multiple herbicides (and potentially insecticides) comprising

chemical “soups” unique to individual wetlands.”

This study showed that “typical agricultural use” of pesticides on surrounding land

had a significant impact in reducing the biological quality of WPA wetlands. Currently, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) exempts “normal farming

practices” from the State’s wetland protection (See: Specific Standards of Quality and

Purity for Class 2 Waters of the State; Aquatic Life and Recreation, Minnesota

Chapter 7050, 1994).

Invasive Species

Noxious weeds are a continuing problem both ecologically and socially/politically.

Invasive species present a daunting challenge to land managers. Canada thistle, leafy

spurge and spotted knapweed can displace native vegetation over large areas and are

a serious concern to neighboring farmers and county officials. Purple loosestrife can

effectively displace cattails and other native wetland vegetation and turn productive

marshes into a sea of purple flowers. Carp can destroy native submergent vegetation,

which provides the base for invertebrates. Minnows, often from past stockings by

bait dealers, can cause serious damage to wetland food chains by reducing invertebrate populations needed by breeding waterfowl and ducklings.

Control of these problem species is often costly, both in terms of chemicals, equipment, and staff time. Managers strive to use a balanced approach in controlling these

species. Direct control, such as chemical application or mowing, is often needed on

serious problem areas. Once healthy native plant communities are reestablished, they

can often compete successfully against invasive weeds. Water level control, including

complete drawdowns, can eliminate carp and minnow populations on wetlands where

this capability is present. Virtually all Districts are experimenting with biological

controls by introducing insects that control the invading plant in its native country.

Rural Development Rural Development

Rural development also threatens District lands in counties with growing populations,

such as Wright County. Lands adjoining WPAs are often seen as highly desirable

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

36

rural building lots that are purchased as small hobby farms or rural homesites. This

can result in the WPA being “ringed” by homes, with a series of negative impacts on

the WPA. Such development can limit future management such as prescribed fire;

increase trespass on District lands by neighbors using ATVs, horses, or vehicles;

increases threats to wildlife from stray pets (cats and dogs); increases use of District

land by neighbors for illegal uses such as dumping, gardening, equipment storage, etc.;

and can place hunters and neighbors at odds over concerns about safety during the

hunting seasons. Large-scale rural development would also bring threats from noise

and storm water runoff.

Cultural Resources

Archeological and Cultural Values

Responding to the requirement in the law that comprehensive conservation plans will

include “the archaeological and cultural values of the planning unit,” the Service

contracted for a cultural resources overview study of Minnesota Wetland Management District. This section of the CCP derives mostly from the report, “Cultural

Resources Overview Study,” by Teresa Halloran and others, Loucks & Associates Inc.,

dated August 1998. Several other sources have been used.

Context

Archeological evidence for human occupation in western Minnesota extends back

10,000 years when the last glaciers retreated to the north. Small bands of hunters

moved into the tundra and boreal forest and left behind their distinctive Clovis and

Folsom fluted lanceolate spear points and other tools. Now identified as PaleoIndian,

these people lived in diverse settings and often on the margins of lakes and wetlands.

The long Archaic period began with a warmer and drier climate that peaked with the

altithermal around 4700-3000 B.C. Surface waters evaporated and rivers shriveled;

bison herds dwindled, and so did the human population. In the harsh conditions, the

people developed an array of stone, bone, and copper tools. The human population

expanded after the altithermal.

The subsequent Woodland period commenced around 500 B.C. and extended to the

arrival of Europeans. The climate and vegetation were similar to 20th century

conditions. The people of this period constructed pottery and burial mounds, used the

bow and arrow, and adopted agriculture. Some people lived in larger, even fortified,

summer villages. The seasonal round included bison hunting, maple sugar collecting,

and wild rice harvesting. Exotic trade items came from more complex societies to the

south and from other sources.

Natural and human events disrupted the traditional patterns and tribal locations. The

Little Ice Age began about A.D. 1550 and caused many prairie tribes to relocate.

Arrival of Europeans with Western culture goods and material and practices also

caused tribes to change traditional cultural patterns and territory. Thus connecting

modern Indian tribes with prehistoric antecedent cultures found in the archeological

record is problematic.

Seventeenth century French and English fur traders built posts at the confluence of

rivers or on the shores of larger lakes, usually near Indian villages. Western Minnesota became part of the United States as part of the Louisiana Territory, and in the
Chapter 3 / The Environment

37

second half of the 19th century immigrants settled the land as railroads expanded

accessibility and markets. Settlers soon replaced dugouts and sod houses with frame

houses and larger farms and farmsteads. Indian wars and treaties led to concentration of Indian tribes on reservations within and beyond the state. Highway construction, farm consolidation, urbanization, and recreational pursuits characterized the

second half of the 20th century.

Existing Conditions and Cultural Resources Potential

A review of the National Register of Historic Places showed, as of October 16, 2000,

the 40 Minnesota counties having WPAs and easements contained 426 properties

listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The vast majority of these properties are buildings in towns and cities. A number of the properties are located in rural

areas and are indicative of the kinds of historic properties that could be found on the

Districts: farmsteads and farm buildings, especially barns; bridges; segments of the

Red River Oxcart trail; mill sites; battle sites; prehistoric archeological sites such as

mounds, villages, camps, and rock art. Historic archeological sites can also be found.

Many more cultural resources sites are reported on and around the waterfowl production areas, including:

■ Big Stone WMD has eight sites on WPAs, none eligible for the National

Register, and 188 additional sites in the two counties.

■ Detroit Lakes WMD has 114 sites on WPAs, of which 33 are not eligible for

the National Register, and 531 additional sites in the five counties.

■ Fergus Falls WMD has 130 sites on WPAs, of which 51 are not eligible for the

National Register, and 616 additional sites in the four counties.

■ Litchfield WMD has 95 sites on WPAs, of which 30 are not eligible for the

National Register, and 1,128 additional sites in the nine counties.

■ Morris WMD has 91 sites on WPAs, of which 17 are not eligible for the

National Register, and 555 additional sites in the eight counties.

■ Windom WMD has 44 sites on WPAs, of which 12 are not eligible for the

National Register, and 980 additional sites in the twelve counties.

Archeological surveys have been completed on 7,400 acres of District lands.

Although cultural resources can be found almost anyplace on the landscape, prehistoric archeological sites are often found on the shores (especially the east shore) of

lakes larger than 40 acres, on islands and peninsulas, where streams enter and exit

lakes, and near permanent streams. Early historic period sites are often associated

with water. Thus, WPAs are often in the same setting as archeological sites.

Museum collections include art, ethnography, history, documents, botany, zoology,

paleontology, geology, environmental samples, and artifacts. A museum collection at a

District office or visitor center must adhere to the requirements in 411 DM. At this

time only Morris WMD has identified a museum collection that consists of five historic

objects. Archeological collections from WPAs are stored at the Minnesota Historical

Society under terms of a cooperative agreement. Big Stone WMD has none; Detroit

Lakes WMD has one collection of 29 items; Fergus Falls WMD has one collection of 40

items; Morris WMD has four collections of 698 items, and Windom WMD has seven
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

38

collections of approximately 1,010 items. All District museum collections are covered

under the Region-wide Scope of Collections Statement.

Indian Tribes and Other Interested Parties

Several Federal laws and executive orders respond to the part of the American public

for whom cultural resources are an important part of the human environment and of

understanding the American past and present.

For the intent of these laws to be met, persons and organizations need to be informed

of Federal activities that could affect cultural resources. Contacts with Indian tribes

are government-to-government unless the tribe has a Tribal Historic Preservation

Officer. Seventeen tribes have been identified as having potential interest in one or

more of the Districts. Other contacts include the county historical societies, local

governments, state government agencies such as the Department of Natural Resources, and other Federal agencies such as the Natural Resources Conservation

Service.

In addition, the District Manager issues a news release in the project area.

Management of Cultural Resources

Cultural Resources are “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.

An undertaking is any Federal or federally-funded, -licensed, -permitted, or -assisted

activity or project that could affect a significant (i.e., historic) property. Ground

disturbance, buildings and structures modification or neglect, and landscape changes

must be analyzed for impacts on archeological sites, farmsteads, objects, traditional

cultural properties, sacred sites, and cultural items.

The District Managers inform the Regional Historic Preservation Officer early in the

planning stage of all undertakings to allow qualified analysis, evaluation, consultation,

and mitigation as necessary.

Archeological investigations and collecting are performed only in the public interest

by qualified archeologists working under an Archaeological Resources Protection Act

permit issued by the Regional Director. District Managers take steps to prevent

unauthorized collecting by the public, contractors, and FWS personnel. Violations are

reported to the Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO).

If the public turns over to District personnel “found” artifacts, the District Manager

will try to determine provenance, will attempt to replace the artifact where found if it

can be secure from further public collections, or will hold it until the RHPO is notified

and can move it to the historical society.

Cultural Resources Management Objective: Establish a plan to fulfill requirements of

Section 14 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act for surveying lands to

identify archeological resources; and Section 110(a)(2) of the National Historic Preservation Act for a preservation program.
Chapter 3 / The Environment

39

People

Public Use of Waterfowl Production Areas

The Refuge Improvement Act established six priority uses of the Refuge System,

which includes the more than 800 WPAs in Minnesota. These priority uses all depend

on the presence of, or expectation of the presence, of wildlife, and are thus called

wildlife-dependent uses. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Waterfowl Production Areas

have been open to these uses for decades. Although Congress clearly expects managers to facilitate these priority uses, they must be compatible with the purpose for

which the unit or WPA was established and the mission of the Refuge System. Compatibility Determinations for these priority uses and numerous other uses in compliance with the Refuge Improvement Act and national compatibility policy and regulations are included (Appendix E).

Most recent estimates show that 250,000 people visit WPAs each year for hunting,

wildlife observation, photography, interpretive and environmental education, fishing,

trapping, and other uses. Waterfowl Production Areas differ from national wildlife

refuges in that they are open to hunting, fishing, and trapping by specific regulation,

and open to the other wildlife-dependent activities by notification in general brochures available at each District office. New and existing WPAs are thus “open until

closed” versus national wildlife refuges, which are “closed until opened.”

Hunters and hunting have a long and linked history with WPAs. When Congress

amended the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Tax Act (Duck Stamp

Act) in 1958, it authorized the acquisition of wetlands and uplands as WPAs and

waived the usual “inviolate sanctuary” provisions for new migratory bird units. Thus,

WPAs were intended to be open to waterfowl hunting, in part because waterfowl

hunters, through the purchase of Duck Stamps and support for price increases of the

stamp, played a major role in acquisition of these areas. Hunting, for both waterfowl

and resident game species, accounts for more than half of the visits to WPAs.

Wildlife observation, interpretation, and environmental education are encouraged on

WPAs and increasing in popularity with the public. Districts are taking a more active

role in fostering these uses by developing wildlife trails, interpretive signs and kiosks,

outdoor classrooms, and even auto tour routes on select WPAs. At the Fergus Falls

Wetland Management District, the Prairie Wetlands Learning Center provides

residential environmental education programs to schools throughout Minnesota.

In addition to these wildlife-dependent public uses, each District receives on a regular

basis requests for various non-wildlife-dependent uses such as dog trials, horseback

riding, plant collecting, berry picking, and special events. Also, various economic uses

such as haying, grazing, and timber harvest are used as habitat management tools and

involve the issuance of special use permits. There are numerous other “uses” which

managers must make regular decisions on including rights-of-way requests for new or

expanded roads, utilities, pipelines, and communications equipment.

To promote an understanding of what uses are and are not allowed, or allowed only on

a case-by-case evaluation, the operations section describes the policies that will guide

uses on WPAs.

Two major issues surfaced during plan development related to overall public use on

WPAs. First, there is debate on the value of WPAs to the general public and local
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

40

units of government due to changes in land use and taxation when WPAs are purchased from willing sellers. Second, funding and staff for adequate programs and

facilities to better serve the public have never been on par with the generally larger

and better known national wildlife refuges.

When land is purchased for a WPA, it becomes the

property of the United States government and is

exempt from taxation. To offset this loss in tax

revenue for local governments, the Service pays

three-fourths of 1 percent of the appraised value of

the land to the counties in which the WPA is located.

In most years, Congress has not appropriated sufficient funds to cover this level of entitlement. The

result is resentful local governments and a serious

issue when new tracts are brought before county

commissioners and the Minnesota Land Exchange

Board for approval.

The Refuge Improvement Act mandates that compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography,

environmental education and interpretation are the priority public uses of the Refuge

System. In accordance with law and regulation, waterfowl production areas are open

to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, trapping and environmental

education.

Many WPAs lack the basic facilities, such as parking and trails, that help the public

enjoy these wildlife-dependent uses. Also, Districts do not have the funds to provide

quality maps that show the public how to find WPAs. Interpretive and environmental

education opportunities are limited by the lack of trained public use specialists.

Disabled User Access

Each of the wetland management districts will provide compatible and accessible

wildlife-dependent recreation on Waterfowl Production Areas. Each WMD will

eventually develop at least one WPA per county or cluster of counties with enhanced

opportunities for disabled users. These features might include accessible hunting

blinds, accessible trails or scenic vistas, or other opportunities for accessible wildlifedependent recreation. Disabled users will be directed to these units with improved

accessibility. We do not plan to provide exclusive use for disabled users on these

units. These WPAs will be open to all users but will provide a place for disabled

visitors to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation without having to seek special privileges. Disabled visitors who prefer not to use these enhanced facilities may be given

special privileges at other WPAs. These privileges would be granted at the manager’s

discretion and would be limited to driving on existing trails. No user, disabled or

otherwise, will be given permission to drive off of existing trails. Disabled users who

receive special access privileges will be granted special use permits restricting their

travel to designated routes on designated WPAs. The permit will include a map

identifying allowable routes of travel.

For the purposes of this section, we intend to follow state standards on disabilities for

special hunting privileges. The State of Minnesota is reviewing these standards. We

expect the revised standards to roughly include people dependent on wheelchairs or

supplemental oxygen as a reasonable standard of a disability requiring enhanced

opportunities for access. If state standards do not meet our needs, we may develop

our own standards in the future.

USFWS Photo
Chapter 3 / The Environment

41

Operations

Individual WPA Development Plans

At the heart of on-the-ground restoration and management of WPAs is the writing of

individual WPA development plans. These plans inventory existing resources and

describe plans for wetland and grassland restoration, structure and debris removal,

and planned facilities such as parking, fencing, and wildlife observation sites. They

are also means for recording management activities to provide a history for future

management decisions. As miniature comprehensive conservation plans, they are

critical step-down plans to carry out the goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in

this comprehensive conservation plan.

However, many WPAs lack development plans. With new technology employing

Geographic Information Systems, this planning and recording of management actions

has become simpler and faster, as illustrated in Figure 9. Each District is currently

setting up a GIS planning system, but the entering of data is hampered by lack of

staffing devoted to the effort. In addition, once all plans are done, they will need to be

updated on a rotational basis to be useful in the future.

Consistent Use

The visiting public, WPA neighbors, local units of government, and the Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources benefit when management and permitted uses on

WPAs are consistent from one end of the State to the other. This comprehensive

conservation plan provides the opportunity to articulate policies that have been in

place for many years but have not always been consistently applied or communicated.

New national policies and regulations governing management and use of the Refuge

System also prompted a review and fine tuning of what uses will and will not be

allowed, and the stipulations all Districts will follow when allowing certain uses.

The following is a summary of generally prohibited and permitted uses and activities

on WPAs in Minnesota. For each of the permitted activities, the reader is encouraged

to review the compatibility determination for each found in Appendix E. Stipulations

or operating guidelines in each compatibility determination will be followed by each

District when administering the uses.

In addition to these policies, there will be a continuing need to ensure consistency of

operations on a variety of management issues such as law enforcement, native seed

types and seeding methods, signing, and land acquisition. Goal 10 speaks to this

ongoing need.

Public Uses Generally Prohibited

■ Off-road vehicle use, including snowmobiles and ATVs

■ Camping

■ Open fires

■ Discharge of firearms except during State hunting seasons

■ Use of motorized water craft

■ Dog trials

■ Horseback riding

■ Commercial bait collecting

■ Beekeeping
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

42

Figure 9: GIS for WPA Development Planning
Chapter 3 / The Environment

43

Public Uses Permitted Public Uses Permitted (See Com Public Uses Permitted patibility Determinations in Appendix E)

■ Hunting in accordance with State seasons and regulations

■ Wildlife observation

■ Photography

■ Fishing in accordance with State seasons and regulations

■ Environmental education

■ Interpretation for individuals or groups

■ Trapping in accordance with State seasons and regulations

■ Berry and nut collecting for personal use

■ Limited plant and seed collection for decorative purposes

(Note: these uses include the use of non-motorized means of access including hiking,

snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, or where appropriate, bicycling on existing trails)

Generally Permitted Management Activities Done by Others, and Miscellaneous

Activities/Programs

(See Compatibility Determinations in Appendix E)

■ Haying for grassland management

■ Farming for grassland management

■ Grazing for grassland management

■ Timber or firewood harvest

■ Food plots and feeders for resident wildlife

■ Wildlife nesting structures

■ Archaeological surveys

■ Special access for disabled users

■ Irrigation travelways across easement wetlands

■ Temporary road improvement outside of existing right-of-way

■ Special dedications/ceremonies

■ Wetland access facilities

■ WPA parking facilities

■ Local Fire Department Training – Prescribed Burning

■ Local Fire Department Training – Burning of Surplus Buildings on New

Acquisitions

Other Reoccurring Uses Handled on Case-by-Case Basis

■ New or expanded rights-of-way requests

■ Major new facilities associated with public uses

■ Commercial filming

■ Special events

■ Animal collecting requests

■ Other requests for uses not listed above

Drainage

We often receive requests to maintain, improve, or construct drainage systems onto

or across WPAs. See Appendix N for a copy of the Litchfield WMD drainage policy. In

summary, legitimate drainage maintenance will be allowed to the original scope and

effect of the drainage system. No new drainage will be allowed.
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

44

Chapter 4: Management Direction

Litchfield Wetland Management District

This chapter of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan steps

down overall guidance to the District through station

specific objectives and strategies. Some objectives and

strategies are unique to the Litchfield Wetland Management

District while others are shared in common with the other

Minnesota Districts. All objectives and strategies were

developed to achieve the Plan’s goals, the District’s purpose

and the National Wildlife Refuge System’s mission (Chapters 1 and 2).

The Litchfield Wetland Management District was established in 1978 to manage tracts purchased under the Small

Wetlands Acquisition Program. The District manages 148

WPAs covering more than 33,000 acres of fee title lands and

417 easements covering 33,213 acres (Figure 10). These

tracts are scattered throughout seven central counties of

Minnesota. The District has proposed 102 Conservation

Easements on land on the inventory of the Farmers Home

Administration in 16 counties covering 7,166 acres to date;

36 of these easements totaling 2,871 acres have been recorded.

District lands include portions of the northern mixed forest,

eastern hardwood forest, oak savanna, and tallgrass prairie

biomes. Soils, precipitation, climate, water quality, and land use vary greatly but

essentially all areas have been significantly altered and degraded by human activities.

Major Habitat Types of Waterfowl Production Areas in the Litchfield Wetland

Management District (in acres)

Native prairie (virgin) 2,653

Other grasslands/farmland 14,310

Forested/brushland 2,969

Wetland/riverine 13,281

Total 33,213

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 4 / Management Direction

45

Management Direction

Wildlife and Habitat

Goal 1: Wildlife

Strive to preserve and maintain diversity and increase the abundance of waterfowl and other key wildlife

species in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem. Seek sustainable solutions to the impact of Canada

Geese on adjacent private croplands. Preserve, restore, and enhance resident wildlife populations where

compatible with waterfowl and the preservation of other trust species.

Objective 1.1: Objective 1.1: U Objective 1.1: pdate MAAPE Process. The District will request that the

Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) review the

Multi-agency Approach to Planning and Evaluation (MAAPE)

Figure 10: Litchfield Wetland Management District
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

46

process every 5 years to incorporate monitoring results and

reevaluate strategies for increasing waterfowl production within

the Districts.

Strategy 1.1.1: Contact HAPET within 1 year of Plan approval

and formally request that the 4-square-mile

study be revised to include all of the District.

Strategy 1.1.2: Contact HAPET within 1 year of Plan approval

and formally request that the 4-square-mile

study output reports be modified so waterfowl

production estimates reflect actual production

within the Wetland Management District, not

non-District areas and counties.

Objective 1.2: Objective 1.2: A Objective 1.2: lternative Waterfowl Monitoring. The District will develop

alternative monitoring techniques within 3 years of Plan approval

for waterfowl abundance and productivity estimates in areas that

are not well-covered by the 4-square-mile monitoring program.

These estimates should be developed in cooperation with the

HAPET office since the current 4-square-mile data is used in the

mallard model and forms the basis of the MAAPE process.

Strategy 1.2.1: Hire a wildlife biologist to initiate and conduct a

monitoring program for the District with specific

emphasis on biologically sound monitoring of

waterfowl populations. RONS Project No.0042

Strategy 1.2.2: Work with other districts and appropriate

partners to develop Flexible Fund project

proposal(s) through the Headwaters Ecosystem

Team for a 3-year study of dabbling duck habitat

preferences, use rates, and nesting success.

Submit to appropriate fund managers for review

within 3 years of Plan approval.

Strategy 1.2.3: Work with other districts and appropriate

partners to develop a Flexible Fund project

proposal through the Headwaters Ecosystem

Team for a study of waterfowl predator population ranges and densities within the tallgrass

prairie area of western Minnesota. Submit to

appropriate fund managers for review within 6

years of Plan approval.

Strategy 1.2.4: Develop and implement a comprehensive inventory/monitoring plan for waterfowl and grassland

birds of concern in the District. RONS Projects

No. 00034 and No. 0042.

Objective 1.3: Objective 1.3: R Objective 1.3: ecruitment Rate. Litchfield Wetland Management District staff

will strive to increase the recruitment rate for mallards and bluewing teal on District WPAs by 10 percent by the year 2010.
Chapter 4 / Management Direction

47

Strategy 1.3.1: A request will be made to HAPET within 1 year

of Plan approval to determine average recruitment rates for mallards and blue-wing teal on

District WPAs.

Strategy 1.3.2: Recruitment rates will be increased by annually

converting 500 acres of cropland to grassland

within the District. RONS Project Nos. 00025,

00004, 00006, 00061

Strategy 1.3.3: The District will strive to provide secure nesting

conditions for waterfowl such that average nest

success exceeds 15 percent Mayfield Index on

District WPAs.

Strategy 1.3.4: Implement other methods of increasing recruitment rates and nest success that are supported

by scientific studies.

Strategy 1.3.5: The District will continue to maintain and

monitor all existing structures and relocate

structures that have not been used for 5 successive years.

Objective 1.4: Objective 1.4: V Objective 1.4: iolations. Each year, the District will inspect all WPA, FmHA

Conservation, Habitat, and Waterfowl Production Easements for

compliance to insure protection of migratory waterfowl and other

habitats. Any illegal activity will be responded to within 2 weeks

of discovery. Any illegal modifications to wetlands, habitat,

boundaries, or facilities will be restored as soon as possible.

Strategy 1.4.1: Additional enforcement staff and funding for

support services such as aircraft rental and

photographs will be requested. RONS Project

Nos. 97026, No. 98015, No. 00009

Strategy 1.4.2: A volunteer, volunteer coordinator will be

recruited. If an appropriate person is found, a

program to find, train, and support a team of

volunteers who will inspect designated WPAs on

a regular schedule will be implemented.

Objective 1.5: Objective 1.5: W Objective 1.5: orking With Partners. The District will cooperate with USDA,

Minnesota DNR and other local, watershed, lake owner, and

conservation groups in projects and programs that increase

waterfowl habitat and production.

Strategy 1.5.1: Continue existing partnerships and programs

that benefit Service goals.

Strategy 1.5.2: Expand District activities by finding new partners and projects that benefit Service goals.

RONS Project No. 00009
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

48

Objective 1.6: Objective 1.6: D Objective 1.6: evelop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the

Minnesota DNR that clearly articulates the responsibilities of

Wetland Management Districts for the handling of landowner

complaints originating from geese on WPA wetlands.

Strategy 1.6.1: Allocate staff resources to work cooperatively

with the Minnesota DNR to address goose

complaints originating from Service lands as

outlined in the agreed-to Memorandum.

Goal 2: Habitat

Restore native prairie plant communities of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem using local ecotypes

of seed and maintain the vigor of these stands through natural processes. Restore functioning wetland

complexes and maintain the cyclic productivity of wetlands. Continue efforts for long-term solutions to

the problem of invasive species with increased emphasis on biological control to minimize damage to

aquatic and terrestrial communities. Continue efforts to better define the role of each District in assisting

private landowners with wetland, upland and riparian restorations.

Objective 2.1: Objective 2.1: Prairie Restoration. Restore an average of 500 acres of recently

acquired fee title land to native seeded grassland species each

year. Begin seeding all new acquisitions within 2 years of purchase. Seed a diverse mix of predominantly native grasses and

forbes using the ecotype recommendations of the Ecosystem subteam. Replicate, to the greatest extent possible, the structure,

species composition, and processes of native ecological communities in the tallgrass prairie to improve migratory bird habitat and

improve existing soil and water quality within respective watersheds. Judiciously use non-native plantings when desirable to

meet waterfowl and migratory bird population objectives.

Strategy 2.1.1: Obtain sufficient funding through Service programs and Partner contributions to establish

harvestable fields capable of annually providing

enough native ecotype grass and forb seed to

plant 800 acres. RONS Project Nos. 00025, 00004

Strategy 2.1.2: Obtain sufficient funding to provide adequate

staff, equipment, and facilities to annually

harvest, clean, and store enough grass and forb

seed to plant 800 acres.

Objective 2.2: Objective 2.2: Grassland Management. Renovate and seed or interseed 300

acres of existing grasslands to improve diversity and vigor.

Strategy 2.2.1: Obtain sufficient funding to obtain enough staff,

equipment, and herbicide to renovate or

interseed 300 acres of existing grasslands to a

native ecotype grasses and forbes. RONS

Project Nos. 00027, 00061, 00025, 00044, 00004
Chapter 4 / Management Direction

49

Objective 2.3: Objective 2.3: Prescribed Burn. Annually plan and conduct prescribed burns on

2,000 acres to maintain and restore native prairie plant species, to

improve waterfowl and wildlife utilization, and to prepare selected sites for native seed harvest.

Strategy 2.3.1: Develop cooperative agreements with local fire

departments to assist the District in achieving

annual burn goals.

Objective 2.4: Objective 2.4: WPA Wetl Objective 2.4: and Restoration. Restore all non-co-owned wetlands on

WPAs within 1 year of Service purchase. Restore an average of

175 wetland basins on District and private land annually to serve

migratory birds as migration, breeding, and nesting habitat.

Strategy 2.4.1: All potential wetland restoration sites on newly

acquired tracts will be surveyed no later than 6

months after Service take over.

Strategy 2.4.2: Obtain sufficient funding to provide adequate

staff, equipment and money to restore all WPA

wetlands. RONS Project Nos. 00017, 00003,

00045

Strategy 2.4.3: Allow for restoration of one or two large private

wetlands (average of 75-plus acres each) annually

by seeking funds and hiring staff to conduct the

extensive planning, landowner contacts, coordination with partners, design, permitting and

monitoring of construction necessary for successful completion. RONS Project No. 00036

Objective 2.5: Objective 2.5: Co-owned Wetland Restoration. Restore as many co-owned

wetlands adjacent to WPAs as possible.

Strategy 2.5.1: All landowners who own more than 3 acres of

restorable wetlands that are co-owned with a

newly acquired fee title tract and all landowners

who co-own any portion of restorable wetlands

larger than 3 acres that are partially located on a

newly acquired fee title tract will be contacted

and offered wetland and upland easements within

2 years of Service take over. RONS Project

Nos.00017, 00045

Objective 2.6: Objective 2.6: M Objective 2.6: anagement. Annually draw the water down on at least onefourth of the wetlands that have built-in water control structures

to increase vegetation and nutrient recycling for the benefit of

waterfowl.

Strategy 2.6.1: Inspect and repair all District water control

structures with draw down capability.

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

50

Strategy 2.6.2: Obtain bottom contours and watershed maps for

all wetlands with draw down capability. RONS

Project No.00001

Strategy 2.6.3: Develop and implement a plan of rotational

drawdowns for all wetlands where drawdowns

would increase wetland value to waterfowl or

threatened or endangered species.

Objective 2.7: Objective 2.7: Mon Objective 2.7: itoring. Inventory hydrological systems in the Districts as

identified in the monitoring plan, including chemical water

analysis, water level, water flow and the interaction of Federal

land and private land within the watershed.

Strategy 2.7.1: Annually inspect wetlands with water control

structures and determine management actions

needed to improve marsh productivity as brood

rearing and breeding habitat for migratory birds.

Strategy 2.7.2: Conduct regular surveys of water conditions

within the Districts as identified in the Monitoring Plan. RONS Project No. 00034

Strategy 2.7.3: Monitor the impact of wetlands on hydrology

within the watershed as identified in the Monitoring Plan. RONS Project Nos. 00034, 00013

Strategy 2.7.4: Conduct water analysis to monitor changes in

contaminants and other key chemicals over time

as identified in the Monitoring Plan. RONS

Project Nos. 00034, 00013

Objective 2.8: Objective 2.8: Management. Increase use of hydrological data gathering in the

overall management of the Districts following the guidance

developed in the Monitoring Plan.

Strategy 2.8.1: Have annual meetings for Managers and Biologists throughout the Districts to share information, techniques, and results.

Strategy 2.8.2: The District Biologist should summarize hydrological data in an annual report and identify how

the hydrological data can be incorporated in

management decisions for the benefit of waterfowl and other target populations.

Strategy 2.8.3: The District Biologist should monitor contaminants in the wetlands within the District on a

regular basis as outlined in the Monitoring Plan.

RONS Project No. 00034

Objective 2.9: Objective 2.9: Plant Control. Reduce exotic plants including noxious weeds on

all state and county lists through an aggressive program including

biological control, burning, mowing, chemical treatment, hand
Chapter 4 / Management Direction

51

cropping, and interseeding. Primary targets include purple

loosestrife, Canada thistle, and leafy spurge.

Strategy 2.9.1: Dedicate sufficient amounts of District staff,

funding, and equipment so that 90 percent of

weed complaints are responded to within 1

working day.

Strategy 2.9.2: Obtain sufficient staff, funding, and equipment so

that the sites of all valid weed complaints receive

appropriate long-term corrective actions no later

than 12 months after the complaint is received.

RONS Project No. 00044

Objective 2.10: Objective 2.10: Biological Control. Increase emphasis on biological control

whenever feasible.

Strategy 2.10.1: The District will continue to release beetles for

control of spurge and loosestrife until all problem

areas have sufficient self sustaining populations

to control invasive species.

Strategy 2.10.2: The District will monitor ongoing experimental

biological control studies for Canada thistle and

actively lobby for release/study sites on suitable

WPA locations.

Goal 3: Acquisition

Within current acquisition acreage goals, identify the highest priority acres for acquisition taking into

account block size and waterfowl productivity data. These priority areas should drive acquisition efforts

whenever possible. Service land acquisition should have no negative impact on net revenues to local

government. Understand and communicate the economic effects of federal land ownership on local

communities.

Objective 3.1: Objective 3.1: E Objective 3.1: valuating Acquisition Priority. Review and update the current

acquisition guidelines within 18 months of Plan approval. Acquisition strategies for future acquisitions within the Districts will be

based on site potential. Consideration should be given to size,

quality, key species affected, habitat fragmentation, landscape

scale complexes, potential productivity of restored wetlands, etc.

Strategy 3.1.1: Delineations of proposed acquisitions will consider acquisition guidelines that highlight the

biological and management factors to be considered.

Strategy 3.1.2: Delineation Biologist. Hire a wildlife biologist to

conduct ongoing evaluations of private lands

within the WMD including delineation of specific

tracts for purchase or protection. RONS Project

No. 00036
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

52

Objective 3.2: Objective 3.2: Goal Acres. Within 10 years of Plan approval, conduct a biological

assessment to determine if current goal acres will be sufficient to

reach waterfowl recruitment objectives for the District.

Strategy 3.2.1: Work with interested partners to develop a

research project to determine relationship of goal

acres to recruitment objectives and submit for

Challenge Grant or North American funding.

Objective 3.3: Objective 3.3: Coordination. The District will coordinate with the District

Acquisition Office to insure rapid response to willing sellers with

property that meets acquisition priorities. An offer will be made

to the seller within 90 days of the seller providing all necessary

information to the Wetland Acquisition Office.

Strategy 3.3.1: The Wetland Manager will ask the Acquisition

Office to initiate a Realty action no later than 30

days after being contacted and provided with all

necessary information by a person who owns land

that the Manager wishes to purchase.

Strategy 3.3.2: The District will request the Regional Office to

provide the Wetland Acquisition Office with

sufficient staffing and support so they are able to

make offers to willing sellers no more than 60

days after receiving a request for a realty action

from Wetland Managers.

Objective 3.4: Objective 3.4: Acqu Objective 3.4: isition. The District will meet current goal acres within 30

years by annually acquiring an average of 1,800 acres in fee title

and 1,700 acres of wetland easements. This objective will be

changed as appropriate if goal acres are modified.

Strategy 3.4.1: The District will work with the Litchfield Wetland Acquisition Office and the Regional Office to

develop efficient systems to identify and delineate priority tracts, contact and negotiate with

owners, initiate appraisals, track progress, and

close cases in a timely, customer service oriented

manner.

Strategy 3.4.2: The District will work with neighbors and local

governmental units to resolve objections to

Service acquisitions.

Objective 3.5: Objective 3.5: Advocate 100 percent of revenue sharing and a lump sum payment for past underpayment through a trust fund to the counties.

Strategy 3.5.1: Work with the Washington Office and External

Affairs to develop a one-page fact sheet about

Revenue Sharing to hand out to the public.
Chapter 4 / Management Direction

53

Objective 3.6: Objective 3.6: Co Objective 3.6: nduct a study that would provide the following information to

managers so that they can better communicate the issue to the

public:

■ A graph of revenue sharing for the last 20 years.

■ A detailed explanation of the impact of Federal ownership on

school taxes.

Strategy 3.6.1: Work with the Regional Realty Office to research

and prepare reports on the above topics within 2

years of Plan approval.

Objective 3.7: Objective 3.7: Determine local economic value of Federal land ownership.

Strategy 3.7.1: Work with the Regional Realty Office to research

and prepare a report on this topic. Seek Flexible

Fund funding with support from interested

partners if contracted experts are required.

Objective 3.8: Objective 3.8: Demonstrate the hydrologic benefits of restored wetlands;

determine cash value of wetland values.

Strategy 3.8.1: Work with interested partners such as Ducks

Unlimited and the Minnesota Waterfowl Association to develop Flexible Fund proposals for this

project.

Objective 3.9: Objective 3.9: D Objective 3.9: etermine social value of natural habitat in the landscape.

Determine the importance of wildlife to people in a community.

Strategy 3.9.1: Work with University of Minnesota researchers

and professors to determine a cost effective

method for collecting, analyzing, and reporting

these data.

Goal 4: Monitoring Goal

Collect baseline information on plants, fish and wildlife and monitor critical parameters and trends of key

species and/or species groups on and around District units. Promote the use of coordinated, standardized, cost effective, and defensible methods for gathering and analyzing habitat and population data.

Management decisions will be based on the resulting data.

Objective 4.1: Objective 4.1: Inventory and Monitoring Workshop: Conduct an inventory and

monitoring workshop within 3 years of Plan approval with

recognized researchers in the field to identify monitoring needs,

approaches, strategies and target species.

Strategy 4.1.1: Work with Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass

Prairie Ecosystem Team and the Biological

Resources Division of USGS to plan workshop.
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

54

Objective 4.2: Objective 4.2: Inventory and Monitoring Plan. Within 18 months of Plan approval (or the hiring of a wildlife biologist), develop an Inventory

and Monitoring Plan that will identify census needs and appropriate techniques as part of a coordinated monitoring program that

will be used to evaluate species richness within the Districts by

developing species data and accounts on selected sites.

Strategy 4.2.1: Hire a wildlife biologist to assume responsibility

of the increased inventory and monitoring

program for the District. RONS Project No.

00042

Objective 4.3: Objective 4.3: In Objective 4.3: crease the use of biological data in the overall management of

the Districts by fulfilling the actions identified in the Inventory

and Monitoring Plan and the following:

Strategy 4.3.1: Obtain a GS-11/12 wildlife biologist and sufficient

funding and support staff to develop and implement plans. RONS Project Nos. 00042, 00002

Strategy 4.3.2: Have annual meetings for biologists and field

personnel to share information, techniques and

results of management strategies on target

populations.

Strategy 4.3.3: The biologist should summarize data concerning

the impact of management strategies on target

species and present to management so decisions

can be based on monitoring information.

Objective 4.4: Objective 4.4: Biological Inventory. As part of the Inventory and Monitoring

Plan, inventory the biological resources on the Districts within 7

years of Plan approval. RONS Projects Nos. 00042, 00034

Objective 4.5: Objective 4.5: Breeding Birds. Conduct regular surveys of breeding grassland

and wetland migratory birds. Include information on reproductive

success as well as abundance following techniques identified in

the Inventory and Monitoring Plan.

Strategy 4.5.1: Hire biologist and temporary biological technicians to oversee increased inventory and monitoring programs. RONS Project Nos. 00042,

00034

Goal 5: Endangered Species / Unique Communities

Preserve enhance, and restore rare native northern tallgrass prairie, flora and fauna that are or may

become endangered. Where feasible in both ecological and social/economic terms, reintroduce native

species on WPAs in cooperation with the Minnesota DNR.

Objective 5.1: Objective 5.1: Threatened and Endangered Species. Identify and survey

threatened and endangered species within the District looking

specifically for species of special interest to the Service.
Chapter 4 / Management Direction

55

Strategy 5.1.1: Hire biologist and temporary biological technicians to oversee increased inventory and monitoring programs. RONS Project Nos. 00042,

00034

Objective 5.2: Objective 5.2: Invertebrates. Conduct regular surveys of invertebrate communities in grassland and wetland communities following the approaches identified in the Inventory and Monitoring Plan.

Strategy 5.2.1: Hire biologist and temporary biological technicians to oversee increased inventory and monitoring programs. RONS Project Nos. 00042,

00034

Objective 5.3: Objective 5.3: Research. Encourage and cooperate in research that will further

our understanding about management and habitat manipulations

on the District.

Strategy 5.3.1: Hire biologist and temporary biological technicians to oversee increased inventory and monitoring programs. RONS Project Nos. 00042,

00034

Objective 5.4: Objective 5.4: Partners for Fish and Wildlife. With the Partners for Fish and

Wildlife staff in the Regional Office, develop clear guidance for

upland and riparian restoration work so each District is managing

the program consistently.

Strategy 5.4.1: Develop and adhere to written guidance for cost

sharing, force account work, weed control, and

other Service expenditures on private land.

Objective 5.5: Objective 5.5: Inventory and Monitoring. The District will identify the location

of endangered and threatened species within the District boundaries through the Inventory and Monitoring Plan. The Districts

will obtain baseline data including maps of all federally-listed

endangered and threatened species as soon as sufficient funding

is received.

Strategy 5.5.1: Hire a biologist and temporary biological technicians to oversee increased inventory and monitoring programs. RONS Project Nos. 00042,

00034

Objective 5.6: Objective 5.6: Management. The Districts will protect and enhance populations

of endangered, threatened, and special emphasis species that are

indigenous on District land. Management applications applied to

these areas will be tailored to meet species management needs.

Strategy 5.6.1: Conduct annual meetings for biologists and field

personnel to share information, techniques and

results of management strategies on target

populations.

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

56

Strategy 5.6.2: The biologist should summarize data concerning

the impact of management strategies on target

species and present data to management so

decisions can be based on monitoring information.

Objective 5.7: Objective 5.7: C Objective 5.7: ooperation. The Districts will work with partners and other

agencies to develop specific plans for target species occurring

within the Districts.

Objective 5.8: Objective 5.8: Enforcement. The District will enforce all Endangered Species

and Migratory Bird Treaty Act regulations within the District

through increased contacts with hunters, neighbors and visitors.

Strategy 5.8.1: Additional enforcement staff and funding for

support services such as aircraft rental and

photographs will be requested. RONS Project

Nos. 97026, 98015

Strategy 5.8.2: Locations of endangered plant species and areas

used by or critical to endangered plant or animal

species will be entered into the GIS data base.

Maps of these locations will be provided to all

District staff members so frequent monitoring

can occur. RONS Project No.00001

Objective 5.9: Objective 5.9: Monitoring. The District will obtain baseline data including maps

of all federally-listed endangered and threatened species as well

as all native prairie tracts, calcareous fens and oak savannah

within 2 years of Plan approval.

Objective 5.10: Objective 5.10: Cooperation. The District will identify threatened Northern

Tallgrass Prairie unique communities and work through the

Tallgrass Prairie Habitat Preservation Area project partners or

other agencies and partners to acquire in fee title or protect

through easement lands where the Small Wetlands Acquisition

Program is not appropriate. All remaining native prairie remnants within the District will be identified within 3 years of Plan

approval and strategies for their protection will be developed

within 5 years of Plan approval.

Objective 5.11: Objective 5.11: Identify, evaluate, and prioritize opportunities to reintroduce

native species documenting the needs in a plan within 4 years of

Plan approval.

Objective 5.12: Objective 5.12: W Objective 5.12: ithin 8 years of Plan approval, begin a reintroduction program

to reintroduce one species per year until all goal species identified

under Objective 13A are reintroduced.

Objective 5.13: Objective 5.13: M Objective 5.13: onitoring. Monitor the levels of external threats to the Waterfowl Production Units such as soil erosion, incoming water

quality, pesticide use, and contaminants as identified in the

Inventory and Monitoring Plan.
Chapter 4 / Management Direction

57

Objective 5.14: Objective 5.14: C Objective 5.14: ooperation. The District will cooperate with state wildlife offices

and local organizations to provide winter food sources on documented wintering areas to benefit resident species of wildlife.

Strategy 5.14.1: Feeders authorized under special use permits

will be allowed on WPAs where a demonstrated

need for supplemental feeding exists.

Strategy 5.14.2: Woody plantings may be authorized under special

use permits on sites not suitable for native

ecotype prairie plantings. Only woody species

that will not invade prairie habitats will be

allowed.

Objective 5.15: Objective 5.15: Enf Objective 5.15: orcement. The Districts will prohibit the introduction of

wildlife species that are not native to the Northern Tallgrass

Prairie Ecosystem.

Objective 5.16: Objective 5.16: Develop p Objective 5.16: riority actions to be implemented by the Partners for

Fish and Wildlife Program with the strategies to be developed in

a joint effort within 3 years of Plan approval with the Regional

Office taking the lead and responsibility for the documentation.

People

Goal 6: Public Use / Environmental Education

Provide opportunities for the public to use the WPAs in a way that promotes understanding and appreciation of the Prairie Pothole Region. Promote greater understanding and awareness of the Wetland

Management District’s programs, goals, and objectives. Advance stewardship and understanding of the

Prairie Pothole Region through environmental education, outreach and partnership development.

Objective 6.1: Objective 6.1: The Wetland Management District will strive to meet the National Visitor Service Standards for the Refuge System within 5

years of Plan approval.

Strategy 6.1.1: Prepare and submit a construction project

submittal to provide an office/visitor center with

appropriate funding for exhibits, supplies, and

equipment to meet the National Standards.

Strategy 6.1.2: Develop a Visitor Services Plan and Public Use

Plan for the District within the 12-month period

preceding construction of the new office/visitor

contact center.

Objective 6.2: Objective 6.2: By Objective 6.2: June 2002 designate a Waterfowl Production Area in each

county that can provide a handicapped-accessible hunting or

wildlife viewing facility.

Strategy 6.2.1: Work with interested partners to develop a

Flexible Fund proposal and develop at least one

USFWS Photograph
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

58

facility on a District WPA that meets all Service

standards 18 months after adequate funding is

obtained.

Strategy 6.2.2: Advocate for a full-time Public Use Specialist to

develop and administer a quality public use

program on the District. RONS Project No.00029

Objective 6.3: Objective 6.3: Develop maps for each Wetland Management District that can be

easily provided upon request by the public within 2 years of Plan

approval.

Strategy 6.3.1: Adapt the Windom GIS-generated maps as the

standard for all Minnesota Districts. RONS

Project No.00001

Strategy 6.3.2: Obtain printers and computers that are capable

of quickly making full-sized maps at a reasonable

cost.

Objective 6.4: Objective 6.4: D Objective 6.4: evelop an outreach plan for each District following the Public

Use Plan developed by Fergus Falls Wetland Management

District 12 months after a Public Use Specialist/Outdoor Recreation Specialist reports to the District. RONS Project No.00029

Objective 6.5: Objective 6.5: Prom Objective 6.5: ote greater understanding of the District program; implement the Public Use Plan for each District 18 months after a

Public Use Specialist/Outdoor Recreation Specialist reports to

the District. RONS Project No.00029

Objective 6.6: Objective 6.6: Provide Objective 6.6: 2,500 environmental education visits per year on the

District within 10 years of Plan approval.

Operations

Goal 7: Development Plan

Preparation of WPA Development Plans: Complete Geographic Information System (GIS) based WPA

Development Plans for each unit in each District. Provide Districts with GIS to assist with acquisition,

restoration, management and protection of public and private lands.

Objective 7.1: Objective 7.1: All existing WPAs will have GIS-based Development Plans

completed by within 7 years of Plan approval.

Objective 7.2: Objective 7.2: All newly acquired land is covered by a GIS-based Unit Plan

within 2 years of the Service taking possession of the area.

Strategy 7.2.1: Train all District management staff in appropriate GIS techniques and mid-level computer skills

through formal classes and informal, staff-led

instruction.
Chapter 4 / Management Direction

59

Objective 7.3: Objective 7.3: Increase use of GIS technology in monitoring habitat and wildlife.

Strategy 7.3.1: Train all District management staff in appropriate GIS techniques and mid-level computer skills

through formal classes and informal staff led

instruction.

Objective 7.4: Objective 7.4: Complete entry of WPA and easement ownership boundaries

within 2 years of Plan approval. Enter habitat, facility and

management accomplishment layers for all Districts within 4

years of Plan approval and update future inventory and management information in a timely manner.

Strategy 7.4.1: Hire or extend seasonal employee(s) to function

as GIS Data Entry Technician by 2002. RONS

Project No. 00002

Objective 7.5: Objective 7.5: Maintain District Objective 7.5: computers and provide computer training to

District staff.

Strategy 7.5.1: Hire a full-time Computer Support/GIS Administrator by 2003.

Goal 8: Support Staff, Facilities and Equipment

Provide necessary levels of maintenance, technician and administrative support staff to achieve other

Wetland Management District goals: Provide all Districts with adequate and safe office, maintenance and

equipment storage facilities Acquire adequate equipment and vehicles to achieve other District goals.

Maintain District equipment and vehicles at or above Service standards.

Objective 8.1: Objective 8.1: Identify all buildings that do not meet Service standards or needs

by 2002.

Objective 8.2: Objective 8.2: Replace or modify all buildings that do not meet Service standards or needs within 15 years of Plan approval.

Strategy 8.2.1: District staff will survey all District buildings and

prepare RONS, construction and/or MMS

requests to replace or repair all buildings that do

not meet Service standards or needs. RONS

Project Nos. 00045, 00046

Objective 8.3: Objective 8.3: Ensure that all Wetland District vehicles are replaced when their

mileage reaches normal industry replacement standards (6 years

or 60,000).

Strategy 8.3.1: District staff will monitor vehicle mileages and

prepare MMS requests to replace worn vehicles

at appropriate intervals.
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

60

Goal 9: Annual Capital Development Funds

Ensure that annual capital development funds are large enough to meet necessary development of new

WPA land: Have adequate funds available each year to permit completion of maintenance needs for each

Wetland Districts current land base of Waterfowl Production Areas.

Objective 9.1: Objective 9.1: Educate and provide adequate information to Regional, Washington, departmental and congressional staffs of need for capital

improvement funding of an ongoing acquisition program.

Strategy 9.1.1: Identify costs of adding new land to Operating

and Maintenance budgets and submit report to

Program Supervisor within 2 years of approval.

Strategy 9.1.2: A Filemaker Pro data base template will be

developed for Project leaders to track and report

the costs associated with new acquisitions.

Strategy 9.1.3: Obtain annual funding for habitat restoration on

newly acquired lands including building site

demolition and cleanup, fence removal, well

sealing, and habitat restoration. RONS Projects

Nos. 00022, 00025, 00012, 00017

Objective 9.2: Objective 9.2: M Objective 9.2: aintain a current inventory of all maintenance needs and

estimated costs.

Strategy 9.2.1: A Filemaker Pro data base template will be

developed for Project leaders to track and report

maintenance needs and costs.

Strategy 9.2.2: District maintenance data bases will be posted on

the Service intranet no later than 2 years following Plan approval and in preceding years will be

annually updated and posted no later than

February 28 each year.

Goal 10: Consistency

Develop and apply consistent policies for habitat, public use, and resource protection and ensure frequent

coordination among Districts, both in Minnesota and in neighboring states with WPAs (North and South

Dakota, Iowa, and Wisconsin).

Objective 10.1: Objective 10.1: Q Objective 10.1: uarterly coordination meetings for the Districts will be held to

discuss common issues and practices. The meetings will include

all District managers and District supervisors.

Strategy 10.1.1: To minimize scheduling conflicts, meeting dates

and locations will be set one year in advance

(suggest Wednesday afternoon and Thursday

morning on last week in January, April, July, and

October, at Alexandria with one District “hosting” each meeting.)
Chapter 4 / Management Direction

61

Objective 10.2: Objective 10.2: Once a year a regional meeting will be held to compare notes with

managers in Region 6 and other Wetland Management Districts

in Region 3 that are not included in this Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Strategy 10.2.1: Set meeting on a standard date and location to

minimize scheduling conflicts.
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

62

Chapter 5: Implementation and Monitoring

Essential Staffing, Mission-Critical Projects and Major

Maintenance Needs

The Service relies on two systems to track the needs of the

Wetland Management Districts and other units of the National

Wildlife Refuge System. These systems are the Refuge Operating Needs System and the Maintenance Management System.

Each station has scores of projects in each system, representing

a need which is often beyond the realities of funding. However,

each station has identified its most critical needs which form a

realistic assessment of funding needed to meet many of the

goals, objectives, and strategies identified in the CCP. These

needs also form the basis for the President’s budget request to

Congress. These critical needs are listed below in the categories

of essential staff, mission-critical projects, and major maintenance projects. A complete listing of projects in the Operating

Needs System is found in Appendix F and it represents the longterm needs of the Litchfield Wetland Management District to

operate at optimum levels.

Essential Staffing Needs

Wildlife Biologist

Visitor Services Specialist

Equipment Operator

Mission-Critical Projects

Farming and Native Prairie Restoration Operations Support

Native Prairie Restoration

Wetlands Restoration

Water Level Management

Visitor Services

Major Maintenance Projects

Repair Maintenance Building

Repair WPA Fences

Replace Tractor

16 Additional Projects

Serving People

Rehabilitate Recreational Facilities

Total Funding Needs: $1,671,00

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 5 / Implementation and Monitoring

63

Figure 11: Staffing Chart

Wildlife Biologist - PL GS-486-11 Fire Mgmt Officer GS-401-11 Wildlife Bio GS-486-11

Maint Worker WG-4749-8

Eng Equp Op WG-5716-10 Park Ranger (LE) GS-0025-9

Bio Sci Tech (W/L) GS-404-7 Bio Sci Tech (W/L) GS-0404-7

Refuge Ops Spec GS-485-9 Refuge Ops Spec GS-485-9

Refuge Ops Spec GS-485-12 Admin Tech GS-303-7

Refuge Manager GS-485-13

32588
Litchfield Wetland Management District CCP

64

Step-down Management Plans

Existing Step-Down plans that only need a slight modification to implement the

direction of the CCP include the following:

Plan Completion Date by December of: Completion Date by December of:

WPA Development Plans Updated annually as lands are acquired

Predator Management Plan Done

Law Enforcement Plan Done

Fire Management Plan Done

Wildlife Inventory Plan 2003

Water Management Plan 2005

The draft list of Step-Down Management Plans necessary to implement the direction

of the CCP include:

Plan Completion Date by December of: Completion Date by December of:

Public Use Mgt. Plan 2005

Grassland Mgt. Plan 2004

Forest Mgt. Plan 2006

A cultural resource management plan will also be prepared to meet the requirements

of Section 14 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and Section 110(a)(2) of

the National Historic Preservation Act.

Partnership Opportunities

We plan to maintain and foster partnerships with a wide variety of organizations,

government agencies and school districts.

Within the Private Lands Program, the Refuge maintains partnerships with the

following governments, agencies, and organizations:

State Agencies

Minnesota DNR Divisions; Wildlife, Fisheries, Waters, Forestry, Parks, Trails and

Waterways, Ecological Services and Law Enforcement.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Minnesota Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources

Local Governments

Stearns, Meeker, Kandiyohi, Todd, Renville, McLeod, and Wright county governments

including the following offices: County Commissioners; Land & Natural Resource

Office (Ditch and Weed Inspector, Wetland Conservation Act Coordinator); Soil and

Water Conservation District; County Highway Engineer; Planning and Zoning.

Shakopee Watershed District Rice Lake Association

Chippewa River Watershed District Dunn/Richardson Lake Assoc.

Clearwater River Watershed District Florida Lake Assoc.

Crow River Organization of Water Clear Lake Assoc.

City of Willmar City of Litchfield
Chapter 5 / Implementation and Monitoring

65

Federal Agencies:

Corps of Engineers

Natural Resource Conservation Service (eight county offices and two area offices)

Farm Service Agency (eight county offices)

Private Groups:

Prairie Woods Learning Center Ducks Unlimited

Minnesota Waterfowl Assoc. Paynesville Sportsmen Club

Brownton Rod and Gun Club Minnesota Audubon

Pheasants Forever Minnesota Deer Hunters

Delta Waterfowl Assoc. The Nature Conservancy

Vermillion Community College

School Districts:

Litchfield Community Schools Dassel/Cokato Community Schools

We will seek to develop partnerships with additional public and private groups as

opportunities arise.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring is critical to successful implementation of this plan. Monitoring is necessary to evaluate the progress toward objectives and to determine if conditions are

changing.

Accomplishment of the objectives described in this CCP will be monitored annually by

the District Manager’s supervisor. Successful performance will be tied to the accomplishment of objectives that are scheduled for that year. The public will be informed

about the activities of the District staff through news releases and information on

each District’s web site.

The techniques and details for monitoring related to specific objectives will be specified in the Inventory and Monitoring Step Down Plan.

Substantial changes are likely to occur within the Service and the local community

during the next 15 years. The Plan and its objectives will be examined at least every 5

years to determine if any modifications are necessary to meet the changing conditions.

Appendix

67

Appendices

Appendix A: Appendix A: Authority and Legal Compliance

Appendix B: Appendix B: Prio Appendix B: rity Bird Species

Appendix C: Appendix C: Species List

Appendix D: Appendix D: National Wetlands Inventory – Minnesota Counties Wetland Types

Appendix E: Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

Appendix F: Appendix F: RONS List

Appendix G: Appendix G: Ex Appendix G: isting Partnerships

Appendix H: Appendix H: Glossary

Appendix I: Appendix I: Bibliography

Appendix J: Appendix J: List of Preparers

Appendix K: Appendix K: Guidance for Acquisition

Appendix L: Appendix L: Goal Acres

Appendix M: Appendix M: E Appendix M: nvironmental Assessment

Appendix N: Appendix N: Drainage Policy

Appendix O: Appendix O: D Appendix O: isposition of Public Comments on the Draft CCP

Appendix A: Authority and Legal Compliance

69

Appendix A: Authority and Legal Compliance

Appendix A: Authority and Legal Compliance

71

Appendix A

Authority And Legal Compliance

Wetland Management Districts Legal Mandate

The Migratory Bird Conservation Act was established on February 18, 1929, (45 Stat.

1222), as amended, 16 (U.S.C. 715d, 715e, 715f, to 715k and 715l to 715r). The Act

provides for the acquisition of lands determined to be suitable as an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds.

The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934 was amended in 1958 and

authorized the “...acquisition by gift, devise, lease, purchase, or exchange of, small

wetland and pothole areas, interest therein, and right-of-way to provide access

thereto. Such small areas to be designated as ‘Waterfowl Productions Areas’, may be

acquired without regard to the limitations and requirements of the Migratory Bird

Conservation Act,...”

“...As Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “...all of the provisions of such

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

Hunting and Conservation Stamp).

Mandate for FMHa Easements and Fee title Transfers. .”...for conservation purposes...” 7 U.S.C. at 2002 (Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act).

Legal Context

In addition to the 1958 Ammendment to the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 16 U.S.C. 718 (d) (c) and the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997, the legal and policy guidance for the operation of national

wildlife refuges are contained in the following documents or acts:

The work done by the Fish and Wildlife Service is largely mandated by a number of

laws (Acts) and Executive Orders which pertain to the conservation and protection of

natural and cultural resources. Those Acts and Executive Orders which are most

important in establishing and administering the Wetland Management Districts

(Districts) are listed below.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 16 U.S.C. 718 (d) (c)

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Sec. 305, P.L. 104-333).

Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulation, Subchapters B and C

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 USC 718-718-h).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 USC 703-712).

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190, 42 USC 4321-4347).

Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 USC 668-668d)

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (PL 95-341, [1978], 92 Stat. 42 USC 1996).

Antiquities Act (P.L. 59-209, approved 6/8/1906, 34 Stat. 225, 16 USC 431-433).

Reservoir Salvage Act, 16 USC 469).

Executive Order 13007 – Sacred Sites (5/24/1996).
Litchfield Wetland Management District

72

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The purposes of the NEPA A).

are to: declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable

harmony between man and his environment; promote efforts which will prevent or

eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and

welfare of man; enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural

resources important to the Nation; and establish a Council on Environmental Quality.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. This Act ensures that projects

not affect the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species in the

project area or result in destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats.

Executive Order 11988. Executive Order 11988. Executive Order 11988. E.O. 11988 directs Federal agencies to (1) avoid development in the floodplain unless it is the only practical alternative, (2) reduce the hazards

and risks associated with floods, (3) minimize the impact of floods on human safety,

health, and welfare, and (4) restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values of

the floodplain.

Executive Order 11990. Executive Order 11990. E.O. Executive Order 11990. 11990 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). In Executive Order 12372

compliance, the Service will send copies of the Environmental Assessment to State

Planning Agencies for review.

Executive Order 12996 ( Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public Use of the National

Wildlife Refuge System). E.O. 12996 provides directives to the Secretary of the

Interior on compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities (hunting, fishing,

wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation).

The Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. The Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. The Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. Section 14 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 requires an inventory program of all Federal

lands. This Act expands upon the Antiquities Act to protect all archeological sites

more than 100 years old on Federal land, and to ensure that archeological investigations on Federal land are performed in the public interest by qualified persons.

Uniform Relocation and Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of Uniform Relocation and Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of

1970, as amended. 1970, as amended. 1970, as amended. This Act provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons

who sell their homes, businesses, or farms to the Service. The Act requires that any

purchase offer be no less than the fair market value of the property.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Executive Order

11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment); and Title 36, itle 36,

Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800 (Protection of Historic Properties). Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800 (Protection of Historic Properties).

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires Federal

agencies to consider the effects of their undertaking on properties meeting criteria for

the National Register of Historic Places. The regulations in 36 CFR Part 800 describe how Federal agencies are to identify historic properties, determine effect on

significant historic properties, and mitigate adverse effects. Section 110 of the 1966

Act codifies the salient elements from E.O. 11593, “to ensure that historic preservation is fully integrated into ongoing programs and missions of Federal agencies.”

Section 110 also requires each Federal agency to establish a program leading to

inventory of all historic properties on its lands.
Appendix A: Authority and Legal Compliance

73

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. Directs

Federal agencies to protect Native American human remains and associated burial

items located on or removed from Federal land.

Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, as amended. Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, as amended. The Act, is intended

to minimize the extent to which a project would contribute to the conversion of

farmland to nonagricultural uses.

Clean Water Act (Section 401 and 404). ater Act (Section 401 and 404). Section 404 of the Act is intended to

protect access to and quality of the nation’s waters by preventing the unnecessary loss

of wetlands and other sensitive aquatic areas. Section 401 of the Act requires water

quality certification prior to the issuance of a 404 permit and for other activities

discharging into a water body.

Rivers and Harbor Act (Section 10 of 1899) Rivers and Harbor Act (Section 10 of 1899). Rivers and Harbor Act (Section 10 of 1899) Section 10 of this Act regulates the

placement of fill in navigable waters of the United States.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended. T Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended his act requires revenue

sharing provisions to all fee-title ownerships that are administered solely or primarily

by the Secretary through the Service.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 The Act established the Migratory Bird

Conservation Commission which consists of the Secretaries of the Interior (chairman),

Agriculture, and Transportation, two members from the House of Representatives,

and an ex-officio member from the state in which a project is located. The Commission approves acquisition of land and water, or interests therein, and sets the priorities for acquisition of lands by the Secretary for sanctuaries or for other management

purposes. Under this Act, to acquire lands, or interests therein, the state concerned

must consent to such acquisition by legislation. Such legislation has been enacted by

most states.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974. Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974. This Act Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974. amends the

Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 to expand its provisions to the preservation of historic

and archaeological data in all Federal or federally assisted or licensed construction

projects that might otherwise be lost. This Act directs Federal agencies to notify the

Secretary of the Interior whenever they find a Federal or federally assisted, licensed

or permitted project may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric

or archaeological data. Funds may be appropriated, donated and/or transferred for

the recovery, protection and preservation of such data.

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. ildlife Act of 1956. T ildlife Act of 1956. his Act initially established the Fish and Wildlife

Service underthe Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and a Commissioner for

Fish and Wildlife. The Service consisted of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

and a Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, each having a Director. In 1970, the Bureau of

Commercial Fisheries was transferred to the Department of Commerce. The Act was

amended by Public Law 93-271 to abolish the office of Commissioner and establish the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under a Director. Under this Act, the Secretary is authorized to take such steps as may be required for the development, advancement,

management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources including but

not limited to research, development of existing facilities, and acquisition by purchase

or exchange of land and water or interests therein. The Act also authorizes the

Service to accept gifts of real or personal property for its benefit and use in performing its activities and services. Such gifts qualify under Federal income, estate, or gift

tax laws as a gift to the United States.
Litchfield Wetland Management District

74

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978. ildlife Improvement Act of 1978. ildlife Improvement Act of 1978. This act was passed to improve 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 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.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. ater Conservation Fund Act of 1965. This Act provides f ater Conservation Fund Act of 1965. unding

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.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. ildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. ildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. This Act defines the

National Wildlife Refuge System as including wildlife refuges, areas for the protection

and conservation of fish and wildlife which are threatened with extinction, wildlife

ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, and waterfowl production areas.

The Secretary is authorized to permit any use of an area provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for which such area was established. The purchase

consideration for rights-of-way go into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the

acquisition of lands. By regulation, up to 40 percent of an area acquired for a migratory bird sanctuary may be opened to migratory bird hunting unless the Secretary

finds that the taking of any species of migratory game birds in more than 40 percent

of such area would be beneficial to the species. The Act requires an Act of Congress

for the divestiture of lands in the system, except (1) lands acquired with Migratory

Bird Conservation Commission funds, and (2) lands can be removed from the system

by land exchange, or if brought into the system by a cooperative agreement, then

pursuant to the terms of the agreement.

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962. Refuge Recreation Act of 1962. This Act aut Refuge Recreation Act of 1962. horizes the Secretary of the Interior to

administer refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use,

when such uses do not interfere with the areas’ primary purposes. It authorizes

construction and maintenance of recreational facilities and the acquisition of land for

incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development or protection of natural

resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for public use.
Appendix B: Priority Bird Species

75

Appendix B: Priority Bird Species

Appendix B

Priority Bird Species

Appendix B contains a list of bird species that occur within the Litchfield WMD and

have been designated as species of concern at three geographic scales.

(1) Region 3’s Resource Conservation Priorities list includes rare/declining, federallylisted, recreationally important, and superabundant bird species that are of high

concern in the Upper Midwest.

(2) The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Birds of Conservation Concern list identifies

priority species at the Bird Conservation Region (BCR) level (BCRs are ecological

regions designated as conservation planning units by the North American Bird

Conservation Initiative); the Litchfield WMD lies within BCR(s) 11 and 28.

(3) Bird species within the WMD that are on the Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources list of endangered, threatened, and special concern species are noted

because the Service and the DNR share management responsibility for them. The

bird species on these collective lists are those that are of highest concern within the

Litchfield WMD, and by focusing on these species, the WMD will address local,

regional, and national priorities.
Litchfield Wetland Management District

78

PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES OF THE LITCHFIELD WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

REGION 3 BCR 11 BCR 23 MN

SPECIES 2002 RCP 2002 BCC 2002 BCC DNR

Common Loon x

Horned Grebe x

American White Pelican x

Double-crested Cormorant x

American Bittern x x

Least Bittern x

Black-crowned Night-Heron x

Snow Goose x

Canada Goose (residents) x

Canada Goose (migrants) x

Trumpeter Swan x x

Wood Duck x

Mallard x

Blue-winged Teal x

Northern Pintail x

Canvasback x

Lesser Scaup x

Bald Eagle x x

Northern Harrier x x

Northern Goshawk x

Red-shouldered Hawk x x

Swainson's Hawk x x

Peregrine Falcon x x x x

Yellow Rail x x x

King Rail x x

Common Moorhen x x

Piping Plover x

Greater Yellowlegs x x

Solitary Sandpiper x

Willet x

Upland Sandpiper x x x

Whimbrel x

Hudsonian Godwit x x x

Marbled Godwit x x x x

Sanderling x

White-rumped Sandpiper x

Stilt Sandpiper x x

Buff-breasted Sandpiper x x x

Short-billed Dowitcher x x

American Woodcock x

Wilson's Phalarope x x x x

Franklin's Gull x

Common Tern x x x

Forster's Tern x x

Black Tern x x

Black-billed Cuckoo x x x

Long-eared Owl x x

USFWS
Appendix B: Priority Bird Species

79

PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES OF THE LITCHFIELD WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

REGION 3 BCR 11 BCR 23 MN

SPECIES 2002 RCP 2002 BCC 2002 BCC DNR

USFWS

Short-eared Owl x x x x

Whip-poor-will x

Red-headed Woodpecker x x x

Northern Flicker x

Olive-sided Flycatcher x

Acadian Flycatcher x x x

Loggerhead Shrike x x x x

Bell's Vireo x

Sedge Wren x x

Wood Thrush x x

Blue-winged Warbler x

Golden-winged Warbler x x

Cerulean Warbler x x

Connecticut Warbler x

Canada Warbler x

Field Sparrow x

Grasshopper Sparrow x x

Henslow's Sparrow x x x x

LeConte's Sparrow x x

Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow x x x

Dickcissel x x

Bobolink x x

Eastern Meadowlark x

Western Meadowlark x

Orchard Oriole x

KEY

BCR 23 2002 BCC: Species is on the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2002 Birds of Conservation 

Concern list for the Prairie Hardwood Transition Bird Conservation Region (BCR 23).

MN DNR: Species is on the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources species of concern list. 

REGION 3 2002 RCP: Species is on the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2002 Regional Resource 

Conservation Priorities list.

BCR 11 2002 BCC: Species is on the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2002 Birds of Conservation 

Concern list for the Prairie Potholes Bird Conservation Region (BCR 11).

Appendix C: Species List

81

Appendix C: Species List

Appendix C: Species List

83

Appendix C: Species List, Litchfield Wetlands Management District

Amphibians of the Litchfield WMD Amphibians of the Litchfield WMD (17 species, 1 subspecies)

(from Amphibians and Reptiles Native to Minnesota by Oldfield and Moriarity)

Order Cavdata (Salamanders)

Family Nectoridae (giant salamanders)

Necturus maculosus maculosus mudpuppy (4,9)

Family Salamandridae (newts)

Notophthalmus viridescens louisianensiscentral newt 1,7,9 (3)

Family Ambystomatidae (mole salamanders)

Ambystoma laterale blue-spotted salamander 7,9 (1,8)

Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum eastern tiger salamander All (1,2,8)

?Plethodon cinereus redback salamander (5)

Order Anura

Family Bufonidae (toads)

Bufo americanus americanus eastern American toad All (3,6)

Bufo cognetus great plains toad 1,4,5 (6,7)

?Bufo hemiophrys Canadian toad (1)

Family Hylidae (treefrogs)

Hyla chrysoscelis Cope’s gray tree frog 1,7,8,9 (3)

Hyla versicolor gray tree frog All (2,3,6,8)

Pseudoacris crucifer crucifer northern spring peeper 1,6 (9)

?Pseudoacris triseriata maculata boreal chorus frog (8)

Pseudoacris triseriata triseriata western chorus frog All (4,6,8)

Family Ranidae (true frogs)

Rana catesbeiana bullfrog 7 (4)

Rana clamitans melanota green frog 3,7,9 (2,8)

Rana pipiens northern leopard frog All

Rana septentrionalis mink frog 8 (7)

Rana sylvatica wood frog 1,6,8 (2,3,7,9)
Litchfield Wetland Management District

84

Birds of the Litchfield WMD

(from Birds of Minnesota by Janssen and Peterson’s Guide to E. Birds)

(Bold indicates listed species; Counties indicated breeding birds)

Key

Order

Family

Scientific Name common name breeding counties (possible)

County numbers

1 = Kandiyohi

2 = McLeod

3 = Meeker

4 = Nicollet

5 = Renville

6 = Sibley

7 = Stearns

8 = Todd

9 = Wright

Order Gaviiformes (loons)

Family Gaviidae (loons)

Gavia immer common loon 1,3,7,8,9 (All)

Order Podicipediformes (grebes)

Family Podicipedidae (grebes)

Aechmophorus clarkii Clark’s grebe

Aechmophorus occidentalis western grebe 1,4,6,9 (All)

Podiceps auritus hornedgrebe

Podiceps grisegena red-necked grebe 1,3,4,6,7,8,9

Podiceps nigricollis eared grebe 1,4 (3,5,6,9)

Podilymbus podiceps pied-billed grebe All

Order Pelecaniformes (tropicbirds, pelicans, gannets, boobies, cormorants, darters and frigatebirds)

Family Pelecanidae (pelicans)

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American white pelican

Family Phalacrocoracidae (cormorants)

Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant All (4,6)

Family Anhingidae (anhingas)

Anhinga anhinga anhinga

Order Ciconiiformes (herons, bitterns, storks, ibises, flamingos)

Family Ardeidae (bitterns, herons, and egrets)

Ardea herodias great blue heron All (5)

Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern 3 (All)

Bubulcus ibis cattle egret 1

Butorides striatus green heron 1,3,7,9 (All)

Casmerodius albus great egret 1,3,6,7,9 (4,5)

Egretta thula snowy egret 1 (4)
Appendix C: Species List

85

Ixobrychus exilis least bittern 4,7,9 (All)

Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night heron 1,4 (All)

Nycticorax violaceus yellow-crowned night heron (7)

Order Anseriformes (waterfowl)

Family Anatidae (whistling ducks, swans, geese, diving ducks, stifftails and mergansers)

 Subfamily Anserinae (geese)

Anser albifrons greater white-fronted goose

Branta canadensis Canada goose All

Chen caerulescens snow goose

Chen rossii Ross’ goose

 Subfamily Cygninae (swans)

Cygnus buccinator trumpeter swan 9 (1,3) trumpeter swan

Cygnus columbianus tundra swan

Cygnus olor mute swan

 Subfamily Anatinae (marsh ducks)

Aix sponsa wood duck All

Anas acuta northern pintail 7 (All)

Anas americana American wigeon 7,8

Anas crecca American green-winged teal 1,3,9

Anas clypeata northern shoveler 7 (All)

Anas discors blue-winged teal All

Anas penelope Eurasian wigeon

Anas platyrhynchos mallard All

Anas rubripes American black duck 3

Anas strepera gadwall (All)

 Subfamily Aythyinae (diving ducks)

Aythya affinis lesser scaup

Aythya americana redhead 1,3,4,8 (All)

Aythya collaris ring-necked duck 1,4,7,9 (All)

Aythya marila greater scaup

Aythya valisineria canvasback 1,7,8,9 (All)

Bucephala albeola bufflehead

Bucephala clangula common goldeneye

Clangula hyemalis oldsquaw

Histrionicus histrionicus harlequin duck

Melanitta nigra black scoter

Somateria spectabilis king eider

 Subfamily Merginae (mergansers)

Lophodytes cucullatus hooded merganser 3,4,7,9 (All)

Mergus merganser common merganser

Mergus serrator red-breasted merganser

 Subfamily Oxyurinae (stifftails)

Oxyura jamaicensis ruddy duck 1,2,7,8,9 (All)
Litchfield Wetland Management District

86

Order Falconiformes (vultures, kites, accipiters, buteos, eagles, harriers, ospreys, caracaras and falcons)

Family Cathartidae (american vultures)

Cathartes aura turkey vulture (?)

Family Accipitridae (kites, accipiters, buteos, eagles and harriers)

 Subfamily Accipitrinae (accipiters)

Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk 7 (All)

Accipiter gentilis Goshawk

Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk (8)

 Subfamily Buteoninae (buteos and eagles)

Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle

Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk 1,3,7,8,9 (All)

Buteo lagopus rough-legged hawk

Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk 7 red-shouldered hawk (2,3,8,9)

Buteo platypterus broad-winged hawk 7 (8,9)

Buteo regalis ferruginous hawk

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle 1,3,7 (8)

 Subfamily Circinae (harriers)

Circus cyaneus northern harrier 1,7 (All)

Family Pandionidae (ospreys)

Pandion haliaetus osprey

Family Falconidae (caracaras and falcons)

 Subfamily Faconinae (falcons)

Falco columbarius merlin (1)

Falco mexicanus prairie falcon

Falco peregrinus peregrine peregrine falcon 7 falcon

Falco rusticolus gyrfalcon

Falco sparverius American kestrel All

Order Galliformes (grouse, quail and turkeys)

Family Tetraonidae (grouse)

Bonasa umbellus ruffed grouse 7 (8,9)

Tympanuchus cupido greater greater prairie-chicken

Family Phasianidae (partridge, pheasant and quail)

Perdix perdix gray partridge 1,6,7,9 (All)

Phasianus colchicus ring-necked pheasant All

Family Meleagrididae (turkeys)

Meleagris gallopavo wild turkey (?)

Order Gruiformes (cranes, limpkins and rails)

Family Rallidae (rails, gallinules and coots)

Coturnicops noveboracensis yellowrail (7) rail

Fulica americana American coot All

Gallinula chloropus commonmoorhen 7 moorhen (1,4,6,8,9)

Porzana carolina sora 1,7,9 (All)

Rallus limicola Virginia rail 1,4,7,9 (All)
Appendix C: Species List

87

Rallus elegans king rail king rail (7) king rail

Family Gruidae (cranes)

Grus americana Whooping Crane

Grus canadensis sandhill crane (1,2,3,7)

Order Charadriiformes (oystercatchers, stilts, avocets, plovers, sandpipers, jaegers, skuas, gulls, terns and auks)

Family Charadriidae (plovers)

Charadrius melodus pipingplover

Charadrius semipalmatus semipalmated plover

Charadrius vociferus killdeer All

Pluvialis dominica American golden-plover

Pluvialis squatarola black-bellied plover

Family Recurvirostridae (stilts and avocets)

Recurvirostra americana American avocet

Family Scolopacidae (sandpipers, curlew, godwits, turnstones, dowitchers, snipe, woodcock and

phalaropes)

Actitis macularia spotted sandpiper 7 (All)

Arenaria interpres ruddy turnstone

Bartramia longicauda upland sandpiper 7 (All)

Calidris alba sanderling

Calidris alpina dunlin

Calidris bairdii Baird’s sandpiper

Calidris canutus red knot

Calidris fuscicollis white-rumped sandpiper

Calidris himantopus stilt sandpiper

Calidris mauri western sandpiper

Calidris minutilla least sandpiper

Calidris melanotos pectoral sandpiper

Calidris pusilla semipalmated sandpiper

Catoptrophorus semipalmatus willet

Gallinago gallinago common snipe 1,3,7 (All)

Limnodromus griseus short-billed dowitcher

Limnodromus scolopaceus long-billed dowitcher

Limosa fedoa marbled marbled godwit 1,7 godwit

Numenius phaeopus whimbrel

Phalaropus lobatus red-necked phalarope

Phalaropus tricolor Wilson’sphalarope (1,7,8) phalarope

Philomachus pugnax ruff

Scolopax minor American woodcock 3,7,9 (All)

Tringa solitaria solitary sandpiper

Tringa melanoleuca greater yellowlegs

Tringa flavipes lesser yellowlegs

Tryngites subruficollis buff-breasted sandpipper

Family Stercorariidae (jaegers and skuas)

Stercorarius parasiticus parasitic jaeger

Family Laridae (gulls, and terns)

 Subfamily Larinae (gulls)

Larus argentatus herring gull

Larus delawarensis ring-billed gull
Litchfield Wetland Management District

88

Larus hyperboreus glaucous gull

Larus minutus little gull

Larus philadelphia Bonaparte’s gull (9)

Larus pipixcan Franklin’ Franklin’sgull 8 (1) gull

Larus thayeri Thayer’s gull

 Subfamily Sterninae (terns)

Chlidonias niger blacktern 1,4,7,9 (All)

Sterna caspia caspian tern

Sterna forsteri forsteri Forster’ Forster’stern 4,8,9

Sterna hirundo commontern 1

Family Alcidae (auks)

Synthliboramphus antiquus ancient murrelet

Order Columbiformes (pigeons and doves)

Family Columbidae (pigeons and doves)

Columba fasciata band-tailed pigeon

Columba livia rock dove All

Zenaida macroura mourning dove All

Order Cuculiformes (cuckoos, roadrunners and anis)

Family Cuculidae (cuckoos and anis)

 Sufamily Coccyzinae (cuckoos)

Coccyzus americanus yellow-billed cuckoo 1,9 (All)

Coccyzus erythropthalmus black-billed cuckoo 1,9 (All)

 Subfamily Crotophaginae (anis)

Crotophaga sulcirostris groove-billed ani

Order Strigiformes (owls)

Family Strigidae (owls)

Aegolius acadicus northern saw-whet owl 8 (7)

Aegolius funereus boreal owl 1

Asio flammeus short-eared short-eared owl 7,3 (1) owl

Asio otus long-eard owl 7 (all)

Bubo virginianus great horned owl All

Nyctea scandiaca snowy owl

Otus asio Eastern screech owl 5,7 (all)

Strix nebulosa great gray owl

Strix varia barred owl 8,9 (7)

Surnia ulula northern hawk owl

Order Caprimulgiformes (goatsuckers)

Family Caprimulgidae (goatsuckers)

 Subfamily Chordeilinae (nighthawks)

Chordeiles minor common nighthawk All?

 Subfamily Caprimulginae (poor-wills)

Caprimulgus carolinensis chuck-will’s-widow

Caprimulgus vociferus whip-poor-will (All)
Appendix C: Species List

89

Order Apodiformes (swifts and hummingbirds)

Family Apodidae (swifts)

Chaetura pelagica chimney swift 1,7 (All)

Family Trochilidae (hummingbirds)

Archilochus colubris ruby-throated hummingbird 1,7,9 (all)

Order Coraciiformes (kingfishers)

Family Alcedinidae (kingfishers)

Ceryle alcyon belted kingfisher 1,7 (All)

Order Piciformes (woodpeckers)

Family Picidae (woodpeckers)

Colaptes auratus northern flicker 1,4,7,9 (all)

Dryocopus pileatus pileated woodpecker 3,7,8,9 (all)

Melanerpes carolinus red-bellied woodpecker 1,7,9 (all)

Melanerpes erythrocephalus red-headed woodpecker 2,7,9 (all)

Picoides arcticus black-backed woodpecker

Picoides pubescens downy woodpecker All?

Picoides tridactylus three-toed woodpecker

Picoides villosus hairy woodpecker All?

Sphyrapicus varius yellow-bellied sapsucker 1,7,9 (all)

Order Passeriformes (passerines)

Family Tyrannidae (flycatchers)

 Subfamily Fluvicolinae

Contopus borealis olive-sided flycatcher

Contopus virens eastern wood-pewee 1,7 (all)

Empidonax alnorum alder flycatcher 1,7 (8)

Empidonax flaviventris yellow-bellied flycatcher

Empidonax minimus least flycatcher 1,7 (all)

Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher 1,7 (all ex.8)

Empidonax virescens acadian acadian flycatcher

Sayornis phoebe eastern phoebe 1,4,7,9 (all)

 Subfamily Tyranninae

Myiarchus crinitus great crested flycatcher 1,7,9 (all)

Tyrannus tyrannus eastern kingbird 1,3,7,9 (all)

Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird 1,7,9 (3,8)

Family Alaudidae (larks)

Eremophila alpestris horned lark 7,9 (all)

Family Hirundinidae (swallows)

Hirundo pyrrhonota cliff swallow 1,7 (all)

Hirundo rusica barn swallow 1,3,7,9 (all)

Progne subis purple martin 1,7,9 (all)

Riparia riparia bank swallow 1,7,9 (all)

Stelgidopteryx serripennis N. rough-winged swallow 1,7 (all)

Tachycineta bicolor tree swallow 1,3,7 (all)
Litchfield Wetland Management District

90

Family Corvidae (jays, nucrackers, magpies and crows)

Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow All

Corvus corax common raven

Cyanocitta cristata blue jay 1,7,9 (all)

Nucifraga columbiana Clark’s nutcracker

Perisoreus canadensis gray jay

Pica pica black-billed magpie

Family Paridae (chickadees and titmice)

Parus atricapillus black-capped chickadee 1,3,7,9 (all)

Parus bicolor tufted titmouse

Parus hudsonicus boreal chickadee

Family Sittidae (nuthatches)

Sitta canadensis red-breasted nuthatch 7 (9)

Sitta carolinensis white-breasted nuthach 1,7,9 (all)

Family Certhiidae (creepers)

Certhia americana brown creeper 7 (8,9)

Family Troglodytidae (wrens)

Cistothorus palustris marsh wren 1,7,9 (all)

Cistothorus platensis sedge wren 1 (all)

Thryomanes bewickii bewick’s wren

Thryothorus ludovicianus carolina wren

Troglodytes aedon house wren 1,2,3,7,9 (all)

Troglodytes troglodytes winter wren (7)

Family Mimidae (mimic thrushes)

Dumetella carolinensis gray catbird 1,3,7,9 (all)

Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird

Toxostoma rufum brown thrasher 1,3,7,9 (all)

Family Turdidae (thrushes)

Catharus fuscescens veery 1 (7,9)

Catharus guttatus hermit thrush

Catharus minimus gray-cheeked thrush

Catharus ustulatus Swainson’s thrush

Hylocichla mustelina wood thrush 4 (5,7,8,9)

Ixoreus naevius varied thrush

Myadestes townsendi Townsend’s solitaire

Sialia sialis eastern bluebird All

Sialia currucoides mountain bluebird

Turdus migratorius American robin All

Family Sylviidae (kinglets and gnatcatchers)

Polioptila caerulea blue-gray gnatcatcher 4,5 (7,9)

Regulus calendula ruby-crowned kinglet (7)

Regulus satrapa golden-crowned kinglet

Family Motacilladae (pipits)

Anthus spinoletta water pipit
Appendix C: Species List

91

Family Bombycillidae (waxwings)

Bombycilla cedrorum cedar waxwing 1,7,9 (all)

Bombycilla garrulus Bohemian waxwing

Family Laniidae (shrikes)

Lanius excubitor northern shrike

Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead loggerhead shrike 3,7,9 (1,4,5)

Family Sturnidae (starlings)

Sturnus vulgaris European starling All

Family Vireonidae (vireos)

Vireo bellii bell’s vireo

Vireo flavifrons yellow-throated vireo 1,7,9 (all)

Vireo gilvus warbling vireo 1,3,7,9 (all)

Vireo griseus white-eyed vireo

Vireo olivaceus red-eyed vireo 1,7,9 (all)

Vireo philadelphicus Philadelphia vireo

Vireo solitarius solitary vireo

Family Parulidae (warblers)

Dendroica castanea bay-breasted warbler (4,7)

Dendroica cerulea cerulean cerulean warbler 1 (4,7,8,9) warbler

Dendroica caerulescens black-throated blue warbler

Dendroica coronata yellow-rumped warbler

Dendroica dominica yellow-throated warbler (1)

Dendroica fusca blackburnian warbler

Dendroica magnolia magnolia warbler

Dendroica palmarum palm warbler

Dendroica pensylvanica chestnut-sided warbler (7,8)

Dendroica petechia yellow warbler 1,3,7,9 (all)

Dendroica pinus pine warbler (8)

Dendroica striata blackpoll warbler

Dendroica tigrina Cape May warbler

Dendroica virens black-throated green warbler (9)

Geothlypis trichas common yellowthroat 1,7 (all)

Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat

Mniotilta varia black-and-white warbler

Oporornis agilis Connecticut warbler

Oporornis formosus Kentucky warbler

Oporornis philadelphia mourning warbler (8)

Parula americana northern parula

Protonotaria citrea prothonotary warbler

Seiurus aurocapillus ovenbird 1,7 (all)

Seiurus motacilla Louisiana Louisiana waterthrush(4,6)

Seiurus noveboracensis northern waterthrush

Setophaga ruticilla American redstart 4,7 (all)

Vermivora celata orange-crowned warbler

Vermivora chrysoptera golden-winged warbler

Vermivora peregrina Tennesee warbler

Vermivora pinus blue-winged warbler

Vermivora ruficapilla Nashville warbler (8)

Wilsonia canadensis Canada warbler
Wilsonia citrina hoodedwarbler

Wilsonia pusilla Wilson’s warbler

Family Ploceidae (weaver finches)

Passer domesticus house sparrow all

Family Icteridae (blackbirds, bobolinks, orioles, cowbirds, grackles and meadowlarks)

Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird all

Dolichonyx oryzivorus bobolink 1,3,7 (all)

Euphagus carolinus rusty blackbird

Euphagus cyanocephalus brewer’s blackbird 1,7,8 (all)

Icterus galbula Northern oriole 1,3,7,9 (all)

Icterus spurius orchard oriole 1,9 (all ex.8)

Molothrus ater brown-headed cowbird 1,7,9 (all)

Quiscalus quiscula common grackle 1,7,9 (all)

Sturnella magna Eastern meadowlark (4,6,7,8,9)

Sturnella neglecta Western meadowlark 1 (all)

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus yellow-headed blackbird1,7,8,9 (all)

Family Thraupidae (tanagers)

Piranga ludoviciana western tanager

Piranga olivacea scarlet tanager 1,2,7 (all)

Piranga rubra summer tanager

Family Fringillidae (finches, grosbeaks, buntings, sparrows)

 Subfamily Carduelinae

Carduelis flammea common redpoll

Carduelis hornemanni hoary redpoll

Carduelis pinus pine siskin 7 (8,9)

Carduelis tristis American goldfinch 1,2,7,9 (all)

Carpodacus mexicanus house finch ? (1)

Carpodacus purpureus purple finch (7,8)

Coccothraustes vespertinus evening grosbeak

Loxia curvirostra red crossbill

Loxia leucoptera white-winged crossbill

Pinicola enucleator pine grosbeak

 Subfamily Cardinalinae

Cardinalis cardinalis northern cardinal 2,7 (all)

Passerina amoena lazuli bunting

Passerina cyanea indigo bunting 1,7 (all)

Pheucticus ludovicianus rose-breasted grosbeak 1,2,3,7,9 (all)

Spiza americana dickcissel 1,7 (all ex.8)

 Subfamily Emberizinae

Ammodramus caudacutus nelsoni nelsoni Nelson’ Nelson’ssharp-tailed sharp-tailed sp.

Ammodramus henslowii henslowii Henslow’ Henslow’ssparrow 1 sparrow

Ammodramus leconteii LeConte’s sparrow 7 (all)

Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper sparrow 1 (all)

Calamospiza melanocorys lark bunting

Calcarius lapponicus lapland longspur

Calcarius mccownii McCown’s longspur

Calcarius pictus Smith’s longspur

Chondestes grammacus lark sparrow 5 (4,6)
Appendix C: Species List

93

Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco

Melospiza georgiana swamp sparrow 1,7,9 (all)

Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln’s sparrow

Melospiza melodia song sparrow 1,3,7,9 (all)

Passerculus sandwichensis savannah sparrow 1 (all)

Passerella iliaca fox sparrow

Pipilo erythrophthalmus rufous-sided towhee

Plectrophenax nivalis snow bunting

Pooecetes gramineus vesper sparrow 1,7 (all)

Spizella arborea American tree sparrow

Spizella pallida clay-colored sparrow 1,7 (all)

Spizella passerina chipping sparrow 1,4,7,9 (all)

Spizella pusilla field sparrow 1,2,7 (all)

Zonotrichia albicollis white-throated sparrow (7,8)

Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowned sparrow

Zonotrichia querula Harris’ sparrow
Litchfield Wetland Management District

94

Fishes of the Litchfield WMD

(from The Fishes of the Minnesota Region by Phillips et al.)

(Bold indicates listed species) Bold

Family Petromyzontidae (Lamprey)

Ichthyomyzon castaneus chestnut lamprey

Family Acipenseridae (sturgeon)

Acipenser fulvescens lakesturgeon

Scaphirhynchus platorhynchus shovelnose sturgeon

Family Plyodontidae (paddlefish)

Polyodon spathula paddlefish

Family Lepisosteidae (gar)

Lepisosteus osseus long-nosed gar

Lepisosteus platostomus short-nosed gar

Family Amiidae (bowfin)

Amia calua bowfin

Family Hiodontidae (mooneye)

Hioden alosoides goldeye

Hioden tergisus mooneye

Family Clupeidae (herring)

Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad

Family Anguillidae (freshwater eel)

Anguilla rostrata American eel

Family Esocidae (pike)

Esox lucius northern pike

Esox masquinongy muskellunge

Family Umbridae (mud minnow)

Umbra limi central mud minnow

Family Salmonidae (salmon)

Salmo gairdneri rainbow trout

Salmo trutta brown trout

Family Cyprinidae (minnows)

Campostoma anomalum common stoneroller

Carassius auratus goldfish

Ctenopharyngodon idella grass carp

Cyprinus carpio carp

Hybognathus hankinsoni brassy minnow

Hybognathus nuchalis silver minnow

Hybopsis aestivalis speckled chub

Hybopsis storeriana silver chub

Nocomis biguttatus hornyhead chub

Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner
Appendix C: Species List

95

Notropis anogenus pugnose pugnose shiner

Notropis atherinoides emerald shiner

Notropis blennius river shiner

Notropis cornutus common shiner

Notropis dorsalis bigmouth shiner

Notropis heterodon black chin shiner

Notropis heterolepis black nose shiner

Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner

Notropis rubellus rosyface shiner

Notropis spilopterus spotfin shiner

Notropis stramineus sand shiner

Notropis texanus weed shiner

Notropis volucellus mimic shiner

Phoxinus eos northern redbelly dace

Phoxinus neogaeus finescale dace

Pimephales notatus bluntnose minnow

Pimephales promelas fathead minnow

Rhinichthys atratulus blacknose dace

Rhinichthys cataractae longnose dace

Semotilus atromaculatus creek chub

Semotilus margarita pearl dace

Family Catostomidae (sucker)

Carpiodes carpio river carpsucker

Carpiodes cyprinus quillback

Carpiodes velifer highfin carpsucker

Catostomus commersoni white sucker

Hypentelium nigricans northern hog sucker

Ictiobus cyprinellus bigmouth buffalo

Moxostoma anisurum silver redhorse

Moxostoma erythrurum golden redhorse

Moxostoma macrolepidotum shorthead redhorse

Family Ictaluridae (catfish)

Ictalurus melas black bullhead

Ictalurus natalis yellow bullhead

Ictalurus nebulosus brown bullhead

Ictalurus punctatus channel catfish

Noturus flavus stonecat

Noturus gyrinus tadpole mudtom

Pylodictis olivaris flathead catfish

Family Percopsidae (trout-perch)

Percopsis omiscomaycus trout-perch

Family Andidae (codfish)

Lota lota burbot

Family Cyprinodontidae (killifish)

Fundulus diaphanus banded killifish

Family Atherinidae (silverside)

Labidesthes sicculus brook silverside
Litchfield Wetland Management District

96

Family Gasterosteidae (sticklback)

Culaea inconstans brook stickleback

Family Cottidae (sculpin)

Cottus bairdi mottled sculpin

Family Percichthyidae (temperate bass)

Morone chrysops white bass

Family Centrarchidae (sunfish)

Ambloplites rupestris rock bass

Lepomis cyanellis green sunfish

Lepomis gibbosus pumpkinseed

Lepomis humilis orange-spotted sunfish

Lepomis macrochirus bluegill

Lepomis megalotis longear sunfish

Micropterus dolomieui smallmouth bass

Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass

Pomoxis annularis white crappie

Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie

Family Percidae (perch)

Ammocrypta clara western sand darter

Etheostoma caeruleum rainbow darter

Etheostoma exile Iowa darter

Etheostoma flabellare fantail darter

Etheostoma microperca leastdarter

Etheostoma nigrum johnny darter

Etheostoma zonale banded darter

Perca flavescens yellow perch

Percina caprodes log perch

Percina maculata blackside darter

Percina phoxocephala slenderhead darter

Stizostedion canadense sauger

Stizostedion vitreum walleye

Family Scoaemidae (drum)

Aplodinotus grunniens freshwater drum
Appendix C: Species List

97

Mammals of the Litchfield WMD (63 species) Mammals of the Litchfield WMD (63 species)

(from The Mammals of Minnesota by Hazard)

(Bold type indicates listed species)

Key

Order

Family

Scientific Name common name breeding counties (possible)

County numbers

1 = Kandiyohi

2 = McLeod

3 = Meeker

4 = Nicollet

5 = Renville

6 = Sibley

7 = Stearns

8 = Todd

9 = Wright

Order Polyprotodonta (opossums and allies)

Family Didelphidae (new world opossums)

Didelphis marsupialis Opossum 1,4,6,7 (3,5)

Order Insectivora (insectivores)

Family Soricidae (shrews)

Blarina brevicauda Short-tailed Shrew All

Microsorex hoyi Pygmy Shrew (9)

Sorex arcticus Arctic Shrew 7,8 (2,9)

Sorex cinereus Masked Shrew All (4,8)

Sorex palustris N. Water Shrew 7 (9)

Family Talpidae (moles)

Condylura cristata Star-nosed Mole (9)

Scalopus aquaticus Eastern Mole 4,5,7 (8)

Order Chiroptera (bats)

Family Vespertilionidae (vespertilionid bats)

Eptesicus fuscus Big Brown Bat 4,7 (9)

Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired Bat 1,9 (3,7)

Lasiurus borealis Red Bat (2,4)

Lasiurus cinereus Hoary Bat 3 (7,9)

Myotis lucifugus Little Brown Myotis 7,9 (4,6)

Myotis keeni septentrionalis Northern(Keen’s) Myotis 7 (9) Myotis

Pipistrellus subflavus Eastern Eastern Pipistrelle 4,7 (9) Pipistrelle

Order Lagomorpha (rabbits, hares and pikas)

Family Leporidae (rabbits and hares)

Lepus americanus Varying or Snowshoe Hare (7,8,9)

Lepus townsendio White-tailed Jackrabbit All (2,4,8,9)

Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern Cottontail Rabbit All (2,4)
Litchfield Wetland Management District

98

Order Rodentia (rodents)

Family Sciuridae (squirrels)

Glaucomys sabrinus Northern Flying Squirrel (8,9)

Glaucomys volans Southern Flying Squirrel 5,7,9 (4)

Marmata monax Woodchuck All (5,6)

Sciurus carolinensis Eastern Gray Squirrel All (3,6)

Sciurus niger Eastern Fox Squirrel All

Spermophilus franklinii Franklin’s Ground Squirrel 1,5,6,9 (2,7,8)

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus 13-lined Ground Squirrel All

Tamias striatus Eastern Chipmunk All (4,6)

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Red Squirrel All (3)

Family Geomyidae (pocket gophers)

Geomys bursarius Plains Pocket Gopher All (2,4,6,9)

Family Heteromyidae (pocket mice and kangaroo rats)

Perognathus flavescens PlainsPocketMouse (7,9)

Family Castoridae (beaver)

Castor canadensis Beaver All (5)

Family Cricetidae (voles, lemmings, new world rats and mice)

 Subfamily Cricetinae (new world rats and mice)

Onychomys leucogaster Northern Grasshopper Mouse 1,5

Peromyscus leucopus White-footed Mouse All

Peromyscus maniculatus bairdii Prairie Deer Mouse All (5)

Peromyscus maniculatus gracilis Woodland Deer Mouse (7,8)

Reithrodontomys megalotis Western Harvest Mouse 5 (4,9)

 Subfamily Microtinae (voles and lemmings)

Clethrionomys gapperi Southern Red-backed Vole 1,5,7,8,9 (3)

Microtus ochrogaster Prairie Prairie Vole (9) ole

Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow Vole All

Ondatra zibethica Muskrat All

Synaptomys cooperi Southern Bog Lemming (9)

Family Muridae (old world rats and mice)

Mus musculus House Mouse All

Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat All

Family Zapodidae (jumping mice)

Napaeozapus insignis Woodland Jumping Mouse (8)

Zapus hudsonius Meadow Jumping Mouse All (5)

Family Erithizontidae (arboreal, or new world, porcupines)

Erithizon dorsatum Porcupine (8)

Order Carnivora (carnivores)

Family Canidae (dogs)

Canis latrans Coyote All

Canis lupus Timber ( imber Gray)Wolf 1,8 (?) olf

Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray Fox All

Vulpes fulva Red Fox All
Appendix C: Species List

99

Family Ursidae (bears)

Ursus americanus Black Bear 1,7,8

Family Procyonidae (raccoons and allies)

Procyon lotor Raccoon All

Family Mustelidae (weasels and allies)

Lutra canadensis River Otter 7,8 (?)

Mephitis mephitis Striped Skunk All

Mustela erminea Short-tailed Weasel All (2,6)

Mustela frenata Long-tailed Weasel 1,4,9 (All)

Mustela nivalis LeastWeasel 5 (1) easel

Mustela vison Mink All

Spilogale putorius Spotted Spotted Skunk All Skunk

Taxidea taxus Badger All

Family Felidae (cats)

Felis concolor Cougar ( Cougar Mountain Mountain Lion) ? Lion

Lynx canadensis Lynx (8) ynx

Lynx rufus Bobcat 9 (7,8)

Order Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates)

Family Cervidae (deer)

Alces alces Moose 7,(8) (all;

brainworm)

Odocoileus hemionus Mule Deer (7,8)

Odocoileus virginiana White-tailed Deer All

Domestic and Feral Mammals

Bison bison Buffalo

Bos taurus Cow

Canis familiaris Dog

Capra hircus Goat

Cavia porcellus Guinea Pig

Cervus dama Fallow Deer (other deer species are kept in “deerparks”)

Cervus elaphus Elk

Chinchilla sp. Chinchilla

Equus caballus Horse

Felis catus House Cat

Meriones and other genera Gerbils

Mesocricetus auratus Golden Hamster

Mus musculus Laboratory Mouse

Mustela putorius Ferret

Mustela vison Ranch Mink

Mycastor coypus Nutria

Ovis aries Sheep

Oryctolagus cuniculus Domestic Rabbit

Rattus norvegicus Laboratory Rat

Sus scrofa Pig

Vulpes vulpes Fur Farm Fox
Litchfield Wetland Management District

100

Reptiles of the Litchfield WMD Reptiles of the Litchfield WMD (21 species, 2 subspecies)

(from Amphibians and Reptiles Native to Minnesota by Oldfield and Moriarity)

(Bold indicates listed species) Bold

Key

Order

Family

Scientific Name common name breeding counties (possible)

County numbers

1 = Kandiyohi

2 = McLeod

3 = Meeker

4 = Nicollet

5 = Renville

6 = Sibley

7 = Stearns

8 = Todd

9 = Wright

Order Testudines (turtles and tortoises)

Family Chelydridae (snapping turtles)

Chelydra serpentina serpentina snapping snapping turtle All (6)

Family Emydidae (box and water turtles)

Chrysemys picta belli Western painted turtle All (5,6)

Emydoidea blandingii blandingii Blanding’ Blanding’s turtle 7,8,9 (3,4)

Graptemys geographica common map turtle 7,9 (4,6)

Graptemys pseudogeographica falsemapturtle 4(6,9)

Family Trionychidae (softshell turtles)

Apalone mutica mutica midland smooth midland smooth softshell softshell 9 (4,6) softshell

Apalone spiniferus hartwegi western spiny softshell 1,2,3,4,5,7,9 (6,8)

Order Squamata (lizards and snakes)

 Suborder Lacertilia (lizards)

Family Scincidae (skinks)

Eumeces septentrionalis septentrionalis northern prairie skink All (3,6,7)

Eumeces Eumeces fasciatus five-lined five-lined skink 5 (4) skink

 Suborder Serpentes (snakes)

Family Colubridae (colubrids)

Coluber constrictor flaviventris eastern eastern yellowbelly racer (4,6,9) yellowbelly racer

Elaphe vulpina vulpina western fox snake 4,5 (6,9)

Heterodon nasicus nasicus western western hognose hognose snake 1 (7,9) snake

Heterodon platyrhinos eastern hognose snake 7,8,9 (3)

Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum eastern milk snake 4,5,6 (2,9)

Nerodia sipedon sipedon northern water snake 4,9 (6)

Opheodrys vernalis smooth green snake 1 (5,7,8,9)

Pituophis catenifer sayi bullsnake 4,5,6 (2,6,9)

Storeria dekayi texana Texas brown snake 1,2,4,6,7,9 (3)

Storeria occipitomaculata occipitomaculata northern redbelly snake All (2,3,8)

Storeria occipitomaculata pahasapae black hills redbelly snake

Thamnophis radix haydeni western plains garter snake All

Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis red-sided garter snake All (west)

Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis eastern garter snake All
Appendix C: Species List

101

Plants of the Litchfield WPAs 468 species

Species in boldtype are state or federal listed species

Species in italics are non-native species

Abutilon theophrasti Velvet-leaf

Acer ginnala Maple, Siberian

Acer negundo Boxelder

Acer saccharinum Maple, Silver

Acer saccharum Maple, Sugar

Achillea millefolium ssp. lanulosa Yarrow

Acorus calamus Flag, Sweet

Actaea rubra Baneberry, Red

Agalinis auriculata Foxglove, Eared False

Agalinis tenuifolia False Foxglove, Tenderleaf

Agastache foeniculum Hyssop, Fragrant Giant

Agoseris glauca Dandelion, False

Agrimonia gryposepala Agrimony, Hooked

Agropyron caninum

ssp.majus v.unilaterale Wheatgrass, Slender

Agropyron elongatum Wheatgrass, Tall

Agropyron intermedium Wheatgrass, Intermediate

Agropyron smithii Wheatgrass, Western

Agrostis scabra Grass, Tickle

Agrostis stolonifera Redtop

Alisma triviale Plantain, Large-flowered Water

Allium stellatum Onion, Wild

Allium tricoccum Leek, Wild

Alnus incana ssp.rugosa Alder, Speckled

Alopecurus Foxtail

Amaranthus graecizans Pigweed, Prostrate

Amaranthus retroflexus Pigweed, Rough

Ambrosia artemisifolia Ragweed, Common

Ambrosia psilostachya Ragweed, Western

Ambrosia trifida Ragweed, Giant

Amelanchier humilis Serviceberry, Low

Amorpha canescens Leadplant

Amorpha fruticosa Indigo, False

Amorpha nana Indigo, Dwarf Wild

Amphicarpaea bracteata Hog Peanut

Andropogon gerardii Bluestem, Big

Anemone canadensis Windflower

Anemone cylindrica Thimbleweed

Anemone patens Pasque Flower

Anemone quinquefolia Anemone, Wood

Anemone virginiana Anemone, Tall

Anemonella thalictroides ? Anemone, Rue

Antennaria neglecta Pussytoes, Field

Apocynum androsaemifolium Dogbane, Spreading

Apocynum cannabinum Dogbane, Indian Hemp

Aquilegia canadensis Columbine, Wild
Litchfield Wetland Management District

102

Aralia racemosa Spikenard

Arctium minus Burdock

Arisaema triphyllum Jack-in-the-Pulpit

Aristida Three-awn

Artemisia absinthium Wormwood

Artemisia campestris ssp.caudata Sagewort, Western

Artemisia dracunculus Wormwood, Silky

Artemisia frigida Sagewort, Prairie

Artemisia ludoviciana Sage, White

Asclepias incarnata Milkweed, Swamp

Asclepias speciosa Milkweed, Showy

Asclepias syriaca Milkweed, Common

Asclepias verticillata Milkweed, Whorled

Asclepias viridiflora Milkweed, Green

Asparagus officinalis Asparagus

Aster ericoides Aster, Heath

Aster hesperius ? Aster, Marsh

Aster laevis Aster, Smooth Blue

Aster lanceolatus Aster, Eastern Lined

Aster lateriflorus Aster, White Woodland

Aster novae-angliae Aster, New England

Aster oblongifolius Aster, Aromatic

Aster oolentangiensis Aster, Azure

Aster pilosus ? Aster, Hairy

Aster puniceus ssp firmus Aster, Shining

Aster puniceus ssp puniceus Aster, Red-stalked

Aster sagittifolius Aster, Arrow-leaved

Aster sericeus Aster, Silky

Aster umbellatus Aster, Flat-top

Astragalus adsurgens Milkvetch, Standing

Astragalus agrestis Milkvetch, Field

Astragalus canadensis Milkvetch, Canada

Astragalus crassicarpus Groundplum

Avena sativa Oats

Berteroa incana Alyssum, Hoary False

Betula glandulosa Birch, Bog

Betula papyrifera Birch, Paper

Bidens cernua Beggartick, Nodding

Boehmeria cylindrica Nettle, Wood

Botrychium virginianum Fern, Rattlesnake

Bouteloua curtipendula Grama, Sideoats

Bouteloua gracilis Grama, Blue

Bouteloua hirsuta Grama, Hairy

Brassica kaber Charlock

Bromus ciliatus Brome, Fringed

Bromus inermis Brome, Smooth

Bromus japonicus Brome, Japanese

Bromus kalmii Brome, Kalm’s

Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint

Calamovilfa longifolia Sandreed, Prairie

Caltha palustris Marigold, Marsh

Calylophus serrulatus Primrose, Plains Yellow

Calystegia sepium v.angulata Bindweed, Hedge

Campanula aparinoides Harebell, Marsh
Appendix C: Species List

103

Campanula rapunculoides Harebell, Creeping

Campanula rotundifolia Harebell

Cannabis sativa Hemp

Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd’s Purse

Caragana arborescens Pea-shrub, Siberian

Carduus acanthoides Thistle, Plumeless

Carex Sedge

Carex bicknellii Sedge, Bicknell’s

Carex buxbaumii Sedge, Brown Bog

Carex meadii Sedge, Mead’s

Carex stricta Sedge, Tussock

Carex tetanica Sedge, Rigid

Carex utriculata Sedge, Beaked

Castilleja sessiliflora Paintbrush, Downy

Caulophyllum thalictroides Cohosh, Blue

Celastrus scandens Bittersweet, American

Celtis occidentalis Hackberry

Centaurea maculosa Knapweed, Spotted

Cerastium vulgatum Chickweed, Common Mouseear

Chenopodium Goosefoot

Chenopodium album Lamb’s Quarters

Chenopodium gigantospermum Goosefoot, Maple-leaved

Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Chrysanthemum

Chrysopsis villosa Goldenaster

Cicuta maculata Hemlock, Common Water

Circaea lutetiana ssp.canadensis Nightshade, Enchanter’s

Cirsium altissimum Thistle, Tall

Cirsium arvense Thistle, Canada

Cirsium discolor Thistle, Field

Cirsium flodmanii Thistle, Flodman’s

Cirsium hillii Cirsium hillii Thistle, Hill’s

Cirsium muticum Thistle, Swamp

Cirsium vulgare Thistle, Bull

Comandra umbellata Toad-flax, Bastard

Convolvulus arvensis Bindweed, Field

Conyza canadensis Horseweed

Coreopsis palmata Tickseed, Stiff

Cornus foemina Dogwood, Gray

Cornus stolonifera Dogwood, Red Osier

Corylus americana Hazelnut

Crataegus Hawthorn

Cryptotaenia canadensis Honewort

Cyperus Flatsedge

Cypripedium calceolus v. parviflorum Lady’s-slipper, Small Yellow

Cypripedium candidum Lady’s-slipper, Small White

Cypripedium reginae Lady’s-slipper, Showy

Dactylis glomerata Grass, Orchard

Dalea candida Prairieclover, White

Dalea purpurea Prairieclover, Purple

Dalea villosa Prairieclover, Silky

Daucus carota Carrot, Wild

Delphinium virescens Larkspur, Prairie

Desmanthus illinoensis Bundleflower, Illinois

Desmodium canadense Tick-trefoil, Canada
Litchfield Wetland Management District

104

Dichanthelium leibergii Panicgrass, Leiberg’s

Dichanthelium lineriafolium Panicgrass, Slimleaf

Dichanthelium oligosanthes

scribnerianum Panicgrass, Scribner’s

Dichanthelium wilcoxianum Panicgrass, Fall

Digitaria ischaemum Crabgrass, Smooth

Dirca palustris ? Leatherwood

Echinacea pallida v. angustifolia Coneflower, Purple

Echinochloa crusgalli Grass, Barnyard

Echinocystis lobata Cucumber, Wild

Elaeagnus angustifolia Olive, Russian

Eleocharis Spikerush

Elodea Waterweed

Elymus canadensis Wildrye, Canada

Elymus trachycalus Wildrye,

Elytrigia repens Quackgrass

Equisetum arvense Horsetail, Field

Equisetum (branched) Horsetail

Equisetum hymenale Horsetail, Common

Eragrostis Lovegrass

Erigeron philadelphicus Fleabane, Philadelphia

Erigeron strigosus Fleabane, Daisy

Eupatorium maculatum Joe-pye Weed

Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset

Eupatorium purpureum v.holzingeri ? Joe-Pye Weed, Sweet

Euphorbia esula Spurge, Leafy

Euthamia graminifolia Goldenrod, Grass-leaved

Festuca arundinacea Fescue, Tall

Fragaria virginiana Strawberry, Wild

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Ash, Green

Galearis spectabilis Orchis, Showy

Galium aparine Bedstraw, Catchweed

Galium boreale Bedstraw, Northern

Gentiana andrewsii Gentian, Closed

Gentiana puberulenta Gentian, Downy

Gentianopsis crinita Gentian, Fringed

Geranium maculatum Cranesbill, Wild

Geum aleppicum Avens, Yellow

Geum triflorum Prairie Smoke

Glyceria Mannagrass

Glycyrrhiza lepidota Licorice, Wild

Gnaphalium obtusifolium Cudweed, Fragrant

Grindelia squarrosa Gumweed, Curly-top

Habenaria hyperborea Orchid, Northen Green

Hedeoma hispidum Pennyroyal, Rough False

Helenium autumnale Sneezeweed

Helianthemum bicknellii Frostweed

Helianthus annuus Sunflower, Annual

Helianthus divaricatus Sunflower, Woodland

Helianthus giganteus Sunflower, Swamp

Helianthus grosseserratus Sunflower, Sawtooth

Helianthus maximilianii Sunflower, Maximilian

Helianthus rigidus Sunflower, Stiff

Helianthus tuberosa Jerusalem Artichoke
Appendix C: Species List

105

Heliopsis helianthoides Oxe-eye

Hemerocallis fulva Daylily

Heracleum lanatum Parsnip, Cow

Hesperis matronalis Dame’s Rocket

Heuchera richardsonii Alumroot

Hieracium canadense Hawkweed, Canada

Hordeum jubatum Barley, Foxtail

Hydrophyllum virginianum Waterleaf, Virginia

Hypericum pyramidatum St. John’s-wort, Great

Hypoxis hirsuta Stargrass, Yellow

Hystrix patula Grass, Bottlebrush

Impatiens capensis Touch-me-not, Spotted

Impatiens pallida Touch-me-not, Pale

Ipomoea Morning-glory

Iris versicolor Bluflag

Isopyrum biternatum ? Anemone, False Rue

Iva xanthifolia Marsh Elder

Juglans cinera Butternut

Juglans nigra Walnut, Black

Juncus Rush

Juniperus virginiana Cedar, Red

Koeleria macrantha Junegrass

Kuhnia eupatoroides Boneset, False

Lactuca canadensis Lettuce, Wild

Lactuca oblongifolia Lettuce, Wild Blue

Lactuca serriola Lettuce, Prickly

Lappula Stickseed

Larix laricina Tamarack

Lathyrus palustris Vetchling, Marsh

Lathyrus venosus Vetchling, Bushy

Lemna minor Duckweed, Common

Leonurus cardiaca Motherwort

Lepidium densiflorum Peppergrass,

Lespedeza capitata Bush-clover, Round-headed

Liatris aspera Blazing Star, Tall

Liatris cylindrica Blazing Star, Few-headed

Liatris ligulistylis Blazing Star, N. Plains

Liatris punctata Blazing Star, Dotted

Liatris pycnostachya Blazing Star, Prairie

Lilium michiganense Lily, Turk’s Cap

Lilium philadelphicum Lily, Wood

Linaria vulgaris Butter and Eggs

Linum sulcatum Flax, Grooved

Lithospermum canescens Puccoon, Hoary

Lithospermum incisum Puccoon, Narrowleaf

Lobelia kalmii Lobelia, Kalm’s

Lobelia siphlitica Lobelia, Great Blue

Lobelia spicata Lobelia, Palespike

Lonicera Honeysuckle

Lotus corniculatus Trefoil, Bird’s-foot

Lycopus americanus Bugleweed, American

Lycopus asper Bugleweed, Rough

Lygodesmia juncea Skeletonweed

Lysimachia ciliata Loosestrife, Fringed
Litchfield Wetland Management District

106

Lysimachia quadriflora Loosestrife, Whorled

Lysimachia thyrsiflora Loosestrife, Tufted

Lythrum alatum Loosestrife, Winged

Lythrum salicaria Loosestrife, Purple

Maianthemum canadense Bunchberry

Malva neglecta Mallow, Common

Matricaria matricarioides Weed, Pineapple

Medicago lupulina Medick, Black

Medicago sativa Alfalfa

Melilotus alba Sweet Clover, White

Melilotus officinalis Sweet Clover, Yellow

Menispermum canadense Moonseed

Mentha arvensis Mint, Field

Mimulus ringens Monkeyflower

Mirabilis nyctaginea Four-o-clock, Wild

Monarda fistulosa Bergamot, Wild

Morus rubra Mulberry, Red

Muhlenbergia Muhly,

Muhlenbergia cuspidata Muhly, Plains

Muhlenbergia mexicana Muhly, Mexican

Nepeta cataria Catnip

Nuphar lutea Water Lily, Yellow

Nymphaea tuberosa Water Lily, White

Oenothera biennis Evening Primrose, Common

Onosmodium molle ssp. occidentale Gromwell, False

Osmorhiza Aniseroot

Ostrya virginiana Ironwood

Oxalis stricta Wood Sorrel, Yellow

Oxalis violacea Wood Sorrel, Violet

Oxytropis lambertii Locoweed, Purple

Panicum virgatum Switchgrass

Parthenocissus quinquefolia Ivy, Five-leaved

Pastinaca sativa Parsnip, Wild

Pedicularis canadensis Lousewort, Common

Pedicularis lanceolata Lousewort, Swamp

Penstemon gracilis Beardtongue, Slender

Phalaris arundinacea Grass, Reed Canary

Phalaris canariensis Grass, Canary

Phleum pratense Timothy

Phlox pilosa Phlox, Prairie

Phragmites australis Reed, Common

Phryma leptostachya Lopseed

Physalis heterophylla Groundcherry, Clammy

Physalis virginiana Groundcherry, Virginia

Picea abies Spruce, Norway

Picea glauca Spruce, White

Pilea pumila Clearweed

Pinus banksiana Pine, Jack

Pinus resinosa Pine, Red

Pinus strobus Pine, White

Pinus sylvestris Pine, Scotch

Plantago major Plantain, Common

Poa compressa Bluegrass, Canada

Poa palustris Bluegrass, Fowl
Appendix C: Species List

107

Poa pratensis Bluegrass, Kentucky

Polygala senega Snakeroot, Seneca

Polygonatum biflorum Solomon’s Seal

Polygonum Smartweed,

Polygonum amphibium Smartweed, Swamp

Polygonum aviculare Knotweed

Populus deltoides Cottonwood

Populus tremuloides Aspen, Quaking

Portulaca oleracea Purslane, Common

Potamogeton Pondweed

Potentilla argentea Cinquefoil, Silvery

Potentilla arguta Cinquefoil, Tall

Potentilla norvegica Cinquefoil, Norwegian

Potentilla recta Cinquefoil, Sulfer

Prenanthes alba Rattlesnake-root, White

Prenanthes racemosa Rattlesnake-root, Glaucous

Prunella vulgaris Self-heal

Prunus americana Plum, Wild

Prunus serotina Cherry, Black

Prunus virginiana Cherry, Choke

Psoralea argophylla Scurfpea, Silverleaf

Psoralea esculenta Scurfpea, Breadroot

Pycnanthemum virginianum Mint, Mountain

Pyrus malus Apple

Quercus ellipsoidales Oak, Pin

Quercus macrocarpa Oak, Bur

Ranunculus acris Buttercup, Tall

Ranunculus flabellaris Buttercup, Threadleaf

Ranunculus rhomboideus Buttercup, Prairie

Ratibida pinnata Coneflower, Gray-headed

Rhamnus cathartica Buckthorn, Common

Rhus glabra Sumac, Smooth

Rhus typhina Sumac, Staghorn

Rhynchospora Beak-rush

Ribes americanum Currant, Wild Black

Ribes cynosbati Gooseberry

Rosa Rose,

Rosa acicularis sayi Rose, Prickly Wild

Rosa arkansana Rose, Prairie Wild

Rubus idaeus Raspberry, Red

Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan

Rudbeckia laciniata Golden Glow

Rumex crispus Dock, Curly

Sagittaria latifolia Arrowhead, Common

Salix amygdaloides Willow, Peachleaf

Salix bebbiana Willow, Beaked

Salix discolor Willow, Pussy

Salix eriocephala Willow, Diamond

Salix exigua interior Willow, Sandbar

Salix humilis Willow, Prairie

Salix petiolaris Willow, Meadow

Salsola iberica Thistle, Russian

Sambucus racemosa ssp.pubens Elderberry, Stinking

Sanguinaria canadensis Bloodroot
Litchfield Wetland Management District

108

Sanicula canadensis Snakeroot, Canada

Saponaria officinalis Soapwort

Saxifraga pennsylvanica Saxifrage, Swamp

Schizachyrium scoparium Bluestem, Little

Scirpus Bullrush

Scirpus acutus Bulrush, Hardstem

Scirpus cyperinus Grass, Wool

Scirpus fluviatilis Bulrush, River

Scirpus validus Bulrush, Softstem

Scrophularia lanceolata Figwort

Scutellaria galericulata Skullcap, Marsh

Scutellaria parvula Skullcap, Leonard’s Small

Secale cereale Rye

Senecio pauperculus Ragwort, Balsam

Senecio plattensis Ragwort, Prairie

Senecio pseudoaureus v.semicordatus Groundsel, Falsegold

Setaria faberi Foxtail, Giant

Setaria glauca Grass, Pigeon

Setaria viridis Foxtail, Green

Silene vulgaris Campion, Bladder

Sisyrinchium campestre Blue-eyed Grass, White

Sisyrinchium montanum Blue-eyed Grass, Strict

Sium suave Parsnip, Water

Smilacina racemosa Spikenard, False

Smilacina stellata Spikenard

Smilax herbacea v.lasioneura Carrion-flower

Solanum dulcamara Nightshade, Climbing

Solanum nigrum Nightshade, Black

Solidago altissima Goldenrod, Canada

Solidago canadensis v. canadensis Goldenrod, Canada

Solidago flexicaulis Goldenrod, Zigzag

Solidago gigantea Goldenrod, Late

Solidago juncea Goldenrod, Early

Solidago missouriensis Goldenrod, Prairie

Solidago nemoralis Goldenrod, Gray

Solidago ptarmicoides Aster, Sneezewort

Solidago riddellii Goldenrod, Riddell’s

Solidago rigida Goldenrod, Rigid

Solidago speciosa Goldenrod, Showy

Sonchus arvensis Sow Thistle, Field

Sonchus asper Sow Thistle, Prickly

Sorghastrum nutans Grass, Indian

Sparganium eurycarpum Burreed, Giant

Spartina pectinata Cordgrass, Prairie

Sphagnum Moss

Spiraea alba Meadow-sweet

Sporobolus cryptandrus Dropseed, Sand

Sporobolus heterolepis Dropseed, Prairie

Sporobolus neglectus Grass, Poverty

Stachys palustris Hedge-nettle

Stellaria Chickweed

Stipa comata Grass, Needle-and-thread

Stipa spartea Grass, Porcupine

Stipa viridula Grass, Green Needle
Appendix C: Species List

109

Streptopus roseus ? Twisted-stalk

Symphoricarpos occidentalis Wolfberry

Syringa vulgaris Lilac

Tanacetum vulgare Tansy, Common

Taraxacum officinale Dandelion, Common

Teucrium canadense Germander, American

Thalictrum dasycarpum Meadow Rue, Tall

Thalictrum dioicum Meadow Rue, Early

Thuja occidentalis Cedar, White

Tilia americana Basswood

Toxicodendron rydbergii Ivy, Poison

Tradescantia occidentalis Spiderwort, Prairie

Tragopogon dubius Goat’s Beard

Trifolium arvense Clover, Rabbit-foot

Trifolium pratense Clover, Red

Trifolium repens Clover, White

Trillium cernuum Trillium, Nodding

Triticum aestivum Wheat

Typha angustifolia Cattail, Narrowleaf

Typha glauca Cattail, Hybrid

Typha latifolia Cattail, Broadleaf

Ulmus americana Elm, American

Ulmus pumila Elm, Siberian

Urtica dioica Nettle, Stinging

Utricularia Bladderwort

Uvularia grandiflora Bellwort, Large

Verbascum thapsus Mullein, Common

Verbena hastata Vervain, Blue

Verbena stricta Vervain, Hoary

Verbena urticifolia Vervain, Nettle-leaf

Vernonia fasciculata v.corymbosa Ironweed

Veronicastrum virginicum Root, Culver’s

Viburnum lentago Nannyberry

Vicia americana v.americana Vetch, American

Viola palmata var. pedatifida Violet, Prairie

Viola pedata Violet, Bird’s-foot

Viola pubescens Violet, Downy Yellow

Viola sororia Violet, Downy Blue

Vitis riparia Grape, River-bank

Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur

Zanthoxylum americanum Ash, Prickly

Zea mays Corn

Zigadenus elegans Camass, White

Zizia aptera Alexanders, Golden

Zizia aurea Alexanders, Golden

Appendix D: National Wetlands Inventory

111

Appendix D: National Wetlands Inventory – Minnesota

Counties Wetland Types

Appendix D: National Wetlands Inventory

113

National Wetlands Inventory – Minnesota Counties Wetland Types

County Total Palustrine % Riverine % Lacustrine %

Wetland Acres Acres Acres

(small, (Lakes and

shallow deep water

wetlands) reservoirs)

Becker 149,248 73,056 34 260 <1 75,932 35

Big Stone 59,347 44,475 70 71 <1 14,801 23

Blue Earth 23,577 14,542 48 2,723 9 6,312 21

Brown 16,498 11,431 52 1,516 7 3,551 16

Chippewa 11,401 7,843 52 853 6 2,705 18

Clay 30,483 25,600 68 916 2 3,967 10

Clearwater 104,255 87,146 47 452 <1 16,657 9

Cottonwood 12,700 7,078 50 506 4 5,116 36

Faribault 9,975 5,702 51 806 7 3,467 31

Douglas 95,323 44,819 42 203 <1 50,301 47

Freeborn 18,681 9,762 50 192 1 8,727 44

Grant 35,696 19,265 50 97 <1 16,334 42

Jackson 22,129 11,783 50 734 3 9,612 41

Lac qui Parle 26,751 18,653 59 594 2 7,504 24

Kandiyohi 82,499 44,939 48 57 <1 37,503 40

LeSueur 42,417 27,703 61 580 1 14,134 31

Lincoln 20,988 14,557 66 3 0 6,428 29

Kittson 49,981 49,094 69 352 1 535 1

Lyon 16,105 11,930 64 11 <1 4,164 22

Mahnomen 48,206 34,050 51 476 1 13,680 20

Marshall 112,892 102,291 50 1,301 1 9,300 5

Martin 21,434 10,503 45 24 <1 10,907 46

McLeod 37,088 29,760 75 50 <1 7,278 18

Meeker 65,808 44,874 58 416 1 20,518 26

Murray 21,703 13,094 56 9 0 8,600 37

Nicollet 20,949 15,200 57 1,340 5 4,409 17

Nobles 10,946 6,984 60 46 1 3,916 33

Norman 14,176 12,465 60 1,544 7 167 1

Otter Tail 261,870 114,210 33 1,132 1 146,538 43

Pennington 22,759 21,097 67 1,253 4 409 1

Pipestone 4,760 4,520 87 88 2 152 3

Polk 78,325 60,479 57 2,608 2 15,238 14

Pope 72,474 43,011 50 55 <1 29,408 34
Litchfield Wetland Management District

114

National Wetlands Inventory – Minnesota Counties Wetland Types

County Total Palustrine % Riverine % Lacustrine %

Wetland Acres Acres Acres

(small, (Lakes and

shallow deep water

wetlands) reservoirs)

Red Lake 9,321 7,832 54 1,450 10 39 0.5

Redwood 8,204 7,171 66 728 7 305 3

Renville 17,856 14,937 72 713 3 2,206 11

Rock 3,383 2,422 59 848 21 113 3

Roseau 133,897 131,076 37 633 <1 2,188 1

Sibley 27,241 21,758 71 55 2 5,428 18

Steele 6,344 5,293 69 99 1 952 12

Stevens 26,832 19,610 68 304 1 6,918 24

Swift 24,752 19,695 64 449 1 4,608 15

Traverse 28,009 20,828 71 211 1 6,970 24

Waseca 17,150 12,416 67 9 <1 4,725 25

Watonwan 7,033 4,830 20 103 1 2,100 23

Wilkin 11,568 10,201 79 1,201 9 166 1

Yellow Medicine 11,696 9,547 65 632 4 1,517 10

TOTALS 1,954,730 1,329,532 28,703 596,495
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

115

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

■ Permit Archeological Investigations / page 117

■ Collection of Edible Wild Plant Foods for Personal Use / page 120

■ Cooperative Farming for Cover Enhancement / page 123

■ Disability Access to Waterfowl Production Areas / page 126

■ Interpretation and Environmental Education / page 129

■ Recreational Fishing / page 132

■ Establishing Food Plots / page 135

■ Controlled Grazing on WPAs and Conservation Easements / page 139

■ Haying / page 142

■ Hunting of Resident Game and Furbearers / page 145

■ Irrigation travelways on Waterfowl Management Wetland Easements and/or

FmHA type “C” Wetland Easements / page 148

■ Installation of Bluebird Boxes, other Nest Boxes, or Nesting Structures by Public

or Groups / page 151

■ Wildlife Observation and Photograpahy (Including means of access, such as

hiking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and canoeing) / page 154

■ One-time Fruits of the Soil Harvest / page 157

■ Placement of New, Small Parking Aeas on WPAs / page 160

■ Short-term Upland Disturbance for Highway or Other Public Interest Projects

with No ROW Expansion and Full Restoration / page 163

■ Wood Cutting/Timber Harvest / page 166

■ Trapping of Furbearers / page 170

■ Placement of Wetland Accesses/Ramps in Support of Priority Public Uses / page

175

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

117

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Permit Archeological Investigations Use:

Station Name: Station Name: Litchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “...as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “...all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]....except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions...” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds”.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “for conservation purposes...”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

Permitted archeological investigations on the Minnesota Wetland Management

Districts, Minnesota, are those requested by archeologists who are not performing the

investigation for District management purposes (e.g., not for Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act). Rather, permitted archeologists are pursuing

their own or institutional research or are working for other parties that will be

conducting activities on FWS land, or as requested by the Governor of Minnesota, and

similar third party activities on lands of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Permitted investigations can occur at any time of the year although usually not during the

winter. Investigations may be as short as a few hours or go on for months, depending

on the research objective. These permitted investigations occur on the District

because the District is where the resource is found or where the resource could be

disrupted.

Archeologists request Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) permits or

Antiquities Act permits to conduct “Surveys and limited testing and limited collections on lands identified” and “Excavation, collection and intensive study of specific
Litchfield Wetland Management District

118

sites described” on District land. Permits are issued by the Regional Director to

qualified archeologists.

Permits can be for anyplace on FWS owned and managed lands, but each permit is for

specific lands; i.e., no general archeological permits are authorized.

The District Manager issues a special use permit to archeologists prior to investigation on lands managed by the District, to define allowable dates and times for the

investigation, and other management controls.

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

The District has resources available to administer this use. This activity will require

the District Manager to develop and issue a Special Use Permit and random inspections of the project area. ARPA/Antiquities permits are received by the Regional

Historic Preservation Officer and issued by the Regional Director as part of normal

duties.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Impacts from routine pedestrian surveys, soil coring, shovel tests, and land form

analysis are limited to short-term disturbance to wildlife using the immediate area

and disruption of vegetative cover for the growing season on an extremely small area

affected by shovel tests.

Impacts from a large scale excavation are potentially longer term (several growing

seasons) with associated wildlife disturbance impacts affecting animals in the immediate area and vegetation cover disruption severe enough to require site regrading and

reseeding of the area to desired native species.

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

During the Scoping phase of the preparation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan

(CCP), six open houses were held to solicit public input and comment on all aspects of

district management. Draft copies of the CCP will be distributed during a 30-day

comment period and an additional six public meetings will be held to garner public

comments, written and verbal, on the draft plan including all Compatibility Determinations.

Determination: Determination:

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Applicant must obtain a Special Use Permit issued by the District Manager. The

Special Use Permit is to prescribe administrative or management restrictions required by the District Manager.

Permittee will shore up walls of test pits and trenches in accordance with OSHA

standards; will flag, barricade, and sign testing areas as necessary to prevent injury to
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

119

the public; will refill shovel tests as soon as excavated and data recorded including

replacing the vegetative plug to restore original conditions; will backfill excavations as

soon as data recording is completed and seed the surface with a grass or other vegetative mix approved by the District Manager.

Predetermined stipulations on ARPA/Antiquities permits and the requirements in 43

CFR Part 7, “Protection of Archaeological Resources: Uniform Regulations,” contain

protective measures to be accomplished by archeologists.

Justification: Justification:

Although temporary disruption of habitat and wildlife routine could occur, this disruption is limited in scope and duration. Due to stipulations and the issuance of a permit,

managers will have control on when the activitity will occur so sensitive habitat, or

sensitive nesting times, can be avoided as needed. With stipulations in place, the use

would not materially interfere with or detract from the purpose of WPAs. No longterm harm should come to the natural resources managed by the District.

In addition, the archeological investigations would be conducted in the public interest

for which Federal agencies protect archeological sites; and the results may be included in public interpretive exhibits and other public dissemination. The results of

the study could increase District understanding of prior human activities on the

District and could be part of District interpretive program.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2012
Litchfield Wetland Management District

120

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Collection of Edible Wild Plant Foods for Personal Use Use:

Station Name: Station Name: L Station Name: itchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “...as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “...all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]....except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions...” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds”.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “for conservation purposes...”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

Allow public to collect plant food products on WPAs for personal use.

Some plants growing on WPAs produce edible products such as fruits and nuts.

Apples, raspberries and walnuts are examples these products. These plants grow in

the uplands, occupy a small percentage of the total upland acreage, and are often

found at abandoned building sites which have been reclaimed by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. Harvest occurs during the daylight hours, usually in the late summer or fall and typically is of short duration. These foods are hand harvested by

picking the products from the plant or gathering what has fallen to the ground.

Mushrooms, asparagus and wild mint are examples of plants that are collected and

consumed or used as tea. These are cut by hand during harvest.

Wild rice grows in permanent wetlands. With a license from the State of Minnesota, it

can be hand harvested from July 15 through September 30 using non-motorized

watercraft. Harvest time is restricted to 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

121

Access to harvest sites is accomplished by walking from a designated parking area or

public roadway. Canoes used to harvest wild rice are launched at boat ramps or

carried to the wetland from parking areas or public roadways.

Collection of these foods is not a wildlife-dependent recreational use and occurs

infrequently. For a small number of people, this is a traditional, family oriented

activity which provides an opportunity for those participating to collect wholesome,

healthy foods while enjoying the beauty of the natural environment.

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

Waterfowl Production Areas have been open to hunting since they were acquired. As

a result, access trails, parking lots, signage and other facilities as well as staff to

enforce regulations and maintain these facilities have been provided by the Service.

These facilities will be maintained to meet the needs of the hunting public and will be

used incidentally by those who are collecting edible wild plant foods. This use will not

require a significant increase in additional maintenance or enforcement staff expenditures. The Service will not have to provide special equipment.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Historically, public participation in the collection of plant food products on WPAs was

low, and future participation is also expected to be low. The quantity and frequency of

plant food products removed is not expected to significantly diminish wildlife food

sources or jeopardize wildlife survival.

Short-term disturbance to wildlife may occur during these activities, but will be

insignificant. Most of these activities occur in the late summer or fall, after groundnesting birds have completed the nesting season. This activity should not result in

short or long-term impacts that adversely affect the purpose of WPAs or the mission

of the National Wildlife System.

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

Six open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public about

Wetland Management District operations during the drafting of Comprehensive

Conservation Plans. This process identified 22 issues of concern. The collection of

plant food products was not identified as an issue of concern.

This Compatibility Determination was prepared concurrently with, and included in

the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plans for Wetland Management Districts in

Minnesota. Public review and comment was solicited during the CCP comment

period.

Determination (check one below): Determination (check one below):

_____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Litchfield Wetland Management District

122

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

• The use of motorized vehicles or motorized water craft is prohibited except by

permit or in designated parking areas, access trails or public roads.

• Camping, overnight use and fires are prohibited.

• Digging of plants or their roots is prohibited.

• Plant food products cannot be sold.

• Damage to trees is prohibited.

• Wild rice will be harvested according to state regulations

Justification: Justification:

This use will have limited and localized impacts when conducted within the stipulations above. Administration of the use will require little to no administrative time or

funding. This use will not diminish the primary purposes of waterfowl production, or

the conservation of other migratory birds and wildlife.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2012
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

123

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Cooperative Farming for Cover Enhancement Use:

Refuge Name: Refuge Name: L Refuge Name: itchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “...as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “...all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]....except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions...” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds.”

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “for conservation purposes...”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

Cooperative farming is the term used for cropping activities done by a third party on

land that is owned by the Service in fee title or controlled by the Service through a

restrictive easement. This type of activity is usually done on a short-term basis (3

years or less) to prepare an optimum seed bed for the establishment of native prairie

species.

The cropping is done under the terms and conditions of a Cooperative Farming

Agreement or Special Use Permit issued by the Wetland District Manager. The terms

of the Agreement or Permit insure that all current Service and District restrictions

are followed.

Cooperative farming activities are only compatible on previously disturbed areas that

have unacceptable levels of chemical residue, noxious weeds, or non-native plant

species or ecotypes or to honor the land use clauses of a purchase agreement. To

ensure that all Service policies are met, all such land use clauses must be approved by

the Wetland District Manager prior to Service acceptance of the purchase agreement.
Litchfield Wetland Management District

124

Waterfowl Production Areas in Minnesota average less than 200 acres in size and are

intermingled with private and other public lands. Although the specific acreage of

fields to be cooperatively farmed will vary by unit, they will typically range from 5 to

160 acres.

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

The needed staff time for development and administration of cooperative farming

programs is already committed and available. Most of the needed work to prepare for

this use would be done as part of routine grassland management duties. The decision

to use a cooperative farmer would occur as part of strategies developed under grassland development and management discussions. The additional time needed to

coordinate issuance and oversight of the needed Special Use Permit or Cooperative

Farming Agreement is relatively minor and within existing District resources.

The cooperative farming of Service land will in most cases generate income for the

Service. In accordance with Service policy, all income is submitted for deposit in the

Refuge Revenue Sharing Account and is not available at the district level to offset

station costs incurred in administration of this use. However, all Service employees

involved in the administration of the program must be sensitive to the primary

purpose of cooperative farming: providing an optimum seed bed for native prairie

plant species. The Service should receive a fair market value from cooperative

farmers, but generation of income is a secondary consideration when developing the

terms and conditions of a cooperative farming agreement.

To lessen any appearance of favoritism or impropriety, District Managers should

document how cooperators were selected and how rental rates were derived (see

Refuge Manual).

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Cooperative farming to prepare suitable seed beds for native prairie plantings will

result in short-term disturbances and long-term benefits to both resident and migratory wildlife using Waterfowl Production Areas and Service-managed upland easements. Short-term impacts will include disturbance and displacement typical of any

noisy heavy equipment operation. Cropping activities in old fields or abandoned

croplands will also result in short-term loss of habitat for any animal or insect species

using those areas for nesting, feeding, or perching. Long-term benefits are extremely

positive due to establishment of diverse nesting cover including native tallgrass

species. The resulting habitat will greatly improve conditions for most of the same

species affected by the short-term negative impacts. Strict time constraints placed on

this use will limit anticipated impacts to these relatively minor areas.

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

During the Scoping phase of the preparation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan

(CCP), six open houses were held to solicit public input and comment on all aspects of

district management. Draft copies of the CCP will be distributed during a 30-day

comment period and an additional six public meetings will be held to garner public

comments, written and verbal, on the draft plan including all Compatibility Determinations.
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

125

Determination: Determination:

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Cooperative farming agreements will be limited to 3 years or less and comply with

all appropriate Service regulations on chemical application and use.

Justification: Justification:

The cooperative farming of previously disturbed areas that are owned or under

easement by the Service and have unacceptable levels of chemical residue, noxious

weeds, or non-native plant species or ecotypes or are being farmed to honor the land

use clauses of a purchase agreement to prepare an optimum seed bed for the establishment of native prairie species, will not materially interfere with or detract from

the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purposes of

Waterfowl Production Areas or FmHA transfer lands for the following reasons:

1) Only areas that have already been significantly manipulated or altered by cropping

activities will be affected. These areas contain few if any native plants and offer

extremely limited value to the ecological integrity of the unit or landscape.

2) Cooperative farming activities in most cases, provide the fastest, most cost effective way to establish native prairie species on areas that have unacceptable levels of

chemical residue, noxious weeds, or non-native plant species or ecotypes. District

staff could complete all work, but for most districts that would required additional

equipment and/or staff to efficiently break up non-native brome sod, or to cultivate

and control weeds on small, widely scattered tracts of land. Hiring contractors to do

this work at rates that can approach $100/acre is a possibility, but would require

additional funds in years when the farming acres were high. By using local farmers to

conduct these farming activities, district budgets and staff time can be better allocated to completing the needed restoration (seeding of native grasses and forbs) on

lands that have completed the farming cycle and are in good condition for seeding.

3) Short-term impacts of farming small tracts of land are minor. No wildlife or habitat

losses occur when land purchased in row crop is farmed for an additional period of 2-3

years. Low quality grasslands that are farmed as a first step to conversion to highervalue native grasslands will result in habitat loss for trust resources during the

farming period. The long-term benefits to the ecological integrity of the district and

landscape by restoring these degraded or row cropped areas to native prairie plant

species are significant and exceed the short-term losses incurred through the cropping

process.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2012
Litchfield Wetland Management District

126

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Disability Access to Waterfowl Production Areas

Refuge Name: Refuge Name: L Refuge Name: itchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “...as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “...all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]....except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions...” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds.”

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “for conservation purposes...”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

Disability access is the term used to describe the process of granting exemptions to

current Refuge Regulations that assist persons with disabilities in engaging in

compatible activities on Waterfowl Production Areas. The most common type of

exemption given will be Special Use Permits of limited duration which allow the use

of motorized vehicles on existing roads and trails. All exemptions granted will comply

with the general public safety regulations of the Department of Interior and the

specific public safety guidance of the Service Compatibility Policy. Based on experience to date, it is expected that most disability access requests will be for hunting, but

this policy also applies to the other priority public uses on refuges; wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, interpretation, and fishing.

Waterfowl Production Areas in Minnesota average less than 200 acres in size and are

intermingled with private and other public lands. Although the specific locations and

sizes of areas affected will vary by Permit disturbances will typically vary from 0.5 to

3.0 acres.
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

127

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

The needed staff time for development and administration of Special Use Permits

authorizing motorized vehicle use on existing roads and trails is already committed

and available. Most of the work needed to prepare for this use would be done as part

of routine Waterfowl Production Area management duties. The decision to allow

such use would occur as part of normal facility management and inspection programs.

The additional time needed to coordinate issuance and oversight of the needed Special

Use Permit is relatively minor and within existing District resources.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

A small amount of additional motorized use on established roads and trails will result

in short-term disturbances to both resident and migratory wildlife using Waterfowl

Production Areas. Short-term impacts will include disturbance and displacement

typical of any motorized intrusion into wildlife habitat. Long-term impacts are not

anticipated as most of the use will involve travel on roadways already used by Refuge

staff to conduct management surveys and activities throughout the year.

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

During the Scoping phase of the preparation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan

(CCP), six open houses were held to solicit public input and comment on all aspects of

district management. Draft copies of the CCP will be distributed during a 30-day

comment period and an additional six public meetings will be held to garner public

comments, written and verbal, on the draft plan including all Compatibility Determinations.

Additionally, a news release will be sent to local newspapers each fall prior to hunting

seasons describing the disability access policy and soliciting public comments to

Refuge offices.

Determination: Determination:

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Motorized access will be limited to existing roads and trails in good condition.

2. Access is limited to persons who qualify for disability access as described in the

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Minnesota Wetland Management Districts.

Justification: Justification:

The Americans With Disabilities Act and ensuing Service policy require that all

Service programs and facilities meet the needs of the disabled. Offering special access

as described in this determination is one way that the Service can meet that obligation

to the American public.

Authorizing motorized vehicle use on established roads and trails for persons with

disabilities engaged in compatible uses will cause minimal disturbance and provide
Litchfield Wetland Management District

128

appropriate recreational opportunities for people who might otherwise not be able to

visit Waterfowl Production Areas.

Issuance of permits for disability access will not be limited to a set number as it is

expected that meeting the requested demand will still result in a small amount of

permits with only minimal wildlife disturbance as a consequence. At the expected

level of use, this use is compatible as it will be below the threshold where unacceptable wildlife disturbance will occur. If demand far exceeds expectations within the

time period covered by this determination and the disturbance threshold is exceeded,

District staff will reevaluate the program and may limit the number of permits issued.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2012
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

129

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Interpretation and Environmental Education Use:

Station Name: Station Name: L Station Name: itchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. § 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “...as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “...all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]...except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions....” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds”

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “...for conservation purposes....”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

To allow wildlife interpretation and environmental education programs to be conducted on Waterfowl Production Areas. Formal programs include activities prepared,

scheduled, and organized for school-aged children and organized groups by U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service staff. Programs conducted by the Prairie Wetlands Learning

Center would be included in this category. In most cases, curriculums and program

schedules are prepared in advance. These curriculums address a number of wildlife

conservation issues including wetland and grassland conservation, migratory bird

management, and the conservation of endangered species. Informal programs include

self-guided auto tour routes and nature trails, impromptu presentations and discussions of wildlife conservation issues with interested citizens, casual visitors, and

unscheduled groups. The visitation and use of a Waterfowl Production Area by local

educators and their classes on their own or the purposes of furthering their understanding of natural resource management issues would also classified as an informal

program.
Litchfield Wetland Management District

130

In addition, this use includes the development of indoor interpretive areas within

Wetland Management District offices. There are many purposes for these exhibits,

including telling the story of waterfowl conservation and the National Wildlife Refuge

System.

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

Some staff and funding are available for a limited amount of interpretation and

environmental education programming on Waterfowl Production Areas. Currently,

however, staffing levels and funding are not adequate to fully capitalize on all the

opportunities to interpret wildlife conservation issues within these rural communities.

The individual station Comprehensive Conservation Plans detail the needed funding

and staff to bring these programs up to Service standards.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

The overall impacts to Waterfowl Production Areas and their associated wildlife

populations from this use will be minimal. There will be some disturbance to waterfowl and other wildlife, but at levels that will not likely interfere with waterfowl

production. School buses and personal vehicles will utilize parking areas and access

trails already constructed for use by waterfowl hunters and Service employees

conducting habitat management activities. The limited number of nature trails that

will be developed will minimize disturbance to vegetation and wildlife use of these

areas. Any auto tour routes are designed to minimize disturbance to waterfowl during

the spring breeding/nest season.

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

Six open houses were held in preparation for the Comprehensive Conservation Plans

for the Minnesota Wetland Management Districts. Public comments have also been

solicited about Service operations including public use programs such as interpretation and environmental education. The Service has also contracted with the University of Minnesota to conduct a visitor use study of Waterfowl Production Areas in

western Minnesota. Upon completion, this survey will yield additional public input

into the use of Waterfowl Production Areas for interpretation and environmental

education.

Determination: Determination:

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulation

Stipulation Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulation Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Use of motorized vehicles and water craft is prohibited except by permit or in

designated parking areas, access trails, or public roads/tour routes.

2. Managers will monitor use patterns and densities and make adjustments in timing,

location and duration as needed to limit disturbance.
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

131

Justification: Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulation is implemented. This use is being permitted as a priority public use and will not diminish the

primary purposes of waterfowl production as well as conservation of migratory birds

and other wildlife. This use will meet the mission of the NWRS by furthering understanding and knowledge of this Nation’s migratory bird conservation needs by the

general public.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2017
Litchfield Wetland Management District

132

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Recreational Fishing Use:

Refuge Name: Refuge Name: L Refuge Name: itchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. § 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “....as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “....all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]....except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions....” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds”

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “for conservation purposes....”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

Allow public fishing on Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) in accordance with State

regulations and seasons. Minnesota recreational fishing regulations allow the traditional taking of game fish species with rod and reel from shore, a boat or through the

ice, removal of rough fish by spear, harpoon, archery and dip net as well as the taking

of limited quantities of mussels, crayfish, frogs, minnows and turtles for personal use.

All WPAs will be open to public fishing, provided that all forms of fishing or entry on

all or any part of individual areas may be temporarily suspended by posting upon

occasions of unusual or critical conditions of, or affecting land, water, vegetation, or

wildlife populations. As of March 1999 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service owns a total

of 56,693 acres of wetlands on WPAs in Minnesota. Although the entire wetland

acreage is open to fishing approximately one (1) percent provide waters deep enough

to support viable fisheries. Acquisition of WPAs is ongoing and as lands are purchased they will be opened to fishing. The game fish season ordinarily runs from the

second Sunday in May through the third Sunday in February while other season for

taking of aquatic species run from April or May through November to February.

Generally WPAs have access trails from public roads and for safety reasons parking
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

133

lots of less than 1 acre are provided where sufficient traffic exists. This use is being

proposed as (1) “The Procedural Agreement between the Minnesota Department of

Natural Resources and Service for the Coordination of the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program in Minnesota” states “it is the policy of the Regional Director to cooperate with the Department in providing habitat for resident wildlife and for public

access and use, including hunting.” and (2) Fishing is a priority public use on National

Wildlife Refuge System Lands. WPAs average approximately 210 acres in size and

are intermingled across the landscape with other public and private lands. The few

WPAs with viable fisheries are generally connected to adjacent streams or lakes that

are located off Service lands and aquatic species move between these bodies of water.

The State of Minnesota manages these species over the larger bodies of water maintaining healthy populations by allowing harvest of surpluses though recreational

fishing.

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

WPAs by statute and regulation are open to waterfowl hunting and as a result access

trails, parking lots, signage and other facilities as well as staff to enforce regulations

and maintain these facilities have been provided by the Service. With the exception of

additional enforcement staff time these facilities will be used by the public while

engaged in recreational fishing. Given the anticipated light fishing pressure, staff are

deemed adequate to administer and enforce laws related to fishing.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Fishing activities and harvest of other aquatic species may cause temporary disturbance to waterfowl and other wildlife using WPAs. This disturbance may displace

individual animals to other parts of the WPA, however, this disturbance will be limited

in scope due to: (1) the small number of WPAs with viable fisheries; (2) prohibition on

use of motorized boats; (3) access which is predominately via foot travel; (4) lack of

boat launching facilities. Installation and use of parking areas and access trails will

result in minimal impacts as these parking areas and trails are used by waterfowl

hunters as well as by Service employees conducting refuge management activities.

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

During drafting of the Comprehensive Conservation Plans six open houses were held

and written comments were solicited from the public about Wetland Management

District operations including public use programs such as fishing. Comments were

received, compiled and addressed as issues in the Plan as well as the Environmental

Assessment. No comments regarding fishing on WPAs were received. This determination was also included in the final draft distributed to the public for review and

comment. Additionally the Service has contracted with the University of Minnesota to

conduct a visitor use study of Waterfowl Production Areas in western Minnesota.

This study is in its second year and will yield a wide array of public input on Service

programs including fishing.

Determination (check one below): Determination (check one below):

_____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Litchfield Wetland Management District

134

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Use of motorized vehicles and water craft is prohibited except by permit or in

designated parking areas, access trails or public roads.

2. Camping, overnight use and fires are prohibited.

3. Littering or disposal of entrails is prohibited.

4. All applicable State and Federal Regulations will apply.

Justification: Fishing at anticipated levels and on small areas of relatively few WPAs

will have localized and short-duration impacts and will not materially interfere with

the waterfowl production purpose of WPAs. Stipulations will help reduce or eliminate

any unwanted impacts of the use. State regulations and monitoring help ensure that

harvest levels of fish do not harm long-term populations.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2017
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

135

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Establishing Food Plots and Placing Feeder Cribs for Resident Wildlife Use:

Station Name: Station Name: L Station Name: itchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. § 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “....as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “....all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]....except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions....” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds”

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “for conservation purposes....”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

Allow the establishment of food plots and the placement of feeder cribs on Waterfowl

Production Areas (WPAs) throughout Minnesota in accordance with the attached

stipulations section. Food plots are small fields of agricultural crops with some or all

of the crop left standing through the winter. Feeder cribs are either containers or

bales containing grain or forage designed for use by resident wildlife during the

winter. Certain WPAs have been identified as critical wintering areas for resident

wildlife. Allowing the establishment of food plots or placement of feeder cribs provides winter cover and food sources during harsh winter conditions. Particularly

during severe winters, food plots and feeder cribs are widely recognized as important

to maintain populations of resident wildlife, especially pheasants, deer, and prairie

grouse. The food plots and feeder cribs are maintained by private individuals (under

cooperative farming agreements), sporting clubs, or other agencies such as the

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Typically, these food plots or

feeder cribs are used each year on the same WPA. Food plots are sometimes rotated

onto different sites within the same WPA to reduce the build-up of insect or plant

pests within the food plot or to manage a stand of non-native vegetation through the
Litchfield Wetland Management District

136

use of periodic re-seeding following use as a food plot. The use of food plots and

feeder cribs also cultivates a strong sense of cooperation between the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and its partners.

Feeder cribs and food plots are not a priority public use as identified in the Refuge

Improvement Act. Feeder cribs and food plots are a non-essential but helpful tool to

facilitate two priority uses (hunting and wildlife observation) since they help maintain

high populations of species widely viewed as desirable to view and hunt.

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

Establishment of food plots and placement of feeder cribs maintained by private

organization or other agencies requires limited Service resources. Food plots are

managed under cooperative farming agreement with private individuals or by local

sporting clubs. Likewise, feeder cribs are placed and maintained by volunteers or the

DNR requiring little to no Service involvement. There is a modest administrative

cost associated with developing cooperative farming agreements with private coordinators. These costs typically involve a few hours of staff time for each food plot

agreement with most agreements lasting 2 or 3 years. Feeder crib placement requires less administrative oversight.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Feeder crib placement will result in minimal impacts as they are generally placed

during the winter months and are very small in size. (Typically, a pallet-sized feeding

platform or hay bale rests on the ground.) There will be some temporary disturbance

to resident wildlife when feeder cribs are placed on the unit or when additional food is

added once or twice per winter. There is an aesthetic cost associated with allowing

placement of an artificial structure in a natural setting. Waterfowl impacts are small

since the cribs are usually installed after fall migration is complete. Cribs are normally

removed before spring nesting begins. If they are left in place during the nesting

season, there is a small plot of ground under the crib unavailable for nesting or other

migratory bird use. There is likely an inconsequential benefit to a few migratory bird

species that use the feeder cribs during winter months. There is some opportunity for

enhanced wildlife observation since resident wildlife, particularly pheasants, tend to

frequent the area around the feeder cribs and are visible from adjacent roads.

Food plots have more significant impacts in that most plots are approximately 10

acres in size, effectively eliminating that land from use by nesting waterfowl or other

migratory birds. Grassland bird research suggests that agricultural crops do not

create the same harmful barrier to grassland bird use as tree plantings. (Some

grassland birds avoid not only the trees but also a zone around the trees or are

prevented from making normal daily movements from one side of a tree line to

another.) Many grassland bird species, possibly including waterfowl, have better nest

success when nesting in large contiguous blocks of grassland. Careful siting of food

plots can avoid breaking up a large grassland block into smaller fragments. Some

migratory birds actually benefit from the effect of adding more vegetative edges and

encouraging some annual weed growth in and around a grassland block. However,

these tend to be species whose populations are less imperiled than those requiring

large grassland blocks. Waterfowl impacts due to food plots can be reduced but not

eliminated by siting the food plots strategically and confining their use to critical

areas. Stipulations identified later in this document will prevent critical resources

such as native prairie remnants or large, contiguous blocks of grassland habitat from

being degraded or destroyed by food plots.
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

137

Agricultural chemical impacts due to food plots will be reduced with restrictions on

allowable herbicides used. No insecticide use will be allowed on food plots. Runoff

and erosion are minimized with proper food plot siting.

Food plots tend to be popular areas for hunting and the increased levels of hunting

around food plots will cause increased levels of disturbance due to hunter activity.

These periodic disturbances should be mainly limited to autumn and early winter

hunting seasons. The impact to waterfowl should be small.

The planting, tending, and partial harvest of food plots creates brief episodes of

intrusion with agricultural tractors and implements but the impact to wildlife and

public use should be minor.

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

During drafting of the Comprehensive Conservation Plans six open houses were held

and written comments were solicited from the public about Wetland Management

District operations including management techniques such as food plots and feeder

cribs. Additionally the Service has contracted with the University of Minnesota to

conduct a Visitor use study of WPA’s in western Minnesota. This study is in its second

year and will yield a wide array of public input on Service programs including land

management issues.

This determination is being made as part of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Additional opportunity for public review will occur during review of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination: Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Areas for food plots must be identified as critical wintering sites for resident

wildlife.

2. Food plots and feeder cribs will not have negative impacts on critical habitats such

as wetlands and native prairie remnants.

3. Food plots will be sited to minimize grassland fragmentation.

4. Allowable species for planting in food plots will include: corn, soybeans, sunflowers,

wheat, barley, oats, rye, buckwheat, millet, and sorghum.

5. Food plots will be no greater than ten (10) acres and will occupy no more than 5

percent of the total acreage of the WPA on which the plot will be located.

6. No more than 20 percent of the WPAs in any Wetland Management District will

contain a food plot.

7. No WPA will contain more than one food plot in any year.
Litchfield Wetland Management District

138

Justification: Justification:

Restricted use of food plots and feeder cribs will not materially interfere with or

detract from the purposes for which the units were established. The use of feeder

cribs creates negligible interference. Food plots create more significant interference

with unit purposes and are thus more stringently controlled to ensure that they

remain compatible. Allowing the use of food plots leads to higher and more stable

resident wildlife populations by reducing catastrophic population crashes during

severe winters. These higher populations facilitate two priority public uses, hunting

and wildlife observation. The impacts to waterfowl and other migratory birds are

modest based on limiting the size and location of food plots, and the stipulations in

place.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2012
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

139

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Controlled grazing on waterfowl production areas and conservation easements Use:

Station Name: Station Name: L Station Name: itchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. § 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “....as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “....all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]....except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions....” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds”

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “for conservation purposes....”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

Allow the limited grazing by domestic livestock, chiefly cattle but potentially including

other domestic livestock, on waterfowl production areas and easements to improve

grassland vigor and health. Controlled grazing is recognized as a valuable tool to

remove standing vegetation, reduce vegetative litter, and suppress woody vegetation.

Grazing may take place anytime from April through November. Most commonly, we

will use short duration grazing pulses lasting 4 to 8 weeks and then require livestock

removal. We will use three typical seasons of use. One season will be early spring

(mid April to late May) on native prairie or seeded native grasses designed to reduce

the vigor of exotic species and increase the vigor of native species. Summer grazing

(July 15 - September 1) may be used, especially on non-native grasslands, to stimulate

the grassland after the peak nesting season yet allow vegetative regrowth in the fall.

Fall grazing (September 1 - October 31) will be designed to have effects similar to

spring grazing, mostly on native prairie remnants or fields seeded with native

tallgrass prairie species.
Litchfield Wetland Management District

140

Fencing and control of livestock will be the responsibility of the cooperating private

party. Market rate grazing fees will be required of permittees. Market grazing fees

will include typical market deductions for unusual fencing requirements, required

cattle movement, or other factors limiting economic return for the permittees. In

2001, we anticipate these market rates to be $2.75 per animal unit month (AUM). One

AUM is the amount of forage consumed by a cow/calf pair in a 30-day grazing period.

Thus, the grazing fee for each cow/calf pair will be $2.75 for each 30 days of grazing.

Market rates will determined annually in consultation with USDA on prevailing local

grazing rates.

Frequency of grazing on any unit will be based on site-specific evaluation of the

grassland unit being managed. Historically, we have frequently grazed units for two

consecutive years and then eliminated grazing from the unit for several years before

resuming grazing.

Grazing is not a priority public use as identified in the Refuge Improvement Act. As

an economic use of Refuge System lands, a compatibility determination for grazing is

mandatory.

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

Developing grazing agreements and monitoring compliance and biological effects

requires some Service resources. Most grazing costs (fencing, monitoring herd health,

and so on) are assumed by the permittee. Some alternative grassland management is

required if we do not use grazing as a tool for grassland management. Typically, these

other tools are prescribed burning, mowing, and haying. Haying has comparable costs

to controlled grazing since it also requires administering special use permits. Mowing

is more expensive since all costs are assumed by the agency. Prescribed burning is an

effective grassland management tool but staff limitations prevent us from burning as

many acres as desirable each year. Plus, there is likely an ecological benefit to rotating grassland management techniques and seasons over time so that a given field may

be grazed one year and burned another.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Grazing by domestic livestock has severe short-term effects on grassland communities. Many of these effects are desirable and are designed to maintain and improve

healthy grassland communities. Some of these effects include removing standing

vegetation, trampling of other vegetation, and reducing populations of pioneering

woody plants. Other effects of grazing are more harmful but generally short-lived.

Grazing in the spring can cause direct loss of grassland bird nests due to trampling

and loss of standing vegetation. Grazing at any time of year creates an aesthetic issue

of concern for some people who enjoy using WPAs; seeing public land being grazed by

domestic livestock reduces the appeal of the visit for many people. Fortunately, our

controlled grazing is typically of short duration and does not occur annually on any

unit. Grazing livestock can create minor direct disturbance of wildlife but any harm

should be negligible. There is a slight potential for conflict between members of the

public and livestock or the permittee, particularly in the autumn when most WPAs

receive their heaviest use. All permittees will be advised that the unit is open to the

public for hunting and other recreation. There is a very slight risk of injury to the

public caused by livestock. Most visitors who are uncomfortable using property

containing livestock are likely to select another unit or another time of year for their

visit.
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

141

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

During drafting of the Comprehensive Conservation Plans six open houses were held

and written comments were solicited from the public about Wetland Management

District operations including management techniques such as grazing. Additionally

the Service has contracted with the University of Minnesota to conduct a visitor use

study of WPAs in western Minnesota. This study is in its second year and will yield a

wide array of public input on Service programs including land management issues.

A draft version of this compatibility determination will be posted at the headquarters

of the Morris Wetland Management District for public review and comment.

Determination: Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Grazing will not occur more frequently than 3 out of every 5 years on any tract

without the preparation of a site-specific compatibility determination.

2. All fencing costs will be borne by the permittee.

3. No insecticides, including insecticidal dusting bags, will be used on WPAs or

easements.

4. No supplemental feeding will be allowed without specific authorization of the

Wetland District Manager.

5. Control and confinement of the livestock will be the responsibility of the permittee.

Justification: Justification:

Controlled grazing by domestic livestock will not materially interfere with or detract

from the purposes for which the units were established. Limited livestock grazing

creates temporary disturbances to vegetation. Many of these disturbances are

desirable for grassland management. Grazing produces an undesirable but short-term

impact to grassland bird nesting and site aesthetics. Controlled grazing is an alternative management tool that can be used to replace or complement prescribed burning,

mowing, or haying on grasslands. Without occasional disturbance caused by mowing,

haying, burning, or grazing, the health of the grassland community would decline, as

would an areas potential for waterfowl production.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2012
Litchfield Wetland Management District

142

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Haying Use:

Station Name: Station Name: L Station Name: itchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. § 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “....as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “....all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]....except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions....” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds”

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “for conservation purposes....”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

Haying is the cutting and removal, by baling and transport to an off-refuge location, of

grass, either nonnative cools season species such as brome or native warm or cool

season species. Haying of this type is typically done by a cooperative farmer acting

under authority of a Cooperative Farming Agreement or Special Use Permit issued

by the Wetland District Manager.

Haying can be an effective management tool as part of an overall grassland management plan to improve and maintain district grasslands for the benefit of migratory

birds. Grasslands need periodic renovation to maintain vigor, diversity, and the

structure necessary for migratory bird use. Haying is an effective alternative to

burning or grazing, which are two other means used by district staff to maintain

grassland vigor. If local site conditions preclude use of prescribe fire due to hazards to

neighboring property or a similar problem, removal of accumulated biomass through

haying does serve to reduce unwanted overstory, reduce woody plant invasion, etc.

Such removal will allow for more vigorous regrowth of desirable species following the

haying, although results are neither as dramatic nor positive as with prescribed fire.
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

143

Haying may also be used as part of a native grass seeding strategy on newly acquired

lands needing restoration. To reduce weed competition and minimize herbicide

applications, a cooperative farmer may be used to seed the native grass mix and

interseed it with oats. As a requirement of the permit, the cooperator would be

required to cut, bale, and remove the oats before maturation. Such silage is useful for

dairy operations and serves the biological purpose of releasing the young native

grasses for vigorous midsummer growth with minimal competition.

A third possible use of haying on district grasslands involves the initial steps of

removing unwanted vegetation prior to seeding the area to native grasses. Haying of

a nonnative cool season field is an effective step in advance of spraying the field with

Round Up or a similar chemical designed to kill all existing vegetation. Removal of

the heavy grass overstory by haying allows the chemical spray to more effectively

treat the target plants. Better removal of the unwanted grasses will in turn ensure

better success of the planted native grasses whether they are interseeded into the sod

or the soil turned over and leveled prior to seeding.

A more limited application for haying on Waterfowl Production Areas involves its use

for establishing fire breaks for the prescribed fire program. A cooperative farmer

would hay the grassland strips in early fall. That area would then green up earlier in

the spring and would have no dead overstory biomass, allowing its use as a fire break.

Waterfowl Production Areas in Minnesota average less than 200 acres in size and are

intermingled with private and other public lands. Although specific acreages for fields

to be hayed will vary by unit, they will typically range from 5 to 40 acres with only

rare exceptions exceeding 75 acres. Newly seeded areas with oats as a nurse crop

may be larger as new units are frequently seeded in entirety. In that case, haying

could possibly cover the entire unit and cover several hundred acres. Hay acreages

for fire breaks would be very small, estimated at less than 5 acres per WPA per event.

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

No additional fiscal resources are needed to conduct this use. The needed staff time is

already committed and available. Most of the work needed to prepare for this use

would be done as part of routine grassland management duties. The decision to use a

cooperative farmer for haying would only follow as part of strategies developed under

grassland management discussions. The additional time needed to coordinate issuance and oversight of the needed Special Use Permit or Cooperative Farming Agreement for haying is relatively minor and within existing district resources.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Haying will result in short-term disturbances and long-term benefits to both resident

and migratory wildlife using Waterfowl Production Areas. Short-term impacts will

include disturbance and displacement typical of any noisy heavy equipment operation.

Cutting and removal of standing grasses will also result in short-term loss of habitat

for those species requiring tall grasses for feeding and perching such as obligatory

grassland species such as the bobolink or dickcissel. Long-term benefits will accrue

due to the increased vigor of the regrown grasses or the establishment of highly

desirable native tallgrass species, which will improve conditions for those same

species affected by the short-term negative impacts. Longer-term negative impacts

may occur to resident wildlife species such as pheasant that would lose overwintering

habitat in the hay areas. Strict time constraints placed on this use will limit anticipated impacts to these relatively minor areas.
Litchfield Wetland Management District

144

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

During the Scoping phase of the preparation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan

(CCP), six open houses were held to solicit public input and comment on all aspects of

district management. Draft copies of the CCP will be distributed during a 30-day

comment period and an additional six public meetings will be held to garner public

comments, written and verbal, on the draft plan including all compatibility determinations.

Determination: Determination:

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Haying will only be allowed after July 15 to minimize disturbance to nesting migratory birds. In normal years, most birds are off the nest by this date.

2. Bales must be removed from the WPA within 2 days of baling.

3. Windrowed grass left lying to dry prior to baling must be raked and moved every 2

days if left on newly seeded native grass and in no cases should remain on the ground

more than 6 days prior to baling.

Justification: Justification:

Haying will not materially interfere with waterfowl production if done within the

necessary stipulations. Use of haying as a management tool can be a valuable technique for providing long-term habitat improvements to grassland that otherwise

would degrade through natural succession or dominance of non-native plants. Without this tool, the areas would suffer encroachment of undesirable woody species such

as box elder or ash or would remain in unwanted non-native cool season grasses such

as brome. Use of the areas by trust species such as waterfowl or grassland obligate

species such as bobolink, dickcissel, or grasshopper sparrow would slowly decline in

the absence of haying or other similar management.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2012
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

145

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Hunting of Resident Game and Furbearers Use:

Station Name: Station Name: L Station Name: itchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. § 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “....as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “....all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]....except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions....” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds”

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “for conservation purposes....”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

Allow public hunting of resident game and furbearers on Waterfowl Production Areas

in accordance with State regulations and seasons. All Waterfowl Production Areas

will be open to public hunting, provided that all forms of hunting or entry on all or any

part of individual areas may be temporarily suspended by posting upon occasions of

unusual or critical conditions of, or affecting land, water, vegetation, or wildlife

populations. Hunting is a priority public use on National Wildlife Refuge System

Lands and as of March 1999 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service owns a total of 171,863

acres of Waterfowl Production Areas in Minnesota. Acquisition of Waterfowl Production Areas is ongoing and as lands are purchased they will be opened to hunting of

resident game and furbearers. Although open to all state seasons the majority of use

occurs from mid September though the end of December. Many Waterfowl Production Areas have trails necessary to gain access from public roads and for safety

reasons, in high traffic areas, parking lots of less than 1 acre are provided. This use is

being proposed as: (1) “The Procedural Agreement between the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Service for the Coordination of the Small Wetlands

Acquisition Program in Minnesota” states “it is the policy of the Regional Director to
Litchfield Wetland Management District

146

cooperate with the Department in providing habitat for resident wildlife and for

public access and use, including hunting.”; (2) hunting is a priority public use on

National Wildlife Refuge system Lands. Waterfowl Production Areas average less

than 200 acres in size and are intermingled with private and other public lands. The

State of Minnesota manages resident game and furbearers over these broad landscapes and maintains healthy populations by allowing harvest of surpluses though

recreational hunting.

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

Waterfowl Production Areas are by statute and regulation open to waterfowl hunting.

These lands have been open to hunting since they were acquired and as a result access

trails, parking lots, signage and other facilities, as well as staff to enforce regulations

and maintain these facilities, have been provided by the Service. With the exception

of additional enforcement staff time, these facilities will be used by those who hunt

resident game and furbearers as well as waterfowl.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Installation and use of parking areas and access trails will result in minimal impacts as

these parking areas and trails are used by waterfowl hunters as well as by Service

employees conducting refuge management activities. Although hunting causes

mortality and temporary disturbance to waterfowl and other wildlife, harvesting

populations to the carrying capacity of existing habitat insures long-term health and

survival of the species. Hunting occurs well after the breeding season for waterfowl

so no disturbance to this central purpose is anticipated.

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

During drafting of the Comprehensive Conservation Plans six open houses were held

and written comments were solicited from the public about Wetland Management

District operations, including public use programs such as hunting. This determination was also included in the final draft distributed to the public for review and

comment. Additionally the Service has contracted with the University of Minnesota to

conduct a visitor use study of Waterfowl Production Areas in western Minnesota.

This study is in its second year and will yield a wide array of public input on Service

programs including hunting of resident game and furbearers.

Determination (check one below): Determination (check one below):

_____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Nontoxic shot must be used in accordance with current regulations.

2. Use of motorized vehicles and water craft is prohibited except by permit or in

designated parking areas, access trails or public roads.

3. Camping, overnight use and fires are prohibited.

4. All applicable State and Federal Regulations will apply.
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

147

Justification: Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. This use is being permitted as it is a priority public use and will not diminish

the primary purposes of waterfowl production as well as conservation of migratory

birds and other wildlife. This use will meet the mission of the NWRS by providing

renewable resources for the benefit of the American public while conserving fish,

wildlife and plant resources on these lands.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2017
Litchfield Wetland Management District

148

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Irrigation travelways on Waterfowl Management Wetland Easements and/or Use:

FmHA type “C” Wetland Easements

Station Name: Station Name: L Station Name: itchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. § 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “....as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “....all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]....except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions....” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds”

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “for conservation purposes....”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

Allow irrigation travelways through wetland areas protected by an easement that

prohibits burning, draining, filling, or leveling. This use of travelways in wetland

areas may be permitted via four techniques: (1) Placement of 4-foot to 5-foot wide

wooden beams laced together with cable in “railroad bed” style; (2) placement of 4-

foot to 5-foot wide metal mats made of corrugated, expanded or punched metal; (3)

removal of the muck layer not to exceed 10 foot in width in the bottom of the wetland

and replacing it with sand or gravel to the natural bottom contour; (4) exposure of

hard substrate by removal of the muck layer not to exceed 10 foot in width in the

bottom of the wetland (only permitted in high water table wetlands). More specific

details for allowing this use are found in the Service’s Administrative and Enforcement Procedures for Waterfowl Management Easement Manual.
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

149

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

Wetland easements are currently monitored by Service employees via aerial and

ground inspection to ensure that landowners comply with the provisions of the

easement document. Little additional cost will be incurred to monitor this use while

inspecting other easements. Additional staff, equipment, and supplies are needed to

map and better monitor all easements. The individual station Comprehensive Conservation Plans detail the needed funds and staffing levels to properly monitor these

easements.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

The construction phase of the project will cause temporary disturbance to wildlife

using the wetland easement areas. Installation of properly constructed travelways

will result in no long-term impacts to the wetlands or wildlife using them. Disturbance by the irrigation equipment itself is expected to be minimal due to the slow rate

of movement and acclimatization by wildlife.

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

During drafting of the Comprehensive Conservation Plans six open houses were held

and written comments were solicited from the public related to Wetland Management

District operations including easement acquisition and management operations. This

determination was also included in the final draft distributed to the public for review

and comment.

Determination (check one below): Determination (check one below):

___ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. The landowner must demonstrate that equipment and/or topography modifications

cannot be accomplished to avoid wetlands, and equipment is incapable of traversing

wetlands in their natural condition.

2. No pesticides, fertilizers or other compounds except water may be passed through

the irrigation system while traversing the wetland area.

3. Permits to allow the use must be issued by the Regional Director, will not exceed

10 years in duration and will not be issued where groundwater withdrawal negatively

impacts the water levels of surface wetlands.

4. Permits will limit construction of travelways to times of low waterfowl/wildlife use

and require Service presence during installation or subsequent maintenance activities.

5. Only travelways approved in the Service’s Administrative and Enforcement

Procedures for Waterfowl Management Easements Manual may be installed.

Justification: Justification:

With the above stipulations, impacts of this use will be temporary during the construction phase and little to none during operation. This use will not diminish the long-
Litchfield Wetland Management District

150

term productivity of easement wetlands for waterfowl production or other wildlife.

Thus, the use will not materially interfere with the waterfowl production or conservation purpose of the units.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10- or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2012
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

151

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Installation of Bluebird Boxes, other Nest Boxes, or Nesting Structures by Use:

Public or Groups

Station Name: Station Name: L Station Name: itchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. § 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “....as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “....all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]....except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions....” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds”

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “for conservation purposes....”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

Allow the installation of nest structures such as bluebird nest boxes and wood duck

boxes by individuals or groups on Waterfowl Production Areas throughout Minnesota.

Site-by-site authorization will be made by the Refuge Manager via a letter of authorization. Requests for installing nesting structures are occasionally made by individuals

and sporting groups. The majority of requests are for bluebird and wood duck boxes

to be placed along roads near the edges of WPA boundaries. Some requests could be

for artificial mallard nesting sites or other artificial nest sites for migratory birds.

The structures are usually placed in late winter or early spring. Structures are

affixed using either floating rafts (less common) or poles or posts. Structures are

occasionally mounted to existing trees although this is less desirable due to increased

nest predation.

In all cases, the intention of the requestors is to enhance wildlife populations through

providing safe nesting sites.
Litchfield Wetland Management District

152

Placing artificial nesting structures on WPAs is not a priority public use as defined in

the Refuge Improvement Act. The use is a non-essential contributor to other priority

uses such as wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education.

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

Installation of artificial nest structures on Waterfowl Production Areas by private

individuals or groups requires minimal resources. Monitoring and maintenance of

structures is required by the private individual or group as well as all associated costs

of the installation. Should cooperators fail to adequately maintain the structures,

there will be some cost associated with removing abandoned structures.

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose(s): Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose(s):

The installation of artificial nesting structures has a minimal impact on the purposes

for which Waterfowl Production Areas were established. Waterfowl nesting structures will increase the production of waterfowl by providing sites for nests where

predators are less likely to destroy the nests. Waterfowl nests in nesting structures

are far likelier to be successful than nests in uplands. Other structures such as

bluebird houses will provide nesting sites for other migratory birds. Artificial nesting

boxes are widely credited with helping increase the population of eastern bluebirds in

North America.

There is some small, temporary wildlife disturbance caused during placement and

maintenance of the structures. This disturbance is minor.

There are some aesthetic costs associated with placing artificial structures in natural

settings. These costs are minimized by requiring placement of non-waterfowl structures along the edges of WPAs in areas already appearing unnatural due to fences,

signs, and adjacent crop fields. Wood duck boxes and other waterfowl nesting devices

are typically placed in or near wetlands, although private parties typically prefer to

place the structures adjacent to roads. No access by motorized vehicles or other

special access will be provided for installing nest structures.

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

During drafting of the Comprehensive Conservation Plans six open houses were held

and written comments were solicited from the public about Wetland Management

District operations including public use programs such as the installation of artificial

nesting structures. Additionally the Service has contracted with the University of

Minnesota to conduct a visitor use study of WPAs in western Minnesota. This study is

in its second year and will yield a wide array of public input on Service programs

including wildlife nesting structures.

This determination is being made as part of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Additional review will occur as part of the public review of the Comprehensive

Conservation Plan.

Determination: Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

153

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Approval from Project Leader via a letter of authorization is required prior to

installation.

2. Annual maintenance is required.

3. Structures may be removed upon Project Leaders’ request. Some possible reasons

include: lack of maintenance, poor placement, and variation from approved installation

plan.

4. Ownership of any nest structure placed on any Waterfowl Production Areas by

private individuals or groups will be forfeited to the Service upon installation.

Justification: Justification:

Artificial nesting structures do not materially interfere with or detract from the

purposes for which the units were acquired. In fact, these structures likely contribute

to the purposes of Waterfowl Production Areas by providing secure nesting sites for

waterfowl and other migratory birds. Nest success for ducks using artificial nest

structures is higher than for ducks nesting in grasslands. Nesting boxes for cavity

nesting birds like bluebirds and wood ducks can increase populations when natural

cavities are scarce. At worst, nesting structures are neutral in their effect; likely

there is a positive effect. The aesthetic costs of artificial nest structures are modest

and can be minimized through appropriate siting.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2012
Litchfield Wetland Management District

154

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Wild Use: life Observation and Photography (Including the means of access such as

hiking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and canoeing)

Station Name: Station Name: L Station Name: itchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. § 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “....as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “....all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]....except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions....” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds”

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “for conservation purposes....”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

Allow general public access during anytime of the year to Waterfowl Production

Areas (WPAs) for the observation and photographing of associated flora and fauna.

All WPAs will be open to the public for the observation and photography of wildlife

and their habitats unless specifically closed by the manager. Allowable forms of

access to WPAs include hiking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, canoes, and nonmotorized boats. Limited access by bicycle, horses, and motorized vehicles will be

allowed on designated driving routes only. Motorized boats, including those with

electric motors, will not be allowed within WPAs. Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses on National Wildlife Refuge System Lands as identified in

the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. Entry on all or portions of individual areas may

be temporarily suspended by posting upon occasions of unusual or critical conditions

affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or public safety.

Access for wildlife observation and photography will allow public access and enjoyment of scenic views and an array of wildlife including waterfowl, other migratory
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

155

birds, tallgrass prairie plants, and resident wildlife. WPAs provide opportunities for

wildlife enjoyment not usually available on adjacent private land.

Waterfowl Production Areas will be open 24 hours per day although overnight camping will not be allowed.

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

Wildlife observation and photography require minimal resources. These lands have

been open to public use since they were acquired. Thus, access trails, parking lots,

signs, and other facilities as well as staff to enforce regulations and maintain these

facilities have been provided by the Service.

Some public use facilities are sub-standard. The WMD Comprehensive Conservation

Plan recognizes these problems and recommends solutions to improve public access

opportunities. Some enhanced wildlife observation and photography opportunities

will only be provided upon implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose(s): Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose(s):

Wildlife observation and photography pose minimal impacts on the purposes for which

Waterfowl Production Areas were established. Access is typically by individuals or

small groups on foot or using snowshoes or skies. Damage to habitat by walking is

minimal and temporary. There is some temporary disturbance to wildlife due to

human activity on the land. The most likely impact to WPA purposes would be during

spring and early summer nesting and brood rearing but the expected sporadic and

limited use by the public should not create unreasonable impacts. Winter activities

pose no impacts to nesting waterfowl and little to impact to vegetation. The winter

disturbance to resident wildlife is temporary and minor. Large groups typically use

established foot trails with little impact on vegetation. Disturbance to wildlife, such

as flushing a nesting bird, is inherent to these activities; however, the disturbance is

temporary and generally not malicious. Any unreasonable harassment would be

grounds for the manager to close the area to these uses or restrict the uses to minimize harm.

Access by motorized vehicles, bicycles, and horses is limited to established trails,

public roads and parking lots. Parking lots and access trails have minimal impacts

because they are relatively small in size, generally have established cover on them,

and typically are mowed after the nesting season is complete. They also allow for safe

use of these public lands.

Use of most WPAs for the purpose of wildlife observation and photography is minimal. The established wildlife viewing trails on a handful of WPAs are more heavily

used for wildlife observation and photography but they have been designed to minimize harmful impacts.

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

During drafting of the Comprehensive Conservation Plans six open houses were held

and written comments were solicited from the public about Wetland Management

District operations including public use programs such as wildlife observations and

photography. Additionally, the Service has contracted with the University of Minnesota to conduct a visitor use study of WPAs in western Minnesota. This study is in its
Litchfield Wetland Management District

156

second year and will yield a wide array of public input on Service programs, including

wildlife observations and photography.

This determination is being developed as part of the WMD Comprehensive Conservation Plan and will be subject to further public review during the review phase of the

overall plan.

Determination: Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Certain modes of access such as motorized vehicle, bicycles, and horses will be

limited to designated trails, public roads, and parking lots.

2. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

3. No photo or viewing blinds may be left over night.

4. Harassment of wildlife or excessive damage to vegetation is prohibited.

Justification: Justification:

This use has been determined compatible because wildlife viewing and photography

will not materially interfere with or detract from unit purposes, including waterfowl

production. The level of use for wildlife observation and photography is moderate on

most WPAs. The associated disturbance to wildlife is temporary and minor. Wildlife

observation and photography are priority public uses and inculcate visitors with the

joys of abundant wildlife and wild lands. These uses also help fulfill the mission of the

National Wildlife Refuge System. Those WPAs with increased activities generally

have facilities present to accommodate the public use with minor impacts to the

habitat.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2017
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

157

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: One-time Fruits of the Soil Harvest Use:

Station Name: Station Name: L Station Name: itchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. § 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “....as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “....all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]....except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions....” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds”

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “for conservation purposes....”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

Allow one-time collection of plants or their seeds for personal use.

Plants growing on WPAs provide important wildlife habitat and can also be desirable

for landscaping or decorative uses. Individuals occasionally request permission to

harvest seeds from WPAs in order to establish these plants on private property. The

cutting and removal of some plants is occasionally requested for use in floral decorations.

Hand harvest of native prairie plant seed is used to collect seed to re-establish small

plots of native plants. These plots can be for landscaping purposes or to develop

habitat for wildlife. Prairie plant seed harvest occurs during daylight hours, primarily

in September and October, but can occur for individual species throughout the summer.

The decorative portion of some plants can be used in floral arrangements or for other

decorative purposes. Cattails (Typha sp.), Baby’s-breath (Gypsophila paniculata),
Litchfield Wetland Management District

158

Asters (Aster sp.) and grapevines (Vitis sp.) are examples of some species which are

occasionally used in decorative floral arrangements.

Access to harvest sites is accomplished by walking from a designated parking area or

public roadway. If non-motorized watercraft are used, they should be launched at boat

ramps or carried to the wetland from parking areas or public roadways.

Collection of these plants and seeds is not a wildlife-dependent recreational use. For a

small number of people, this is a traditional, family oriented activity that provides an

opportunity for those participating to enjoy the beauty of the natural environment.

These uses also enable people to enjoy the beauty of WPA plants in or around their

homes and provides small patches of habitat for wildlife.

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

Waterfowl Production Areas have been open to hunting since they were acquired. As

a result, access trails, parking lots, signage and other facilities as well as staff to

enforce regulations and maintain these facilities have been provided by the Service.

These facilities will be maintained to meet the needs of the hunting public and will be

used incidentally by those who are hand harvesting plants or their seeds. This use

will not require a significant increase in additional maintenance or enforcement staff

expenditures. The Service will not have to provide special equipment.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Historically, public participation in the hand collecting of plants or seeds on WPAs was

low, and future participation is also expected to be low. The quantity and frequency of

hand harvesting plants or their seeds is not expected to result in significant disturbance, diminish wildlife food sources or jeopardize wildlife survival.

Short-term disturbance to wildlife may occur during these activities, but will be

insignificant. Most of these uses occur in the late summer or fall, after ground

nesting birds have completed the nesting season. This uses should not result in short

or long-term impacts that adversely affect the purpose of WPAs or the mission of the

National Wildlife System.

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

Six open houses were held and written comments were solicited from the public about

Wetland Management District operations during the drafting of Comprehensive

Conservation Plans. This process identified 22 issues of concern. One-time Fruits of

the Soil Harvest on WPAs was not identified as an issue of concern.

This Compatibility Determination was prepared concurrent with, and included in, the

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plans for Wetland Management Districts in

Minnesota. Public review and comment was solicited during the CCP comment

period.

Determination (check one below): Determination (check one below):

_____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

159

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

• Camping, overnight use and fires are prohibited.

• Digging of plants or their roots is prohibited.

• Cutting trees or noxious weeds is prohibited.

• Grass/forb seed harvest is limited to 10 pounds.

• 20 plants per species can be cut and removed for decorative purposes.

• No threatened or endangered species may be harvested or cut.

• The use of motorized vehicles or motorized watercraft is prohibited except by

permit. or in designated parking areas, access trails or public roads.

Justification: Justification:

This use will have limited and localized impacts when conducted within the stipulations above. Administration of the use will require little to no administrative time or

funding. This use will not diminish the primary purposes of waterfowl production, or

the conservation of other migratory birds and wildlife.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2012
Litchfield Wetland Management District

160

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Placement of new, small parking areas on Waterfowl Production Areas Use:

Station Name: Station Name: L Station Name: itchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. § 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “....as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “....all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]....except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions....” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds”

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “for conservation purposes....”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

Allow the placement and construction of small parking areas on any Waterfowl

Production Area where the Wetland Manager considers necessary to provide safe offroad parking and access to the general public for the following permitted activities:

hunting of migratory birds and resident game animals, hiking, wildlife observation,

photography, fishing, and/or interpretation, all priority public uses on National

Wildlife Refuge System Lands. In addition, these parking areas will be used by

Service personnel in conducting management activities or biological surveys and

assessments on each of the Waterfowl Production Areas.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service owns, as of March 1999, nearly 172,000 acres of

Waterfowl Production Areas in Minnesota. Acquisition of Waterfowl Production

Areas is ongoing and as new lands are acquired they will be opened to priority public

uses. A procedural agreement between the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Service states “it is the policy of the Regional Director to cooperate

with the Department in providing habitat for resident wildlife and for public access

and use (emphasis added), including hunting.”
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

161

These parking areas will be less than an acre and will be relatively primitive facilities

such as grass or gravel surfaced. Barriers to restrict motorized vehicles within the

parking areas and to identify the parking area boundary generally will be constructed

of wood posts, wire fence or rock barriers, appropriate and available on a site specific

basis.

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

Waterfowl Production Areas are open to all priority public uses and as a result access

trails, signage and other facilities, as well as staff to enforce regulations and maintain

these facilities, have been provided by the Service. Currently the staffing levels and

facilities required for public programs and accessibility on Waterfowl Production

Areas do not meet Service public use standards. The individual station Comprehensive Conservation Plans detail the needed funds and manpower to bring these programs up to Service standards.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Installation and use of these parking areas and access trails will result in minimal

impacts as these parking areas are used infrequently during most of the year by

either the general public participating in authorized and permitted activities or by

Service personnel. Peak use of these areas will generally occur during fall hunting

seasons when no disturbance to nesting or young animals will result. Impacts to

habitat will be minimal due to their relatively small size (< 1 acre) by comparison to

the average size of the Waterfowl Production Area (average < 200 acres). Impacts will

be lessened by selection of sites away from any wetland or native prairie. Generally,

parking areas will be constructed at or near abandoned farm sites utilizing existing

graveled driveways or previously constructed farm field approaches immediately off

of public roadways. Parking lots constructed within the interior of a unit will be

avoided when ever possible to minimize wildlife disturbance, impacts to unique or

critical habitats and conflicts with other authorized public uses.

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

During the drafting of the Comprehensive Master Plans, six open houses were held

and written comments were solicited from the public about Wetland District Operations including public use programs. Additionally, the Service has contracted with the

University of Minnesota to conduct a visitor use study of Waterfowl Production Areas

in western Minnesota. This study, in its second year, will provide public input on

Service programs and facilities on Waterfowl Production Areas.

Determination: Determination:

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Parking areas must not be constructed in areas where negative wetland impacts

will result.

2.Parking areas must not be constructed on native prairie habitat.
Litchfield Wetland Management District

162

3. Camping, overnight use and fires are prohibited.

4. Location of parking areas within the interior of each unit should be avoided whenever possible.

5.An archaeological review of each selected site shall be made through the State

Historic Preservation Officer and Regional Historic Preservation Officer prior to

construction.

Justification: Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. This use is permitted as it is deemed necessary to provide safe off-road

access by the public to participate in appropriate and permitted priority uses and will

not diminish the primary purposes of waterfowl production and the conservation of

migratory birds and other wildlife. This use will meet the mission of the National

Wildlife Refuge System by providing resources for the benefit of the American public

while conserving fish, wildlife and plant resources on these lands.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2012
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

163

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Short-term Upland Disturbance for Highway or Other Public Interest Projects Use:

with No ROW Expansion and Full Restoration.

Station Name: Station Name: L Station Name: itchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. § 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “....as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “....all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]....except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions....” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds”

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “for conservation purposes....”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

Allow short-term disturbance to uplands for highway or other public interest projects

with no right-of-way expansion and full restoration. Every year, requests are made

by state and local government agencies and utility companies to do repairs and

improvements to existing road ways and utility facilities associated with existing

rights-of-way on WPAs throughout Minnesota. Many of these requests require

temporary work outside existing right-of-way boundaries, generally resulting in

temporary disturbance to the associated vegetation. Frequently, the temporary work

requested is required to reshape a slope immediately adjacent to a road right-of-way

to improve transportation safety. Other times, the requested action can be merely for

permission to turn around heavy equipment on land immediately adjacent to the

right-of-way. Most often, the temporary work outside of the right-of-way is conducted

during the summer and fall, when construction conditions are optimal. The work

typically involves temporary disturbance to previously farmed uplands that are then

reseeded to native vegetation by the requesting organization. This determination will

allow approved work and temporary habitat disturbance outside the right-of-way

boundary when long-term impacts are either beneficial or not significantly harmful.
Litchfield Wetland Management District

164

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

Minimal expense is required of the Service for these projects. Authorization of the

projects will require the requesting organization to cover habitat restoration costs.

There is a modest administrative cost to issuing and monitoring this work.

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose(s): Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose(s):

The impacts to the associated uplands with this use will be minimal and temporary.

When the request includes unavoidable destruction of vegetation, approval will be

limited to sites previously tilled or otherwise disrupted. No native prairie remnants

or wetlands may be destroyed. Any areas with disturbed vegetation will be seeded by

the requesting organization to a diverse mix of native species that will lead to better

long-term habitat than the vegetation originally disturbed.

Most of this work occurs in summer and fall, after the waterfowl nesting season. The

duration of any single project is usually 1 to 8 weeks. Occasionally, work may occur

during the nesting season but the size of the disturbance zone will be minimal. The

quality of the habitat in the disturbed zone may be diminished for up to 3 years

following the project but the disturbed zone will provide some migratory bird value by

the year following the project. The long-term productivity of the disturbed zone will

frequently increase due to the replacement of exotic, less desirable cover with native

vegetation.

Most of the impacts will be along existing roads in areas already subject to significant

habitat and aesthetic deterioration due to existing transportation rights-of-way.

Rarely, a utility right-of-way can split an otherwise contiguous block of quality

habitat. In these settings, the disturbance will still be temporary but the impact to

waterfowl and other migratory birds is likely greater. The existing right-of-way

already authorizes disturbance within the right-of-way so the larger impact of creating a disturbance within quality habitat will likely occur anyway. The decision to

authorize temporary disturbance outside the right-of-way will slightly increase the

magnitude of the disturbance.

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

During drafting of the Comprehensive Conservation Plans six open houses were held

and written comments were solicited from the public about Wetland Management

District operations including management programs such as right-of-way issues.

This determination is being considered as part of a larger Comprehensive Conservation Plan subject and will be subject to additional public review during the public

review of the entire plan.

Determination: Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. All work done outside of existing rights-of-way must be approved by the Project

Leader in the form of a letter of authorization.
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

165

2. Conditions stipulated in a letter of authorization such as seeding mixes, weed

control, etc. must be followed to remain a compatible use.

3. No work that leads to permanent loss of wetlands or native prairie remnants will

be allowed without a site-specific compatibility determination.

Justification: Justification:

This use will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the

units were established with the above stipulations in place. Almost all WPAs are

constrained by one or more rights-of-way that were in place before acquisition by the

federal government. Temporary disturbances to land adjacent to these rights-of-way

will have only small, temporary harmful effects on wildlife and may lead to improved

long-term productivity by replacing degraded, exotic vegetation with vigorous native

vegetation. Work within the rights-of-way is beyond the authority of the Fish and

Wildlife Service to regulate other than influencing the timing and scope to minimize

wildlife harm. Allowing temporary work outside the right-of-way does little or no

long-term harm to wildlife resources and allows the holder of the right-of-way to

provide essential human services to our rural communities. Restoration of the

disturbed sites can actually increase productivity by providing more robust vegetation.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2012
Litchfield Wetland Management District

166

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Wood Cutting/Timber Harvest Use:

Station Name: Station Name: L Station Name: itchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. § 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “....as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “....all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]....except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions....” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds”

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “for conservation purposes....”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

The removal of standing or fallen trees by private individuals. This Compatibility

Determination applies to all wood removal activities regardless of the ultimate use of

the wood (e.g. firewood, pulp, etc.). Differences in scope and necessary equipment will

occur depending on the amount and type of wood available for removal. Impacts to

the purpose of the WPAs and System mission are similar regardless of why the wood

is removed. This activity will only occur where the Service has determined that a

management need exists to remove wood from WPAs consistent with the WPA

Development Plan or other document.

Wood cutting is not a priority public use, as defined by the Refuge Improvement Act

of 1997, of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Wood removal may be done within former homesites, along existing windbreaks/

shelter belts, and in other areas on WPAs where trees are encroaching on the prairie.

Harvest sites will vary in size from a portion of an acre up to several hundred acres

depending on the site and management objectives.
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

167

Wood removal activities may be authorized throughout the year. Most often, wood

removal activities will occur during the winter months when frozen ground will

facilitate access and afford protection to underlying soils and vegetation.

The scope of the activity will be determined by the management objective for the area

and by the quantity and quality of available wood. Equipment used for harvest may

range from chainsaws and axes, to traditional logging equipment such as fellerbunchers and log skidders. Access may be by snow machine, ATV, pick-up truck, farm

tractor, or larger traditional logging equipment.

Harvest of wood products may be permitted on WPAs to stop, reduce, or reverse the

encroachment and presence of trees on prairie habitats. The Tallgrass Prairie habitat

is arguably the most endangered of all North American ecosystems, with less than 1

percent of the historic habitat remaining. Encroachment of woody vegetation due to

fire suppression, absence of landscape-scale grazing, and tree planting practices

continue to threaten this habitat type. Waterfowl Production Areas are established to

produce waterfowl, and managing woody vegetation to enhance prairie habitat

generally facilitates that purpose. In accordance with the System mission, restoration

of the tallgrass prairie habitat is appropriate over most of the acreage in the Minnesota wetland districts. Managing woody vegetation is an important means to that end.

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

The time required to plan, issue permits, and monitor the implementation of a wood

product harvest program would require the dedication of some existing staff hours to

this activity. In permitting a wood products harvest, the manager has identified a

management need and presumably has secured and prioritized station resources to

that end.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

In permitting this type of activity, the potential exists to directly impact waterfowl

production by displacement of birds from localized areas due to disturbance, or

crushing of nests as a result of access for this activity. These impacts are easily

avoided by timing of the activity in accordance with site specific characteristics. In

limited and rare instances, a small number of individuals of tree-nesting species (e.g.

wood duck, hooded merganser, etc.) may be displaced from a local area for obvious

reasons.

Indirect impacts to waterfowl production will occur as a result of removing woody

vegetation. In nearly every instance, these impacts will be positive. The removal of

woody vegetation from historic prairie habitats impacts waterfowl production and the

System mission by facilitating the restoration of tallgrass prairie and removing

artificially created predator habitat from within the WPAs.

Access for the purpose of removing wood may impact habitat by rutting soils, destroying ground cover, creating weed seed beds, and increasing sedimentation due to

runoff in nearby wetlands. These impacts can again be avoided by timing of the

activity.

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

This Compatibility Determination is provided in draft form along with the Minnesota

Wetland Management Districts’ Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmen-
Litchfield Wetland Management District

168

tal Assessment. Opportunity for public review and comment is concurrent with the

public review process for the EA.

Determination (check one below): Determination (check one below):

_____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Work will generally be restricted to areas where soil types indicate that presettlement habitat was comprised of native prairie vegetation.

2. If work is in an area where waterfowl nesting is likely, no cutting operations will be

permitted from April through July 15.

3. Vehicle access for wood removal will be limited to existing trails or restricted to

the frozen ground period when rutting and damage to growing vegetation would

occur.

4. A special use permit will be issued so that site specific impacts can be reduced or

eliminated and Service management goals are met.

Justification: Justification:

Any direct impacts on waterfowl production (take, disturbance, etc.) can be largely

avoided by timing the activity so that it is not coincident with the waterfowl production season. Removal of trees in certain instances will, on occasion, eliminate wood

duck, hooded merganser, or other cavity-nesting species habitat. This would be an

irregular and occasional impact and, since most wood harvest will be associated with

restoration sites, it is unlikely that these areas would have provided historic nesting

sites. Due to the benefits that would be realized by other waterfowl species, and the

abundance of artificial and natural nest sites for cavity-nesting species in the area,

these impacts would not significantly detract from the WPAs’ purpose or System

mission.

Impacts to the habitat as a result of access to WPAs for wood removal purposes are

potentially significant, but also easily avoided. Areas where woody species are

removed for the purpose of conversion of the habitat type to prairie will likely receive

follow-up treatments of burning, farming, or both. Ground disturbance in these areas

is less problematic and possibly desirable depending on the specific site. Access to

and from these areas will need to be carefully controlled (via special use permit) to

avoid impacts such as rutting and increased sedimentation in area wetlands due to

run-off. If existing roads are not present, access can be restricted to periods of frozen

ground to avoid or minimize impacts to underlying vegetation and soils.

Other indirect impacts are generally considered positive and thus do not materially

interfere with or detract from the purpose of waterfowl production or the System

mission. The removal of trees along trails, in shelter belts, and within old home sites

will benefit waterfowl production by assisting with the restoration of prairie habitat

and eliminating predator habitat and perch sites. Individuals participating in the

wood harvest program will be under special use permit and thus site specific stipulations will ensure resource protection and achievement of management goals. Control
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

169

of woody species encroachment on prairie habitats is a necessary management

activity for the Minnesota wetland districts in converting areas back to their historical

grassland condition and directly supports the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge

System.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2012
Litchfield Wetland Management District

170

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Trapping of Furbearers Use:

Station Name: Station Name: L Station Name: itchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. § 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “....as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “....all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]....except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions....” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds”

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “for conservation purposes....”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

Public trapping of resident furbearers on Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA) in

Minnesota in accordance with State regulations. This Compatibility Determination

does not apply to “commercial” trapping activities where the Service awards a

contract, or permit, for the removal of a specie or species to facilitate management, i.e.

the Service needs 3,000 muskrats removed from an area to protect a dike system.

Trapping is not a priority public use, as defined by the Refuge Improvement Act of

1997, of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

By regulation (50 CFR 31.16), lands acquired as WPAs are open to public trapping

unless closed under the authority of 50 CFR 25.21. Within the Minnesota wetland

management districts, only eight WPAs have been closed to trapping: three in the

Detroit Lakes District and five in the Fergus Falls District. Using 1999 data, trapping is permitted on approximately 170,000 acres of WPAs in Minnesota. Trapping is

permitted for a wide variety of species; however, mink, racoon, muskrat, red fox, and

beaver are the primary target species. As a result, most trapping activity on WPAs is

concentrated in wetland areas.
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

171

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources maintains information on numbers

of trappers, harvest, and population trends of furbearers on a statewide basis. Based

on license sales and mail surveys of licensees, it is estimated that approximately 4,100

people participated in trapping during the 1999-2000 season on a statewide basis. A

percentage of these trappers use WPAs. The trend in the number of people participating in trapping in Minnesota is down, and it is assumed that activity on WPAs

mirrors the statewide trend. For the 3-year period ending in 1988, the annual estimated average number of trappers was more than 13,700. For the 3-year period

ending in 2000, this number had declined to less than 5,300.1

Trapping seasons for various species of wildlife generally run from mid-September

through mid-March, with beaver trapping extending until mid-May. Several species

of unprotected mammals (weasel, coyote, striped skunk, gophers, and porcupine) may

be trapped on a year-around basis. While State regulations technically permit such

activity, there is no known trapping activity, excluding March and April beaver

trapping, outside of the traditional winter “season.” Minnesota regulations have

established trap tending hours of 5 a.m. until 10:00 p.m.

Trappers may utilize leghold traps, snares, and body-gripping (“Conibear”type) traps

for the purpose of trapping various furbearers, small game, and unprotected species of

wildlife. Each method is qualified under State regulation as to trap size and types of

allowable sets in order to protect non-target species, and provide for the safe use of

the area by others.

Access for trapping on WPAs is almost exclusively by foot. Walking and snowshoeing

are the primary means of access. When conditions allow, some limited, non-motorized

boat access may occur for the purpose of trapping. Travel on WPAs by highway

vehicles, ATVs (3 and 4-wheelers), and snowmachine is prohibited at all times. Many

WPAs have parking lots to facilitate all allowed public uses, including trapping.

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

There is no incremental increase in administering this activity, as allowed, above the

stations’ general operating costs that we can attribute directly to the public trapping

program.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Public trapping can potentially impact the waterfowl production of WPAs through

both direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts are those where there is an immediate cause and effect relationship between the activity and the resources required to

fulfill the waterfowl production purpose and System mission. Direct impacts may

include such effects as killing or displacing of waterfowl during the pair bonding/

nesting season, or destruction of nests by trampling. Indirect impacts are those

where the effects of the permitted activity affect other populations or habitats that in

turn have direct impacts on waterfowl production and the System purpose. Indirect

impacts may include catch of target and non-target species that are predators on

waterfowl and/or nests, or removal of species that induce habitat change (i.e. beaver).

Impacts, either direct or indirect, may be negative, neutral, or positive.

Because of the temporal separation of trapping activities and waterfowl using the

areas for production, direct impacts to waterfowl production by trappers is negligible.

Beaver trappers using WPAs after early March, undoubtedly disturb individuals on

occasion, and cause temporary displacement of waterfowl from specific and limited
Litchfield Wetland Management District

172

areas. These impacts would be occasional, temporary, and isolated to small geographic areas. Any habitat change as a result of the physical impacts of trapping

activity (trampling, etc.) is undetectable and insignificant.

Indirect impacts to waterfowl production do result from the removal of animals under

a trapping program. In many instances, these impacts are positive. Many species

that may be trapped are predators on waterfowl at various stages in the production

cycle. Controlling populations of predators on waterfowl has generally positive

impacts on the waterfowl purpose which vary in significance among areas. Timing of

the removal of predators, size of the WPA, and adjacent land use all affect the degree

to which predator management, through a public trapping program, benefits waterfowl production.

Impacts to waterfowl production habitat occur as a result of removal of species such

as beaver and muskrat. Due to the societal requirements to intensively manage water

levels on WPAs, managing beaver and muskrat populations at reasonable levels

through a public trapping program results in positive impacts to waterfowl production

and minimizes the need to commit Service resources to the same end.

When considering impacts to the System mission, impacts also include those to the

furbearer populations themselves. Individual animals are harvested and removed, yet

data indicates these furbearer populations, with the exception of red fox, are increasing. The red fox population has shown a slight decline in the western and southern

portions of the state for roughly the past 8 years. Concurrently, the red fox estimated

trapping harvest has declined from over 20,000 annually through the mid-1990s, to

less than 10,000 for the past two seasons.1

 In spite of the recent decline, the red fox

population is comparable to that of the mid-1980s. Minnesota DNR still considers the

red fox population healthy, and views slowly declining populations in the south and

west as an effect of a slowly increasing coyote population in this same area and not a

result of trapping.2

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

This Compatibility Determination is provided in draft form along with the Minnesota

Wetland Management Districts’ Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Opportunity for public review and comment is concurrent

with the public review process for the EA.

Determination: Determination:

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

• Trapping activity must be conducted in compliance with existing State

regulations.

• Trappers must comply with existing WPA access and use regulations.

Justification: Justification:

Direct impacts to the waterfowl production purpose are negligible due to the temporal

separation of most trapping activity and the use of WPAs by waterfowl for produc-
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

173

tion. Limited disturbance of individuals and pairs undoubtedly occurs from beaver

trapping activity occurring after early March. These temporary and isolated disturbance events result in temporary displacement of birds from a specific location. Due

to the duration of these events, the small number of individual waterfowl involved,

and the limited geographic area impacted by the presence of one or a few individuals,

these impacts on waterfowl production and the System mission are negligible.

Indirect impacts to waterfowl production occur as a result of the effects of trapping on

the target, or non-target, species’ populations. Most species of interest to trappers

and common “non-target” catches (i.e. skunk, free-ranging house cat) are predators on

waterfowl at some point in the production cycle. Management of red fox, racoon,

mink, otter, and skunk populations, through a regulated trapping program is, at worst,

a neutral impact, and likely a positive one in most cases on the waterfowl production

purpose. Due to edge effects and concentrations of nesting waterfowl, the impacts of

predator management are likely inversely related to WPA size. The average size of

Minnesota’s WPAs is less than 200 acres. In these small parcels, the effects of only a

few individual predators can be highly significant on waterfowl production in the local

area. Timing of the removal of predators also affects the impact that this activity has

on waterfowl production. Again, depending on the time of year, impacts on waterfowl

production may be neutral or positive. While there is considerable debate about the

effects of the presence of coyotes on waterfowl production, the density and subsequent harvest of coyotes through the trapping program is insignificant. Likewise is

the harvest of other species that are permitted under State regulations (i.e. gray fox,

badger, opossum, martin, fisher, otter, bobcat).

Other indirect impacts on waterfowl production occur as a result of the manipulation

of populations of species that affect habitat. Beaver and muskrat, by their nature,

affect habitat that, in turn, may affect waterfowl production. Upon initial analysis, we

often think of beaver and their wetland construction activities, and muskrat with their

propensity to maintain open water, as beneficial to waterfowl production. In exceptionally large marshes and in pre-settlement times, this is/was likely the case. However, the landscape of western and southern Minnesota has been so altered through

agricultural conversion that few historic ecosystem functions remain intact. Other

than the fact that water continues to flow downhill, the hydrology of this landscape

bears little resemblance to its pre-settlement conditions. Dikes, levees, roads, culverts, tile lines, pumps, and water control structures work to move and confine water

with calculated purpose. Ramifications of disruption to this system can include

private property damage, public safety hazards, disgruntled neighbors, and legal

liability. As a result, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service intensely manages water on

WPAs to provide for waterfowl production and to fulfill the mission of the National

Wildlife Refuge System, while remaining within societal constraints. Left unchecked,

beaver activity results in disruption to the water flow when culverts and water

control structures are blocked. High muskrat populations are detrimental to levees

and dikes as individuals burrow into these structures and compromise the structural

integrity. Without the ability to control water levels, our waterfowl production

purpose would suffer as would our ability to contribute to the System mission. A

public trapping program facilitates management of beaver and muskrat populations at

such levels that many benefits created by these species are realized, yet the ability of

the Service to manage water levels is not compromised. On a statewide basis, beaver

harvest has remained fairly stable over the past decade in spite of the decline in the

number of trappers participating in the activity. The muskrat harvest fluctuates

widely driven by fur prices and the natural fluctuations in muskrat populations.
Litchfield Wetland Management District

174

Overall, trapping is a very minor public use of WPAs but is an important management

tool in localized areas. The public trapping program on WPAs allows for public

opportunity and management of furbearer populations. Consistent with the System

mission, trapping on WPAs results in management of populations and is not a “control” program intending to eliminate components of the ecosystem for the benefit of

others. Data from the State of Minnesota, DNR, on trapping activity and wildlife

populations indicates removal of individuals, under the current management scheme is

not resulting in harm to the target populations. The public trapping program, as

managed, does not materially interfere with or detract from the Service’s ability to

meet our purpose of waterfowl production or the mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2012

_________

1

 Dexter, M.H., compiler. 2000. Status of wildlife populations, fall 2000. Unpub. Rep.,

Division of Wildlife, Minn. Dept. Nat. Res., St. Paul, Minnesota. 180pp

2

 Berg, B., Minn. Dept. Nat. Res., Grand Rapids, Minnesota. Personal Communication.
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

175

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Placement of Wetland Accesses/Ramps in Support of Priority Public Uses Use:

Station Name: Station Name: L Station Name: itchfield Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

Waterfowl Production Areas - The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act, March 16, 1934, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 718-718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1,

1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”; the

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5, Stat.

813), funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with duck stamp

receipts in the fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory

bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18,

1929, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715, 715d - 715r, as amended.

FmHA fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

7 U.S.C. § 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s):

Waterfowl Production Areas - “....as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “....all of

the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]....except the inviolate

sanctuary provisions....” and “...for any other management purpose, for migratory

birds”

FmHA fee title transfer properties - “for conservation purposes....”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and

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

Description of Use: Description of Use:

Allow the placement and/or construction of accesses/ramps on any Waterfowl Production Area where the Wetland Manager considers necessary to provide access to the

general public for the following permitted activities: hunting of migratory birds and

resident game animals, hiking, wildlife observation, photography, fishing, and/or

interpretation, all priority public uses on National Wildlife Refuge System Lands. In

addition, these ramps will be used by Service personnel in conducting management

activities or biological surveys and assessments on each of the Waterfowl Production

Areas.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service owns, as of March 1999, nearly 172,000 acres of

Waterfowl Production Areas in Minnesota. Acquisition of Waterfowl Production

Areas is ongoing and as new lands are acquired they will be opened to priority public

uses. A procedural agreement between the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Service states “it is the policy of the Regional Director to cooperate

with the Department in providing habitat for resident wildlife and for public access

and use (emphasis added), including hunting.”
Litchfield Wetland Management District

176

These accesses will be small, single ramp structures and will be relatively primitive

facilities such as grass or gravel surfaced. In rare cases where a very high level of use

or site conditions dictate, the placement of a concrete ramp my be warranted.

Availability of Resources: vailability of Resources:

Waterfowl Production Areas are open to all priority public uses and as a result access

trails, informational and interpretive signs and other facilities as well as staff to

enforce regulations and maintain these facilities have been provided by the Service.

Currently the staffing levels and facilities required for public programs and accessibility on Waterfowl Production Areas do not meet Service public use standards. The

individual station Comprehensive Conservation Plans detail the needed funds and

manpower to bring these programs up to Service standards.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Installation and use of these accesses/ramps will result in minimal impacts as these

areas are used infrequently during most of the year by either the general public

participating in authorized and permitted activities or by Service personnel. Peak use

of these areas will generally occur during fall hunting seasons when no disturbance to

nesting or young animals will result. Impacts to habitat will be minimal due to their

relatively small size by comparison to the average size of the Waterfowl Production

Area (average < 200 acres). Impacts will be lessened by selection of sites that minimize the need for any wetland alterations and/or avoidance of native prairie. Accesses/ramps constructed within the interior of a unit will be avoided when ever

possible to minimize wildlife disturbance, impacts to unique or critical habitats and

conflicts with other authorized public uses.

Public Review and Comment: Public Review and Comment:

During the drafting of the Comprehensive Master Plans, six open houses were held

and written comments were solicited from the public about Wetland District Operations including public use programs. Additionally, the Service has contracted with the

University of Minnesota to conduct a visitor use study of Waterfowl Production Areas

in western Minnesota. This study, in its second year, will provide public input on

Service programs and facilities on Waterfowl Production Areas.

Determination: Determination:

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Accesses/ramps must not be constructed in areas where negative wetland impacts

or loss will result.

2 Accesses/ramps must not be constructed on native prairie habitat.

3. Camping, overnight use and fires are prohibited.

4. Location of ramps within the interior of each unit should be avoided whenever

possible.
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

177

5. An archaeological review of each selected site shall be made through the State

Historic Preservation Officer and Regional Historic Preservation Officer prior to

construction.

Justification: Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. This use is permitted as it is deemed necessary to provide safe off-road

access by the public to participate in appropriate and permitted priority uses. The

footprint of the access site is small and will not diminish the primary purposes of

waterfowl production and the conservation of migratory birds and other wildlife. This

use will meet the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System by providing resources for the benefit of the American public while conserving fish, wildlife and plant

resources on these lands.

Signature: Signature: P Signature: roject Leader s/Robert Bruesewitz (Acting) 3/26/03

Concurrence: Concurrence: Concurrence: Regional Chief s/Nita M. Fuller 4/9/03

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2012

Appendix F: RONS Lists

179

Appendix F: RONS Lists

Appendix F: RONS Lists

181

Litchfield Wetland Management District

RONS Title First Recurring

No. Year Base

Cost ($000)

00042 Enhance Wetland Management District Biological Program (biologist) 139 74

00101 Improve upkeep of wildlife management and public use facilities 74 74

00061 Enhance Wetland Management District management program 60 27

00046 Purchase tools and equipment for maintenance of Refuge equipment 105 7

00027 Purchase three native grass drills 52

00102 Restore wetlands on newly acquired lands 38

00047 Initiate education, outreach, and volunteer programs 118 53

(education specialist)

00020 Construct parking lots to eliminate safety hazards to refuge visitors 254 11

00045 Construct maintenance/storage facility for Service owned equipment 178 15

00022 Clean up hazardous building sites on Refuge (WPA) lands 173 10

00015 Improve station safety and security of station supplies and buildings 29 2

00007 Upgrade Prescribed Fire Management 149 3

00017 Restore backlog of restorable wetlands on refuge lands 89

00028 Purchase environmental education materials 28

00025 Reestablish native prairie ecosystem on 1,000 refuge acres 210

00008 Control invading species in grasslands 162

00100 Detect and eliminate habitat destruction and unauthorized 50

uses on Refuge lands

00029 Hire Interpretive Specialist/Volunteer Coordinator 141 76

00044 Control exotic thistle species135 10

98015 Improve detection of violations on Refuge and Easement lands 26

00001 Develop baseline Refuge habitat data for Geographic 171 76

Information System

00004 Convert former crop land to Tallgrass Prairie habitat 184 35

00026 Erect 1,000 mallard nest structures 149 11

00002 Restore wetlands on newly acquired lands 43 40

97026 Detect and eliminate habitat destruction and unauthorized 136 64

uses on Refuge lands

00037 Inventory Refuge plant and wildlife resources 108

00011 Increase cooperative wildfire suppression 56 23

00034 Provide equipment for waterfowl census 42

00009 Coordinate FWS activities with ecosystem partners 141 76

00099 Enhanced wetland easement enforcement program 20 20

00013 Develop and conduct hydrological monitoring and assessment 141 76

on District lands

00030 Improve public recognition and support through placement of 93 11

professional displays in public buildings

00036 Conduct wildlife and habitat surveys and censuses 130 260

00021 Construct parking lots on McLeod, Renville, and Todd County 60 6

refuges (WPAs)

00005 Large wetland restoration partnerships 139 64

00018 Construct visitor parking lots on Kandiyohi County refuges (WPAs) 187 23

00006 Expand private lands prairie restoration1 97 47

00031 Develop prairie wetlands wildlife trail1 51 10

00019 Construct visitor parking lots on Stearns County refuges (WPAs) 178 15
RONS Title First Recurring

No. Year Base

Cost ($000)

00035 Construct boundary fences on six Wright County Waterfowl 43

Production Areas

00012 Survey cultural resources on the WMD 60 25

00002 Enhance biological monitoring 221 91

00014 Develop facilities for priority public uses 160 10

00024 Comply with state and federal noxious weed laws 49
Appendix G: Existing Partnerships

183

Appendix G: Existing Partnerships

Appendix G: Existing Partnerships

185

Appendix G: Existing Partnerships

All the Wetland Management Districts have an extensive network of partnerships

covering the counties within their management areas. Partners include:

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Area Wildlife Managers

Area Fisheries Managers

Area Hydrologists

Trails and Waterways Specialists

Waterfowl Specialists

Prairie Biologists

Ecological Services Specialists

County Soil and Water Conservation Districts

Natural Resource Conservation Service

USGS - Biological Resources Division

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Local Watershed Districts

Farm Service Agency

County Commissions

County Land and Resource Offices

Township Boards of Supervisors

City Governments

Ducks Unlimited

Minnesota Waterfowl Association

Pheasants Forever Chapters

Minnesota Deer Hunters Chapters

Izaak Walton League

The Nature Conservancy

Minnesota Wildlife Federation

White Earth Chippewa Tribe

Lake Associations

Local Sportsmen and Conservation Organizations

Local School Districts

Regional Universities and Colleges

Other Programs

The Wetland Management Districts support and benefit, or are benefitted by other

programs which are presented under the categories of: Federal, State, Local, and

Private Habitat Restoration and Preservation Mechanisms.

Federal Mechanisms

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Prairie Pothole Joint Venture)

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), signed in 1986, outlines

a broad framework for waterfowl management strategies and conservation efforts in

the United States, Canada, and Mexico (for additional information see section 3.9.3.1).

The NAWMP is designed to reach its objectives through key joint venture areas and

state implementation plans within these joint ventures. The Wetland Management
Litchfield Wetland Management District

186

Districts of Western Minnesota (Districts) are located in the U. S. Prairie Pothole

Joint Venture (PPJV) area. The PPJV was identified in the NAWMP as the highest

priority Joint Venture area in the United States and Canada.

Partnerships play a key role in funding the PPJV. During the PPJV’s first seven

years, partners raised more than $139,386,609 to protect, restore, or enhance more

than 1,896,310 habitat acres. Additionally, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) has been a major source of funding for PPJV projects and has

provided 20 grants to projects in Minnesota and Iowa from 1991 through 1996. The

two recent projects that fall within the Districts are described in the following paragraphs.

A 1996 NAWCA $1 million grant and $2.3 million in partner funds to aid restoration of

tallgrass prairie and wetlands in 19 northwestern Minnesota counties of the Red

River Basin. The 10 year project will be administered by The Nature Conservancy.

Prairie Heritage Project - Proposal for $1 million NAWCA grant in April 1997 for the

acquisition of native grassland tracts that are adjacent or in proximity to existing and/

or restorable wetlands in Minnesota. If approved, Pheasants Forever would administer the grant along with partner dollars totaling $2.15 million in late 1997.

Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Program

Partners in Flight Program for Migratory Neotropical Birds

USFWS Ecosystem Planning

 The northern tallgrass prairie has been identified as one of its top priorities within

the Service’s Upper Mississippi/Tallgrass Prairie and Mississippi Headwaters/

Tallgrass Prairie ecosystem plans. These plans are intended to assist the Service

identify resource priorities and action strategies necessary to meet trust responsibilities within specified geographic areas.

COE Red River EIS

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is involved in a major Environmental Impact

Statement involving water retention sites in the Red River Watershed working with

the Red River Watershed Management Board and member watershed districts in

Minnesota.

National Water Quality Assessment

The Red River Basin is one of 60 hydrologic systems being assessed by the U.S.

Geological Survey through the National Water Quality Assessment program

(NAWQA). The basin was selected because its water is of vital importance to the

region’s economy, and of international concern. NAWQA is using a multidisciplinary

approach to assess water quality. The ecology of aquatic biological communities is one

of the disciplines for the assessment.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Pursuant to the Conservation Title of the

Food Security Act of 1985 (Farm Bill) and later versions of that bill, the program

sponsors activities designed to provide protection of soil and water quality through

direct payments to farmers for retiring eligible cropland and environmentally sensitive lands for a period of 10 to 15 years. The program encourages protection of highly

erodible uplands and filter strips along wetlands, which can reduce pesticide and

sediment runoff.
Appendix G: Existing Partnerships

187

FSA CRP Conservation Priority Areas

The Minnesota State FSA Committee, in conjunction with the State Technical Committee, received approval for the Lake Agassiz Interbeach Area to be designated a

State Conservation Priority Area (CPA) for implementing the Conservation Reserve

Program (CRP) in Minnesota. Approval came in accordance with guidance provided

in FSA CRP Notice 269. A National CPA was designated for the prairie pothole area

bordering the Lake Agassiz Interbeach Area. The CPA’s will maximize benefits to

wildlife and their associated habitats by protecting and enhancing state, Federal, and

locally threatened, endangered or candidate listed species of concern, and native plant

communities, and, by restoring and enhancing biologically significant terrestrial and

aquatic habitats.

Wetland Reserve Program (WRP)

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The 1996 re-authorization of the Farm Bill

reestablished a Wetlands Reserve Program that provides financial incentives for

restoration and protection of up to 975,000 acres through long-term agreements.

Easements are for 30 years or more, depending on the maximum amount of time

allowed by state law, and provide landowners with 75 percent to 100 percent costsharing for permanent easements, 50 percent to 75 percent for 30 year easements and

restoration cost-sharing agreements.

Set-aside Programs

Farmers participating in Federal price support programs have been required to set

aside a certain percentage of their base acreage in most years. Conservation measures are required to provide soil erosion protection, water quality enhancement,

wildlife production, and natural beauty. Millions of acres of cropland are retired each

year often benefiting wildlife.

Environmental Quality Incentives

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). A new program which combines the

functions of the Agricultural Conservation Program, Water Quality Incentives

Program, Great Plains Conservation Program, and the Colorado River Basin Salinity

Control Program. EQIP is funded at $200 million annually to encourage the establishment of long-lasting conservation practices that will conserve soil, water, forest, and

wildlife resources. Livestock-related conservation practices will receive 50 percent of

program funding. The program provides cost-sharing to farmers up to 75 percent of

the cost of conservation practices with a maximum payment to any one person of

$10,000 annually, and to $50,000 for the life of the contract.

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)

USDA. WHIP, authorized in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act,

is a new voluntary program for people to develop and improve wildlife habitat on

private lands. It provides both technical assistance and cost sharing to help establish

and improve fish and wildlife habitat. Participants who own or control land work with

the USDA (Natural Resources Conservation Service) to prepare and implement a

wildlife habitat development plan. The Natural Resources Conservation Service

provides technical and financial assistance for the initial establishment of wildlife

habitat development practices. In addition, if the landowner agrees, State wildlife

agencies or private organizations may also provide expertise or additional funding to

help complete a project.

FmHA Wetland-Related Programs

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration. Building on an

earlier program prompted by E.O. 11990, the 1990 Farm Bill requires the USDA to
Litchfield Wetland Management District

188

establish perpetual conservation easements on wetlands in the FmHA inventory of

foreclosed farmland. The act also allows for cancellation or reduction of debt in

exchange for conservation easements on wetlands.

Partners for Wildlife Program

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Drawing on several

legal authorities, the Service effort assists private landowners voluntarily restore

converted and degraded wetlands and associated upland habitats. The Service

provides technical assistance and cost-sharing to complete the work if the landowner

agrees to maintain the area for a period of 10 years. The program focuses on restoring and enhancing habitats that provide wildlife, fisheries, water quality, aesthetic,

and recreation benefits.
Appendix H: Glossary

189

Appendix H: Glossary

Appendix H: Glossary

191

Appendix H: Glossary

Block Size Block size is the term used to describe the size of a

contiguous piece of wildlife habitat. A block may

have more than one kind of habitat; for example,

grassland and wetlands, but not developments such

as plowed agricultural fields. A large block size for

grassland nesting birds could be 2,000 to10,000 acres

depending on the species of bird.

Brood parasites In the prairie, the main brood parasite of grassland

birds is the cowbird. Female cowbirds do not build

their own nest, they lay eggs in the nests of other

birds. Often the young cowbirds will push other

nestlings from the nest and will dominate the time

and care of the foster parents. Cowbirds are attracted to woodlands and have the greatest impact on

grassland birds that nest near woodlots.

Comprehensive Conservation

Plan (CCP) The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement

Act of 1997 requires that each refuge must be

managed in accordance with an approved CCP that

will guide management decisions and set forth

strategies for achieving refuge purposes and contributing to the mission of the Refuge System.

Conservation Reserve

Program (CRP) A U.S. Department of Agriculture program that

takes highly erodible or environmentally sensitive

cropland out of production for 10 to 15 years. Farmers receive annual rental payments and most of the

erodible land is planted in perennial grasses and

grass/legume mixtures.

Cool-season grass Grass species that green early in the spring and

flower before July. Often these plants are dormant

during the heat of the summer. Most cool-season

grasses are not native to the prairie ecosystem.

Edge effects When ground nesting birds nest near habitat edges,

their chances for success are reduced because the

nest is easy to locate for predators and nest parasites. Predators such as hawks, fox, skunk, and

raccoon and nest parasites such as cowbirds, hunt

along habitat edges. This “edge effect” has been

observed at the interface of woodlands and grasslands, grasslands and water, and roads and grasslands.
Litchfield Wetland Management District

192

Federal Trust Species Species that cross state and international boundaries

or are afforded national protection through various

laws and treaties, such as the Migratory Bird Treaty

Act and the Endangered Species Act. The well-being

of waterfowl populations is a classic Federal trust

responsibility and the main purpose for the creation

of the Small Wetland Acquisition Program in the

1960s.

Fragmentation The process by which habitats are broken up into

smaller, isolated parcels dominated by human activity

is called habitat fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation reduces an ecosystem’s biological diversity

because small, isolated patches of habitat have fewer

species than larger, less isolated patches. In the

prairie grasslands, fragmentation occurred when the

prairie was converted to agriculture.

Forbs Flowering plants that are not grass-species, usually

they are broad-leaved, green plants with attractive

flowers.

Goal For the purpose of the Comprehensive Conservation

Plan, “goals” are defined as broad, open-ended

statements of desired future conditions (vision) that

convey a purpose, but not measurable units. These

are directional statements for a specific program,

often qualitative and expressed in terms of benefits.

They have been described as “where the rubber

meets the sky.”

Grassland Habitat that is dominated by grass, but may contain

hundreds of other species of plants such as flowering

asters and legumes. “Grassland” is a term that is

used to describe planted cover, as well as natural

virgin prairie. The term does not imply that the

habitat is natural.

Lucustrine Wetland Deep water lakes and reservoirs. The Lucustrine

System is a deepwater dominated system, and

includes standing waterbodies like lakes, reservoirs,

and deep ponds.

Mesic (dry-mesic, wet-mesic) This term is used to describe species that occur

where there is an average level of moisture within a

habitat. The land is not too dry or too wet. Usually,

it refers to the nature of the entire area; for example,

mesic prairie.

Objective For the purpose the Comprehensive Conservation

Plan, the term, “objective” is defined as, a concise

statement of what will be achieved (specificity), how

much will be achieved (quantified), when it will be

achieved (time bound), and who is responsible for the
Appendix H: Glossary

193

work (accountability). Objectives are where the

rubber meets the road.

Project For the purpose of the Comprehensive Conservation

Plan, the term, “project” is defined as a work plan

proposal that shows budget and staff time needed to

implement a strategy.

Pulustrine Wetland Shallow water wetlands. The Pulustrine System

encompasses the vast majority of the country’s inland

marshes, bogs and swamps and does not include any

deepwater habitat.

Riverine The Riverine System is limited to freshwater river

and stream channels and is mainly a deepwater

habitat system.

Refuge Operation

Needs System (RONS) This is the system that is used within the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service to identify projects to be included for possible future funding. When money

becomes available from a variety of sources, it can be

used to address identified RONS projects.

Strategy For the purpose of the Comprehensive Conservation

Plan, the term, “strategy” is defined as a solution or

approach to achieving an objective (more detailed

and often includes the how).

Warm-season grass Grass species that green later in the spring, often

reaching their peak growth in the warm summer

months and flower in July. Many native bunch grass

species such as big-blue stem and little-blue stem are

warm season grasses.

Waterfowl Production

Areas (WPA) Upland grasslands and wetlands that are purchased

by the Federal government to provide nesting

habitat for waterfowl and hunting areas for waterfowl and upland game hunters.

Waterfowl The group of water birds, known scientifically as

Anseriformes, including ducks, geese and swans.

Many state hunting regulations also refer to cormorants which are not truly a member of the waterfowl

group. Cranes, grebes, herons and pelicans are also

not waterfowl.

Wetland Wetlands are lands 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,

wetlands must have one or more of the following

three attributes: 1) at least periodically, the land
Litchfield Wetland Management District

194

supports predominantly hydrophytes (water plants);

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

Districts (District) The Federal administrative unit that is charged with

acquiring, overseeing and managing the Waterfowl

Production Areas and easements within a specified

group of counties. Most Districts are large, covering

several counties.
Appendix I: Bibliography

195

Appendix I: Bibliography

Appendix I: Bibliography

197

Appendix I: Bibliography

Aaseng, Norman E., John C. Almendinger, Robert P. Dana, Barbara C. Delaney,

Hannah L. Dunevitz, Kurt A. Rusterholz, Nancy P. Sather, and Daniel S. Wovcha.

1993. Minnesota’s native vegetation, a key to natural communities, version 1.5.

Biological Report No. 20. Minnesota Dept. Natural Resources, Natural Heritage

Program.

Ball, I.J., Eng, R. L., and Ball, S. K. 1995. Population density and productivity of ducks

on large grassland tracts in northcentral Montana. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 23: 767-773.

Burger, L.D., L.W. Burger, Jr. and J. Faaborg. 1994. Effects of prairie fragmentation

on predation of artificial nests. J. Wild. Manage. 58:249-254.

Coffin, B. and L. Pfannmuller, 1988. Minnesota’s Endangered Flora and Fauna.

University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, MN.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of

wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington. D.C.

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States: 1780-1980. U.S. Department of

the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C.

Defenders of Wildlife. 1999. The Citizen’s Wildlife Refuge Planning Handbook:

Charting the future of conservation on the national wildlife refuge near you. Defenders of Wildlife. Washington D.C. 1999.

Eckert, K.R. 1994. A birder’s guide to Minnesota. Williams Publications, Plymouth,

MN.

Ensor, K. and S. Smith. 1994. Herbicide concentrations in select waterfowl production

area wetlands in west central Minnesota, 1993. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. Office of Environmental Contaminants. Federal Building, Fort Snelling,

Twin Cities.

Fitzgerald J. D. N. Pashley, S. J. Lewis, and B. Pardo 1998. Partners in Flight Bird

Conservation Plan for the Northern Tallgrass Prairie (Physiographic Area 40). MO

Department of Conservation.

Freemark, K. and M. Csizy. 1993. Effect of different habitats vs. agricultural practices

on breeding birds. Pages 284-285 (abstract) in Agricultural Research to Protect

Water Quality: Proceeding of the Conference. Feb. 21-24, 1993. Minneapolis, MN Soil

and Water Conservation Society.

Galatowitsch, S. M. and A. G. van der Valk. 1994. Restoring prairie wetlands; an

ecological approach. Iowa State University Press, Ames Iowa.

Green, J. C. and R. B. Janssen. 1975. Minnesota Birds. University of Minnesota

Press, Minneapolis.
Litchfield Wetland Management District

198

Grue, C.E., L. R. DeWeese, P. Mineau, G.A. Swanson, J.R. Foster and P. M. Arnold, J.

Huckins, P. J. Sheechan and W. K. Marshall, A. P. Ludden. 1986. Potential impacts of

agricultural chemicals on waterfowl and other wildlife inhabiting prairie wetlands: an

evaluation of research needs and approaches. Trans. 51st N. A. Wildl. And Nat. Res.

Conf. 357-383.

Hanson and Zimmer 1999

Hargrave, Bryan. 1993. The upper levels of an ecological classification system for

Minnesota. Draft. State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources Forestry.

Hazard, E.B. 1982. Mammals of Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, MN

Henderson, C. L., A.L. Lambrecht, 1997. Traveler’s Guide to Wildlife in Minnesota.

Minnesota Department of Administration Communications. Media Division. St. Paul,

Minnesota.

Janssen, B. 1987. Birds of Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis,

MN.

Jannssen, R.B., and A.X. Hertzel. 1996. County occurrences of Minnesota birds.

Minnesota Ornithologist’s Union Occasional Papers No. 1.

Johnson, R.G. and S. A. Temple. 1986. Assessing habitat quality for birds nesting in

fragmented tallgrass prairies. Pp. 245-49. In J. Verner, M.L. Morrison, and C.J.

Ralph, eds. Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates.

University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Johnson, R.G., and S. A. Temple. 1990. Nest predation and brood parasitism of

tallgrass prairie birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:106-11.

Knopf, F. L. 1994. Avian assemblages on altered grasslands. Studies in Avian Biology

15:247-57.

Lariviere, S., L. R. Walton, and F. Messier. 1999. Selection by Striped Skunks

(Mephistis mephitis) of farmsteads and buildings as denning sites. American Midland

Naturalist. (In press).

Lariviere, S. and F. Messier. 1998. Denning ecology of the striped skunk in the

Canadian prairies: implications for waterfowl nest predation. Journal of applied

ecology 35: 207-213.

Lariviere, S. and F. Messier. 1998. Spatial organization of a prairie striped skunk

population during the waterfowl nesting season. J. Wild. Manage. 62:199-204.

Moyle, J.B. and E.W. Moyle, 1977. Northland Wildflowers - A Guide for the Minnesota Region. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, MN.

Noss, R.F., et al. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary

Assessment of Loss and Degradation. Biological Report 28: Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Interior, National Biological Service.
Appendix I: Bibliography

199

Oldfield, B. and J.J. Moriarty, 1994. Amphibians and Reptiles Native to Minnesota.

University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, MN.

Ojakangas, R.W. and C. L. Matsch. 1982. Minnesota’s geology. University of Minnesota Press. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Ostlie, W.R., R. E. Schneider, J. M. Aldrich, T.M. Faust, R.L.B. McKim, and H.M.

Watson. 1996. The status of biodiversity in the Great Plains. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

Paton, P.W. C. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the

evidence? Conservation Biology 8:17-26.

Pasitschniak-Arts, M. and F. Messier. 1996. Predation on artificial duck nests in a

fragmented prairie landscape. Ecoscience 3:436-441.

Sample, David W. and M. J. Mossman. 1997. Managing Habitat for Grassland Birds: a

guide for Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Bureau of Integrated Science Services. Madison, Wisconsin.

Roberts, 1932. Birds of Minnesota. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Vols 1 and

2.

Sampson, F. B. and F. L. Knopf. Prairie conservation: preserving North America’s

most endangered ecosystem. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Strangis, J.M. 1996. Birding Minnesota. Falcon Press, Helena, MT.

Tester, J. R. 1995. Minnesota’s Natural Heritage-an Ecological Perspective. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, MN.

Tilman, D. and J. A. Downing. 1994. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature

367:363-365.

Tome , M. W., C. Grue, L. R. DeWeese. 1991. Ethyl parathion in wetlands following

aerial application to sunflowers in North Dakota. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19:450-457.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Fulfilling the Promise: The National Wildlife

Refuge System. Visions for Wildlife, Habitat, People and Leadership. Department of

the Interior; Washington D.C.

Weller, M. W. 1982. Freshwater Marshes: University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis,

MN.

Wendt, Keith M., and Barbara Coffin. 1988. Natural vegetation of Minnesota at the

time of the public land survey, 1847-1907. Biological Report No. 1. Minnesota Dept. of

Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program.

Appendix J / List of Preparers

201

Appendix J: List of Preparers

Appendix J / List of Preparers

203

Appendix J: List of Preparers

Don Hultman

Former Refuge Supervisor (Area 3)

USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota

Kevin Brennan

Wetlands District Manager

Fergus Falls Wetland Management District

Barry Christenson

Wetlands District Manager

Litchfield Wetland Management District

Rick Julian

Refuge Manager

Rydell National Wildlife Refuge

Mark Chase

Wetlands District Manager

Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District

Thomas Bell Thomas Bell

Refuge Manager

Big Muddy National Wildlife Refuge

Steve Delehanty

Wetlands District Manager

Morris Wetland Management District

Ron Bell Ron Bell

Refuge Manager

Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge

Rich Papasso

Refuge Operation Specialist

Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge

Steve Kallin

Wetlands District Manager

Windom Wetland Management District

John Dobrovolny

Regional Historic Preservation Officer

USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota

Mike Marxen

CCP Coordinator

USFWS, Pacific Northwest Region
Litchfield Wetland Management Districts

204

Mary Mitchell Mary Mitchell

Wildlife Biologist/Regional GIS Coordinator

USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota

Sean Killen

Cartographer

USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota

John Schomaker, Ph.D. , Ph.D.

Refuge Planning Specialist/CCP Coordinator

USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota

Jane Hodgins

Technical Writer/Editor

USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota

Jan Eldridge, Ph.D. Jan Eldridge, Ph.D.

Wildlife Biologist

USFWS, Ascertainment and Planning, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota
Appendix K: Guidance for Acquisition

205

Appendix K: Guidance for Acquisition

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) - Region 3 

Strategic Growth of the Small Wetland Acquisition Program (SWAP) 

Guidelines for Fee and Easement Purchase

Introduction

Project Leaders on Wetland Management Districts (WMD) within the major waterfowl breeding

habitats of the United States are charged with the responsibility to identify tracts of land that meet the

goals of the SWAP for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). Of all the

responsibilities Project Leaders carry, identifying lands to include in the NWRS has the longest lasting

implications and is by far the most important.

The main goal of the SWAP has been, and still is, to purchase a complex of wetlands and uplands that

provide habitat in which waterfowl can successfully reproduce. The basic concept has been to

purchase in fee title key brood marshes that include adequate nesting cover on adjacent uplands while

protecting under easement surrounding temporary and seasonal wetland basins as breeding pair habitat. 

It is important that lands purchased under the SWAP are the preeminent waterfowl production

habitats within a Wetland Management District.

Delineation of lands for purchase as waterfowl production habitat is as much an art as it is a science. 

This requires meshing the opportunity to purchase and manage a particular tract of land with the

biological needs of breeding waterfowl in a socially acceptable, cost effective and efficient manner.

History

The SWAP began in 1958 and accelerated rapidly in the early 1960's with passage of the Wetlands

Loan Act. The original 1960's delineations were prepared for each fee title parcel based on their

suitability to provide brood rearing habitat for waterfowl. These delineations designated wetlands as

priority A, B, and C for fee title purchase. These tracts had few upland acres and only existing

wetlands with no drainage facilities were considered for fee or easement purchase. In some locations,

these original delineations have been reevaluated and revised. In Minnesota, a 1974 exercise produced

maps showing proposed boundaries of each fee title delineation, as well as wetlands within a two-mile

radius that were eligible for easement purchase. A 1984 effort produced maps of “significant wetland

areas” for fee title purchase. Although dated, these efforts were biologically sound and provide

valuable information in deciding which properties to purchase today.

Over the years our understanding of breeding waterfowl biology has increased and the landscape of the

Upper Midwest has changed dramatically. The SWAP itself has evolved to include purchase of

drained wetlands, increased upland acreage, and grassland easements along with new counties that

include lands within intensely agricultural and urbanized landscapes.

Since the inception of the SWAP, most State Fish and Wildlife Agencies in primary waterfowl breeding

habitats also conducted land acquisition programs that protected wetlands for waterfowl production.
In recent years, many new programs have been launched by Service partners that compliment the

SWAP including U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), Farmers

Home Administration Inventory and Debt Restructure programs, State programs such as Reinvest in

Minnesota (RIM) and the Permanent Wetland Preserve (PWP), as well as non government

organization programs such as The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Preserves. In addition, the Service has

recently established National Wildlife Refuges to protect native prairie tracts over an area that is closely

aligned with the Prairie Pothole Region.

Project Leaders must consider these program changes when determining which lands to purchase under

the SWAP.

Biological Considerations

The following guidelines for the SWAP have been developed with the goal of directing acquisition of

waterfowl production habitat for prairie nesting species ducks.

As one moves through the major waterfowl breeding habitats from Wisconsin to Iowa to Montana, the

primary biological factor limiting waterfowl production varies with the landscape. In Iowa and southern

Minnesota, the simple lack of any wetlands or upland cover tends to limit the occurrence of breeding

waterfowl. In parts of Wisconsin, Michigan and western Minnesota, the low number of temporary and

seasonal wetlands and diminished upland cover limit the number of breeding pairs that settle and

successfully nest. In the parts of the eastern Dakotas where the wetland base is fairly intact, breeding

waterfowl settle, but production can be limited by the lack of secure upland cover. In the central

Dakotas and northern Montana, generally the wetland base and grassland cover are sufficient to attract

and insure adequate nest success rates for breeding waterfowl populations. Acquisition programs

should focus on providing the missing components for that particular landscape. 

The first credo of breeding waterfowl habitat is “the abundance of wetlands (especially temporary and

seasonal) within a given landscape during the spring/summer correlates directly with the number of

breeding duck pairs.”

The second credo of breeding waterfowl habitat is “as grassland acreage (idle grassland, hayland,

pasture, road rights-of-ways, etc.) within a given landscape increases, waterfowl nest success

increases.

The third credo of breeding waterfowl habitat is “as the predator component within a given landscape

approaches the naturally occurring compliment (i.e., coyotes vs. red fox), waterfowl nest success

increases.”

When delineating lands for purchase under the SWAP, Project Leaders must view current conditions

as well as anticipated future developments. Since the home range of most prairie nesting species of

waterfowl covers roughly four-square miles, delineations need to be viewed as part of a larger

landscape within a two-mile radius. The “perfect” 4-square mile tract would consist of a complex of
wetlands spread across the landscape intermingled with greater than 30% grassland cover on the

uplands and few, if any, trees or forested areas. The wetland complex on this “perfect” 4-square mile

landscape would be made up of four or more larger brood marshes and 150 or more temporary and

seasonal wetlands.

Delineation Criteria for Fee Title Purchases

Delineations will be prepared to show the eventual boundary of a Waterfowl Production Area after all

tracts have been acquired.

Size of WPA: 80 - 1,000 acres

Upland/Wetland Ratio: 4:1

Wetland Types: Delineate only a wetland complex. This complex will have at least one PEMF

brood marsh of significant size. There must be a scattering of PEMA and

PEMC wetlands throughout the area.

Soils: Heavy, fertile, alkaline clay loam, or loam Mollisol soils. These soil

types evolved under geographic regions that were predominantly prairie

grassland.

1. Omit buildings and building sites when they are not critical to the management of the WPA.

2. A minimum of 20 percent of the entire delineation should be wet. (Use restorable drained, as well

as existing basins in determining percent wetland.)

3. Maximum of 50 percent of the entire delineation may be wetland.

4. Written justification and approval of the Refuge Supervisor is needed when the size of the WPA

purchased is under 80 acres or exceeds 1,000 acres. 

5. Limit number of Waterfowl Production Areas to 4-5 per township.

Delineation Criteria for Habitat Easements

Grassland easements should be obtained on lands where a suitable wetland complex exists, but

additional upland cover is necessary to provide adequate waterfowl breeding habitat (i.e., overlying a

wetland easement).

Grassland easements must be within 2,600 feet of a wetland that provides brood habitat.

If requested by the owner, delineations may exclude one small tract (1-5 acres) on the exterior

boundary and/or in a corner for parking and/or a building. 
Generally roads and trails should not be allowed on habitat easements. If an access trail is absolutely

necessary, the delineation should show the approximate route.

Delineation Criteria for Wetland Easements

It is preferred that wetland easements be obtained on all PEMA, PEMC, PEMF, and PEMG wetlands

within two miles of fee title Waterfowl Production Areas or any other permanently protected brood

marsh. Wetland easement maybe taken to permanently protect good brood marshes that would be

otherwise unprotected.

Wetlands should be delineated to water levels that approximate the Ordinary High Water mark (i.e 100

year rainfall event).

All drained wetlands restored under the Partners for Wildlife, CRP, or other similar wetland restoration

programs that are lacking permanent protection should be considered for wetland easement protection. 

Where easements include wetland restorations structures (ditch plugs, tile risers, culverts, etc) Project

Leaders should consider requesting recorded mean sea level elevations.

Wetlands with drainage facilities (i.e. un-maintained ditches or tiles) that exhibit PEMC, PEMF or

PEMG characteristics maybe delineated for easement purchase. In these situations the landowner(s)

forfeit their rights to maintain the drainage facilities so the entire wetland should be placed under

easement to eliminate any third party drainage rights. Restoration of partially drained wetlands to

historic water levels is preferred and should be explored with the landowner prior to taking an

easement. 

Do not place artificial or created wetlands under easement (i.e., dugouts, stock dams, dams on natural

streams/riparian areas).

Delineation Criteria Applicable to all SWAP Acquisitions

Avoid purchasing land with problems that will significantly affect the tract’s biological integrity, diversity,

and environmental health.

1. Try to avoid purchasing lands within city limits or adjacent to commercial or rural housing

developments. Do not use the SWAP just to prevent commercial or rural development.

2. Do not purchase lands when a legal ditch(s) passes through the major brood marsh unless specific

detail is provided that insures future water levels will be adequate (i.e., cleanout depths are agreed

to by drainage authority or legal process for impoundment of water, or abandonment occurs

concurrently with purchase).

3. Evaluate any recorded or unrecorded outstanding third party rights (i.e., ditches, tiles, access trails,

mineral rights) and do not purchase lands when these rights substantially affect future management.
4. Avoid purchasing tracts without access.

5. Avoid purchasing tracts with costly future management problems (i.e., contaminants, flashy

watershed with frequent flood damages, fish lakes, extensive invasions of exotic species, etc.).

6. Avoid purchasing tracts that are the recipient of sewage lagoon discharge or feedlot runoff.

7. Where management problems may develop and public uses significantly differ, avoid intermingling

Service lands with other agency/NGO lands.

8. As they approve tracts for purchase, Project Leaders should consider the goal acres for each

county to insure they are not exceeded before all essential tracts are purchased.

Prioritizing Acquisitions & Other Considerations

Priority should be given to fee title and habitat easement purchases using the SWAP Acquisition Priority

Scorecard (Exhibit 2). Round-outs to existing fee title Waterfowl Production Areas should receive

priority over other tracts. Wetland Easements will be assigned a high, medium or low priority and

should be based on criteria similar to habitat easements and fee title tracts. Priority will be give to

wetland easements covering previously drained wetlands that have been restored.

In targeting and prioritizing SWAP tracts Project Leaders should use Geographic Information System

data including thunderstorm maps, land cover maps (grassland acreage), landscape characteristic maps

and data on predator populations. Project Leaders also need to evaluate potential purchases for tracts

where future management actions will significantly contribute to increased waterfowl production (i.e.,

purchase of a 100+ acre drained wetland that will be restored and managed for hemi-marsh conditions

and over water nesting species of ducks).

In prioritizing tracts for purchase under the SWAP other wildlife benefits may help determine priority. 

These may include presence of large tracts of native prairie, endangered or threatened species, or

colonial nesting birds, expanding and protecting large tracts of grassland as Grassland Bird

Conservation Areas and resident species benefits (i.e., pheasant wintering marsh).

Format

All SWAP acquisitions will have the SWAP Acquisition Proposal cover sheet with fee title and habitat

easement tracts including the SWAP Acquisition Priority Scorecard (Exhibit 2). The Project Leader’s

signature at the bottom of the SWAP Acquisition Proposal form represents approval for inclusion of the

lands into the NWRS. 

All SWAP delineations will be made on the most recent digital ortho quadrangles using the Wetland

Management District Geographic Information System (GIS) acquisition format with the following

standard colors (during FY02, field stations will transition from the pen and ink format to GIS.):
Boundary: Proposed Purchases (Fee or Easement): White

WPA: Existing - green Wetland Easement: Existing - yellow

Habitat Easement: Existing - dark blue Flowage Easement: Existing - light blue

FmHA Easement: Existing - red Wetlands: blue

Show all drainage (tile, open ditch, county, and judicial ditches) with lines and arrows.

Show roads, railroads, and other rights-of-ways.

Show building sites within and adjacent to delineated areas.

All wetland easement delineations will have the USFWS Wetland Easement Field Form attached

(Exhibit 3).

Suggested Reading

Greenwood, Raymond J., Alan B. Sargeant, Douglas H. Johnson, Lewis M. Cowardin,

 and Terry L. Shaffer. 1995. Factors associated with duck nest success in

 the Prairie Pothole Region of Canada. Wildlife Monographs 128:1-57. 

 Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page.

 http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/nestsuc/nestsucc.htm

 (Version 02JUN99).

Krapu, Gary L., Raymond J. Greenwood, Chris P. Dwyer, Kathy M. Kraft, and Lewis 

 M. Cowardin. 1997. Wetland use, settling patterns, and recruitment in 

 mallards. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(3):736-746.

 Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. 

 http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/wetlndus/wetlndus.htm

 (Version 14NOV97).

Johnson, Douglas. H. and James W. Grier. 1988. Determinants of breeding 

 distributions of ducks. Wildlife Monographs 100:1-37. Jamestown ND: 

 Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. 

 http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/birds/distduck/distduck.htm 

 (Version 15APR98).

Cowardin, Lewis M., Terry L. Shaffer, and Kathy M. Kraft. 1995. How much habitat 

 management is needed to meet mallard production objectives? Wildlife Society

 Bulletin 23(1):48-55. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

 Home Page. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/marshbrd/marshbrd.htm

 (Version 16JUL97).
Reynolds, Ronald E., Danny R. Cohan, and Michael A. Johnson. 1996. Using 

 landscape information approaches to increase duck recruitment in the 

 Prairie Pothole Region. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and 

 Natural Resource Conference 61:86-93. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie 

 Wildlife Research Center Home Page. 

 http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/incduck/incduck.htm 

 (Version 16JUL97).

Johnson, Douglas. H. and James W. Grier. 1988. Determinants of breeding 

 distributions of ducks. Wildlife Monographs 100:1-37. Jamestown ND: 

 Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. 

 http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/birds/distduck/distduck.htm 

 (Version 15APR98).

Sargeant, Alan B., Raymond J. Greenwood, Marsha A. Sovada, and Terry L. Shaffer. 

 1993. Distribution and abundance of predators that affect duck production -

 Prairie Pothole Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource 

 Publication 194. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page.

 http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/others/predator/predator.htm 

 (Version 16JUL97).

Cowardin, Lewis M., David S. Gilmer, and Charles W. Shaiffer. 1985. Mallard 

 recruitment in the agricultural environment of North Dakota. Wildlife 

 Monographs 92:1-37. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home 

Page.http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/recruit/recruit.htm

 (Version 02JUN99).

Winter, Maiken, Douglas H. Johnson, Therese M. Donovan, and W. Daniel 

 Svedarsky. 1998. Evaluation of the Bird Conservation Area Concept 

 in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie. Annual Report: 1998. Northern 

 Prairie Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Jamestown, 

 ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page.

 http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1999/bcarprt/bcarprt.htm

 (Version 18MAY99).

Kantrud, Harold A., Gary L. Krapu, and George A. Swanson. 1989. Prairie basin

 wetlands of the Dakotas: A community profile. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, Biological Report 85(7.28). Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie 

 Wildlife Research Center Home Page. 

 http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/basinwet/basinwet.htm 

 (Version 16JUL97).
SWAP ACQUISITION PROPOSAL Exhibit 1

To:

From:

Tract Name:______________________________________________________Size:________

County:____________________________Township/Section:__________________________

Owner’s Name:_______________________________________________________________

Address:_____________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

Phone Number:________________________________________________________________

Interested Individual when not owner:______________________________________________

Acquisition Type: Fee_____ Wet Ease_____ Flow Ease_____

Habitat Ease: Total_____Hay_____Graze_____Hay and Graze_____

Priority:Fee & Habitat Easement: Round-out_____ Score_____

Wetland Easement: Restoration_____High_____Medium_____Low_____ 

Comments:

Delineation Contact:

Name:___________________________________________Phone:_______________________

Address:______________________________________________________________________

E-mail:___________________________________________Fax:_________________________

Approved______________________________________________Date________________

Project Leader
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Points

0 10 20 30 40 50

.

5

10

15

20

25

30+

% Grassland

PEMC + PEMA/Sq. 

Mi.

0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40

SWAP FEE & HABITAT EASE ACQUISITION PRIORITY SCORECARD Exhibit 2

 

Landscape Setting Score - within 2 mile radius of center of delineation (maximum of 40) ___________

PEMA + PEMC - Include existing and permanently protected restorable temporary & seasonal wetlands.

% Grassland - Include all pasture, hay land, CRP, idle grass and other grassland.

WPA Delineation Score ( maximum of 50) ___________

Final Size of WPA

80-160 ac. - 2 pts 160-320 ac. - 5 pts 320-640 ac - 8 pts 640+ ac - 10 pts

Wetland Density (existing + restorable within eventual boundary)

0-10/sq mi - 2 pts 10-20/sq mi - 5 pts 20-30/sq mi - 8 pts 30+/sq mi.- 10 pts

Wetland to Upland Ratio (within eventual boundary)

1:1 - 2 pts 1:2 - 5 pts 1:3 - 8 pts 1:4 - 10pts

Wetland Type Ratio (number of PEMF to PEMA+PEMC basins)

<1:10 - 1 pt 1:10 - 1:20 - 2 pts 1:20 - 1:30 - 4 pts >1:30 - 5 pts

100+ acre PEMF that naturally or with a w/c structure installed provides 

hemi-marsh conditions for over-water nesting species of diving ducks - 10 pts

Soils:

Tract contains 75% or greater Mollisol Series Soils - 5 pts

Other Factors Score (5 pts. each maximum of 10 pts.) ___________

Native Prairie within delineation (minimum size 40 acres)

Presence of Endangered or Threatened Species

Presence of breeding population of Colonial Nesting Birds

Within Boundary of Identified GBCA or Shorebird CA

Provides “Substantial Benefit” to local population(s) of Resident Species

Adjacent to permanently protected waterfowl habitat (i.e. WRP, RIM, state easement)

Total Score (maximum of 100) ___________
USFWS WETLAND EASEMENT FIELD FORM Exhibit 3

Township

Date:_____________ County:_____________________ Name:____________________________

Legal Description of Proposed Easement: (Attach photo with numbered basins)

T. ________N., R. ________W., section ________, _______________________________________________

Contact made by: ________________________________ Mapped by:________________________________

Owner’s Name: ____________________________________________________________________________

Interested individual when not owner:___________________________________________________________

Easement Program Explained? Y N N/A

Basin No. Type Present Condition* Basin No. Type Present Condition*

1 ____ 1 2 3 4 21 ____ 1 2 3 4

2 ____ 1 2 3 4 22 ____ 1 2 3 4

3 ____ 1 2 3 4 23 ____ 1 2 3 4

4 ____ 1 2 3 4 24 ____ 1 2 3 4

5 ____ 1 2 3 4 25 ____ 1 2 3 4

6 ____ 1 2 3 4 26 ____ 1 2 3 4

7 ____ 1 2 3 4 27 ____ 1 2 3 4

8 ____ 1 2 3 4 28 ____ 1 2 3 4

9 ____ 1 2 3 4 29 ____ 1 2 3 4

10 ____ 1 2 3 4 30 ____ 1 2 3 4

11 ____ 1 2 3 4 31 ____ 1 2 3 4

12 ____ 1 2 3 4 32 ____ 1 2 3 4

13 ____ 1 2 3 4 33 ____ 1 2 3 4

14 ____ 1 2 3 4 34 ____ 1 2 3 4

15 ____ 1 2 3 4 35 ____ 1 2 3 4

16 ____ 1 2 3 4 36 ____ 1 2 3 4

17 ____ 1 2 3 4 37 ____ 1 2 3 4

18 ____ 1 2 3 4 38 ____ 1 2 3 4

19 ____ 1 2 3 4 39 ____ 1 2 3 4

20 ____ 1 2 3 4 40 ____ 1 2 3 4

*Legend: 1 - Existing basin qualifies in present condition 3 - Basin qualifies with restoration

 2 - Basin qualifies with no maintenance of drainage facility 4 - Does not qualify for easement

Comments:
Appendix L: Goal Acres

217

Appendix L: Goal Acres

Appendix L: Goal Acres

219

Appendix L: Goal Acres

Purchase Options Easements

Total

Procedural Acres Procedural Total Acres

County Agreement Approved Current Agreement Approved Current

Total Acres To Date Balance Total Acres To Date Balance

Becker 19,220.00 12,014.49 7,205.51 31,900.00 7,798.47 24,101.53

Big Stone 15,600.00 11,140.81 4,459.19 42,640.00 25,629.35 17,010.65

Clay 23,960.00 10,374.43 13,585.57 35,400.00 19,598.24 15,801.76

Cottonwood 6,446.38 3,184.78 3,261.60 4,000.00 398.92 3,601.08

Douglas 17,120.00 9,605.37 7,514.63 31,226.00 26,747.69 4,478.31

Faribault 5,920.00 806.24 5,113.76 4,000.00 269.28 3,730.72

Freeborn 3,610.00 1,396.63 2,213.37 4,000.00 379.10 3,620.90

Grant 18,854.00 9,977.96 8,876.04 20,737.00 14,618.07 6,118.93

Jackson 8,500.00 4,161.89 4,338.11 3,000.00 425.85 2,574.15

Kandiyohi 16,800.00 13,254.47 3,545.53 32,660.00 14,677.34 17,982.66

Lac qui Parle 6,600.00 4,005.00 2,594.01 23,540.00 4,491.24 19,048.76

LeSueur 4,230.00 412.76 3,817.24 9,100.00 450.86 8,649.14

Mahnomen 14,000.00 5,406.94 8,593.06 35,250.00 18,026.09 17,223.91

McLeod 5,380.00 951.66 4,428.34 5,093.00 2,425.04 2,667.96

Meeker 15,440.00 4,619.28 10,820.72 14,700.00 8,035.58 6,664.42

Morrison 6,320.00 466.00 5,854.00 4,900.00 - 4,900.00

Norman 9,400.00 1,119.00 8,281.00 4,900.00 - 4,900.00

Otter Tail 35,704.62 20,825.73 14,878.89 75,290.00 70,516.57 4,773.43

Polk 22,700.00 11,161.77 11,538.23 46,460.00 7,829.18 38,630.82

Pope 21,000.00 13,289.22 7,710.78 44,180.00 33,570.49 10,609.51

Stearns 14,900.00 9,063.18 5,836.82 15,810.00 4,818.83 10,991.17

Stevens 12,850.00 9,371.15 3,478.85 6,090.00 4,007.55 2,082.45

Swift 10,800.00 6,904.60 3,895.40 14,540.00 4,931.85 9,608.15

Todd 6,560.00 803.35 5,756.65 4,800.00 112.00 4,688.00

Traverse 6,720.00 4,103.98 2,616.02 8,440.00 3,983.31 4,456.69

Wilkin 2,997.00 2,197.00 800.00 1,430.00 1,066.00 364.00

Wright 17,140.00 2,180.14 14,959.86 7,515.00 1,920.58 5,594.42

Yellow 1,260.00 963.85 296.15 7,860.00 637.27 7,222.73

Medicine

Other 41,428.00 9,485.22 31,942.78 47,859.00 7,986.39 39,872.61

Counties*

Totals 391,460.00 183,247.89 208,212.11 587,320.00 285,351.14 301.968.86

*Other

Counties

Blue Earth 888.45 87.00

Carver 48.00

Chippewa 246.47 120.00

Clearwater 4,582.68

Continued Next Page
Litchfield Wetland Management District

220

Appendix L: Goal Acres

Purchase Options Easements

Total

Procedural Acres Procedural Total Acres

County Agreement Approved Current Agreement Approved Current

Total Acres To Date Balance Total Acres To Date Balance

Dakota 73.90 0.18

Lincoln 754.26 739.33

Lyon 1,574.48 231.00

Martin 74.00 437.88

Murray 1,886.63 86.00

Nobles 508.27 94.44

Renville 1,091.23

Rice 615.00 783.82

Rock 60.14

Scott 40.00 164.00

Sibley 797.92 307.83

Steele 630.13

Waseca 248.78

Watonwan 55.70 244.09

Totals / Other Counties 9,485.22 7,986.39

*Other

Counties Continued
Appendix M: Environmental Assessment

221

Appendix M: Environmental Assessment



Appendix M / Environmental Assessment

i

Contents

1.0 Purpose and Need for Action ........................................................................................ EA1

1.1 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................................................... EA1

1.1.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... EA1

1.1.2 Need for Action .......................................................................................................................... EA3

1.2 Decision Framework.............................................................................................................................. EA4

1.3 Background ........................................................................................................................................... EA5

1.3.1 The United States Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................................. EA5

1.3.2 The National Wildlife Refuge System ....................................................................................... EA5

1.3.3 Minnesota Wetland Management Districts.............................................................................. EA6

1.3.4 Minnesota WMD Vision Statement for Desired Future Condition ........................................... EA7

1.4 Project Inception........................................................................................................................... EA7

1.5. Scoping and Public Involvement ................................................................................................. EA8

1.5.1 Issues and Concerns .................................................................................................................. EA9

1.6 Legal, Policy, And Administrative Guidelines ............................................................................ EA10

1.6.1 Legal Mandates .............................................................................................................. EA10

1.6.2 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Review ..................................................................... EA10

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives ............................................................................ EA11

2.1 Development of Alternatives .............................................................................................................. EA11

2.2 Elements Common To All Alternatives ............................................................................................... EA12

2.2.1 Fire ............................................................................................................................................ EA12

2.2.11 Prescribed Fire ................................................................................................................ EA12

2.2.12 Fire Prevention and Detection ....................................................................................... EA14

2.2.13 Fire Suppression............................................................................................................. EA15

2.2.2 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... EA17

2.2.3 Listed Species ................................................................................................................. EA17

2.3 Alternative 1 – Discontinue Acquiring Additional Land and Maintain Management on Current Land

EA17

2.4 Alternative 2: Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acres and Maintain Current Management Practices (No

Action Alternative)..................................................................................................................................... EA18

2.5 Alternative 3 – Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acres and Expand Management for Waterfowl, Other

Trust Species and the Public (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................................ EA19

3.0 The Affected Environment ........................................................................................... EA36

3.1 Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District ................................................................................... EA36

3.1.2 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. EA36

3.1.2 Climate ..................................................................................................................................... EA36

3.1.3 Soils ......................................................................................................................................... EA37

3.1.4 Natural Resources ................................................................................................................... EA37

3.1.4.1 Plants ................................................................................................................... EA37

3.1.4.2 Animals ........................................................................................................................ EA38

3.1.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. EA39

3.1.6 Social and Economic Factors .................................................................................................. EA40

3.2 Fergus Falls Wetland Management District ...................................................................................... EA40

3.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. EA40

3.2.2 Climate .................................................................................................................................... EA41

3.2.3 Soils ......................................................................................................................................... EA41

3.2.4 Natural Resources ................................................................................................................... EA41

3.2.4.1 Plants ............................................................................................................................ EA41

3.2.4.2 Animals ........................................................................................................................ EA42
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

ii

3.2.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. EA44

3.2.6 Social and Economic Factors .................................................................................................. EA44

3.3 Morris Wetland Management District ............................................................................................... EA45

3.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ EA45

3.3.2 Climate .................................................................................................................................... EA45

3.3.3 Soils ......................................................................................................................................... EA45

3.3.4 Natural Resources................................................................................................................... EA46

3.3.4.1 Plants ............................................................................................................................. EA46

3.3.4.2 Animals ......................................................................................................................... EA47

3.3.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. EA47

3.3.6 Social and Economic Factors .................................................................................................. EA48

3.4 Litchfield Wetland Management District .......................................................................................... EA48

3.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. EA48

3.4.2 Climate .................................................................................................................................... EA48

3.4.3 Soils ......................................................................................................................................... EA49

3.4.4 Natural Resources................................................................................................................... EA49

3.4.4.1 Plants ............................................................................................................................ EA49

3.4.4.2 Animals ........................................................................................................................ EA50

3.4.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. EA52

3.4.6 Social and Economic Factors .................................................................................................. EA52

3.5 Windom Wetland Management District ............................................................................................ EA52

3.5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. EA52

3.5.2 Climate .................................................................................................................................... EA53

3.5.3 Soils ......................................................................................................................................... EA53

3.5.4 Natural Resources................................................................................................................... EA53

3.5.4.1 Plants ............................................................................................................................ EA53

3.5.4.2 Animals ......................................................................................................................... EA53

3.5.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. EA54

3.5.6 Social and Economic Factors .................................................................................................. EA55

3.6 Big Stone Wetland Management District.......................................................................................... EA55

3.6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. EA55

3.6.2 Climate .................................................................................................................................... EA55

3.6.3 Soils ......................................................................................................................................... EA55

3.6.4 Natural Resources................................................................................................................... EA55

3.6.4.1 Plants ............................................................................................................................ EA55

3.6.4.2 Animals ........................................................................................................................ EA56

3.6.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. EA57

3.6.6 Social and Economic Factors .................................................................................................. EA57

4.0 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................... EA58

4.1 Impacts Associated with Wildlife and Habitat .................................................................................. EA58

4.1.1 Waterfowl Productivity ........................................................................................................... EA58

4.1.2 Other Migratory Birds ............................................................................................................. EA59

4.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species..................................................................................... EA59

4.1.4 Native Species ....................................................................................................................... EA60

4.1.5 Biological Inventories and Monitoring ................................................................................... EA60

4.1.6 Federal Trust Species versus Resident Wildlife ..................................................................... EA61

4.1.7 Invasive Species ...................................................................................................................... EA62

4.1.8 Habitat Restoration and Management ................................................................................... EA62

4.1.9 Contaminants .......................................................................................................................... EA63

4.1.10 Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ................................................................................. EA63

4.2 Impacts Associated with People ........................................................................................................ EA64

4.2.1 Wildlife-Dependent Recreation and Education ...................................................................... EA64
Appendix M / Environmental Assessment

iii

4.2.1.1 Hunting and Fishing ..................................................................................................... EA64

4.2.1.2 Trails ............................................................................................................................. EA64

4.2.1.3 Signing and Interpretation ........................................................................................... EA65

4.2.1.4 Environmental Education ............................................................................................. EA65

4.3 Impacts Associated with Operations ................................................................................................. EA65

4.3.1 Land Acquisition ...................................................................................................................... EA65

4.3.2 Staffing ..................................................................................................................................... EA66

4.3.3 Facilities and Equipment ......................................................................................................... EA66

4.3.4 Management Consistency Among Districts ........................................................................... EA66

4.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis................................................................................................................ EA67

4.4.1 Waterfowl ................................................................................................................................ EA67

4.4.2 Migratory Birds........................................................................................................................ EA68

4.4.3 Endangered and Threatened Species..................................................................................... EA69

4.4.3.1 Threatened Mammals................................................................................................... EA70

4.4.3.2 Endangered / Threatened Birds ................................................................................... EA70

4.4.3.3 Endangered Fish ............................................................................................................ EA71

4.4.4 Wetlands and Riparian Habitat .............................................................................................. EA71

4.4.5 Prairie Restoration .................................................................................................................. EA72

4.5 Prescribed Fire as a Management Tool .............................................................................................. EA73

4.5.1 Social Implications .................................................................................................................. EA73

4.5.2 Cultural and Archaeological Resources ................................................................................. EA74

4.5.3 Flora ........................................................................................................................................ EA74

4.5.4 Listed Species ......................................................................................................................... EA75

4.5.5 Soils ........................................................................................................................................ EA75

4.5.6 Escaped Fire ............................................................................................................................ EA76

4.6 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ................................................................................................. EA76

4.6.1 Climate Change ....................................................................................................................... EA76

4.6.2 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................ EA77

4.6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................................... EA77

4.6.4 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity ...................................................................... EA77

4.6.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources..................................................... EA77

4.6.6 Property Taxes and the Districts Revenue Sharing Act .......................................................... EA78

4.6.7 Relocation Benefits ................................................................................................................. EA78

4.6.8 Landowner Rights Adjacent to Districts Lands....................................................................... EA79

4.6.9 Crop Depredation .................................................................................................................... EA79

4.6.10 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ EA79

4.7 Agricultural Production ....................................................................................................................... EA79

Chapter 5: List of Preparers ............................................................................................... EA84

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... EA85
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

iv

Figures:

Figure 1 Minnesota Mangement Districts Location ................................................................................... EA2

Tables:

Table 1: Fee Title Acres Approved, and Goal Acres for

 each District as per Land Exchange Board (LEB) ....................................................................... EA19

Table 2: Objectives by Management Alternative .................................................................................... EA21-32

Table 3: Summary of Management Alternatives .................................................................................... EA33-35

Table 4: Major Habitat Types of WPAs, Detroit Lakes WMD ................................................................ EA36

Table 5: Major Habitat Types of WPAs, Fergus Falls WMD ................................................................... EA41

Table 6: Major Habitat Types of WPAs, Morris WMD ........................................................................... EA46

Table 7: Major Habitat Types of WPAs, Litchfield WMD ...................................................................... EA50

Table 8: Major Habitat Types of WPAs, Windom WMD ........................................................................ EA54

Table 9: Major Habitat Types of WPAs, Big Stone WMD ...................................................................... EA56

Table 10: Summary of Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................... EA81-83
Chapter 1 / Environmental Assessment

1

1.0 Purpose and Need for Action

1.1 Purpose and Need for Action

1.1.1 Purpose

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to prepare and implement a

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Minnesota Wetland Management

Districts, which include the Big Stone Wetland Management District, the Detroit

Lakes Wetland Management District, the Fergus Falls Wetland Management District,

the Litchfield Wetland Management District, the Morris Wetland Management

District, and the Windom Wetland Management District.

The purpose of the proposed action is to establish the management

direction of the Districts for the next 15 years. The action is needed

because adequate and cohesive long-term management direction

does not exist for the District. Management is now guided by

several general policies and short-term plans. Future management

direction will be defined in a detailed set of goals, objectives, and

strategies described in the CCP.

Refuge Purpose Statements are primary to the management of

each refuge within the System. The Purpose Statement is derived

from the legislative authority used to acquire specific refuge lands

and is, along with Refuge System goals, the basis on which primary management

activities are determined. Additionally, these statements are the foundation from

which “allowed” uses of refuges are determined through a defined ”compatibility

process.” Purpose Statements for the Wetland Management Districts are:

“...as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “all of the provisions of such

Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]...except the inviolate sanctuary

provisions...” 16 U.S. C. 718(d)(c) [Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation

Stamp Act],

“...for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715D

[Migratory Bird Conservation Act],

“...for conservation purposes...”7 U.S.C. 2002 [Consolidated Farm and Rural

Development Act].

The action is also needed to assess existing management issues, opportunities and

alternatives, and then determine the best course for managing the natural resources

in each District. Further, this action will satisfy the legislative mandate of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 which requires the preparation of a CCP for all National Wildlife Refuges, including Wetland Management

Districts. An additional purpose of the Environmental Assessment (EA) is to provide

direction and consideration of the Wetland Management Districts’ fire management

program, which is integral to the CCP.

This EA was prepared using guidelines of the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969. The Act requires us to examine the effects of proposed actions on the natural

and human environment. This EA describes three alternatives for future Complex

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

2

Figure 1: Minnesota Wetland Management Districts Location
Chapter 1 / Environmental Assessment

3

management, the environmental consequences of each alternative, and our preferred

management direction. Each alternative has a reasonable mix of fish and wildlife

habitat prescriptions and wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Selection of

the identified preferred alternative was based on its environmental consequences and

ability to achieve the Complex’s purpose.

1.1.2 Need for Action

The CCP ultimately derived from this EA will set the management direction for the

Districts for the next 15 years. This EA will present three management alternatives

for the future of the Districts. One of the alternatives will be selected based on its

ability to meet identified goals. These goals may also be considered as the primary

need for action. They reflect Service trust responsibilities and priorities based upon

species needs, environmental conditions and Service policy. Goals for the Districts

were developed by the planning team and encompass all aspects of wetland management district management including public use, habitat management and maintenance

operations. Each of the three management alternatives described in this EA will be

able to at least minimally achieve these goals.

The goals for the Minnesota Wetland Management Districts include:

Wildlife Goal: ildlife Goal: Strive to preserve and maintain diversity and increase the

abundance of waterfowl and other key wildlife species in the

Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem. Seek sustainable

solutions to the impact of Canada Geese on adjacent private

croplands. Preserve, restore, and enhance resident wildlife

populations where compatible with waterfowl and the preservation of other trust species.

Habitat Goal: Habitat Goal: Restore native prairie plant communities of the Northern

Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem using local ecotypes of seed and

maintain the vigor of these stands through natural processes.

Restore functioning wetland complexes and maintain the

cyclic productivity of wetlands. Continue efforts for longterm solutions to the problem of invasive species with increased emphasis on biological control to minimize damage to

aquatic and terrestrial communities. Continue efforts to

better define the role of each District in assisting private

landowners with wetland, upland and riparian restorations.

Acquisition Goal: Acquisition Goal: W Acquisition Goal: ithin current acquisition acreage goals, identify the highest

priority acres for acquisition taking into account block size

and waterfowl productivity data. These priority areas should

drive acquisition efforts whenever possible. Service land

acquisition should have no negative impact on net revenues to

local government. Understand and communicate the economic effects of federal land ownership on local communities.

Monitoring Goal: Monitoring Goal: Collect Monitoring Goal: baseline information on plants, fish and wildlife and

monitor critical parameters and trends of key species and/or

species groups on and around District units. Promote the use

of coordinated, standardized, cost effective, and defensible

methods for gathering and analyzing habitat and population

data. Management decisions will be based on the resulting

data.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

4

Endangered Species / Endangered Species /

Unique Communities

Goal: Preserve enhance, and restore rare native northern tallgrass

prairie, flora and fauna that are or may become endangered.

Where feasible in both ecological and social/economic terms,

reintroduce native species on WPAs in cooperation with the

Minnesota DNR.

Public Use / Public Use /

Environmental Environmental

Education Goal: Education Goal: P Education Goal: rovide opportunities for the public to use the WPAs in a way

that promotes understanding and appreciation of the Prairie

Pothole Region. Promote greater understanding and awareness of the Wetland Management District’s programs, goals,

and objectives. Advance stewardship and understanding of

the Prairie Pothole Region through environmental education,

outreach and partnership development.

Development Plan

Goal: Preparation of WPA Development Plans: Complete Geographic Information System (GIS) based WPA Development

Plans for each unit in each District. Provide Districts with

GIS to assist with acquisition, restoration, management and

protection of public and private lands.

Staff, Facilities and

Equipment Goal: Equipment Goal: Provide necessary levels of maintenance, technician and

administrative support staff to achieve other Wetland Management District goals: Provide all Districts with adequate

and safe office, maintenance and equipment storage facilities

Acquire adequate equipment and vehicles to achieve other

District goals. Maintain District equipment and vehicles at or

above Service standards.

Annual Capital Annual Capital

Development Funds

Goal: Ensure that annual capital development funds are large

enough to meet necessary development of new WPA land:

Have adequate funds available each year to permit completion of maintenance needs for each Wetland Districts current

land base of Waterfowl Production Areas.

Consistency Goal: Consistency Goal: D Consistency Goal: evelop and apply consistent policies for habitat, public use,

and resource protection and ensure frequent coordination

among Districts, both in Minnesota and in neighboring states

with WPAs (North and South Dakota, Iowa, and Wisconsin).

1.2 Decision Framework

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Regional

Director for the Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region of the Service will use this Environmental Assessment to select one of three alternatives (Chapter 2) and determine

whether the alternative selected will have a significant impact on the quality of the

human environment. Specifically, analysis and findings described in this EA will help
Chapter 1 / Environmental Assessment

5

the Regional Director decide whether to adopt the District’s management direction

pursuant to the goals, objectives, and strategies in the CCP (see CCP).

1.3 Background

1.3.1 The United States Fish and Wildlife Service

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the primary Federal agency

responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife

resources and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Some

responsibilities are shared with Federal, state, tribal, and local entities, but the

Service has specific responsibilities for “trust species” - endangered species, migratory birds, interjurisdictional fish, and certain marine mammals - as well as managing

and protecting lands and waters administered by the Service.

The Service’s mission is “Working with others to conserve, protect, enhance and,

where appropriate restore fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”

Service goals are:

■ Sustainability of fish and wildlife populations: Conserve, protect, restore and

enhance fish, wildlife and plant populations entrusted to our care.

■ Habitat Conservation: A Network of Land and Waters: Cooperating with

others, we will conserve an ecologically diverse network of lands and waters –

of various ownerships – providing habitats for fish, wildlife and plant resources.

■ Public Use and Enjoyment: Provide opportunities to the public to enjoy,

understand and participate in use and conservation of fish and wildlife resources.

■ Partnerships in Natural Resources: Support and strengthen partnerships

with tribal, state and local governments and others in their efforts to conserve

and enjoy fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats.

1.3.2 The National Wildlife Refuge System

The National Wildlife Refuge System (System) is an integral component of the

Service with the mission of “administering a national network of lands and waters for

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of

present and future generations of Americans.”

The Service manages more than 500 national wildlife refuges covering more than 93

million acres that are specifically managed for fish and wildlife and their habitats. The

majority of these lands, almost 83 percent of the land in the Refuge System is found in

the 16 refuges in Alaska, with the remaining acres spread across the remaining 49

states and several territories. More than 88 per cent of the acreage in the System was

withdrawn from the Public Domain. The remainder has been acquired through

purchase, from other Federal agencies, as gifts, or through easement/lease agreements.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

6

Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System are to:

■ Fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purposes and further the System

mission.

■ Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife,

and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.

■ Perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal

populations.

■ Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants.

■ Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems of the United States, including ecological processes characteristic of those ecosystems.

■ Foster understanding and instill appreciation of fish,

wildlife, and plants, and their conservation, by providing the public with safe, high-quality, and compatible

wildlife-dependent public use. Such use includes

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,

and environmental education and interpretation.

1.3.3 Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

Located in western Minnesota, the Wetland Management Districts of Minnesota are

set in a landscape that was once a mosaic of prairie and wetlands. From north to

south the land varied between woodland, sandy ridges and hills covered by prairie

flowers, dotted with small, blue wetlands and oak savannah. The combination of

prairie grasslands and small wetlands made it among the most biologically productive

landscapes in the world; supporting many people and an abundance of wildlife.

When European settlers arrived on the prairies, they recognized the land’s productivity and rapidly turned it to agriculture. In a few decades it ranked among the richest

agricultural land in the world. The landscape changed so rapidly, little of the original

prairie was saved. Today, only fragments remain in isolated, small blocks. With

fragmentation and the loss of large predators, smaller predators such as raccoon,

striped skunks and fox increased, much to the detriment of ground-nesting birds and

other native grassland species.

Perhaps no other ecosystem on earth as been so dramatically altered, in such a short

time, as the tallgrass prairie ecosystem of the Midwest. As the prairie wetlands were

being drained at an unprecedented rate, early surveys of the Prairie Pothole Region

revealed a strong correlation between prairie wetlands and waterfowl breeding

habitat. The Duck Stamp Act was passed in 1934 as an early step in stemming the loss

of prairie wetlands. Although the original Act did not allow purchase of small wetlands, it created a way for hunters to actively participate in maintaining waterfowl

populations. In 1958 the Act was amended, making it possible for the Service to buy

small wetlands and uplands for breeding waterfowl and for hunting. The acquired

wetlands became Waterfowl Production Areas, or WPAs, and formed the core of the

Wetland Management Districts. Wetland management districts are the federal

administrative unit that is responsible for acquiring, overseeing, and managing the

Waterfowl Production Areas and easements within a specified group of counties. Most

Districts are large and cover several counties.

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 1 / Environmental Assessment

7

At the time the Small Wetland Acquisition Program (SWAP) began in 1962, the

Service entered into a Procedural Agreement with the State of Minnesota. This

document laid out the rules for the purchase of wetlands as required by the Wetland

Loan Act of 1961. The agreement was amended in 1976 when the number of counties

authorized for acquisition increased from 19 to 28, and the goal acreage was increased.

In 1991, the Minnesota Land Exchange Board gave the Service approval to expand its

land acquisition program to all 87 counties of the State. The State goal of 231,000

acres in fee title and 365,170 acres in easements, as established in 1976, remains

unchanged.

In western Minnesota, as of March 31, 1999, the Service owned 171,863 acres. Of these

acres, 56,693 are wetlands. In addition, the Service administers perpetual easement

agreements on 266,171 acres, of which 62,098 acres are wetlands. Wetlands that were

once drained have been restored; on Waterfowl Production Areas, 4,064 wetland

restorations have impounded 15,900 wetland acres.

The Wetland Management Districts combine to form a greater land mass than the

largest national wildlife refuge in the lower 48 states. On average, each District has

23,000 to 73,400 breeding ducks each year. Combined, the Districts average 240,600

breeding ducks each year.

1.3.4 Minnesota WMD Vision Statement for Desired Future Condition

The Districts will emphasize waterfowl production and ensure the preservation of

habitat for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and resident wildlife.

The Districts will provide opportunities for the public to hunt, fish, observe and

photograph wildlife and increase public understanding and appreciation of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem.

1.4 Project Inception

Several Federal, State, and local resource management plans provide the framework

for the Service’s proposed action, including the North American Waterfowl Management Plan - U.S. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture and the Minnesota Prairie Pothole

Joint Venture Implementation Plan, the National Wetlands Priority Conservation

Plan, the Service’s Regional Wetlands Concept Plan, the Service’s Ecosystem Plan for

the Mississippi Headwater/Tallgrass Prairie ecosystem, the Partners in Flight

Northern Tallgrass Prairie Bird Conservation Plan and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and strategic planning efforts of numerous local governments, which identifies preservation and protection of land and water resources as important public

needs.

To address the declining status of North American waterfowl populations, the United

States and Canada signed the North American Waterfowl Management Plan

(NAWMP) in 1986. The purpose of the NAWMP is to restore a continental breeding

population of 62 million ducks, including 8.7 million mallards, 6.3 million pintails, and a

fall flight of 100 million ducks during years of average environmental conditions. Of

late, the NAWMP has added objectives and activities for nongame birds. The

NAWMP is designed to reach these objectives through key joint venture areas and

state implementation plans within these joint venture areas.

Minnesota is one of five states (Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana,

and Iowa) located in the U.S. portion of the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV)
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

8

Area of the NAWMP. The objective of the PPJV is to produce 6.8 million breeding

ducks and a fall flight of 13.6 million birds by the year 2000.

In 1986, the U.S. Congress authorized the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act to

protect critical wetlands and promote wetland conservation. One of the requirements

of the Act was the preparation of a national plan to identify high priority wetlands for

protection. In 1989 the Department of the Interior developed the National Wetlands

Priority Conservation Plan, as directed by the Act.

In 1990, the Service developed a Regional Wetlands Concept Plan for the Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region (Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan,

and Ohio). The purpose of the plan was to identify wetlands

that are valuable for protection in conformance with the

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986.

In 1994, the Service developed an Ecosystem Plan for the

Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie ecosystem. The

overall goal of that plan is to form creative and productive

partnerships to restore some of the natural processes and a measure of the former

biological diversity that once characterized this ecosystem.

Henceforth, in 1997 the Service initiated detailed management planning on Minnesota

Wetland Management Districts. An interdisciplinary planning team was assembled to

reaffirm the purpose and significance of the Districts, determine the scope of the

planning effort, and define a protocol for carrying out the project. The protocol has

included an information gathering phase, an information analysis phase, an information transfer phase, and a planning and implementation phase (current phase). A

geographic information system (GIS) was developed to aid in the analysis and transfer

of information.

1.5. Scoping and Public Involvement

Scoping is the process of identifying opportunities and issues related to a proposed

action. The planning process for this CCP began October 1, 1997, when a Notice Of

Intent to prepare a comprehensive management plan was published in the Federal

Register (Vol. 62: 51482).

Initially, members of the planning team identified a list of issues and concerns that

were likely to be associated with the management of the refuge. These preliminary

issues and concerns were based on the team members’ knowledge of the area, contacts with citizens in the community, and ideas already expressed to the refuge staff.

Refuge staff and Service planners then began asking refuge neighbors, organizations,

local government units, schools and interested citizens to share their thoughts in a

series of open house events. Open houses were conducted on the following schedule:

November 17 – Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District, 7 attended

November 18 – Fergus Falls Wetland Management District, 9 attended

November 19 – Morris Wetland Management District, 9 attended

November 20 – Litchfield Wetland Management District, 1 attended

November 25 – Windom Wetland Management District, 15 attended

February 4 – Regional Office, Twin Cities, 62 attended

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 1 / Environmental Assessment

9

People were also invited to send in written comments describing their concerns as

well as what they like about the refuge. Fifty-one written comments were received.

The range of issues identified by members of the public is as diverse as the individuals

voicing them. However, several common themes emerged. Issues fall into broad

categories of wildlife, habitat and people. These comments formed the basis of the

issues addressed by the CCP. Dealing with these issues is at the core of the development of goals and objectives for the management of the Wetland Management Districts.

1.5.1 Issues and Concerns

The following list of needs were identified through our scoping process and were used

to develop criteria for evaluating Alternatives in the Environmental Assessment.

Wildlife & Habitat

Waterfowl Productivity

■ How do we increase waterfowl production on District lands?

■ How do we ensure the Districts are buying the highest priority land in the

most efficient and cost-effective manner?

Other Migratory Birds

■ How should we manage wetlands on District lands to optimize migrational,

breeding and nesting habitat for migratory birds.

■ How do we stem the loss of migratory birds on District lands?

Threatened / Endangered Species

■ How should the Districts address listed and rare and declining species?.

Native Species

■ How should we improve native prairie restorations on District lands?

■ Under what circumstances should the Districts introduce rare native species

on District lands?

Biological Inventories/Monitoring

■ How do we improve biological inventories and monitoring on District lands?.

Federal Trust vs. Resident Wildlife

■ How should the Districts balance the needs of federal trust species with those

of resident wildlife?

Invasive Species

■ How should the Districts control invasive species on District lands?

Habitat Restoration and Management

■ How should the Districts reduce the amount of crop depredation by foraging

Canada Geese on private lands adjacent to WPAs?

■ What are the long-term goals of the Districts Partners for Wildlife Private

Lands Program?

Contaminants
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

10

■ How can the Districts mitigate negative external influences (e.g., contaminants) on WPAs and reduce its impact on long-term health and productivity of

District land?

Partners for Fish & Wildlife Program

■ What is the long range goal of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program

(Private Lands) on Wetland Management Districts?

People

Wildlife-dependent Recreation and Education

■ How can the Districts better communicate the benefits of federal land to a

community.

■ How can the Districts provide adequate facilities and programs for the public

to fully enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation in a way that is compatible with

the Service and National Wildlife Refuge mission?

Operations

Land Acquisition

■ Funding is needed to develop and manage newly acquired WPA land and

facilities.

Staffing

■ Districts need sufficient staff in critical areas to fully meet resource challenges and opportunities.

Facilities and Equipment

■ Districts need office, maintenance and storage facilities to carry out their

mission.

■ Vehicles and other necessary equipment need to be replaced on a regular

basis according to Service standards.

Management Consistency Among Districts

■ The Districts need to be consistent in their application of policy and resource

protection efforts.

1.6 Legal, Policy, And Administrative Guidelines

1.6.1 Legal Mandates

Service resource management and land acquisition is done in accordance with authority delegated by Congress and interpreted by regulations and guidelines established

in accordance with such delegations (Appendix A).

1.6.2 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Review

The proposed action may affect but is not likely to affect any federally listed threatened or endangered species or species proposed for listing. This precludes the need

for further action on the project as required under Section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended.
Chapter 2 / Environmental Assessment

11

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

2.1 Development of Alternatives

Project Leaders on Wetland Management Districts (WMD) within the major waterfowl breeding habitats of the United States have been charged with the responsibility

to identify tracts of land that meet the goals of the Small Wetland Acquisition Program (SWAP) for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). Of all

the responsibilities Project Leaders carry, identifying lands to include in the NWRS

has the longest lasting implications and is by far the most important. The land, once acquired needs to be managed intensively

with a variety of tools available to the managers. The intensity of

management is limited by the number of staff available and the

scattered distribution of the land holdings across a wide landscape in 28 counties of Western Minnesota. The following Alternatives identify three approaches meeting the goals and responsibilities of land ownership and management.

The main goal of the SWAP has been, and still is, to purchase a

complex of wetlands and uplands that provide habitat in which

waterfowl can successfully reproduce. The basic concept has

been to purchase in fee title key brood marshes that include adequate nesting cover

on adjacent uplands while protecting under easement surrounding temporary and

seasonal wetland basins as breeding pair habitat. Once this is accomplished the land

must be managed through seeding with native grasses and forbs, burning, and spraying for exotic and/or invasive vegetation and insects, and dispose abandoned buildings

and wells. In addition, the areas must be fenced, signed and made accessible to the

public.

The SWAP began in 1958 and accelerated rapidly in the early 1960’s with passage of

the Wetlands Loan Act. The original 1960’s delineations were prepared for each fee

title parcel based on their suitability to provide brood rearing habitat for waterfowl.

These delineations designated wetlands as priority A, B, and C for fee title purchase.

These tracts had few upland acres and only existing wetlands with no drainage

facilities were considered for fee or easement purchase. In some locations, these

original delineations have been reevaluated and revised. In Minnesota, a 1974 exercise produced maps showing proposed boundaries of each fee title delineation, as well

as wetlands within a two-mile radius that were eligible for easement purchase. A

1984 effort produced maps of “significant wetland areas” for fee title purchase.

Although dated, these efforts were biologically sound and provide valuable information in deciding which properties to purchase today.

Over the years our understanding of breeding waterfowl biology has increased and

the landscape of the Upper Midwest has changed dramatically. The SWAP itself has

evolved to include purchase of drained wetlands, increased upland acreage, and

grassland easements along with new counties that include lands within intensely

agricultural and urbanized landscapes.

Three possible alternatives to acquisition and management were considered as we

thought about the future of the programs for the Wetland Management Districts. The

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

12

three alternatives were (1) manage what lands we currently own, (2) acquire additional lands and manage them as we currently manage the lands that we own and (3)

acquire additional lands and expand management beyond the present level of intensity.

In the following sections we summarize what we would do under each alternative.

The alternatives are described in the following paragraphs, but more detail is provided in Table 2 on page 21. The third alternative is our preferred alternative, which

is developed in more detail as the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

2.2 Elements Common To All Alternatives

2.2.1 Fire

2.2.11 Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire is a habitat management tool that is used on the Districts regularly.

District staff annually burn WPAs to enhance habitat for upland game, waterfowl, and

other species of interest. The periodic burning of grasslands, and sedge meadows

reduces encroaching vegetation such as willow. It also encourages the growth of

desirable species such as native prairie grasses and forbes.

All prescribed burns are carried out by highly trained and qualified personnel who

perform the operation under very precise plans. The Wetland Management Districts

have approved fire management plans that describe in detail how prescribed burning

will be conducted on District land. No burning takes place unless it meets the qualifications of the prescription for each unit. A prescription is a set of parameters that

define the air temperature, fuel moisture, wind direction and velocity, soil moisture,

relative humidity, and several other environmental factors under which a prescribed

burn may be ignited. This insures that there is minimal chance the fire will escape the

unit boundaries and that the fire will have the desired effect on the plant community.

Prescribed burns will occasionally be conducted within or near development zones,

sensitive resources, and boundary area to reduce the risk from wildfire damage. To

the greatest extent possible, hazard reduction prescribed fires will only be used when

they compliment resource management objectives.

Combustion of fuels during prescribed fire operations may temporarily impact air

quality, but the impacts are mitigated by small burn unit size, the direction of winds

the burns are conducted with, and the distance from population centers. All efforts

will be taken to assure that smoke does not impact smoke sensitive areas such as

roads and local residences.

Burn frequency will vary on established grassland, savanna, and wet meadow units

dependent on management objectives, historic fire frequency, and funding. As part of

the prescribed fire program, a literature search will be conducted to determine the

effects of fire on various plant and animal species, and a monitoring program will be

instituted to verify that objectives are being achieved. Collectively, the Wetland

Management Districts conduct an average of 121 prescribed fires covering approximately 16,113 acres each year (5-year average, 1998-2002). The District’s goal will be

to burn every 4 to 7 years. Under the preferred alternative, the collective goal of the

Districts is to burn 30,000 to 32,000 acres per year. This frequency replicates the

wildfire frequency that historically occurred and is needed to maintain the grassland
Chapter 2 / Environmental Assessment

13

biome. Approximately 95 percent of burning occurs in the spring from April through

May. The balance of burning occurs in the fall, generally in late September through

mid-October.

Prescribed fires cannot and will not be ignited when the area is at an extreme fire

danger level and/or the National Preparedness level is V, without the approval of the

Regional Fire Management Coordinator. In addition, the Districts will not ignite

prescribed fires when adjacent counties or the State in which the burn unit is located

have instituted burning bans without the applicable State DNR concurrence.

Drought can have an effect on fire severity and control. One or more drought indicators (PDI - KBI) will be used to determine the degree of drought. These indicators

can be accessed on the web at http://www.boi.noaa.gov/fwxweb/ fwoutlook.htm

Spot fires, slop-overs, and escapes can be an expected occurrence on any prescribed

fire. They can be caused by any of a number of factors that can not always be accounted for in the planning process. A few minor occurrences of these events on a

prescribed burn can usually be controlled by holding forces of the burn crew. If so,

they do not constitute a wildfire. The burn boss is responsible for evaluating the

frequency and severity of these events and taking mitigating measures such as

slowing down or stopping the burn operation, ordering additional holding forces from

within District staff, or taking measures to extinguish the prescribed burn. Should an

escape event exceed the ability of existing holding forces to control, and additional

assistance become necessary in the form of DNR involvement, the event will be

classified a wildfire and controlled accordingly. Once controlled by these forces the

prescribed burning operation will be stopped for the burning period. A fire number

will be obtained to implement wildfire funding to cover the cost of control, a wildfire

report will be generated and a Wildland Fire Situation Analysis will be prepared.

Prescribed burns can be conducted at any time of year depending on resource objectives and prescription. However, the normal prescribed fire season begins approximately April 1, and ends by May 31, due to early bird nesting. Fall burning may begin

again August 15, and end October 31.

Precautions will be taken to protect threatened and endangered species during

prescribed burning. Nesting trees for Bald Eagles will be protected and burning will

not be conducted at a time or in a way to negatively impact any nesting eagles. If any

of the known disjunct populations of listed plant species are in or near a burn unit,

precautions will be taken to avoid the plants.

Existing firebreaks will be used. They may undergo minor improvements such as

graveling or rotovation (vegetation disruption). General policy dictates that any new

firebreaks or below surface improvements to existing firebreaks will be approved by

the Regional Historic Preservation Officer.

The District Managers will be responsible for supervising the development of resource management objectives for individual units. The District staff will provide

assistance in the selection of the appropriate management tool needed to meet

objectives. Prescribed fire is just one of a combination of tools available. If needed,

the Zone Fire Management Officer (Zone FMO) will be consulted for assistance in

developing a prescription that will achieve the desired results.

Burn plans (The Fire Management Plan) are written that document the treatment

objectives, the prescription, and the plan of action for carrying out the burn. Burn

plans are written by or under the guidance of a qualified burn boss. The burn plan
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

14

follows the format in the Service’s Fire Management Handbook or a format approved

by the Regional Fire Management Coordinator and addresses all aspects as specified

in the Service’s Fire Management Handbook. Details regarding fire resources and

procedures may be found in the individual fire plans for each District. All burn plans

are reviewed by the Refuge Supervisor, Zone FMO, and approved by the individual

Refuge Managers prior to implementation.

2.2.12 Fire Prevention and Detection

Although fire may have historically played a role in the development of habitats on

the Districts, human ignited fires and natural ignitions burning without a prescription

are likely to result in unwanted damage to cultural and/or natural resources. In order

to prevent wildfire, an educational program will be utilized to reduce the threat of

human caused fires. Ongoing monitoring will be conducted by staff, visitors, and

cooperators to detect fire ignitions. Actions taken to implement this include:

■ Fire prevention will be discussed at safety meetings, prior to the fire season,

and during periods of high fire danger. Periodic training of staff in regards to

fire prevention will be conducted.

■ During periods of extreme fire danger, warnings will be posted at visitor

information stations.

■ Public contacts will be made via press releases and verbal contacts during

periods of extreme fire danger.

■ A thorough investigation will be conducted of all fires suspected to have been

illegally set. Upon completion of the investigation, appropriate action will be

taken.

■ The Districts rely on neighbors, visitors, cooperators, and staff to detect and

report fires. In addition, the step-up plan provides for increased patrols by

District personnel during periods of very high and extreme fire danger.

■ All fires occurring within or adjacent to (within two miles) the individual

WPAs will be reported to the respective District headquarters. The person

receiving the report will be responsible for implementing the Fire Dispatch

Plan.

■ Requests for assistance by cooperators on fires not threatening an individual

WPA must be made to the District Manager or designee. Only qualified and

properly equipped resources meeting NWCG standards will be dispatched off

of the District.

Table 1: Fee Title Acres Approved, and Goal Acres for each District as per Land

Exchange Board (LEB)

Wetland Fee Title Acres

Management Approved for

Districts Purchase by LEB Goal Acres Remainder

Detroit Lakes 41,615 89,280 47,665

Fergus Falls 43,417 74,675 31,258

Litchfield 33,213 76,220 46,007

Big Stone 2,343 0 0

Morris 51,208 74,830 23,622

Windom 12,669 24,476 11,807
Chapter 2 / Environmental Assessment

15

■ Firefighter and public safety always take precedence over property and

resource protection during any fire management activity. Under moderate to

severe fire danger index ratings, flaming fronts are capable of moving at fast

speeds in all fuel models. In order to eliminate safety hazards to the public, all

public access into the burn units will be closed the day of the burn. Fire crews

will be briefed that should an individual who is not a member of the fire crew

be observed in the prescribed burn unit, they will be immediately escorted out

of the area. The fire crew will keep the fire scene clear of people except for

Service firefighters and cooperating fire crews.

2.2.13 Fire Suppression

Service policy requires the District to utilize the Incident Command System (ICS) and

firefighters meeting NWCG qualifications for fires occurring on District property. All

suppression efforts will be directed towards safeguarding life while protecting the

District=s resources and property from harm. Mutual aid resources responding from

Cooperating Agencies will not be required to meet NWCG standards, but must meet

the standards of their Agency. Mutual aid resources will report to the Incident

Commander (IC) in person or by radio and receive their duty assignment. Mutual aid

forces will be first priority for release from the fire. If additional firefighters are

needed, appropriate procedures will be used to acquire them.

All fires occurring on the District and staffed with Service employees will be supervised by a qualified IC. The IC will be responsible for all management aspects of the

fire. If a qualified IC is not available, one will be ordered through the appropriate

area office dispatch center. All resources will report to the IC (either in person or by

radio) prior to deploying to the fire and upon arrival to the fire. The IC will be

responsible for: (1) providing a size-up of the fire to dispatch as soon as possible; (2)

determine the resources needed for the fire; and (3) advising dispatch of resource

needs on the fire. The IC will receive general suppression strategy from the Fire

Management Plan, but appropriate tactics used to suppress the fire will be up to the

IC to implement. Minimum impact suppression tactics (MIST) will be used whenever

possible.

Severity funding may be essential to provide adequate fire protection for the District

during periods of drought, as defined by the Palmer Drought Index or other appropriate drought indicators. Severity funds may be used to hire additional firefighters,

extend firefighter seasons, or to provide additional resources. The Service Fire

Management Handbook provides guidelines for use of severity funding.

The incident commander (IC) on a wildland fire or the prescribed fire burn boss on a

prescribed burn will be responsible for the completion of a DI-1202 Fire Report as

well as Crew Time Reports for all personnel assigned to an incident and return these

reports to the Assistant Manager. The IC or burn boss should include a list of all

expenses and/or items lost on the fire and a list of personnel assignments on the DI1202. The Zone FMO will enter all data into the FMIS computer database within 10

days after the fire is declared out. The Zone FMO will also inform the timekeeper of

all time and premium pay to be charged to the fire and ensure expended supplies are

replaced. In addition, the following provisions will apply:

■ Utilize existing roads and trails, bodies of water, areas of sparse or noncontinuous fuels as primary control lines, anchor points, escape routes, and

safety zones.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

16

■ When appropriate, conduct backfiring operations from existing roads and

natural barriers to halt the spread of fire.

■ Use burnouts to stabilize and strengthen the primary control lines.

■ Depending upon the situation, either direct or indirect attack methods may be

employed. The use of backfire in combination with allowing the wildfire to

burn to a road or natural firebreak would be least damaging to the environment. However direct attack by constructing control lines as close to the fire

as possible may be the preferred method to establish quicker control.

■ Retardants may be used on upland areas.

■ Constructed fire line will be rehabilitated prior to departure from the fire or

scheduled for rehabilitation by other non-fire personnel.

■ The Incident Commander will choose the appropriate suppression strategy

and technique. As a guide: On low intensity fires (generally flame lengths

less than 4 feet) the primary suppression strategy will be direct attack with

hand crews and engines. If conditions occur that sustain higher intensity fires

(those with flame lengths greater than 4 feet) then indirect strategies which

utilize back fires or burning out from natural and human-made fire barriers

may be utilized. Those barriers should be selected to safely suppress the fire,

minimize resource degradation and damage and be cost effective.

■ The use of earth moving equipment for suppression activities (dozers, graders, plows) on the District land will not be permitted without the approval of

the individual District Manager or his/her designated representative in the

event of their absence.

■ All areas in which wildfires occur on the District or District administered

lands will be evaluated prior to the aerial or ground application of foams and/

or retardants. Only approved chemical foams and retardants will be used (or

not used) in sensitive areas such as those with riparian vegetation.

■ Hazard reduction prescribed fires may be used in fire adapted communities

that have not had significant fire for more than twice the normal fire frequency for that community type.

■ Utilization of heavy equipment during high intensity fires will be allowed only

with the approval of the individual managers of the Districts.

■ Wild fire use for resource benefit will not be utilized.

■ Engines will remain on roads and trails to the fullest extent possible.

■ Whenever it appears a fire will escape initial attack efforts, leave Service

lands, or when fire complexity exceeds the capabilities of command or operations, the IC will take appropriate, proactive actions to ensure additional

resources are ordered. The IC, through dispatch or other means, will notify

the Complex FMO of the situation. With Zone FMO assistance the Refuge

Manager at each Complex Refuge will complete a Wildland Fire Situation

Analysis (WFSA) and Delegation of Authority.

■ The IC will be responsible for mop-up and rehabilitation actions and standards on District fires. District fires will be monitored until declared out.
Chapter 2 / Environmental Assessment

17

■ Rehabilitation of suppression actions will take place prior to firefighters being

released from the fire. Action to be taken include: 1) All trash will be removed; 2) Fire lines will be refilled and water bars added if needed; 3)

Hazardous trees and snags cut and all stumps cut flush; and 4) Damage to

improvements caused by suppression efforts will be repaired, and a rehabilitation plan completed if necessary. Service policy states that only damage to

improvements caused by suppression efforts can be repaired with fire funds.

Service funds cannot be used to repair damage caused by the fire itself (i.e.

burnt fence lines). If re-seeding is necessary, it will be accomplished according to Service policy and regulations

2.2.2 Cultural Resources

The District Manager will, during early planning, provide the Regional Historic

Preservation Officer a description and location of all projects, activities, routine

maintenance and operations that affect ground and structures, requests for permitted

uses, and alternatives being considered. The RHPO will analyze these undertakings

for potential to affect historic properties and enter into consultation with the public

and local government officials to identify concerns about impacts by the undertaking.

This notification will be at least equal to, preferably with, public notification accomplished for NEPA and compatibility.

2.2.3 Listed Species

Prior to the burning season, Ecological Services will review each District’s Fire

Management Plan to ensure that prescribed burning will not negatively impact listed

species.

2.3 Alternative 1 – Discontinue Acquiring Additional Land and

Maintain Management on Current Land

Under this alternative we would manage fee title land already in the system and

would not increase the holdings to the agreed goal acres for each county within the

District. We would restore native grasslands using local ecotypes of mixed native

grasses and forbs and improve wetlands by increasing water control and improving

watersheds. We would regularly evaluate our approach to waterfowl production. We

would maintain the recruitment rate of waterfowl and the current level of inspection

of our lands and easements. We would continue to conduct the 4-square-mile monitoring program and the monitoring of nesting structures under this alternative. We

would continue routine surveys such as the scent post survey and bird counts and nonroutine surveys when requested, such as the deformed frog survey. We would continue to avoid any actions that would harm endangered or threatened species, and we

would note the presence of any species that is federally listed as endangered or

threatened.

We would maintain the public access to WPA’s that currently exists. We would complete and document development plans for every WPA on the District as time and

staffing permit. The development plans would be recorded in a geographic information system and document ownership boundaries, habitat, facilities and history of

management.

Each District would continue with the current level of staffing. We would identify and

replace facilities and equipment that do not meet Service standards. We would expect

that the maintenance backlog would be reduced, but not eliminated, over the life of

the CCP.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

18

Management would continue to be inconsistent among Districts. There would be

limited coordination with the Districts in Iowa, Wisconsin, and the Dakotas.

Currently, the Districts manage the following lands:

Big Stone WMD Acres

Native Prairie (virgin) 25

Other Grasslands/Farmland 1,445

Forested/Brushland 34

Wetland/Riverine 839

Total 2,343

Detroit Lakes WMD Acres

Native Prairie (virgin) 4,051

Other Grasslands/Farmland 15,262

Forested/Brushland 4,178

Wetland/Riverine 18,124

Total 41,615

Fergus Falls WMD Acres

Native Prairie (virgin) 2,294

Other Grasslands/Farmland 20,881

Forested/Brushland 3,828

Wetlands and Rivers 16,309

Total 43417

Litchfield WMD Acres

Native prairie (virgin) 2,653

Other grasslands/farmland 14,310

Forested/brushland 2,969

Wetland/riverine 13,281

Total 33,213

Morris WMD Acres

Native Prairie (virgin) 7,035

Other Grasslands/Farmland 23,969

Forested/Brushland 2,268

Wetland/Riverine 17,936

Total 51,208

Windom WMD Acres

Native prairie 422

Other grasslands/farmland 7,564

Forested/brushland 543

Wetland/riverine 4,140

Total 12,669

2.4 Alternative 2: Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acres and

Maintain Current Management Practices (No Action Alternative)

Under this alternative we would continue acquiring land up to the goal acres agreed

to by each county within the District (See Table 1). We would expand the size of

Waterfowl Production Areas in areas of prime waterfowl use through easements and

working with partners.
Chapter 2 / Environmental Assessment

19

We would restore native grasslands using local ecotypes of mixed native grasses and

forbs and improve wetlands by increasing water control and improving watersheds.

We would regularly evaluate our approach to waterfowl production. We would

maintain the recruitment rate of waterfowl and the current level of inspection of our

lands and easements. We would continue to conduct the 4-square-mile monitoring

program and the monitoring of nesting structures under this alternative. We would

continue routine surveys such as the scent post survey and bird counts and nonroutine surveys when requested, such as the deformed frog survey. We would continue to avoid any actions that would harm endangered or threatened species. We

would note the presence of any species that is federally listed as endangered or

threatened.

We would continue current public access on existing areas and add access to new

acquisitions slowly over several years. We would complete and document development plans for every WPA on the District as time and staffing permit. The development plans would be recorded in a geographic information system and document

ownership boundaries, habitat, facilities and history of management.

Each District would continue with the current level of staffing. We would identify

and replace facilities and equipment that do not meet Service standards. We would

expect that the maintenance backlog would be reduced, but not eliminated, over the

life of the CCP.

Management would continue to be inconsistent among Districts. There would be

limited coordination with the Districts in Iowa, Wisconsin, and the Dakotas.

2.5 Alternative 3 – Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acres and

Expand Management for Waterfowl, Other Trust Species and the

Public (Preferred Alternative)

Under this alternative we would continue acquiring land up to the goal acres agreed

to by each county within the District (See Table 1). We would expand the size of

Waterfowl Production Areas in areas of prime waterfowl use through easements and

working with partners. We would focus whenever possible on prime habitat as

outlined in the Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) “thunderstorm”

maps. These maps reveal high density waterfowl populations and, because the results

are color coded, look somewhat like weather maps.

We would follow the Strategic Growth of the Small Wetland Acquisition Program

(SWAP) Guidelines for Fee and Easement Purchase (Appendix K). These Guidelines

specify that:

1) The program will focus on providing the mission components for the WMD

landscape: wetland complexes, surrounding grasslands and a predator component that approaches a naturally occurring complement (i.e., coyotes vs. red

fox).

2) The program will focus on established delineation criteria (size, location, ratio

of upland to wetlands, soil composition, etc.) for all fee title, habitat and

wetland easements (Appendix K).

3) The program will prioritize acquisition based on “thunderstorm maps,” land

cover (grassland acres), landscape characteristics and data on predator
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

20

populations. Prioritization will be given to tracts that benefit waterfowl, but

other wildlife benefits will be considered in the priorities such as native

prairie, endangered or threatened species, colonial nesting birds and expanding and protecting large tracts of grassland as Grassland Bird Core Conservation Areas as proposed by Fitzgerald et al. (1998).

We would restore native grasslands using local ecotypes of mixed native grasses and

forbs and improve wetlands by increasing water control and improving watersheds.

We would, where possible, follow HAPET recommendations for nesting platforms and

predator management (electric fencing, predator control, islands, etc). Cooperating

landowners within the District’s watershed would be offered incentives and/or compensated through cost-sharing agreements for applying conservation and environmental farming practices on their lands and for creating, maintaining, or enhancing habitat

for wildlife.

We would regularly evaluate our approach to waterfowl production and improve

waterfowl monitoring. We would increase the recruitment rate of waterfowl and

increase inspection of our lands and easements. We would work to prohibit the

introduction of wildlife species that are not native to the Northern Tallgrass Prairie

Ecosystem.

We would employ a scientifically defensible means to monitor and evaluate habitats

and populations under this alternative. We would increasingly use geographic information systems in our monitoring. We would inventory the hydrological systems

within the Districts, invertebrate communities, and monitor contaminant levels in

water flowing into District wetlands. We would increase our surveys and monitoring

of threatened and endangered species, invertebrates, and unique communities under

this alternative. We would seek opportunities to enhance and reintroduce native

species in the districts.

Under this alternative we would expand and improve opportunities for public use

through construction of additional parking lots and interpretive kiosks on existing and

acquired lands.

We would complete and document development plans for every WPA on the District

within three years under this alternative. The development plans would be recorded

in a geographic information system and document ownership boundaries, habitat,

facilities and history of management.

Staff would be added to the Districts under this alternative. Implementation of the

CCP would rely on partnerships formed with landowners in the watershed, volunteers and interested citizens, farm and conservation organizations, and with appropriate government agencies. We would identify and replace facilities and equipment that

do not meet Service standards. Our goal would be to meet the standards by 2010.

Management of the Districts would be more consistent among the Minnesota Districts

and with the Districts in Iowa, Wisconsin and the Dakotas.
Chapter 2 / Environmental Assessment

21

Table 2: CCP Objectives Compared by Management Action

Alternative 1: Maintain Management on Current Acreswith no additional land acquisition

Alternative 2: Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acresand Maintain Current Management Practices

(No Action)

Alternative 3: Improve Wetland Management Districtsfor Waterfowl and Other Trust Species(Preferred Alternative)

Goal 1: Wildlife

Strive to preserve and maintain diversity and increase the abundance of waterfowl and other key wildlife species in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem. Seek sustainable

solutions to the impact of Canada Geese on adjacent private croplands. Preserve, restore, and enhance resident wildlife populations where compatible with waterfowl and thepreservation of other trust species.

Continue to use the MAAPE process to increase waterfowl production on the Districts. If updates are made inthe process, it will likely be on an intermittent basis.

Same as Alternative 1. Update MAAPE Process. The District will request the

Fergus Falls Habitat and Population Evaluation Team(HAPET) to review the “Multi-Agency Approach toPlanning and Evaluation” (MAAPE) process every 5years to incorporate monitoring results and reevaluatestrategies for increasing waterfowl production within theDistricts.

Current waterfowl monitoring techniques using the foursquare-mile monitoring program will continue to be theprimary monitoring mechanism to determine waterfowlabundance and productivity estimates.

Same as Alternative 1. Alternative Waterfowl Monitoring. The District will

develop alternative monitoring techniques by the year2007 for waterfowl abundance and productivity estimatesin areas of Districts that are not well-covered by thefour-square-mile monitoring program.

Recruitment Rate. Districts will strive to maintain the2001 recruitment rate of mallards (approximately 0.52) orincrease it slightly as additional operations funding isfocused on current lands under Service control.

Recruitment Rate. Districts will strive to maintain the2001 recruitment rate of mallards (approximately 0.52).

Recruitment Rate. The Districts will strive to increasepotential recruitment rate of mallards in an average yearfrom the current level of 0.52 to 0.60 by 2015.

Violations. Each year, the Districts will inspect all WPA,FmHA Conservation Easement and Habitat Easement forcompliance to insure protection of migratory waterfowland other habitats. Any illegal activity will be respondedto immediately and restored as soon as possible.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Working With Partners. Increased effort over currentlevels due to reduction of land acquisition program on theDistricts

Working With Partners. The District will cooperate withall USDA, Minnesota DNR and any other local agencyprograms as well as participate as a partner with localconservation groups which would increase waterfowlhabitat and production.

Same as Alternative 2.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

22

Alternative 1: Maintain Management on Current Acreswith no additional land acquisition

Goal 1: Wildlife continued

Native species reintroductions will consist of native plantmaterials used to restore cropland to native grassland. Norestoration of vertebrates or invertebrates will occur.

Same as Alternative 1. Identify, evaluate, and prioritize opportunities to

reintroduce native species documenting the needs in aplan by 2007.

Increase efforts to reintroduce native species. Smallincreases would be possible as operations and maintenance funding gradually increases without a corresponding increase in new lands to manage.

No reintroduction of new species will occur. The reintroduction of the current compliment of native plantmaterials will continue as part of the ongoing croplandrestorations.

By 2010 begin a reintroduction program to reintroduceone species per year until all goal species identified underObjective 1.6 are reintroduced.

No memorandum of Understanding would be developedwith the Minnesota DNR.

Same as Alternative 1. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding with the

Minnesota DNR which clearly articulates the responsibilities of Wetland Districts for the handling of landownercomplaints originating from geese on WPA wetlands.

Same as Alternative 3 but only as funds and resources areavailable basis

Same as Alternative 1. Cooperation. The Districts will cooperate with state

wildlife offices and local organizations to provide winterfood sources on documented wintering areas to benefitresident species of wildlife.

Table 2: CCP Objectives Compared by Management Action

Alternative 2: Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acresand Maintain Current Management Practices(No Action)

Alternative 3: Improve Wetland Management Districtsfor Waterfowl and Other Trust Species(Preferred Alternative)
Chapter 2 / Environmental Assessment

23

Alternative 1: Maintain Management on Current Acreswith no additional land acquisition

Goal 2: HabitatRestore native prairie plant communities of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem using local ecotypes of seed and maintain the vigor of these stands through natural processes.Restore functioning wetland complexes and maintain the cyclic productivity of wetlands. Continue efforts for long-term solutions to the problem of invasive species with increasedemphasis on biological control to minimize damage to aquatic and terrestrial communities. Continue efforts to better define the role of each District in assisting private landownerswith wetland, upland and riparian restorations.

Same as Alternative 2. Restoration of native grasslandswould diminish since few if any new lands would be addedto the Districts over time.

An average of 250 acres in fee title per District will berestored to native grassland species each year. Otheraspects of this objective will be similar to Alternative 3.

Prairie Restoration. Restore an average of 500 acres in feetitle per District to native seeded grassland species eachyear. Begin the process on all new acquisitions within 5years of purchase. Seed a diverse mix of predominantlynative grasses and forbes using the ecotype recommendations of the Mississippi Headwater Tallgrass PrairieEcosystem Team. Replicate, to the extent possible, thestructure, species composition, and processes of nativeecological communities in the Tallgrass Prairie to improvemigratory bird habitat and improve existing soil andwater quality within respective watersheds. Judiciouslyuse non-native plantings when desirable to meet waterfowl and migratory bird population objectives.

Grassland Management. Renovate and seed or interseed1000 acres of existing grasslands per District to improvediversity and vigor. Diminishing land acquisition willallow for a gradual increase in existing seeded acreage.

Grassland Management. Renovate and seed or interseed250 acres of existing grasslands per District to improvediversity and vigor.

Grassland Management. Renovate and seed or interseed500 acres of existing grasslands per District to improvediversity and vigor.

Prescribed Burn. Plan and conduct prescribed burns onover 5,000 acres annually per District to maintain andrestore native prairie plant species. Diminishing landacquisition will allow for a gradual increase in burnedacreage on existing lands.

Prescribed Burn. Plan and conduct prescribed burns on2,000-4,000 acres annually to maintain and restore nativeprairie plant species to improve waterfowl and wildlifeuse, and to prepare selected sites for native seed harvest.

Prescribed Burn. Plan and conduct prescribed burns on3,000-5,000 acres annually to maintain and restore nativeprairie plant species to improve waterfowl and wildlifeuse, and to prepare selected sites for native seed harvest.

Manage existing WPA and easement grasslands so thateach acre is treated at least once every 6 years byburning, mowing, haying, grazing, or other management.

Manage existing WPA and easement grasslands so thateach acre is treated at least once every 7 years byburning, mowing, haying, grazing, or other management.

Same as Alternative 2.

Table 2: CCP Objectives Compared by Management Action

Alternative 2: Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acresand Maintain Current Management Practices(No Action)

Alternative 3: Improve Wetland Management Districtsfor Waterfowl and Other Trust Species(Preferred Alternative)
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

24

Alternative 1: Maintain Management on Current Acreswith no additional land acquisition

Goal 2: Habitat, continued

Restoration. Restore an average of 120 wetlands per yearoff refuge system land to serve migratory birds asmigration, breeding and nesting habitat.

Restoration. Restore an average of 80 wetlands per yearboth on and off refuge system land to serve migratorybirds as migration, breeding and nesting habitat.

Restoration. Restore an average of 100 wetlands per yearboth on and off refuge system land to serve migratorybirds as migration, breeding and nesting habitat.

Management. Manage water levels on 100 percent of thewetlands that have built-in water control structures toincrease vegetation and nutrient recycling for the benefitof waterfowl. Consider increasing the number of wetlandswith control structures.

Management. Manage water levels on 100 percent of thewetlands that have built-in water control structures toincrease vegetation and nutrient recycling for the benefitof waterfowl.

Same as Alternative 2.

Monitoring. Inventory hydrological systems in theDistricts as identified in the monitoring plan, includingchemical water analysis, water level, water flow and theinteraction of Federal lands and private lands within thewatershed.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Cooperation. Attend and participate in watershed districtmeetings.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Research. Encourage and cooperate in research onhydrological systems within the District.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Management. Increase use of hydrological data gatheringin the overall management of the Districts following theguidance developed in the Monitoring Plan.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Hydrologist. Hire a hydrologist to conduct hydrologicalmonitoring program, analyze the data and present theinformation to management in a useable form.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Table 2: CCP Objectives Compared by Management Action

Alternative 2: Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acresand Maintain Current Management Practices(No Action)

Alternative 3: Improve Wetland Management Districtsfor Waterfowl and Other Trust Species(Preferred Alternataive)
Chapter 2 / Environmental Assessment

25

Alternative 1: Maintain Management on Current Acreswith no additional land acquisition

Goal 2: Habitat, continued

Plant Control. Reduce exotic plants including noxiousweeds on state and county lists through an aggressiveprogram including burning, mowing, chemical treatment,hand cropping, and interseeding. Primary targets includepurple loosestrife, Canada thistle, and leafy spurge.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Minnow and Carp Control. Working with partners, by2008 carp and undesirable minnow populations will becontrolled on 90 percent of infested WPA wetlandsthrough water level control, reduced minnow stocking,barriers, and chemical control.

Same as Alternative 1, except that completion date wouldbe 2010 and control will be on 70 percent of infested WPAwetlands.

Same as Alternative 1, except that completion date wouldbe 2010 and control will be on 90 percent of infested WPAwetlands.

Grasshopper Control: We will work with MinnesotaDepartment of Agriculture to devise an appropriateemergency grasshopper control plan by 2008 so thatfuture infestations are handled effectively and in a waythat minimizes or eliminates insecticide use on WPAs forgrasshopper control.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Biological Control: Increase emphasis on biological controlwhenever feasible. The District will continue to releasebeetles for control of spurge and loosestrife as appropriate.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Goal 3: AcquisitionWithin current acquisition acreage goals, identify the highest priority acres for acquisition taking into account block size and waterfowl productivity data. These priority areasshould drive acquisition efforts whenever possible. Service land acquisition should have no negative impact on net revenues to local government. Understand and communicate theeconomic effects of federal land ownership on local communities.

Evaluating Acquisition Priority. No additional land wouldbe acquired beyond 2003 target levels.

Evaluating Acquisition Priority. Review and update thecurrent acquisition guidelines by the year 2003. Acquisition strategies for future acquisitions within the Districtswill be based on site potential. Consideration should begiven to size, quality, key species affected, habitatfragmentation, landscape scale complexes, potentialproductivity of restored wetlands, etc.

Same as Alternative 2.

Table 2: CCP Objectives Compared by Management Action

Alternative 2: Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acresand Maintain Current Management Practices(No Action)

Alternative 3: Improve Wetland Management Districtsfor Waterfowl and Other Trust Species

(Preferred Alternative)
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

26

Alternative 1: Maintain Management on Current Acreswith no additional land acquisition

Goal 3: Acquisition, continued

Goal Acres. No or few new lands will be acquired beyond2003. Habitat management efforts will be intensified toreach waterfowl recruitment objectives for the District.

Goal Acres. By 2005, conduct a biological assessment todetermine if current goal acres will be sufficient to reachwaterfowl recruitment objectives for the District.

Same as Alternative 2.

Coordination. The Districts will continue to insure aresponse to willing seller offers in high priority areas only.

Coordination. The Districts will coordinate with theirDistrict Acquisition Offices to insure rapid response towilling seller offers that meet the acquisition priorities.An offer will be made to the seller within 5 months of thedecision to acquire the tract.

Same as Alternative 2.

Acquisition. Each District will meet 2003 Distric goalacres and will hold steady, or only minimally increase landholdings, over the next 15 years.

Acquisition. Each District will meet current District goalacres within 15 years by acquiring an average of 1,630acres in fee title, 3,335 acres of wetland easements and1,660 acres of upland easements per year, for waterfowlbreeding and use. This objective will be modified asappropriate if the goal acres are modified.

Same as Alternative 2.

Advocate 100 percent of revenue sharing and a lump sumpayment for past underpayment through a trust fund tothe counties.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Continue to provide information to local governments andthe public on the revenue sharing program for existinglands.

Conduct a study that would provide the followinginformation to managers so that they can better communicate the issue to the public: 1)A graph of revenue sharingfor the last 20 years, 2)A detailed explanation of theimpact of federal ownership on school taxes, 3)A detailedstudy of the trust fund payments to the state in relation tothe revenue sharing shortfall and 4)How much money dowe really need to make up the trust fund from 1993 andprior.

Same as Alternative 2.

Determine local economic value of Federal land ownership. Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Table 2: CCP Objectives Compared by Management Action

Alternative 2: Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acresand Maintain Current Management Practices(No Action)

Alternative 3: Improve Wetland Management Districtsfor Waterfowl and Other Trust Species(Preferred Alternative)
Chapter 2 / Environmental Assessment

27

Alternative 1: Maintain Management on Current Acreswith no additional land acquisition

Goal 3: Acquisition, continued

Demonstrate the hydrologic benefits of restored wetlands;determine cash value of wetland values.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Determine social value of natural habitat in the landscape.Determine importance of wildlife to people in a community.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Goal 4: MonitoringCollect baseline information on plants, fish and wildlife and monitor critical parameters and trends of key species and/or species groups on and around District units. Promote theuse of coordinated, standardized, cost effective, and defensible methods for gathering and analyzing habitat and population data. Management decisions will be based on the

Inventory and Monitoring Plan. Develop an Inventory andMonitoring Plan by 2003 that will identify census needsand appropriate techniques as part of a coordinatedmonitoring program that will be used to evaluate speciesrichness within the Districts by developing species dataand accounts on selected sites.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Geographic Information System. Increase use of GIStechnology in monitoring habitat and wildlife.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Maintain the current use of biological data in the overallmanagement of the Districts.

Increase the use of biological data in the overall management of the Districts by fulfilling the actions identified inthe Inventory and Monitoring Plan.

Same as Alternative 2.

Biological Inventory. As part of the Inventory andMonitoring Plan, inventory the biological resources on theDistricts by the year 2010.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Breeding Birds. Conduct regular surveys of breedinggrassland and wetland migratory birds.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Monitoring. Monitor the levels of external threats to theWaterfowl Production Units such as soil erosion, incomingwater quality, pesticide use, and contaminants asidentified in the Inventory and Monitoring Plan.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Table 2: CCP Objectives Compared by Management Action

Alternative 2: Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acresand Maintain Current Management Practices(No Action)

Alternative 3: Improve Wetland Management Districtsfor Waterfowl and Other Trust Species(Preferred Alternative)
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

28

Alternative 1: Maintain Management on Current Acreswith no additional land acquisition

Goal 5: Endangered Species / Unique CommunitiesPreserve enhance, and restore rare native northern tallgrass prairie, flora and fauna that are or may become endangered. Where feasible in both ecological and social/economicterms, reintroduce native species on WPAs in cooperation with the Minnesota DNR.

Threatened and Endangered Species. Continue to avoidactions that would harm threatened and endangeredspecies within the District.

Same as Alternative 1. Threatened and Endangered Species. Identify and survey

threatened and endangered species within the Districtlooking specifically for species of special interest as listedin Appendix I.

Invertebrates. Maintain existing surveys of invertebratecommunities in grassland and wetland communities.

Same as Alternative 1. Invertebrates. Conduct regular surveys of invertebrate

communities in grassland and wetland communitiesfollowing the approaches identified in the Inventory andMonitoring Plan.

Research. Encourage and cooperate in research that willfurther our understanding about management and habitatmanipulations on the District.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Partners for Fish and Wildlife. With the Partners for Fishand Wildlife staff in the Regional Office, develop clearguidance for upland and riparian restoration work so eachDistrict is managing the program consistently.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Management. The Districts will protect and enhancepopulations of endangered, threatened, and specialemphasis species (Appendix E) indigenous on Districtlands. Management applications applied to these areas willbe tailored to meet species management needs.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Cooperation. The Districts will work with partners andother agencies to develop specific plans for target speciesoccurring within the Districts.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Enforcement. The Districts will enforce all EndangeredSpecies Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act regulationswithin their District through increased contacts withhunters, neighbors and visitors.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Table 2: CCP Objectives Compared by Management Action

Alternative 2: Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acresand Maintain Current Management Practices(No Action)

Alternative 3: Improve Wetland Management Districtsfor Waterfowl and Other Trust Species

(Preferred Alternative)
Chapter 2 / Environmental Assessment

29

Alternative 1: Maintain Management on Current Acreswith no additional land acquisition

Goal 5: Endangered Species / Unique Communities, continued

Monitoring. The Districts will obtain baseline dataincluding maps of all federally endangered and threatenedspecies as well as all native prairie tracts, calcareous fensand oak savanna by 2005.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Cooperation: The Districts will continue to support theefforts of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR andproject partners to protect native prairie remnants in theWetland Districts.

Cooperation. The Districts will identify threatenedNorthern Tallgrass Prairie unique communities and workthrough the Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR projectpartners or other agencies and partners to acquire in feetitle or protect through easement where the SmallWetlands Acquisition Program is not appropriate. Allremaining native prairie remnants larger than 5 acres willby identified by 2005 and strategies for their protectionwill be developed by the year 2005.

Same as Alternative 2.

Enforcement. The Districts will continue to prohibit theintroduction of wildlife species that are not native to theNorthern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem.

Enforcement. The Districts will prohibit the introductionof wildlife species that are not native to the NorthernTallgrass Prairie Ecosystem.

Same as Alternative 2.

Develop priority actions to be implemented by thePartners for Fish and Wildlife Program with thestrategies to be developed in a joint effort by all districtsby 2004 with the Morris Wetland Management Districttaking the lead and responsible for the documentation.

 Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Goal 6: Public Use/ Environmental EducationProvide opportunities for the public to use the WPAs in a way that promotes understanding and appreciation of the Prairie Pothole Region. Promote greater understanding andawareness of the Wetland Management District’s programs, goals, and objectives. Advance stewardship and understanding of the Prairie Pothole Region through environmentaleducation, outreach and partnership development.

Each Wetland Management District will strive to meetthe National Visitor Service Standards for the RefugeSystem by the year 2005:

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Table 2: CCP Objectives Compared by Management Action

Alternative 2: Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acresand Maintain Current Management Practices(No Action)

Alternative 3: Improve Wetland Management Districtsfor Waterfowl and Other Trust Species

(Preferred Alternative)
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

30

Alternative 1: Maintain Management on Current Acreswith no additional land acquisition

Goal 6: Public Use/ Environmental Education, continued

Develop an outreach plan for each District, following thePublic Use Plan developed by Fergus Falls WetlandManagement District. Address internal (within theService) and external audiences by 2003.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Each Wetland Management District should have afull-time public use specialist by 2004.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Each Wetland Management District should designate aWaterfowl Production Area in each county that will behandicapped accessible.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Develop maps for each Wetland Management District thatcan be easily provided upon request by the public by 2003.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Promote greater understanding of the WMD program;implement the Public Use Plan for each District by 2006.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Significantly increase visits for environmental educationand interpretation to all District headquarters by 2006.

Same as Alternative 1 Slightly increase environmental visits to wetland

management district headquarters by 2006. Landacquisition and restoration workloads will place limitations on the rate of increase.

Goal 7: Development PlanPreparation of WPA Development Plans: Complete Geographic Information System (GIS) based WPA Development Plans for each unit in each District. Provide Districts with GISto assist with acquisition, restoration, management and protection of public and private lands.

The WMD will have computer support staff by 2005. Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Table 2: CCP Objectives Compared by Management Action

Alternative 2: Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acresand Maintain Current Management Practices(No Action)

Alternative 3: Improve Wetland Management Districtsfor Waterfowl and Other Trust Species(Preferred Alternative)
Chapter 2 / Environmental Assessment

31

Alternative 1: Maintain Management on Current Acreswith no additional land acquisition

Goal 8: Staff, Facilities and EquipmentProvide necessary levels of maintenance, technician and administrative support staff to achieve other Wetland Management District goals: Provide all Districts with adequate andsafe office, maintenance and equipment storage facilities Acquire adequate equipment and vehicles to achieve other District goals. Maintain District equipment and vehicles at orabove Service standards.

The staffing needs identified in this CCP are added asidentified elsewhere in the plan.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Identify all buildings that do not meet service standardsor needs by 2005.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Construct, replace or modify buildings so that allbuildings meet service standards and needs by 2010.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Ensure that all Wetland District vehicles are replacedwhen their mileage reaches normal industry replacementstandards (6 years or 60,000).

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Ensure that Wetland Management District office and fieldtools and equipments are adequate to fulfill this plan.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Goal 9: Annual Capital Development FundsEnsure that annual capital development funds are large enough to meet necessary development of new WPA land: Have adequate funds available each year to permit completion ofmaintenance needs for each Wetland Districts current land base of Waterfowl Production Areas.

Educate and provide adequate information to Regional,Washington, Departmental and Congressional staffs ofneed for capital improvement funding of an ongoingacquisition program.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Maintain a current inventory of all maintenance needs,updating it annually.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

The Refuge Supervisor will summarize accomplishmentscombining all districts to demonstrate the work donethrough previous funding.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Table 2: CCP Objectives Compared by Management Action

Alternative 2: Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acresand Maintain Current Management Practices(No Action)

Alternative 3: Improve Wetland Management Districtsfor Waterfowl and Other Trust Species(Preferred Alternative)
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

32

Alternative 1: Maintain Management on Current Acreswith no additional land acquisition

Goal 10: Consistency GoalDevelop and apply consistent policies for habitat, public use, and resource protection and ensure frequent coordination among Districts, both in Minnesota and in neighboring stateswith WPAs (North and South Dakota, Iowa, and Wisconsin).

All existing WPAs will have Development Plans completed by 2005. All existing WPAs will have Development Plans com- pleted by 2008. Same as Alternative 2

Not Applicable. Acquisition of new lands would be limitedto land exchanges.

Ensure that newly acquired land receives timely, effectiveunit planning to meet trust responsibilities within 2 yearsof taking possession of area.

Same as Alternative 2.

Quarterly coordination meetings for the WMDs will beheld to discuss common issues and practices. Themeetings will include all District managers and Districtsupervisors.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Once a year a regional meeting will be held to comparenotes with managers in Region 6 and other WetlandManagement Districts in Region 3 that are not included inthis Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1

Table 2: CCP Objectives Compared by Management Action

Alternative 2: Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acresand Maintain Current Management Practices(No Action)

Alternative 3: Improve Wetland Management Districtsfor Waterfowl and Other Trust Species(Preferred Alternative)
Chapter 2 / Environmental Assessment

33

Table 3: Summary of Management Alternatives

Alternatives

Alternative 1

Acquire no additional land

and maintain management

on current land

Alternative 2

Increase land holdings to

goal acres and maintain

current management

practices (No Action)

Alternative 3

Increase land holdings to

goal acres and expand

management for waterfowl,

other trust species and the

public

(Preferred Alternative)

Goals

Wildlife Goal ■ Maintain recruitment

rate of waterfowl

■ Regularly evaluate

approach to waterfowl

production.

Same as Alternative 1. ■ Increase recruitment rate

of waterfowl.

■ Regularly evaluate

approach to waterfowl

production.

■ Where possible, follow

HAPET recommendations for nesting

platforms and predator

management.

■ Seek opportunities to

enhance and reintroduce

native species within the

Districts.

■ Work to prohibit

introduction of non-native

species.

Habitat Goal ■ Restore native grasslands

using local grasses and

forbs

■ Improve wetlands by

increasing water control

and improving watersheds.

Same as Alternative 1. ■ Restore native grasslands

using local grasses and

forbs; improve wetlands

by increasing water

control and improving

watersheds.

■ Offer incentives to

landowners for applying

conservation and

environmental farming

practices on their land

and for creating,

maintaining or enhancing

habitat on their land.

■ Work to prohibit

introduction of non-native

species.

Acquisition Goal ■ Manage existing fee title

land and not increase

holdings to the agreed

goal acres for each county

within the Districts.

■ Continue acquiring land

up to goal acres. Expand

the size of WPAs in areas

of prime waterfowl use

through easements and

working with partners.

■ Continue acquiring land

up to the goal acres.

■ Expand the size of WPAs

in areas of prime

waterfowl use through

easements and working

with partners.

■ Whenever possible, focus

on prime habitat outlined

by the Habitat and

Population Evaluation

Team maps.

■ Follow the Strategic

Growth of the Small

Wetland Acquisition

Program Guidelines for

fee and easement

purchase.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

34

Table 3: Summary of Management Alternatives

Alternatives

Alternative 1

Acquire no additional land

and maintain management

on current land

Alternative 2

Increase land holdings to

goal acres and maintain

current management

practices (No Action)

Alternative 3

Increase land holdings to

goal acres and expand

management for waterfowl,

other trust species and the

public

(Preferred Alternative)

Goals

Monitoring Goal ■ Continue 4-square-mile

monitoring program and

monitoring nesting

structures.

■ Routine surveys and nonroutine surveys would be

conducted when requested.

Same as Alternative 1. ■ Employ scientificallydefensible means to

monitor and evaluate

habitats and populations.

■ Increase use of GIS in

monitoring.

■ Inventory hydrological

systems with the

Districts, inventory

invertebrate communities, and monitor

contaminant levels in

water flowing into the

Districts.

■ Increase surveys and

monitoring of threatened

and endangered species.

Endangered/Threatened

Species Goal

■ Presence of federally

listed threatened/

endangered species would

be noted.

■ Continue to avoid actions

that would harm these

species.

■ Increase surveys and

monitoring of threatened

and endangered species,

invertebrates, and unique

communities.

■ Seek opportunities to

enhance and reintroduce

native species in the

Districts.

Same as Alternative 1.

Public Use /

Environmental Education

Goal

■ Existing public access to

WPAs maintained.

■ Continue current public

access on existing areas

and add access to new

acquisitions over several

years.

■ Expand and improve

public use opportunities

through construction of

parking lots and interpretive kiosks on existing

and newly acquired lands.

Development Plan Goal ■ Development Plans

completed for every WPA

on each District as time

and staffing permit.

■ Development Plans would

be recorded in GIS.

Same as Alternative 1. ■ Complete and document

development plans for

every WPA within the

District within 3 years.

■ Development plans would

be recorded in GIS.
Chapter 2 / Environmental Assessment

35

Table 3: Summary of Management Alternatives

Alternatives

Alternative 1

Acquire no additional land

and maintain management

on current land

Alternative 2

Increase land holdings to

goal acres and maintain

current management

practices (No Action)

Alternative 3

Increase land holdings to

goal acres and expand

management for waterfowl,

other trust species and the

public

(Preferred Alternative)

Staff, Facilities and

Equipment Goal

■ Current level of staffing

would continue on each

District.

■ Facilities and equipment

not meeting Service

standards would be

replaced.

■ Maintenance backlog

would be reduced.

Same as Alternative 1. ■ Staff would be added to

the Districts.

■ Implementation of the

CCP would rely on

partnerships formed with

landowners in the

watershed, volunteers

and interested citizens,

farm and conservation

organizations, and

appropriate government

agencies.

■ Facilities and equipment

not meeting Service

standards would be

replaced by 2010.

Annual Capital

Development Funds Goal

■ No additional lands would

be purchased, which

would reduce maintenance needs.

■ Maintenance costs would

increase with additional

lands, however this would

be balanced by WPA

expansions accomplished

through easements and

work with partners.

Same as Alternative 2.

Consistency Goal ■ Existing inconsistencies

in management of

Districts would continue.

■ Coordination with

Districts in surrounding

states would be limited.

Same as Alternative 1. ■ Management would be

more consistent among

Minnesota Districts as

well as Districts in Iowa,

Wisconsin, North Dakota

and South Dakota.

Goals
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

36

3.0 The Affected Environment

3.1 Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District

3.1.2 Introduction

Detroit Lakes WMD is the northernmost district in northwestern Minnesota and

includes the counties of Becker, Clay, Mahomen, Norman and Polk. The headquarters

is near Detroit Lakes, which is located in the southern portion of the District. The

District is bordered on the west by the flat Red River flood plain and by the rolling

hardwood forest-lake region on the east. The primary

economic base of the area is agriculture, with a strong

tourism industry centered on area lakes.

The rolling prairie zone and associated wetlands of this

District, located between glacial Lake Agassiz’s beach ridge

and the hardwood forest, have not been spared from agricultural development. The tallgrass prairie, most of the

wetlands, and much of the timberland have been converted

to crop production.

The District currently manages 40,492 fee acres on 162

WPAs. In addition, 323 wetland easements totaling 12,715 wetland acres, three

grassland easements totaling 156 acres and 18 FmHA conservation easements

totaling 1,637 acres are administered by the WMD. These lands are scattered across

five counties of northwest Minnesota.

3.1.2 Climate

District climate falls in the temperate zone with severely cold winters and warm

summers. Temperatures can range from as low as -45 degrees Fahrenheit in January

and February to the upper 90s (degrees Fahrenheit) during June through August.

The warmest months are July and August with the average temperature near 70

degrees Fahrenheit.

Table 4: Major Habitat Types of Waterfowl Production Areas in the Detroit Lakes

Wetland Management District

Habitat Types Acres

Native prairie (virgin) 4,051

Other grasslands/farmland 15,262

Forested/brushland 4,178

Wetland/riverine 18,124

Total 41,615

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 3 / Environmental Assessment

37

Normal annual precipitation is nearly 25 inches, most of which falls between April and

September. The heaviest rainfall occurs in June, July and August when as much as 8

inches can fall in one month. Winter precipitation from snowfall is generally light

(under 4 inches of measured precipitation).

3.1.3 Soils

District soils range from heavy silty clay in the flat Red River Valley to sand on the

beach line of historic glacial Lake Agassiz to deep loam in the rolling grasslands of the

prairie pothole area to shallow loam in the forested lakes region.

3.1.4 Natural Resources

The District is located in the transition area between the tallgrass prairie and big

woods biomes. Habitat varies from virgin tallgrass prairie to cropland to forest, with

thousands of wetlands and lakes scattered throughout. The result is an area that is

rich in floral and faunal diversity. The only portion of the District that lacks diversity

is the Red River Valley flood plain; however, there are remnant riverine habitats in

the floodplain that are an oasis for wildlife, particularly migrating passerine birds.

3.1.4.1 Plants

Endangered/Threatened

A goblin fern population (Federal candidate species proposed for listing) has recently

been located on the Hagen WPA in Polk County. Several Clay County WPAs are

suspected of having the western prairie fringed orchid, which is Federally listed as

endangered. In addition, Conservation Easement 10-C in Clay County protects a

unique land feature on the glacial Lake Agassiz beachline that supports “short-grass”

prairie species, and a portion of the only Minnesota breeding site for the chestnutcollared longspur.

Grassland

The native grasslands in the District have all of the species components of the

tallgrass prairie, as many as 250 species of grasses, forbs and other prairie plants.

The seeded native grasslands on District WPAs are dominated by four species of

warm-season native grasses, big and little bluestem, switchgrass, and Indian grass.

Non-native grasslands are a mixture of introduced cool-season grasses (primarily

smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and quackgrass) and native and introduced forbs.

Wetland

The District has wetland types I through VIII (Stewart and Kantrud 1971) and

numerous lakes and rivers. About 60 percent of the original wetland habitat in the

District has been lost through drainage or filling. The present wetland base could be

classified as good to excellent. Through the Service’s wetland restoration program,

this wetland base is increasing and being enhanced annually. Wetland vegetation

varies based on water conditions ranging from ephemeral to permanent open water

wetlands and includes reed canary grass, cattail, bulrush, phragmites, burreed,

coontail, bladderwort, waterlily, arrowhead, manna grass, duckweed, sedge, smartweed, cord grass, and willow.

Forested

Forested areas occur primarily in the eastern half of the District. Composition is

mixed hardwoods with species such as aspen, oak, basswood, ash, maple, etc. A few

areas are dominated by white, red and jack pine. Fewer yet are composed of balsam
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

38

and white spruce stands. In the western half of the District, timbered areas are

mainly farmstead and riparian habitats, dominated by boxelder, oak, cottonwood and

ash. Some of the western most remaining tamarack stands in Minnesota occur on

waterfowl production areas in Clay County. Nearly all American and red (rock) elms

in the District have died from Dutch Elm Disease.

Noxious Weeds

All of the listed noxious weed species of Minnesota can be found in the District. The

species most troublesome to District operations include plumeless thistle, leafy

spurge, purple loosestrife, and Canada thistle and musk thistle.

3.1.4.2 Animals

Endangered/Threatened

Bald Eagles (threatened) commonly use WPAs during migration periods and throughout the summer. To date, no eagles are known to nest on WPAs; however, the number

of area nests is increasing with some quite near WPAs.

The District is in the peripheral range of the gray wolf (threatened). Gray wolves are

reproducing in eastern Becker County, including a denning sight located on Tamarac

National Wildlife Refuge. Public reports of gray wolf sightings in the District are

increasing annually.

The candidate species Dakota skipper also occurs on the District.

Birds

The District has a great diversity of bird species that are common to the grasslands,

wetlands, and forests of Minnesota. Nesting waterfowl include Canvasback, Redhead,

Blue-winged Teal, Mallard, Pintail, Wood Duck, Ring-necked Duck, and Ruddy Duck.

Other noteworthy species include the Greater Prairie Chicken.

Trumpeter Swans have been reintroduced in the District. Nesting success has been

steadily improving and some District WPAs are receiving increasing use.

Loons and Double-crested Cormorants frequent the deeper marshes of District

WPAs; cormorants are steadily increasing. Abundant Sora and Common Snipe

populations use WPA wetland habitat throughout the District.

Greater Sandhill Cranes, Great Egrets, Western, Pied-billed and Red-necked Grebes,

Horned and Eared grebes, American and Least Bitterns, Great Blue Herons, Blackcrowned Night Herons and White Pelicans are commonly observed during the migration and breeding seasons. Populations of Great Egrets and White Pelicans appear to

be increasing in the District. Breeding pairs of Greater Sandhill Cranes also appear to

be increasing dramatically. Cranes have been observed throughout the summer on

Helliksen Prairie WPA in Becker County, Downing and Nelson Prairie WPAs in

Mahnomen County, and on WPAs and private land throughout the eastern half of Polk

County. There are also reports of crane production in southeastern Becker County in

the Toad River Watershed.

Shorebirds common to the area include Killdeer, Marbled Godwit, Upland Plover

(sandpiper), Spotted and Pectoral Sandpiper, Wilson’s Phalarope, Greater and Lesser

Yellowlegs, American Woodcock, and Common Snipe. These species and others are

observed during migration and breeding seasons.
Chapter 3 / Environmental Assessment

39

Herring, Ring-billed, Franklin and Bonepart’s Gulls, Forester’s and Common Terns

are frequently observed during migration. Black Terns are summer residents of many

WPAs.

At least 20 species of raptors utilize WPAs in this area. Marsh Hawks (Northern

Harrier), Cooper’s and Sharp-shinned Hawks, Red-tailed and rough-legged Hawks,

American Kestrels, Broad-winged Hawks, Goshawks, Osprey and Great Horned Owls

are among the most common. Peregrine Falcons use several WPAs during migration

periods.

Mammals

All mammals endemic to Minnesota grasslands, transition zones, and forested areas

are common in the District. The moose population is increasing throughout the

District with an estimated 50 to 100 moose inhabiting District WPAs. The whitetailed deer population in this region of Minnesota is high. Other mammals commonly

using WPA habitat include beaver, mink, muskrat, fox, coyote, skunks, raccoon,

rabbits, otter, fisher and many rodent species.

Fish

While there is limited fish habitat on District WPAs, several of them are used by fish

as spawning sites. Only one WPA has a resident fish population. Elsewhere in the

District, there are numerous rivers and lakes with healthy fish populations.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Three snake species (garter, red-bellied, and smooth green), two salamanders (tiger

and blue-spotted), four frog species (leopard, wood, tree, and spring peeper), two

turtle species (snapper and painted), two toad species (Canadian and American) and

the 13-lined skink are found in the District.

Other Wildlife

The Poweshiek Skipper, a State Special Concern Species butterfly, can be found on

Flickertail Prairie WPA. This dry prairie site on the sandy beach-line of glacial Lake

Agassiz may also hold a small population of the state-listed threatened Dakota

Skipper butterfly.

3.1.5 Cultural Resources

The area encompassed by Detroit Lakes WMD exhibits evidence of human use and

occupation for the past 6,000 years, possibly for the past 9,000 years. At least 700

prehistoric and historic period archeological sites and certain other cultural resources

have been recorded; of which 100 sites are on District waterfowl production areas.

With less than two per cent of the land having been surveyed for cultural resources,

good potential exists for many unrecorded sites from the earliest Paleo Indian,

Archaic, Woodland, Indian, and Euro-American cultures such as camps, villages,

bison-kills, traditional cultural and sacred sites, subsistence procurement activities,

trading posts, pioneer and other farmsteads, road and trails, and landscapes.

Cultural resources are important parts of the Nation’s heritage: “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....”King, p.9.

The Service is committed to protecting valuable records of human interactions with

each other and the landscape. Protection is accomplished in conjunction with the

Service’s mandate to protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources. (See the CCP for a

complete review of cultural resource issues.)
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

40

3.1.6 Social and Economic Factors

The five counties of the District are intensely agricultural. Scattered farmsteads on

large farms of predominantly small grain production with much smaller acreage

devoted to hayland and pasture cover the area. Land use trends have been toward

clean farming methods with fall tillage. In recent years, some conservation tillage has

been occurring. Wetland drainage has been extensive with only the most permanent

wetlands or those under perpetual easement protection remaining.

The agricultural community has suffered economically in recent years due to the

general agricultural depression of the 1980s and dry growing seasons in 1988 and

1989. Some improvement in the farming economy has occurred in the 1990s as crop

prices, yields, and land values have increased; however, the unusually wet summers of

1992, 1993 and 1999 caused it to slump again.

Recreation also provides important economic input into the District. Many of the

recreational activities are centered around the many lakes and wetlands of the area

with waterfowl hunting, fishing, and boating the main activities. Deer and upland bird

hunting are other major recreational activities that provide important economic

benefits.

3.2 Fergus Falls Wetland Management District

3.2.1 Introduction

The Fergus Falls Wetland Management District consists of Otter Tail, Grant, Douglas, Wilkin, and Wadena counties. These counties are in the Prairie Pothole Region

generally on or west of the prairie-forest transition. This area was locked in glacial

ice until about 12,000 years ago. By 8,000 years ago glacial Lake Agassiz was gone,

leaving a basin that was flat with little topographic relief except for ancient beach

ridges in an area of the Red River Valley we now know as Wilkin County. Douglas,

Grant, and Otter Tail counties extend into the western prairie rolling topography

known as glacial morain with numerous lakes. Wadena County is part of the Mississippi headwaters district, an area of geological complexity.

The woodlands to the east gradually begin as oak savannah phasing into oak-ash

communities on the higher sites with willow-tamarack shrub swamps on the lower

sites. Major rivers within the District include the Red River of the north; Otter Tail,

Pelican, Mustinka and Rabbit, which flow west of the continental divide into the

Hudson Bay drainage; and the Chippewa, Pomme de Terre, Long Prairie, Wing and

Redeye Rivers, which flow east into the Mississippi drainage.

This region historically was covered by bluestem tallgrass prairie on the west phasing

into oak savanna to the east. The coming of settlement in the late 1800s brought

suppression of wildfires. Woodlands have moved west, taking over many areas that

were once prairie or savanna.

The District currently manages 222 Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) totaling

42,671 acres. These WPAs are managed for optimum waterfowl production using

techniques such as upland cover, water, and seasonal predator management. In

addition, 916 wetland easements totaling 22,717 wetland acres, 4 grassland easements

totaling 428 acres and 29 FmHA conservation easements totaling 2,967 acres are

administered by the District.
Chapter 3 / Environmental Assessment

41

3.2.2 Climate

Annual precipitation is about 22 inches per year. Temperatures range in extremes

from as low as -40 degrees to highs of 90 degrees Fahrenheit or more. Winters are

long and cold, with temperatures remaining below freezing for months at a time.

3.2.3 Soils

The soils in the eastern portion of the District are mainly formed in calcareous loamy

glacial till, in outwash sediments, or in glacial drift overlying outwash. To the west, in

the Red River Valley, the soils were formed in sandy to clayey lacustrine sediments or

lacustrine modified glacial till overlying glacial till.

3.2.4 Natural Resources

Most of the District’s remnant native prairie parcels are too small and have too many

invasive trees and shrubs to support true indigenous populations of prairie species.

These conditions do promote a wide variety of species with the added woody cover;

however, the management philosophy is that maintaining biodiversity by protecting

historical ecosystems (large treeless blocks of native prairie) is more important than

maximizing local species diversity. In other words, harboring a smaller variety of

indigenous prairie species is more important than having a higher diversity of species

(some non-native) on unmanaged fragmented grassland that is being invaded by trees

and brush.

3.2.4.1 Plants

Endangered/Threatened

The Western prairie fringed orchid is a federally threatened species. It is found in

sedge meadows, especially in groundwater seeps at the base of ancient beach ridges,

and has been documented in Douglas County. The federally listed threatened prairie

bush clover may occur in the District; it is found in dry, gravelly hill prairies, often in

association with big bluestem and Indian grass.

Grassland

Grassland areas consist mainly of former farm fields that have been seeded for

nesting cover. Restoring these areas to their historic prairie appearance is difficult, if

not impossible, because over 250 species of plants make up the native prairie plant

community. Four to five species of warm season native grasses, often mixed with

Table 5: Major Habitat Types of Waterfowl Production Areas in the

Fergus Falls Wetland Management District

Habitat Type Acres

Native prairie (virgin) 2,294

Other grasslands/farmland 20,373

Forested/brushland 3,433

Wetland/riverine 16,571

Roads, buildings, misc. 105

Total 42,671
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

42

native forbs, are seeded on suitable upland sites. These warm season grasses include

big bluestem, little bluestem, switchgrass, and Indian grass. The District has restored

over 20,000 acres of grasslands on Service lands. Many upland acres remain in brome,

quack or other cool season grasses which eventually will be converted to native warm

season grasses.

The District currently owns 2,294 acres of unbroken native prairie and an additional

20,371 acres of other grassland on WPAs.

Wetland

Wetland vegetation varies based on water conditions ranging from ephemeral to

permanent open water wetlands and includes reed canary grass, cattail, bulrush,

phragmites, burreed, coontail, bladderwort, waterlily, arrowhead, manna grass,

duckweed, sedge, smartweed, cord grass, and willow. There are currently 16,571

acres of wetlands on WPAs in the District, including riverine systems.

Forested

Because the primary objective of the District is the production of grassland nesting

waterfowl species, few forested upland areas are purchased as WPA’s. Where trees

and brush do exist, as in the case of retired pasturelands, the dominant species include

a mixture of burr oak, green ash, basswood, and ironwood with lesser amounts of

white birch, aspen, maple, and American elm. Boxelder dominates most abandoned

farmsteads. This species and green ash readily invade adjacent grasslands when

control is not exercised. In general, most woodlands and brushlands are of irregular

shape and size and occur more frequently in the eastern side of the District, which is

the original prairie/hardwood transition zone. The Service currently owns 3,433 acres

of forested and brushland habitat on WPAs in the District.

Noxious Weeds

Approximately 20 species have been declared noxious weeds in the District, but the

main problem weeds on Service lands are plumeless thistle, Canada thistle, and leafy

spurge. Smaller areas of wild millet, poison ivy, and marijuana have also been a

problem. Methods of control used include ground spraying, mowing, and aerial

spraying. Some experiments with biological control of leafy spurge have shown it to

be a promising alternative.

3.2.4.2 Animals

Endangered and/or Threatened Species

For three straight years, there has been an active bald eagle nest on a WPA in the

District. Thirty-five other known active eagle nests are present on private land. It is

obvious that the bald eagle is expanding its range southward in the state, as witnessed by these recent nesting records. There are even more reports from the public

of nesting eagles in the secluded lake and river country of eastern Otter Tail County,

but these word-of-month reports have not been verified by Service personnel.

The Federally listed threatened piping plover (Great Plains population) is occasionally

seen during the spring and fall. Reported sightings of gray wolves, both confirmed

and unconfirmed, have been on the increase in recent years. With a near saturation

population level of wolves in the northern timbered sections of the state, younger

wolves are being forced into new areas. In 1992, Federal trappers removed a family

of wolves that was killing cattle on a farm in eastern Otter Tail County. Wolves are no

longer the rare sight that they were 5 years ago.
Chapter 3 / Environmental Assessment

43

Birds

The District bird list contains 267 regularly occurring species, plus an additional list of

nine accidental species.

Numerous species of waterfowl are common and 16 species nest in the District; the

most common of these are the mallard, blue-winged teal, gadwall, and northern

shoveler. Waterfowl production data for 1987-1990 indicates 0.13 pair per acre,

leading to production of 0.11 ducks per acre.

Giant Canada geese continue to thrive and expand throughout most of the District.

Captive flocks were started in Fergus Falls, Alexandria and Ashby and have readily

expanded their breeding range. There is so much overlap in the breeding ranges of

the various “flocks” that all the available habitat is now occupied by a homogenous

mix from all three original flocks.

Marsh and water birds common to this District include the great blue heron, black

tern, green-backed heron, great egret, coot, pied-billed grebe, sora and Virginia rail,

black-crowned night heron, common snipe, American bittern and double-crested

cormorant. Pelican Island, which is a 15-acre island located in Pelican Lake near

Ashby, Minnesota, serves as a rookery for hundreds of herons, egrets and cormorants.

The island is owned by the Nature Conservancy. Other smaller colonies of about 50

nests or less consisting mainly of great blue herons and great egrets are located in

other parts of Otter Tail and Douglas counties. A large cormorant colony is located on

three islands in Lye Lake in Otter Tail County; in 1994, it contained more than 2,000

breeding pairs.

Waterfowl Production Areas receive considerable use by shorebirds, especially during

migration. Approximately 17 species of shorebirds are common or abundant during

the spring migration. During the summer months, the most common are the killdeer,

greater yellowlegs, and Wilson’s snipe.

The red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, northern harrier, and great horned owl lead

the list of the 16 common raptors in the District. The annual fall migration of hawks

through the area normally runs from mid-September through the first week in

October. At these times, as many as 50 hawks (mostly broadwings and/or red-tails)

can be seen at one time. The peregrine falcon, which migrates through the District,

has made a great recovery in recent years.

A survey of songbirds has been conducted on grasslands in WPAs in the District in

1993, and 51 species have been recorded. The most commonly observed birds, listed

in descending order, were the red-winged blackbird, clay-colored sparrow, common

yellowthroat, yellow-headed blackbird, and song sparrow. Grasshopper sparrows

were found mainly on well-drained ground that lacked invasive shrubs. Due to the

predominance of woody cover on many of the prairie parcels sampled, clay-colored

sparrows and yellow warblers were two of the most frequently encountered species.

Mammals

White-tailed deer are the most abundant game animal in the District. Moose are

becoming more common in Wilkin and East Otter Tail counties. Other common

mammals include the fox, raccoon, snowshoe hare, cottontail and jackrabbit, mink,

beaver, muskrat, weasel, and skunk. Periodically, a black bear, bobcat, or lynx is

reported.

A small mammal diversity and abundance study was done in 1983 on warm season
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

44

grass fields on two WPAs in Otter Tail County. The most common small mammals

found were shrews and mice in the genera Sorex, Blarina, and Peromyscus.

Fish

Because most wetlands on Service lands are shallow, the fishery

resource is minimal. Bullheads, minnows, and northern pike are

present on several WPAs. Many of the WPAs located along the Otter

Tail and Pelican Rivers and those bordering meandered lakes provide

an access for boat launching and some opportunity for bank fishing.

High numbers of fathead minnows have become a problem in some

wetlands in the District, leading to poor water quality and reduced

invertebrate populations.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Numerous species of reptiles and amphibians are found in the District. One formal

auditory frog and toad study is in progress in Grant County; preliminary results show

the most common species to be the wood frog, chorus frog, and Canadian toad, with

spring peepers and the American toad being less common. Leopard frogs are very

common in other parts of the District, though they were not heard in this study. Little

information is available on the salamanders, snakes, turtles, and skink that are found

in the District.

3.2.5 Cultural Resources

The area encompassed by Fergus Falls WMD exhibits evidence of human use and

occupation for the past 6,000 years, possibly for the past 9,000 years. At least 900

prehistoric and historic period archeological sites and certain other cultural resources

have been recorded; of which 130 sites are on District waterfowl production areas.

With less than 2 percent of the land having been surveyed for cultural resources, good

potential exists for many unrecorded sites from the earliest Paleo Indian, Archaic,

Woodland, Indian, and Euro-American cultures such as camps, villages, bison-kills,

traditional cultural and sacred sites, subsistence procurement activities, trading posts,

pioneer and other farmsteads, road and trails, and landscapes.

Cultural resources are important parts of the Nation’s heritage: “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....”King, p.9.

The Service is committed to protecting valuable records of human interactions with

each other and the landscape. Protection is accomplished in conjunction with the

Service’s mandate to protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources.” (See the CCP for a

complete review of cultural resource issues.)

3.2.6 Social and Economic Factors

The Northern Pacific and Great Northern Railroads arrived in 1871 and 1879, respectively. They provided vital links with grain markets in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and

Duluth and helped farmers move from making a subsistence living to making a profit

on their crops.

The five counties in the District are intensely agricultural. Scattered farmsteads of

predominantly grain production with much smaller acreage devoted to hayland and

pasture cover the area. Land use trends have been toward clean farming methods

and intensive tillage, generally fall cultivated, although some conservation tillage

(leaving crop residue) occurs. Drainage has been extensive, with less than half of the

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 3 / Environmental Assessment

45

pre-settlement wetlands remaining. Wetland drainage is the preferred solution by

farmers to cropland flooding, and grass cover is minimized by farmers because they

believe it harbors weeds. Some wetlands on WPAs are the result of subirrigation and

receive runoff from adjacent farmland.

Hunting, trapping, wildlife observation, photography, and cross-country skiing are

among the public use activities permitted on WPAs. Public use is low, except during

the opening weekends of the waterfowl hunting season.

The current economy of the area is heavily dependent upon agriculture, although

tourism, light manufacturing, and recreation play an increasingly important role.

3.3 Morris Wetland Management District

3.3.1 Introduction

The Morris Wetland Management District (District), originally established in 1964 as

the Benson Wetland Management District, now includes 246 Waterfowl Production

Areas (WPAs) totaling 50,000 acres in fee title ownership. In addition, the District

manages 591 wetland easements totaling 72,523 wetland acres, nine grassland easements totaling 605 acres and 21 Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) conservation

easements totaling 1,224 acres. The fee and easement areas are scattered throughout

Big Stone, Lac qui Parle, Pope, Stevens, Swift, Traverse, and Yellow Medicine

counties.

The topography of west central Minnesota is extremely diversified, ranging from the

granite outcrops of the Minnesota River bottoms to the rolling hills of Pope County.

The flat agricultural land of the Red River Valley of the north blends into the transition zone between the tall grass prairie and the eastern deciduous forest. Soils of the

region are generally productive, which contributed to the historically high concentrations of breeding waterfowl. With the advent of modern agriculture, over 60 percent

of the original wetlands were drained and nearly 100 percent of the native grasslands

were converted to cropland.

3.3.2 Climate

The continental climate of the District is characterized by cold, dry winters and warm,

moist summers. The average annual rainfall is approximately 21-24 inches. More

than 75 percent of the annual precipitation falls during the growing season, from April

through September. Much of the rain during the growing season comes in thunderstorms, some of which are accompanied by hail and damaging winds. Records show

that the average windspeed is nearly 12 miles per hour. The prevailing direction of

the wind is from the northwest in winter and the south in summer. The average

temperature is 42 degrees F. The coldest temperatures vary from -25 degrees to -35

degrees F. and summertime highs reach up to 100 degrees F. or more.

3.3.3 Soils

The soils within the seven counties of the district have been completely inventoried

and detailed soil mapping is available. The geological classifications within the district

range from lake (Glacial Lake Agassiz) deposits in the north, outwash deposits that

occur primarily along river systems of the District, to glacial till deposits that cover
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

46

most of the land in the District. The material classifications in these three geological

classes are clay and silt in the lake deposits, sand and gravel in the outwash areas and

mixed sand, silt, clay, gravel, and boulders in the glacial till. The glacial till areas

consist of ground moraines and end or stagnation moraines. Ground moraines form

flat to undulating land surfaces and the end or stagnation moraines form pitted to hilly

land surfaces.

3.3.4 Natural Resources

3.3.4.1 Plants

Endangered/Threatened

The western prairie fringed orchid is a threatened

species which may occur within the District.

Grassland

Grasslands comprise 31,665 acres of the District.

This category includes 8,465 acres of reseeded native

grasses and 7,012 acres of unbroken native prairie.

The balance of the existing grassland contains

various cover types including brome, quack and alfalfa.

Wetland

Wetlands make up 16,820 acres of the District. Most of the wetlands can be classified

as Type I-V basins (Circular 39). Cattail, bulrush, phragmites, arrowhead, and

smartweed are typical emergents found in the District. Duckweed, bladderwort and

coontail are free-floating plants that occur frequently in wetland basins. Submergent

plants such as pondweed and water milfoil also occur in District wetlands.

Forested

Morris lies within what was once the tall grass prairie. Less than 4 percent of the fee

acreage is covered by timber. Of the 1,515 acres of timber and brush, the majority

consists of old farm groves and shelterbelts.

Noxious Weeds

There are many noxious weeds that exist within the District; the primary ones are

Canada thistle and leafy spurge. Purple loosestrife, trees invading the native prairie,

and wild marijuana are also problems.

Table 6: Major Habitat Types of Waterfowl Production Areas in the Morris Wetland

Management District

Habitat Type Acres

Native prairie (virgin) 7,035

Other grasslands/farmlands 23,969

Forested/brushland 2,268

Wetland/riverine 17,936

Total 51,208

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 3 / Environmental Assessment

47

3.3.4.2 Animals

Endangered/Threatened

The piping plover (federally threatened Great Plains population) and the bald eagle

(federally threatened) both occur in the District.

No endangered mammals are known to occur on WPAs within the District, though a

report of a gray wolf, a threatened species, has been recorded. The candidate species

Dakota skipper is known to occur on the District land.

Birds

Waterfowl Production Areas in the District contain a complex of habitat types that

help support over 260 species of birds, 135 of which nest within the District. The nongame bird point count included 41 native prairie and 14 seeded native sites on five

WPAs. A total of 76 species were found. Twenty-eight of these were neotropical

migrants. No new species were found this year in this 6-year study. Bird numbers

continue to be down from previous years. There were three bald eagle nesting attempts in the District. Wilson’s phalarope, Minnesota lists as “threatened,” and

“species of concern”, marbled godwit have been sited on WPA’s in the District.

Waterfowl species that commonly breed in the area include blue-winged teal, mallard,

pintail, wood duck, redhead, canvasback, and Canada goose. Canada geese continue to

increase as breeders and snow geese as migrants. High priority waterfowl species

are northern pintail (nester and migrant), American black duck (migrant), mallard

(nester and migrant) and lesser scaup (migrant).

Mammals

The District contains a complex of habitat types that help support 55 species of

mammals. Field observations indicate that mammal species are abundant on WPAs

and range from the pygmy shrew to the white-tailed deer. Occasional moose wander

through the District. The District Scent Post Surveys revealed and abundance of red

fox, raccoon, and skunks, all predate grassland bird nests extensively.

Fish

There are 18 species of fish that are documented in wetlands on WPAs within the

District. There are low numbers of game fish and high numbers of minnows and

rough fish. Due to the shallow nature of the wetlands there is a high probability of

winterkill.

Reptiles and Amphibians

There is very limited documentation of reptiles and amphibians that occur on WPAs

within the District. No surveys have been conducted to determine species occurrence. Several species of turtles, snakes, salamanders, and frogs have been observed.

3.3.5 Cultural Resources

The area encompassed by Morris WMD exhibits evidence of human use and occupation for the past 6,000 years, possibly for the past 9,000 years. At least 750 prehistoric

and historic period archeological sites and certain other cultural resources have been

recorded; of which 100 sites are on District waterfowl production areas. With less

than two per cent of the land having been surveyed for cultural resources, good

potential exists for many unrecorded sites from the earliest Paleo Indian, Archaic,

Woodland, Indian, and Euro-American cultures such as camps, villages, bison-kills,

traditional cultural and sacred sites, subsistence procurement activities, trading posts,

pioneer and other farmsteads, road and trails, and landscapes.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

48

Cultural resources are important parts of the Nation’s heritage: “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....” King, p.9.

The Service is committed to protecting valuable records of human interactions with

each other and the landscape. Protection is accomplished in conjunction with the

Service’s mandate to protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources. (See the CCP for a

complete review of cultural resource issues.)

3.3.6 Social and Economic Factors

The majority of neighbors accept the fact that the Federal government owns land for

waterfowl production, and most have a general appreciation for the value of wildlife.

However, these neighbors expect the land to be managed for wildlife and not ignored.

Their opinions of wildlife agencies, environmental groups, and wildlife in general is

greatly influenced by the way these lands are managed. If a WPA is ignored, allowing

the habitat condition to decrease in quality and noxious weeds to increase in abundance, opinions quickly become negative. However, if the land is managed for the best

interest of wildlife and habitat conditions are maintained, these opinions become

positive for wildlife benefits both on and off Service-managed lands.

A variety of wildlife-oriented recreation activities are available to the public. Some of

these include hiking, bird watching, photography, snowshoeing, mushroom hunting,

cross-country skiing, hunting, and trapping in accordance with State regulations. The

WPAs are open year round for these activities. Travel on WPAs is limited to foot or

horseback only and overnight camping and fires are prohibited.

Local communities benefit from the money spent by people using WPAs for recreational activities. The largest beneficial impact comes from hunters because hunting

is the most frequent recreational use.

3.4 Litchfield Wetland Management District

3.4.1 Introduction

The Litchfield Wetland Management District (WMD) was established in 1978 to

manage tracts purchased under the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program. The

District manages 146 Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) covering 32,528 acres of

fee title lands. In addition, 415 wetland easements totaling 34,970 wetland acres, four

grassland easements totaling 202 acres and 35 Farmers Home Association (FmHa)

conservation easements totaling 2,458 acres are administered by the District. These

tracts are scattered throughout the 10 central counties of Minnesota.

District lands include portions of the Northern Mixed Forest, Eastern Hardwood

Forest, Oak Savanna, and Tallgrass Prairie Biomes. Soils, precipitation, climate,

water quality, and land use vary greatly but essentially all areas have been greatly

altered and degraded by development.

3.4.2 Climate

The District is located in central Minnesota. The area has a typical continental

climate with wide temperature extremes from summer to winter. The moderating

effect of the oceans on temperature is virtually non-existent here. Annually, temperature extremes can differ by 140 degrees or more.
Chapter 3 / Environmental Assessment

49

Mean annual precipitation varies west to east across the District from 24 inches in the

west to 29 inches in the east. The number of days that the ground is covered with 6

inches of snow averages 40 in the southwest to 70 in the northeast. Twelve inches of

snow-cover averages 15 to 30 days southwest to northeast, respectively. The last

frost occurs in early to mid-May and the first frost falls during the last week in

September during a normal year.

3.4.3 Soils

The Litchfield Wetland Management District is broken into a series of geographic

regions that were all formed from glacial activity reaching back 40-plus thousand

years. Four major glacial periods resulted in a lot of earth moved by ice and water

and the large-scale mixing of soils. As the glaciers melted, silts and clays were

deposited in some areas and runoff deposited sands and gravels in other areas.

After the last glacier (more than 9,000 years ago) a combination of environmental factors (wind, water, topography, fire,

plants, animals) determined the types of topsoil which developed over the glacial formations. These factors have provided

the District with an amazing variety of soil types; everything

from peat bogs to sand dunes and from rock outcrops to deep

soil prairies are found. Soil pH factors range from strongly

acid (pH = 4.5+) to strongly alkaline (pH = 9.0). Over 100 soils

series are named within the District.

3.4.4 Natural Resources

3.4.4.1 Plants

Plant diversity in the District is very good. It is located in the transition zone between the three major continental biomes; the eastern hardwood forests, the northern

coniferous forest, and the tallgrass prairie. The glacial topography of rolling hills and

wetland valleys further divides the landscape into a mosaic of woodland savanna and

prairie that represents nearly all gradations between wet and dry and between acid

and alkaline.

The 10-county District contains 33 plant communities. A plant inventory conducted

during the 1980s revealed approximately 350 plant species on WPAs. With new

WPAs acquired in the eastern portion of the District, this number should increase

substantially. About 1,150 species of vascular plants occur in the District.

Endangered/Threatened

The western prairie fringed orchid is a federally threatened species that may occur in

the District. It is found in sedge meadows, especially in groundwater seeps at the

base of ancient beach ridges. The prairie bush clover may occur in the District; it is

found in dry, gravelly hill prairies, often in association with big bluestem and Indian

grass.

Grassland

The District was predominantly native grassland prior to settlement. The lack of fire

has allowed succession to occur and much unbroken native grassland is now brush or

woodland. The Service has planted permanent grassland onto all of its acquired

cropland. Of the 32,528 acres in the Litchfield District, approximately 2,320 acres is

unbroken native prairie and 15,670 acres have been seeded to native and introduced

USFWS Photo
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

50

grasses of various combinations of species. Wherever noxious weeds and chemical use

are not a problem, natural selection and the use of native prairie harvested seed have

placed many forb species into the seeded grasslands.

Wetland

Wetlands have always been a major focus in the District. Approximately 12,520 acres

of wetlands occur on District WPAs. Over 3,000 acres of those are restored wetlands.

Total wetland plant diversity in the District is high. Nearly all wetland types are

represented from wet meadows to lakes and from hardwood swamps and tamarack

bogs to calcareous fens. Not much species inventory has occurred in most wetland

community types.

Forested

The District does not normally purchase forestland. Often small oak groves and/or

wooded building sites are included in the prairie/cropland wetland complexes acquired. Generally woodlots are not encouraged as they often cause management

problems such as tree invasion onto grasslands, prescribed fire planning problems,

and the presence of avian and mammalian predator habitat. Some of the state endangered oak savanna habitat will be grazed or burned to manage this plant community.

Noxious Weeds

All of the noxious weed species listed by the State of Minnesota are found on Districts’ WPAs. Control of these species is necessary to maintain good relationships

with neighbors and local government units. District staff use an aggressive, integrated program of prescribed burning, interseeding, cooperative farming, and mechanical, chemical, and biological control methods in an attempt to minimize weed

complaints and impacts to non-target species.

3.4.4.2 Animals

Endangered/Threatened

Piping plover (threatened Great Plains population) occur in the District. The endangered winged mapleleaf mussel may also occur in the District. Bald eagles (threatened) commonly use WPAs during migration periods and throughout the summer. To

date, no eagles are known to nest on WPAs.

The District is in the peripheral range of the Eastern cougar (endangered) and the

gray wolf (threatened).

Birds

About 290 species of birds are known to pass through the District during migration;

177 species are known to nest within the District.

Table 7: Major Habitat Types of Waterfowl Production Areas in the

Litchfield Wetland Management District

Habitat Type Acres

Native Prairie (virgin) 2,653

Other grasslands/farmland 14,310

Forested/brushland 2,969

Wetland/riverine 13,281

Total 33,213
Chapter 3 / Environmental Assessment

51

The most frequently found nesting waterfowl in the District include mallards, bluewinged teal, and wood ducks. Other species observed during the 4-square mile counts

include shoveler, green-winged teal, redhead, ruddy duck, ring-necked duck, canvasback, scaup, pintail, gadwall, widgeon, goldeneye, bufflehead, and common, hooded

and red-breasted mergansers. Canada geese nest in the District and are common to

the point of being a nuisance to farmers. Trumpeter swan, previously considered to

be extirpated from the District, has been listed as threatened on the State’s list of

“special concern” species. A reintroduction program for the species is ongoing

between the Service, the Minnesota DNR, Hennepin County Parks, and the Trumpeter Swan Society. Free-flying individuals continue to successfully nest on Pelican

Lake WPA in Wright County.

Great blue herons, black-crowned night herons, great egrets, green-backed herons,

white pelicans, American coots, double-crested cormorants, western and pied-billed

grebes, and common loons were sighted during the 4-square mile counts this spring.

Other water birds included the red-necked grebe, Virginia rail, and sora rail. Some

State species of special concern use the District habitats including yellow and king

rails, common moorhen, and American white pelican. The State-listed threatened,

horned grebe also uses the District during migration.

Black terns, piping plover, common tern, Forester’s terns, Franklin gulls, lesser

yellowlegs, common snipe, upland sandpipers, and killdeer occur on District lands.

Marbled godwits and Wilson’s phalarope also use the District habitats.

Great-horned owls, red-tailed hawks, and American kestrels are common residents.

Northern harriers, and Cooper’s, broad-winged, and red-shouldered hawks, and shorteared, barred, long-eared, screech, and saw-whet owls are less common residents.

Occasional sightings of turkey vultures, osprey, goshawks, and sharp-shinned, roughlegged, Swainson’s and ferruginous hawks are reported. Rarely, golden eagles,

peregrine, prairie falcons and snowy owls may be sighted. Bald eagle nesting is

increasing in the District.

Mammals

Of the more than 80 species of mammals in Minnesota, 60 occur within the District.

The following occur only rarely within the District: moose, mule deer, mountain lion,

timber wolf, spotted skunk, river otter, black bear, prairie vole, porcupine, snowshoe

hare, eastern pipistrel, and woodland jumping mouse.

Fish

There are 145 native and 14 non-native species of fishes in Minnesota waters; of these,

93 are found in the lakes, streams, and marshes of the District. Although fish are not

a focus of habitat management, the District’s wetland habitat is extremely important

in the life cycle of many fish species.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Eight species of turtles, two species of lizards, and 12 species of snakes make their

homes in the Litchfield District. In addition, 14 species of salamanders, toads, and

frogs are also found within the District.

Other Animals

Untold numbers of lesser animals occur within the District. Unfortunately, science

has merely scratched the surface concerning the distribution and life history of most

of these very important creatures in the food web. Considering that more than 30

distinct plant communities exist within the District, diversity of these lesser creatures

is high and probably numbers in the thousands if not the tens of thousands of species.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

52

3.4.5 Cultural Resources

The area encompassed by Litchfield WMD exhibits evidence of human use and

occupation for the past 6,000 years, possibly for the past 9,000 years. At least 1,100

prehistoric and historic period archeological sites and certain other cultural resources

have been recorded; of which 100 sites are on District waterfowl production areas.

With less than two per cent of the land having been surveyed for cultural resources,

good potential exists for many unrecorded sites from the earliest Paleo Indian,

Archaic, Woodland, Indian, and Euro-American cultures such as camps, villages,

bison-kills, traditional cultural and sacred sites, subsistence procurement activities,

trading posts, pioneer and other farmsteads, road and trails, and landscapes.

Cultural resources are important parts of the Nation’s heritage: “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....”King, p.9.

The Service is committed to protecting valuable records of human interactions with

each other and the landscape. Protection is accomplished in conjunction with the

Service’s mandate to protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources. (See the CCP for a

complete review of cultural resource issues.)

3.4.6 Social and Economic Factors

Farming and associated agri-business is the most important economic activity and the

largest land use in the District. The type of farming varies greatly from south to

north; cash cropping dominates the more fertile prairie soils in the south and west,

while dairy and beef operations and more diversified cropping dominate the north and

east. A steadily increasing number of farmers derive less than half of their income

from farming, especially near the larger cities in the District. Many farms near the

metropolitan areas have been divided into lots and converted to residential housing

for people working in the city. Also, most of the children of existing farmers are

deciding to work city jobs instead of working the family farm.

Many existing farms are being sold to neighboring farmers; thus, the average farm

size is increasing. Many cattle owners have moved to a feedlot operations and have

plowed up or idled their pasture land. As the landowners are deriving less income

from the land itself, more and more parcels are being put into conservation programs

and set aside for wildlife. This change in land values has opened up nearly endless

possibilities for the private lands/wetland restoration program and the fee and

easement acquisition programs.

3.5 Windom Wetland Management District

3.5.1 Introduction

The Windom Wetland Managment District was established in 1990 and includes 54

Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) covering 10,923 acres of fee title lands. In

addition, 34 wetland easements totaling 2,200 wetland acres, six grassland easements

totaling 316 acres and eight Farmers Home Association (FmHA) conservation

easements totaling 290 acres are managed by the District.

All WPAs and easements are located in Cottonwood, Faribault, Freeborn, Jackson,

Nobles, and Watonwan counties. The District includes 12 southwestern Minnesota

counties.
Chapter 3 / Environmental Assessment

53

3.5.2 Climate

The District is located in Southwestern Minnesota. The area has a typical continental

climate with wide temperature extremes from summer to winter. The moderating

effect of the oceans on temperature is virtually non-existent here. Annually, temperature extremes can differ by 130 degrees or more.

Annual precipitation averages about 27 inches per year. In normal years, the last

frost occurs in early to mid-May and the first frost falls during the last week in

September.

3.5.3 Soils

The soils in the District were mainly formed in calcareous loamy glacial till, or in

sandy to clayey lacustrine sediments. In the southwestern corner of the District, the

soils were mostly formed in loess overlying glacial till and in outwash sediments .

3.5.4 Natural Resources

Intensive row crop agriculture dominates land use in the District. The topography is

nearly level to gently sloping. The Missouri Coteau, which is located in South Dakota,

extends into southwestern Minnesota.

3.5.4.1 Plants

Endangered/Threatened

The western prairie fringed orchid is a federally threatened species that may occur in

the District. It is found in sedge meadows, especially in groundwater seeps at the

base of ancient beach ridges. The federally threatened prairie bush clover may occur

in the District; it is found in dry, gravelly hill prairies, often in association with big

bluestem and Indian grass.

Grassland

Northern tallgrass prairie was the original pre-settlement vegetation type. Less than

1 percent of the native pre-settlement vegetation remains.

Wetland

Over 90 percnet of the wetlands in Southwest Minnesota have been drained.

Undrained Type I and II wetlands are extremely rare.

Forested

Larger blocks (80-plus acres) of forest are very rare. Trees are primarily associated

with riparian corridors, shelter belts and wind breaks.

Noxious Weeds

Canada thistle is the primary problem, followed by musk thistle. Noxious weed

control is a political necessity in southwestern Minnesota.

3.5.4.2 Animals

Endangered/Threatened

The Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka) were once common to small to mid-sized prairie

streams in the central United States. Now listed as endangered, These fish inhabit

streams that usually run continually and that have good water quality and cool to

moderate temperatures. The occurrence of the species at known collection sites has

decreased by approximately 70 percent, mostly in the past 40 to 50 years. The fish has
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

54

been negatively affected by habitat destruction, sedimentation, and changes in water

quality. Topeka shiners now exist primarily in small, isolated populations in Iowa,

Minnesota and portions of South Dakota.

The threatened Bald Eagle and candidate species Dakota skipper also occur on the

District.

Birds

Waterfowl Production Areas within the District contain a complex of habitat types

that help support over 200 species of birds, many of which nest within the District.

Waterfowl species that commonly breed in the area include blue-winged teal, mallard,

pintail, wood duck, and Canada goose.

Mammals

The District contains a complex of habitat types that help support approximately 50

species of mammals. Field observations indicate that mammal species are abundant

on WPAs and range from the pygmy shrew to the white-tailed deer. Occasional moose

wander through the District.

Fish

There are approximately 15 species of fish that are documented in wetlands on WPAs

within the District. There are low numbers of game fish and high numbers of minnows and rough fish. Due to the shallow nature of the wetlands there is a high

probability of winterkill.

Reptiles and Amphibians

There is very limited documentation of reptiles and amphibians that occur on WPAs

within the District. A recent survey identified seven species of reptiles and amphibians, although this list is not considered exhaustive.

3.5.5 Cultural Resources

The area encompassed by Windom WMD exhibits evidence of human use and occupation for the past 6,000 years, possibly for the past 9,000 years. At least 1000 prehistoric and historic period archeological sites and certain other cultural resources have

been recorded; of which 50 sites are on District waterfowl production areas. With less

than two per cent of the land having been surveyed for cultural resources, good

potential exists for many unrecorded sites from the earliest Paleo Indian, Archaic,

Woodland, Indian, and Euro-American cultures such as camps, villages, bison-kills,

traditional cultural and sacred sites, subsistence procurement activities, trading posts,

pioneer and other farmsteads, road and trails, and landscapes.

Table 8: Major Habitat Types of Waterfowl Production Areas in the Windom Wetland

Management District

Habitat Type Acres

Native prairie (virgin) 422

Other grasslands/farmland 7,564

Forested/brushland 543

Wetland/riverine 4,140

Total 12,669
Chapter 3 / Environmental Assessment

55

Cultural resources are important parts of the Nation’s heritage:

“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....”King, p.9. The Service is

committed to protecting valuable records of human interactions with

each other and the landscape. Protection is accomplished in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to protect fish, wildlife, and plant

resources.” (See the CCP for a complete review of cultural resource

issues.)

3.5.6 Social and Economic Factors

Recreational use of District WPAs is primarily hunting. Pheasant

hunting is most popular, followed by waterfowl and deer. The

economy is primarily dependent on agriculture and is currently

depressed due to the extreme weather conditions of the last 5 years.

3.6 Big Stone Wetland Management District

3.6.1 Introduction

The Big Stone WMD was established in 1996 to acquire and manage lands under the

Small Wetlands Acquisition Program within Lincoln and Lyon counties. It currently

includes 11 WPAs covering 2,344 acres of fee title lands, eight habitat and/or wetland

easements covering 989 acres, and three FmHA Conservation Easements covering

160 acres for a grand total of 3,493 acres of habitat.

3.6.2 Climate

The District is located in southwestern Minnesota. The area has a typical continental

climate with wide temperature extremes from summer to winter. The moderating

effect of the oceans on temperature is virtually non-existent here. Annually, temperature extremes can differ by 130 degrees or more.

Annual precipitation averages about 27 inches per year. In normal years, the last

frost occurs in early to mid-May and the first frost falls during the last week in

September.

3.6.3 Soils

The soils in the District were mainly formed in calcareous loamy glacial till, or in

sandy to clayey lacustrine sediments. In the southwestern corner of the District, the

soils were mostly formed in loess overlying glacial till and in outwash sediments .

3.6.4 Natural Resources

Intensive row crop agriculture dominates land use in the District. The topography is

nearly level to gently sloping. The Missouri Coteau, which is located in South Dakota,

extends into southwestern Minnesota.

3.6.4.1 Plants

Endangered/Threatened

The western prairie fringed orchid is a federally threatened species that may occur in

the District. It is found in sedge meadows, especially in groundwater seeps at the

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

56

base of ancient beach ridges. The federally threatened prairie bush clover may occur

in the District; it is found in dry, gravelly hill prairies, often in association with big

bluestem and Indian grass.

Grassland

Northern tallgrass prairie was the original pre-settlement vegetation type. Less than

1 percent of the native pre-settlement vegetation remains.

Wetland

Over 90 percent of the wetlands in southwest Minnesota have been drained.

Undrained Type I and II wetlands are extremely rare.

Forested

Larger blocks (80-plus acres) of forest are very rare. Trees are primarily associated

with riparian corridors, shelter belts and wind breaks.

Noxious Weeds

Canada thistle is the primary problem, followed by musk thistle. Noxious weed

control is a political necessity in southwestern Minnesota.

3.6.4.2 Animals

Endangered/Threatened

The federally listed endangered Topeka shiner, federally listed threatened Bald Eagle

and candidate species Dakota skipper are known to occur or may occur on land

controlled by the District.

Birds

Waterfowl Production Areas within the District contain a complex of habitat types

that help support more than 200 species of birds, many of which nest within the

District.

Waterfowl species that commonly breed in the area include blue-winged teal, mallard,

pintail, wood duck, and Canada goose.

Mammals

The District contains a complex of habitat types that help support approximately 50

species of mammals. Field observations indicate that mammal species are abundant

on WPAs and range from the pygmy shrew to the white-tailed deer. Occasional moose

wander through the District.

Fish

Approximately 15 species of fish are documented in wetlands on WPAs within the

District. There are low numbers of game fish and high numbers of minnows and

Table 9: Major Habitat Types of Waterfowl Production Areas in the Big Stone

Wetland Management District

Habitat Type Acres

Native prairie (virgin) 25 acres

Other grasslands/farmlands 1,445

Forested/brushland 34

Wetland/riverine 839

Total 2,343
Chapter 3 / Environmental Assessment

57

rough fish. Due to the shallow nature of the wetlands there is a high probability of

winterkill.

Reptiles and Amphibians

There is very limited documentation of reptiles and amphibians that occur on WPAs

within the District. A recent survey identified seven species of reptiles and amphibians, although this list is not considered exhaustive.

3.6.5 Cultural Resources

The area encompassed by Big Stone WMD exhibits evidence of human use and

occupation for the past 6,000 years, possibly for the past 9,000 years. At least 211

prehistoric and historic period archeological sites and certain other cultural resources

have been recorded; of which 8 sites are on District waterfowl production areas. With

less than two per cent of the land having been surveyed for cultural resources, good

potential exists for many unrecorded sites from the earliest Paleo Indian, Archaic,

Woodland, Indian, and Euro-American cultures such as camps, villages, bison-kills,

traditional cultural and sacred sites, subsistence procurement activities, trading posts,

pioneer and other farmsteads, road and trails, and landscapes.

Cultural resources are important parts of the Nation’s heritage: “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....”King, p.9.

The Service is committed to protecting valuable records of human interactions with

each other and the landscape. Protection is accomplished in conjunction with the

Service’s mandate to protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources. (See the CCP for a

complete review of cultural resource issues.)

3.6.6 Social and Economic Factors

Recreational use of District WPAs is primarily hunting. Pheasant hunting is most

popular, followed by waterfowl and deer. The economy is primarily dependent on

agriculture and is currently depressed due to the extreme weather conditions of the

last 5 years.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

58

4.0 Environmental Consequences

This chapter evaluates three alternatives on the basis of

environmental consequences or impacts to the environment.

Alternative 1 would maintain management on current land,

but no additional land would be acquired. Under Alternative 2

(No Action), land holdings would be increased to goal acres

and current management practices would be maintained.

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) would increase land

holdings to goal acres and expand management for waterfowl,

other trust species and the public. Alternative represents

implementation of the CCP and is the Service’s preferred

alternative.

4.1 Impacts Associated with Wildlife and Habitat

4.1.1 Waterfowl Productivity

Under Alternative 1, waterfowl production would likely remain the same initially. As

the maintenance backlog was reduced, more funding would be available for restoration of grasslands and wetland and watershed improvements, which could gradually

increase waterfowl production.

Alternative 2 (No Action) would result in a decrease of waterfowl production and use

on Service lands. Acquisition of essential upland and wetland habitats would be

unfocused and would be based only on availability and opportunity, resulting in more

isolated, smaller parcels of land. Management activities would be spread over a broad

area making it less effective in creating habitat attractive to waterfowl. Waterfowl

would continue a slow decline except in years of abundant water.

Waterfowl production would be enhanced under Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative)

because both habitat quantity and habitat quality would be improved. Waterfowl

Production Areas would be expanded in areas of prime waterfowl use. Nesting

success would improve in response to Districts following, where possible, HAPET

recommendations for nesting platforms and predator management. In South Dakota,

agricultural fields converted to permanent cover had lower nest destruction rates due

to predation 10 years after initial conversion (Duebbert and Lokemoen 1976). Similar

predictions have been made in other areas of the Prairie Pothole Region (Klett et al.

1988). Additional resting and feeding habitats would also disperse staging birds over

a larger area and decrease the chance of catastrophic accident or disease. Additional

habitat would also help ensure that migrating ducks arrive on their northern breeding

grounds in better reproductive condition (Krapu 1992).

Additional waterfowl production would also be achieved through the implementation

of an intensive program to increase nest success. Nest cylinders for mallards should

produce 0.3 fledglings per wetland acre (Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Plan (PPJVP),

1989). Additional predator management, particularly for fox, would also enhance

waterfowl production on the Districts. An electric fence study on a 359 acres of

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 4 / Environmental Assessment

59

uplands associated with large wetlands in western Minnesota produced nest successes

of 75 percent compared to 5 to 1.5 percent without a predator barrier. Other techniques such as constructing islands to reduce avian predation on nesting birds, and

simply removing tall trees and shrubs used as perches by avian predators have been

shown to be effective.

4.1.2 Other Migratory Birds

Impacts to other migratory birds would be negligible under Alternative 1. While no

new grasslands would be acquired, current management would continue on existing

District land. Our knowledge of WPA use by non-waterfowl migratory birds would be

limited because bird counts would be done only on request.

Alternative 2 (No Action) would act to solidify conditions that have contributed to

continued long-term declines for many grassland-dependent bird species that utilize

the Districts. This would occur because management would be unfocused and opportunistic. The resulting land acquisition would be scattered and require more time and

effort to manage.

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) would benefit grassland-dependent bird species

by providing additional nesting, resting, and feeding habitats. Several species whose

population status is of special management concern could benefit directly. These

include the American bittern, upland sandpiper, least bittern, black tern, northern

harrier, dickcissel, short-eared owl, greater prairie chicken, sedge wren, loggerhead

shrike, grasshopper sparrow, savannah sparrow, Henslow’s sparrow, field sparrow,

bobolink, and western meadowlark.

Re-establishment of wetlands, wet prairies, sedge meadows, and associated grasslands would create habitats essential for many nesting and migrating songbirds.

Large wetlands, particularly wetland complexes with interspersed grassy uplands,

are vital to the survival of many of these species in western Minnesota. Wet prairies

and sedge meadows are particularly important as they thaw earlier in the spring and

provide an important early source of insects and other invertebrates for grassland

birds. These areas also tend to stay moist longer into the summer, thus prolonging

insect and invertebrate availability.

4.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

Under Alternative 1, populations of endangered and threatened species would experience no impact or would benefit slightly. While we would continue to avoid actions

that harm endangered or threatened species, under this alternative the Districts

would not acquire additional habitat, nor would we improve monitoring and enhance

protection. Exclusive management focus on existing land could result in habitat

improvements that would benefit populations of threatened and endangered species.

Alternative 2 (No Action) would have a negative impact on threatened and endangered species that utilize the District’s lands, as critical habitats would degrade at an

accelerated rate due to the dilution of management activities.

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) may benefit threatened and endangered species

by restoring and preserving additional wetland and upland habitats and by substantially increasing monitoring and research on Districts aimed at certain species.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

60

4.1.4 Native Species

Biodiversity of wildlife and plants generally depends on the size of habitat blocks

available and their relation to each other. While we would restore native grasslands

using local ecotypes of mixed native grasses and forbs, the small block size and

scattered nature of existing WPAs would limit our ability to enhance native grasslands. Use of the WPAs by native wildlife species would be limited by the carrying

capacity of the existing WPAs.

Since Alternatives 2 and 3 emphasize habitat preservation, restoration, and enhancement, the greatest increases in resident wildlife other than waterbirds would be noted

in those species dependent on wetlands and associated grasslands, namely muskrat,

raccoon, mink, weasel, reptiles, amphibians and, to some extent, white-tailed deer. In

addition, as water quality improves, important fish populations would be expected to

increase in proportion to the amount of quality habitat made available.

Alternative 2 (No Action) involves areas scattered over a large area and would

contribute some to safeguarding or promoting biodiversity. Alternative 3 (Preferred

Alternative) involves the largest amount of new habitat of the greatest-sized blocks,

thus would likely lead to increased biodiversity of the area. Both Alternative 2 and

Alternative 3 would enhance and protect biodiversity due to the net increase in and

protection of diverse habitats. These would include seasonal wetlands, wet meadows,

native prairies, and riparian associations, all of which have experienced serious

declines in the area since settlement. Once restored, these areas could create a

number of interconnected habitat niches for indigenous wildlife that currently do not

exist on the District, thus increasing the overall diversity District land and the

surrounding area. Alternative 3 would do the most for enhancing native species and

biological diversity as land acquisition, restoration, and preservation would be targeted in areas that will create additional habitat and improve existing managed areas.

4.1.5 Biological Inventories and Monitoring

Under Alternative 1, there would be no change in either the volume of data collected

or the kind of data collected on District lands. The Districts would continue to conduct

the 4-square-mile monitoring program and the monitoring of nesting structures.

Routine surveys such as the scent post survey and bird counts would continue and

some non-routine surveys, such as deformed frog surveys, would be conducted when

requested. Our knowledge of District lands and wildlife would increase only slowly.

Impacts to biological inventories and monitoring under Alternative 2 (No Action)

would be the same as Alternative 1.

Under Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative), our knowledge of the Districts’ habitat

and wildlife populations would improve greatly and management would be more

firmly rooted in sound science. We would employ a scientifically defensible means to

monitor and evaluate habitats and populations under this alternative. Geographic

Information Systems (GIS) use would increase under this alternative, and we would

inventory the hydrological systems within the Districts, invertebrate communities,

and monitor contaminant levels in water flowing into District wetlands. Surveys and

monitoring of threatened and endangered species, invertebrates and unique communities would increase.
Chapter 4 / Environmental Assessment

61

4.1.6 Federal Trust Species versus Resident Wildlife

Under Alternative 1, federal trust species such as migratory birds would not gain

habitat. Current management -- restoring native grasslands and improving wetlands

via water control -- would benefit migratory bird species currently using WPAs.

Resident wildlife would not experience immediate impacts under Alternative 1,

however there is potential for these species to be negatively impacted by predation or

disease if the Service does not achieve goal acre acquisition.

Alternative 2 (No Action) would have both potentially positive and potentially negative impacts for resident and trust species. Habitat quantity would be enhanced by

acquiring the full goal acres agreed to by counties, however that gain would be

countered by the Districts’ management practices not expanding with acreage.

Essentially, there would be more land but less management of that land, which could

result in less than desirable habitat for some species.

Alternative 2 would potentially have some positive impact on resident wildlife that

utilize the Districts due to the reduced level of habitat disturbance or management

and invasion of woody plants and exotic species. Deer and pheasant, for example, may

respond to increased brush and tree cover.

Alternative 2 would lead to results that are similar to Alternative 1 with a continued

decline in overall species richness and abundance.

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) would improve existing management practices

in a variety of ways to benefit waterfowl and other trust wildlife species. Habitat

would be increased through acquiring the agreed-upon goal acres, and management

practices would be expanded with that increase in acres. Under this alternative, the

Districts would follow the SWAP guidelines, which focus on providing the mission

components for the Wetland Management District landscape. Land owned by the

Service in fee-title would be complemented by greater conservation involvement of

local landowners and partners, resulting in better wildlife habitat outside of the

Districts’ borders.

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) would benefit some resident wildlife. Since this

alternative emphasizes habitat preservation, restoration, and enhancement, the

greatest increase in resident wildlife would be noted in those species dependent on

wetlands and associated grasslands, namely greater prairie chickens, sharp-tailed

grouse, ring-necked pheasant, muskrat, white-tailed deer, weasel, river otter, coyote,

amphibians and reptiles. Other furbearers such as red fox, skunk, raccoon, and mink

would benefit outside areas where predators are actively controlled.

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) would preserve biological diversity by restoring

and preserving diverse habitats, including seasonal wetlands, wet meadows, native

prairies, and riparian associations, all of which have experienced serious declines since

settlement. Once restored, these areas could create a number of interconnected

habitat niches for indigenous and migrant wildlife that currently do not exist on the

Districts, thus increasing the overall biological diversity of the Districts and the State.

There is reason to believe, however, that over a long period of time, species loss will

occur due to the isolated nature and small size of the habitat units and their exposure

to predation and edge effects (Soule and Terborgh, 1999).
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

62

4.1.7 Invasive Species

Under all of the Alternatives, invasive species would be controlled on District lands

through aggressive efforts with partners. This would include using a variety of means

to control both native and non-native fauna and flora.

Under Alternative 1, Districts would continue to control invasive species through

aggressive efforts with partners. Efforts include burning, chemical application and

biological control.

Under Alternative 2 (No Action), Districts would continue to combat invasive species,

however the increase in land with no increase in staffing would probably result in less

successful control of invasive species.

Under Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative), the Districts would continue to employ

burning, chemical application and biological control. The amount of land on which

invasive species control would be needed would increase under this alternative,

however staffing levels would also increase.

4.1.8 Habitat Restoration and Management

Virtually all fee title acquisitions of lands for Waterfowl Production Areas involve

uplands and wetlands that need to be restored to benefit waterfowl and other wildlife.

Generally, these lands are in cropland when purchased and the wetlands have been

drained or otherwise negatively altered. Restoration of uplands involves continued

cropping for one or more years to prepare the soil for the planting of grasses and

forbs. Restoration of wetlands generally involves the plugging of surface drainage

ditches and/or the breaking of drainage tile lines to restore the natural water regime

in the basin. Some restorations involve the installation of water control structures to

provide managers with water management capability to keep wetland vegetation

optimal and to provide for the seasonal water level needs of waterfowl, shorebirds,

and other wetland-dependent wildlife. These restoration efforts involve short-term

disturbances to wildlife, temporary soil erosion while uplands are in crops, and

perhaps minor, short-term degradation of water quality. However, once restoration is

complete, there is a marked increase in water quality, soil protection, and wildlife

protection which lasts indefinitely.

Once restored, management practices are periodically used to keep uplands and

wetlands in optimum conditions for wildlife. These practices include noxious weed

control by mowing, spot herbicide application, and release of plant-specific insect

pests; interseeding of native forbs; periodic haying; mowing of invading tree and

shrubs; timber removal to restore native prairie; and prescribed fire. All of these

tools of habitat management are used periodically depending on habitat conditions on

a given WPA. There are generally short-term disturbances to wildlife and seasonal

loss of habitat which may displace some wildlife. However, long-term benefits of

healthy habitat include more diverse and abundant wildlife populations. Of all management practices, prescribed fire is the most carefully used due to inherent dangers

of fire to both Service personnel and property beyond the WPA.

Under Alternative 1, no additional habitat would be managed as no additional land

acquisition would occur under this alternative. Upland management would focus on

restoring and managing native grasslands using local ecotypes of mixed native

grasses and forbs. This would include converting non-native grasslands to native
Chapter 4 / Environmental Assessment

63

grasslands. There would be some increases in available upland habitat through the

Service’s existing Private Lands program, the State of Minnesota’s Private Lands

program, and various USDA programs. Existing wetlands would be enhanced by

increasing water control and improving watersheds. There would be some increases

in available wetland habitat through the Service’s Partners for Wildlife Private Lands

program, the State of Minnesota’s Private Lands program, and various USDA programs.

Alternative 2 (No Action) and Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) have the potential to increase both the amount and quality of habitat available, although each in

varying degrees. Alternative 2 would continue with the status quo of purchasing land

over large geographic areas. This would result in an overall reduction of management

intensity as each District approaches goal acres in fee and easement acquisition.

Management would continue but the time frame would be extended. There would be

increased habitat for nesting waterfowl. Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) would

focus land acquisition over smaller areas and thereby target habitat restorations

where they can contribute the most to providing high quality habitats for wildlife.

4.1.9 Contaminants

Under Alternative 1, water quality within District wetlands would remain about the

same, or could possibly improve as technology, techniques, and programs evolve to

address current issues associated with runoff. Sediment loads would remain fairly

high as long as unprotected banks and valley slopes continue to erode and export

sediment to waterways feed District wetlands. USDA soil conservation requirements

currently minimize soil erosion on neighboring farms with highly erodible soil, but

sediment and farm chemicals continue to enter waterways that feed District wetlands.

No coordinated effort, other than the current USDA programs, are anticipated with

this alternative.

Alternative 2 (No Action) and Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) would reduce

sedimentation and improve water quality within District wetlands through an intensified and coordinated effort. Highly erodible lands would be converted to permanent

cover, stream banks and waterways would be stabilized through vegetative plantings

or natural development, and filter wetlands/sediment retention basins would be

constructed to cleanse tile waters entering District wetlands. Re-establishment of

tree canopies over certain stream edges would stabilize stream banks, reduce summer

water temperatures for aquatic organisms, and provide a micro environment required

by many fish and wildlife species. Alternative 3 would have the greatest effect in this

regard as land acquisition, restoration, and preservation would be targeted to high

priority areas.

Alternative 3 has the best potential for reducing contaminants entering wetlands on

the District because it would provide benefits extending beyond District borders.

Cooperating landowners within the Districts’ watershed would be offered incentives

and/or would be compensated through cost-sharing agreements for applying conservation and environmental farming practices on their lands.

4.1.10 Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program

Alternative 1 would increase reliance on the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program

to achieve conservation objectives because of the lack of land acquisition.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

64

Under Alternative 2 (No Action), the Partners for Fish and Wildlife

Program would remain the same in terms of size and scope.

In Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative), the Partners for Fish and

Wildlife Program would remain the same in size but would be

focused within high priority areas within the Districts.

4.2 Impacts Associated with People

4.2.1 Wildlife-Dependent Recreation and Education

4.2.1.1 Hunting and Fishing

In the short-term, Alternative 1 would have no impact on hunting.

The Districts would continue to maintain the recruitment rate of

waterfowl, and habitat for white-tailed deer would be managed as it

is currently managed. Access for hunting would be unchanged. In the

long-term, the lack of focus on predator management and the small

size and edge nature of WPAs could result in predation contributing to less quality

hunting. There would be little to no expansion of new hunting areas available.

Under Alternative 2 (No Action), hunting might be expected to improve as the

Districts expand the size of WPAs in areas of prime waterfowl use. While there would

be more land, access to new WPAs would occur slowly over several years.

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) provides for acquiring land up to the agreedupon goal acres with a focus on expanding the size of WPAs in areas of prime waterfowl use. The focus on predator management (electric fencing, predator control,

islands, etc.) could potentially improve the quality of waterfowl hunting on the Districts. Construction of additional parking areas would improve access for hunters as

well as other visitors.

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) would expand and improve public hunting

opportunities on the Districts beyond Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 (No Action).

The Service is required to allow public hunting on District lands within current state

seasons and guidelines as long as it is compatible with the Districts’s objectives.

Opportunities for fishing would be unchanged under Alternative 1. Wetlands would be

restored via water control and improving watersheds, thus improving conditions for

fish. Public access would be available to the extent that it is available today.

Increased land holdings and improved wetlands would result in better opportunities

for fishing under Alternative 2 (No Action). Access to new WPAs would occur slowly

over several years.

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) would slightly increase fishing opportunities on

the Districts due to better access, as well as facility safety and maintenance.

4.2.1.2 Trails

Under Alternative 1, maintenance of and access to existing trails would be unchanged

to somewhat improved. Without new land to manage and as the maintenance backlog

was reduced, more operating and maintenance funding would be available to enhance

existing trails.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo
Chapter 4 / Environmental Assessment

65

Maintenance of existing trails would be somewhat diminished under Alternative 2 (No

Action) because staff would have more land to manage with the same human resources. Access to and trails on newly acquired land would occur slowly and depend on

the availability of staff and funding.

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) would create opportunities to expand and

improve District trails. Additional parking areas would improve access to WPAs.

4.2.1.3 Signing and Interpretation

Signing and interpretation at WPAs throughout the Districts would be unchanged

under Alternative 1. No new facilities would be added, but signing would be maintained on existing areas.

Land holdings would be expanded under Alternative 2 (No

Action), however access to newly acquired areas would be

gradual. Staffing would not increase under this alternative, so

development of signs and interpretive sites would occur

depending on staff availability and funding.

Opportunities for public use would be improved under

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) through the construction of additional parking areas and interpretive kiosks on

existing and newly acquired lands. New signing would be

required for any new tracts. Interpretive signing would be

developed for any new trails or public observation areas

constructed on newly acquired tracts.

4.2.1.4 Environmental Education

In the short-term, environmental education programming would continue as it currently exists under Alternative 1. No new lands would be acquired, so programming

would focus on existing lands and habitats. In the long-term, more funding might be

available as the maintenance backlog was reduced and more funding became available

for environmental education programming.

Under Alternative 2 (No Action), funding and staff availability for environmental

education would gradually decrease as operating and maintenance funding was spread

over more land. Programming would focus on existing land because access to newly

acquired land would be provided sporadically as staff and funding became available.

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) would result in expanded environmental

educational use of existing and new areas. Restoration of pothole type wetlands and

native grasslands in the watershed would allow students to view and study the

predominant habitat that early Minnesota settlers found in the area.

4.3 Impacts Associated with Operations

4.3.1 Land Acquisition

Alternative 1 would result in no additional land acquisition within the Districts.

District staff would manage fee title land already in the system and would not increase the District holdings.

Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

66

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, land acquisition by the Service could

involve up to 164,068 acres over the next 15 years (based on a

future funding). These acquisitions could involve wetland,

grassland or flowage easements and fee-title purchases or a

combination of all methods, depending on the site and circumstances. Lands to be acquired would be delineated according to

criteria designed to benefit breeding waterfowl. All lands

acquired by the Service would be administered and managed by

one of the six Wetland Management Districts as part of the

National Wildlife Refuge System. Tracts in which less than feetitle agreements are negotiated would remain in private ownership. All restoration

and preservation would be carried out on a tract-by-tract basis as participants and

fiscal resources become available over a 15-year time period. All acquisition would be

on a willing-seller basis. Funding for land acquisition would be from the Migratory

Bird Conservation Fund using proceeds from the sale of Federal duck stamps, based

on the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act - Small Wetlands Acquisition

Program.

4.3.2 Staffing

Under Alternative 1, there would be no change in staffing levels or the amount of land

managed by District staff. Current management practices would continue in all

respects (habitat restoration, inventorying and monitoring, public use), and thus no

impacts to staff are likely.

Alternative 2 (No Action) proposes acquisition of the agreed-upon goal acres for the

six Districts but no change in the current level of staffing.

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) would expand staffing levels along with acquiring the agreed-upon goal acres for each District.

4.3.3 Facilities and Equipment

Under Alternative 1, facilities and equipment funding would remain the same. However, the spending power would increase over time as no additional lands would be

added to the Districts in the future. This assumes a continuation of historic funding

levels. Under Alternative 2 (No Action) and Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative),

facilities and equipment funding would remain relatively the same. However, under

Alternative 3, management efficiencies would be attained as larger blocks of habitat

would reduce the per acre cost of management.

4.3.4 Management Consistency Among Districts

Efforts to achieve consistency would be minimal under Alternative 1 and Alternative

2 (No Action). Work on individual development plans for WPAs would occur as time

and staffing permit. The plans would be recorded in GIS and would document ownership boundaries, habitat, facilities and history of management. Limited coordination

would occur among the Minnesota Wetland Management Districts and Districts in

Iowa, Wisconsin, North Dakota and South Dakota.

Management consistency would increase greatly under Alternative 3 (Preferred

Alternative). Development plans for every WPA would be completed within 3 years

under this alternative. The plans would be recorded in GIS and would document
Chapter 4 / Environmental Assessment

67

ownership boundaries, habitat, facilities and history of management. There would be a

concerted effort to make management consistent within the Minnesota Wetland

Management Districts as well as Districts in Iowa, Wisconsin and the Dakotas.

4.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis

“Cumulative impact” is the term that refers to impacts on the environment that result

from the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present

and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of

time. In this section, the cumulative impacts of each of the three alternatives are

discussed in terms of waterfowl, migratory birds, listed species, wetland and riparian

habitat, and prairie restoration.

4.4.1 Waterfowl

The prairie pothole region has historically been recognized as the most important

waterfowl production area in North America. Surveys have shown that although this

area represents only 10 percent of the breeding habitat, it averages 50 to 75 percent

of the duck recruitment each year in North America. Chapter 3 of the CCP documents

several factors in waterfowl production:

■ The prairie pothole region has been recognized as the most important waterfowl production area in north America.

■ Waterfowl depend on wetlands during the breeding season for food and

shelter.

■ Massive conversion of wetlands and prairie to agricultural fields has dramatically altered the landscape, the hydrology, and the region’s carrying capacity

for waterfowl.

■ Research has shown that ducks nesting in large blocks of grassland habitat

(1,000 to 10,000 acres) reproduce more successfully than ducks nesting in

smaller blocks (200 to 500 acres).

■ The average block size for WPAs in Minnesota is only 210 acres.

■ Although the more common species of ducks and geese in Minnesota have

increased in population over the last decade, many are still below the goals of

the North American Plan.

All three alternatives will focus on waterfowl. Alternative 3 will have the largest

positive cumulative benefit to waterfowl by increasing habitat available for waterfowl

nesting as well as intensifying management of that habitat. The cumulative effect of

no acquisition under Alternative 1 is a reduced recruitment rate to the continental

waerfowl population due to higher predation rates on existing small block sizes.

Under alternatives 1 and 2, management would continue to improve waterfowl

habitat and productivity would likely be lower than under Alternative 3. Ultimately,

alternatives 1 and 2 would contribute less to increasing duck populations than Alter-
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

68

native 3. Many species are experiencing population declines, and existing recruitment

rates have not achieved the goal of reversing population trends. Recruitment on many

WPAs is less than losses to predation due at least in part to small habitat block size.

Public ownership is an essential tool in protecting these habitats. In Minnesota, only

150,000 acres of native prairie remain out of an original 18 million. Between 1780 and

1980, approximately 78.7 percent of wetlands within the prairie pothole and parkland

transition areas were lost, and we continue to lose an estimated 2.4 percent of remaining wetlands every year. Combined with the effects of the Minnesota Department of

Natural Resources activities and action by non-governmental conservation organizations, the Service can make a difference in habitat quality and waterfowl numbers

within the region. In the short-term, during an era of budget cuts for state agencies

like the Department of Natural Resources, the Service may play a particularly

important role in conserving waterfowl habitat.

Alternative 3 also proposes more aggressive efforts to reduce predation on waterfowl

nests, which would contribute to increased production. A major factor depressing

duck numbers is low nest success due to nest destruction by predators on small units

of habitat. Predators are quick to find these remnant areas and concentrate their

hunting activities on the vulnerable ground nests of waterfowl. In some habitats,

predators such as red fox, raccoon, mink, and skunk are able to take virtually every

duck nest and many of the attendant hens.

Management decisions on the Minnesota Wetlands Management Districts have the

potential to make a difference in the quality of habitat that is available; WPAs administered by the Districts encompass more than three-quarters of all Service land in the

prairie pothole region of Minnesota.

4.4.2 Migratory Birds

Minnesota Wetland Management Districts contain habitat important to bird species

other than waterfowl, including songbirds, marsh and wading birds, shorebirds,

raptors, and upland game birds. Some of the factors relevant to migratory bird habitat

are offered in the following list; Chapter 3 of the CCP offers greater detail.

■ Approximately 243 species of birds regularly use the Districts at some time

during the year, with 152 nesting species.

■ In the Districts, 48 birds identified as “species of concern” are rare, declining,

or dependent on vulnerable habitats, including 43 that breed there.

■ About 44 percent of the species of concern depend on some type of grassland

habitat.

■ In North America, grassland birds have exhibited steeper declines than any

other avian group.

■ It is important to maintain a mosaic of grassland habitats to meet the varying

needs of grassland birds.

■ Some of the species of concern found in the Districts are area-sensitive, which

means they require large, contiguous blocks of habitat to reproduce successfully.
Chapter 4 / Environmental Assessment

69

Each alternative would have a different effect on migratory birds. The cumulative

benefit of Alternative 3 would be the most positive because the habitat base increases

and is enhanced, and management is intensified.

In the long-term, Alternative 1 would have a negative impact on migratory birds. The

needs of area-sensitive species that are declining, such as Greater Prairie Chicken,

Northern Harrier, Upland Sandpiper, Henslow’s Sparrow and Savannah Sparrow,

would not be met in WPAs that average 210 acres in size. Population declines would

likely continue. Habitat may improve as staff are able to concentrate on projects on

existing lands rather than restoration of new lands, but the small block size would

limit the WPAs’ usefulness to migratory birds. If other conservation organizations

were to follow the same course, negative impacts to migratory birds would be exasperated.

Increasing land holdings but maintaining current management as described in Alternative 2 (No Action) would have a neutral to slight benefit for migratory birds. The

amount of habitat would increase as the Districts bought lands to the goal acres

agreed to by each county within the District, but staffing levels would remain unchanged and restoration projects would be completed according to time demands. If

other conservaton organizations are not actively acquiring land, this alternative would

have a greater long-term benefit even if land is not restored immediately because it

would mean that habitat is at least being set aside for conservation purposes. If other

agencies and organizations do pursue land acquisition, and if those lands adjoing

WMD lands, this alternative provides even greater benefits because it would provide

some buffer.

Under Alternative 3, the combination of acquiring land up to the goal acres agreed to

by each county within the Districts and expanding management would contribute to

improved breeding and nesting success. Focused predator management would also

contribute to nesting success. This alternative would position the Service to contribute to improved migratory bird population numbers, and benefits would be even

greater if the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and non-government

conservation organizations also focused acquisition and management efforts on

migratory birds. Wetland Management Districts’ land acquisition and restoration

efforts could be enhanced on parcels with proximity to six national wildlife refuges in

central and western Minnesota. Considering the total acreage of the Wetland Management Districts in western Minnesota (257,542 acres with both fee title and easements), management activities laid out under this alternative would greatly influence

habitat available to migratory birds.

4.4.3 Endangered and Threatened Species

This section describes animals that are Federally listed under the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended, and are listed as either endangered or threatened.

The proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, any federally

listed or proposed threatened or endangered species. This precludes the need for

further action on this project as required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, as amended.

Under all three alternatives, endangered and threatened species would be protected

and actions that might harm them would be avoided. The primary difference among

the alternatives is the land acquisition and expanded management provided in Alter-
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

70

native 3, which would benefit all of the listed species found on the Districts. Habitat

loss is a factor in the population declines that led to these species being listed, thus the

alternative that supports expanding the habitat available to them can be expected to

provide the greatest benefit.

Under Alternative 1, listed species would likely experience long-term decline because

habitat does not meet the needs of the species that require larger block sizes. Lack of

sufficient habitat would be compounded if the Department of Natural Resources and

non-government conservation organizations also stopped acquiring land.

Alternative 2 would be somewhat beneficial to listed species because over time it

would provide more habitat. The quality of this habitat would not be tremendously

high because management (and staffing levels) would not change, but in the long-term

land would be preserved for future restoration. This alternative would have greater

benefits if the State and non-governmental organizations acquired land adjoining or

near existing WPAs.

Alternative 3 provides for both more habitat being conserved and expanded management for restoring land, which would have the greatest benefit for threatened and

endangered species. In the case of listed species, Service efforts are particularly vital,

with or without the efforts of other conservation agencies and organizations. As the

primary federal agency charged with protecting threatened and endangered species,

the Service has a unique responsibility to these species. If the State and non-government conservation organizations also acquire and restore habitat, benefits to listed

species would be even greater.

4.4.3.1 Threatened Mammals

Gray wolf, Gray wolf, Canis lupus: Experts estimate approximately 2,000 gray wolves pres- : 

ently occur in Minnesota. Wolf numbers and range appear to be increasing in Minnesota. Wolves are no longer exclusive residents of Minnesota’s forested wilderness

areas, and adult wolves from Minnesota have dispersed through central and western

Minnesota to North and South Dakota. The Service recognizes the improving range

and security of the species and has reclassified the wolf as threatened.

4.4.3.2 Endangered / Threatened Birds

Bald Eagle, Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus: Bald Eagles have increased in abundance :

and distribution across the United States, including Minnesota. In the 1990s nesting

territories increased in Minnesota every year from 437 in 1990, to 618 in 1995. Increasing numbers of migrating and wintering eagles also occur across Minnesota

where they find sheltered night roosts and feed on waterfowl, smaller wild mammals,

and fish in open water areas. Bald Eagles became endangered because of habitat loss,

but especially because of DDT use following World War II. They have since been

reclassifed as threatened. Today, the DDT threat is largely gone. Now the challenge

is to prevent contamination and loss of sites that eagles depend on for nesting, feeding, migration, and wintering.

Piping Plover, Charadius melodus: Piping Plovers are tenuously present in Minnesota; the Great Plains population is listed as threatened. They nest in Lake of the

Woods, east of the Districts. Piping Plovers nest in coastal areas, but they are also

prairie birds, nesting across the Great Plains of the United States and Canada, but in

perilously low numbers. The loss of prairie wetland areas contributes to their decline.

Like many shorebirds, Piping Plovers feed on immature and adult insects and other
Chapter 4 / Environmental Assessment

71

invertebrates at the water’s edge. They winter primarily along beaches, sandflats, and

algal flats on the Gulf of Mexico.

Least Tern (eastern population), ern (eastern population), Sterna antillarum: The federally listed endan- :

gered Least Tern nests along large rivers of the Colorado, Red, Mississippi, and

Missouri River systems. This species is a potential nester in the Missouri River area.

It nests on sand and gravel bars and protected beach areas of large rivers and winters

in coastal Central and South America. The species is endangered because human

disturbance and alteration of river systems has rendered much of its nesting habitat

unusable. Pesticides may reduce food available to the tern by reducing the numbers

of small fish in their feeding areas.

4.4.3.3 Endangered Fish

Topeka shiner ( opeka shiner (Notropis topeka) This species was once common to small to mid-sized )

prairie streams in the central United States. Now listed as endangered, these fish

inhabit streams that usually run continually and that have good water quality and cool

to moderate temperatures. The occurrence of the species at known collection sites has

decreased by approximately 70 percent, mostly in the past 40 to 50 years. The fish has

been negatively affected by habitat destruction, sedimentation, and changes in water

quality. Topeka shiners now exist primarily in small, isolated populations in Iowa,

Minnesota and portions of South Dakota.

4.4.4 Wetlands and Riparian Habitat

All alternatives will focus on wetland and riparian habitat, but the positive cumulative

impact of Alternative 3 will be the greatest because of the focused wetland management, acquisition and outreach to wetland throughout the Districts.

■ The prairie pothole region once included about 20 million acres of these small

wetlands.

■ Today, only about 5.3 million acres remain in 2.7 million basins within five

states; drainage has been so extensive that in many areas the water table has

been lowered and the hydrology of the entire region has been transformed.

■ More than 78 percent of the remaining wetland basins are smaller than 1 acre

in size.

■ Nearly two out of three of the remaining wetlands in Minnesota are privately

owned; consequently, they are vulnerable to continued drainage, development, and pollution.

■ Saving single, isolated wetlands is much less valuable than saving several

wetlands in a wetland complex.

■ Freshwater wetlands like those in the prairie pothole region are among the

most productive in the world.

■ Wetland restoration and management are high priorities in the Districts.

Under Alternative 1, wetlands and riparian habitat would not gain increased benefit

and may actually degrade as land use impacts water quality around the WMDs.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

72

Conservation efforts by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and nongovernment conservation organizations could mitigate this impact if they acquired

land adjoining the WPAs and restored wetlands. Restoration efforts on wetlands and

streams adjoining the Districts’ WPAs could improve water quality and wetland

functions. If other agencies did not set aside additional land, the negative impact of

the Service not acquiring land to the agreed upon goal acres for each county would be

greater.

Alternative 2 would benefit wetlands and riparian areas somewhat on individual

WPAs as land is acquired over time. Although restoration would not be immediate,

land uses that impact water quality, such as growing crops and grazing cattle, would

likely be discontinued. These benefits would be augmented if other conservation

entities acquired and restored land, but the benefits provided under Alternative 2

would not be diminished if others did not pursue land acquisition.

With its land acquisition and expanded management components, Alternative 3 would

provide the most benefits to wetland and riparian habitat. Land would be acquired to

the goal acres agreed upon by each county within the Districts, and management

would be expanded to allow more timely restoration of these lands. Healthier wetland

and riparian complexes in bigger blocks of land would benefit all wetland-dependent

species. The positive benefits would be greater if the Minnesota Department of

Natural Resources and non-government conservation organizations were also acquiring and restoring habitat, however the positive impacts would not be diminished if

others did not pursue the same course.

4.4.5 Prairie Restoration

All alternatives would increase the amount of prairie but the positive cumulative

impacts of Alternative 3 will be greatest because of the focused and strategic land

acquisition and prairie restoration with native prairie species.

■ There is perhaps no ecosystem on earth that has been so completely altered.

■ Prairie landscapes once covered the entire western edge of Minnesota; now,

less than 1 percent of the original prairie is left.

■ Prairie landscapes contain hundreds of species of plants, invertebrates, and

wildlife. Some prairies contain as many as 200 plant species.

■ Over the past decade, virtually all plantings of upland cover on Waterfowl

Production Areas have been with native grasses. In recent years, a more

diverse mixture of native forbs and warm and cool season native grasses have

been used.

■ Prescribed fire remains a critical tool for maintaining the diversity and vigor

of existing and restored prairie plants. Prescribed burns can only be done

during a small window of time in the spring, so the number of acres that can

be burned each spring is limited. As a result, most WPAs can not be burned

on a rotation frequent enough to suppress invading shrubs and trees. Some of

the Districts use haying and grazing as additional means of maintaining

grassland integrity.

■ The Districts also manage grasslands through the selective application of

herbicides during restoration.
Chapter 4 / Environmental Assessment

73

Over time, Alternative 1 would benefit prairie habitat within the Districts as lands

were restored. Without additional lands being acquired, staff would be able to concentrate restoration efforts and invasive species erradication on existing lands. Prairie

habitat would not be expanded under Alternative 1. If the Minnesota Department of

Natural Resources, national wildlife refuges and conservation organizations discontinued acquiring and restoring prairie habitat, there would be a negative impact to the

species that require prairie, which is already one of the most altered landscape in the

nation.

Under Alternative 2, benefits to prairie habitat and wildlife-species that depend on

prairie would be greater because land would be acquired over time and restoration

would occur according to staff and funding availability. Management would not be

expanded under this alternative, but land would at least be set aside for future

restoration. Prairie restoration on WPAs would complement prairie restoration on

national wildlife refuges in western Minnesota. Benefits would be greater if the State

and non-government conservation organizations continue to acquire land for prairie

restoration, particularly if that land adjoins or is proximate to WPA lands.

Benefits to prairie habitat would be greatest under Alternative 3 because it allows for

both acquisition of land to the goal acres agreed upon by each county in the District

and for expanded management. Prairie would be restored at a faster pace than under

Alternative 2. Block sizes would be greater, allowing for greater diversity of plant

species. Benefits would be greater if the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

and non-government organizations continued prairie restoration efforts. Work on

prairie habitats on national wildlife refuges in the area of the Wetland Management

Districts would complement the benefits of prairie restoration on WPAs.

4.5 Prescribed Fire as a Management Tool

4.5.1 Social Implications

Prescribed burns will have an effect on the local public. Concern by the public is

expressed every time a fire is set. A prescribed burn will effect and benefit the local

community in many ways. These benefits must be explained to the public at every

opportunity. The Districts’ Fire Management Plans (FMP) provides additional detail

beyond what is captured in this section and will be adopted through this EA.

A prescribed burn on a District will be a direct benefit to the public in creating

recreational opportunities through increased wildlife populations for hunting and

observation. If a wildfire is started on or near District land, the areas that were

previously prescribed burned and the firebreaks intended for prescribed burning will

be of extreme benefit in controlling the fire.

The aspect of the fire that will solicit the most public concern will be the smoke.

Smoke from a District fire could impair visibility on roads and become a hazard.

Actions to manage smoke include: use of road guards and pilot car, signing, altering

ignition techniques and sequence, halting ignition, suppressing the fire, and use of

local law enforcement as traffic control. Burning will be done only on days that the

smoke will not be blown across the community or when the wind is sufficient as not to

cause heavy concentrations.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

74

If the State of Minnesota institutes smoke management regulations, the FMP will be

amended to ensure consistency with those regulations. Combustion of fuels during

prescribed fire operations may temporarily impact air quality, but the impacts are

mitigated by small burn unit size, the direction of winds the burns are conducted with,

and the distance from population centers. All efforts will be taken to assure that

smoke does not impact smoke sensitive areas such as roads and local residences. In

the event of wind direction changes, mitigative measures will be taken to assure the

public safety and comfort. District staff will work with neighboring agencies and in

consultation with State air quality personnel to address smoke issues that require

additional mitigation.

The fire prescription portion of the Annual Prescribed Fire Plan for each WPA

proposed to be burned during the burning season will have specific mitigative measures to deal with unexpected smoke management problems. This will included

identified problems that unforecasted wind changes may cause and measures to be

employed to protect the public.

The emotional impact of a prescribed fire on the local residents must also be considered. A great deal of public concern may arise with any kind of smoke from the

District. This concern can be relieved only by a concerted effort by District personnel

to carefully inform the local citizens about the prescribed burning program. Emphasis

will be placed on the benefits to wildlife as well as the safety precautions in effect.

Formal interpretive programs both on and off the District, explaining the prescribed

burning program, will be encouraged.

4.5.2 Cultural and Archaeological Resources

There may be archaeological sites within prescribed burn units. When these units are

burned, it is doubtful that the fire will have any adverse impact on the sites. The fire

will be only a temporary disturbance to the vegetation in the area and in no way

destroy or reduce the archaeologic value. All artifacts are buried well beneath the

surface. No above ground evidence exists. No known sites will be impacted by

prescribed burning operations.

4.5.3 Flora

The prescribed burning program will have a visible impact on vegetation and the land.

Immediately after a fire much of the land will be blackened. There will be no grasses

or ground forbs remaining and most of the higher brush such as oak sprouts and

willow will be bare of leaves. Trees will be scorched up to 20 feet above the ground.

This will be particularly noticeable on the light colored bark of aspen and birch.

There may be large areas up to one acre in size interspersed throughout the burn that

are untouched by the fire. This may be a result of wet ground conditions or a break in

fuel continuity.

Within three days after the burn the grasses and forbs will begin to grow. The

enriched soil will promote rapid growth such that after two or three weeks the ground

will be completely covered. The willow and oak will, in many cases, re-sprout. The

bases of the trees as well as the burned slash and stumps will be partially or completely covered by the new growth. Some of the less fire resistant trees will show

signs of wilting and may succumb within a month or two. Generally speaking, after

one seasons regrowth, any sign of the prescribed burn will be difficult to detect

without close examination. After two or three years it will be virtually impossible to

detect the presence of the fire.
Chapter 4 / Environmental Assessment

75

Other more long lived signs of the burn will remain for an indefinite period of time.

The firebreaks will not be allowed to grow over as their benefit could be realized in a

wildfire situation as well as in future prescribed burns. Vehicle tracks through the

burn are visible on the freshly burned ash and may be longer lived if the vehicle

became stuck or created tire grooves in the ground. Travel across the burn area will

be kept to a minimum. Vehicle travel is necessary in some instances, such as lighting

the fire lines or quickly getting water to an escape break-over point. A fire plow will

be used only in the event that a break-over does occur and cannot be controlled by any

other method. The deep trench of the plow would leave a very long lived scar. This

trench could be repaired by filling, which would eliminate it from view after five to ten

years.

4.5.4 Listed Species

The potential impacts of fire on listed species is likely to be neutral to positive if there

is any impact. Efforts will be made to protect any plants listed as threatened or

endangered from damage by prescribed fire.

4.5.5 Soils

The disturbances to the soil by fire are similar to those caused by any other manipulative practice applied to the land. A farming, logging, or flooding operation will have

no greater or lesser impact. All three are applied on the District at the present time.

The effect of fire to the soil is dependent largely on the fire intensity and duration. On

areas with high fuel loads, a slow backing fire is usually required for containment and

desirable results. The intense heats generated by this type fire to kill unwanted plant

species or remove slash will have a greater effect on the soils than fast, cool head-fires

used on farm fields and wildlife openings. The cool, moist soils of wetter areas in the

burn units or areas with little fuel will be unaffected by the fire.

The severity of damage to the soil depends also to a great degree on the thickness and

composition of the organic mantle. In many cases where only the top layer of the

mantle is scorched or burned, no damage will result to the soil below. This is usually

experienced in the forested areas of the burn units.

On open areas such as dry grassland or wet meadow sites, the blackening of the

relatively thin mantle will cause greater heat absorption and retention from the sun.

This will encourage earlier germination during the spring growing season.

Nutrient release occurs as a result of the normal decomposition process. Fire on the

soil will greatly speed up the process. The rate and amount of nutrients released will

again be dependent on the fire duration and intensity as well as the amount of humus,

duff and other organic materials present in the mantle. The increase, immediately

after a burn, of calcium, potash, phosphoric acid and other minerals will give the

residual and emergent vegetation a short term boost. However, the rapid leaching

through the sandy soils will cause rapid runoff of these nutrients and only short term

benefits. The increased nutrification of the soil by the emergent vegetation and

increased nutrient release result in rapid regrowth of grasses and other succulent

vegetation on the sites.

There is no evidence to show that the direct heating of the soil by the burning of

material above it with a fire of low intensity has any significant adverse affect. Fire
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

76

on these types of soil has little total affect on the soils, and in most cases would be

beneficial.

4.5.6 Escaped Fire

With any prescribed fire there always exists the possibility of its escape into the

surrounding area. This can be caused by one or more factors which may be preventable or non-preventable. Inadequate firebreaks, too few personnel, unpredicted

changes in weather conditions, peculiar fuel type, being in too big a hurry, and insufficient knowledge of fire behavior are a few factors which could cause loss of control.

There is no doubt that an escaped fire could turn into a very serious situation. The

damage that could result would be much less severe on the District than if it encroached on private land where buildings, equipment, and land improvements would

be involved. Extreme care, careful planning, and adherence to the unit prescription

will be exercised when prescribed burning all units with emphasis employed when

burning areas that are near or adjacent to WPA boundaries.

In the event that a prescribed fire does jump a firebreak and burn into unplanned

areas, there is a high probability of rapid control with minimal adverse impact. In

general, prescribed burns will be small in size (average 75 to 150 acres), have light fuel

loads (0.25 to 3 tons of fuel per acre), will be burned under low fuel moisture conditions, and will be burned under specific wind direction and atmosphere stability

conditions. The network of firebreaks and roads will greatly assist in rapid containment. In most cases all of the District fire fighting equipment will be immediately

available at the scene with all nearby water sources previously located. The applicable DNR fire suppression crews and local fire departments will always be notified of

a prescribed burn. Thus, maximum numbers of experienced personnel and equipment

are immediately available for wildfire suppression activities.

4.6 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

4.6.1 Climate Change

All Alternatives would positively increase carbon sequestration, but the cumulative

impact of Alternative 3 would be greatest because more land would be acquired and

planted with native vegetation.

In January 2001, the Department of Interior issued an order requiring its land management agencies to consider potential climate change impacts as part of long range

planning endeavors.

The increase of carbon within the earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual

rise in surface temperature commonly referred to as global warming. In relation to

comprehensive conservation planning for national wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact to be considered in planning. The

U.S. Department of Energy’s “Carbon Sequestration Research and Development”

(U.S. DOE, 1999) defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and secure storage of

carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.”

The land is a tremendous force in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts

– grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice and desert – are effective both in

preventing carbon emission and acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric
Chapter 4 / Environmental Assessment

77

carbon monoxide. The Department of Energy report’s conclusions noted that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of

carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere.

Conserving habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long range plan for units of the

National Wildlife Refuge System. Under all alternatives considered in this EA, land

and water would be conserved and enhance carbon sequestration. This in turn contributes positively to efforts to mitigate human-induced global climate changes. The

Preferred Alternative would have the most positive impact as it calls for increases in

both acquisition and active management and improvement of habitat.

4.6.2 Environmental Justice

None of the proposed alternatives disproportionately place an adverse environmental,

economic, social, or health impacts on minority or low-income populations.

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 programs, 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 access to public information and participation in matters relating

to human health or the environment.

4.6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Under all Alternatives, the potential development of access roads, trails, dikes,

control structures, fences, visitor parking areas, and reclamation of former building

sites could lead to local and short-term negative impacts to plants, soil, and some

wildlife species. Some loss of cultural resources could occur by restoring former

wetlands. Greater public use may result in increased littering, noise, and vehicle

traffic.

4.6.4 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity

The local short-term uses of the environment under Alternatives 2 and 3 include

wetland restoration and enhancement, and conversions of other lands to wetlands or

upland cover. Both alternatives would also include development of public use facilities. The resulting long-term effects of these alternatives include increased protection

of threatened and endangered species, increased waterfowl and songbird production,

and long-term recovery of a myriad of species dependent on quality wetland and

grassland habitats. In addition, the public will gain long-term opportunities for

wildlife-oriented recreation and education.

4.6.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Funding and personnel commitments by the Service or other organizations under all

three alternatives would be unavailable for other programs. Fee-title acquisition of
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

78

lands by the Service would make them “public lands” and preclude individual freedom

to use these lands in accordance with individual desires. Traditional land uses may

change since uses on Service lands must be shown to be compatible with the purposes

for which the land is acquired. Any lands purchased will lose their potential for future

development by the private sector as long as they remain in public ownership. Structural improvements that are purchased with any land may be declared surplus to

government needs and sold or demolished on site.

4.6.6 Property Taxes and the Districts Revenue Sharing Act

The Districts Revenue Sharing Act of June 15, 1935, as amended, provides for annual

payments to counties or the lowest unit of government that collects and distributes

taxes based on acreage and value of District land located within the county. The

monies for these payments come from two sources: (1) net receipts from the sale of

products from National Wildlife Refuge System lands (oil and gas leases, timber sales,

grazing fees, etc.) and (2) annual Congressional appropriations. Annual Congressional

appropriations, as authorized by a 1978 amendment, were intended to make up the

difference between the net receipts from the Districts Revenue Sharing Fund and the

total amount due to local units of government.

Payments to the counties are calculated based on whichever of the following formulas

provides the largest return: (1) $.75 per acre; (2) 25 percent of the net receipts collected from Districts lands in the county; or (3) three-quarters of 1 percent of the

appraised value. In the State of Minnesota, three-quarter of 1 percent of the appraised value always brings the greatest return to the taxing bodies. Using this

method, lands are re-appraised every 5 years to reflect current market values.

In addition, at the time of purchase if revenue sharing payments are anticipated to fall

short, a “Trust Fund Payment” of up to 10 percent of the purchase price is made to

the county. The intent of this payment is to provide a principle cash investment off of

which the interest can be used to make up the difference in the revenue sharing

payment and the actual taxes on the property purchased. Therefore, fee-title land

acquisition by the Service should not adversely affect tax revenues if private lands are

purchased by the Service and removed from the area tax base.

4.6.7 Relocation Benefits

The uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of

1970, as amended (Uniform Act), provides for certain relocation benefits to home

owners, businesses, and farm operators who chose to sell land to the Service. The law

provides for benefits to eligible owners and tenants in the following areas:

■ Reimbursement of reasonable moving and related expenses;

■ Replacement housing payments under certain conditions;

■ Relocation assistance services to help locate replacement housing, farm, or

business properties;

■ Reimbursement of certain necessary and reasonable expenses incurred in

selling real property to the government.
Chapter 4 / Environmental Assessment

79

4.6.8 Landowner Rights Adjacent to Districts Lands

Service or other agency control of access, land use practices, water management

practices, hunting, fishing, and general use next to any tracts acquired under Alternative 2 (No Action) or Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) is limited only to those

lands in which the Service or other entities have acquired that ownership interest.

Any landowners adjacent to lands acquired retain all the rights, privileges, and

responsibilities of private land ownership, including the right of access, hunting,

vehicle use, control of trespass, right to sell to any party, and obligation to pay taxes.

Any land acquired for the Minnesota Wetland Management Districts would be purchased from willing sellers.

4.6.9 Crop Depredation

Neighboring farmers are suffering crop losses due to grazing geese. Geese graze on

soybeans and to a lesser extent on corn for several weeks in the spring. Damage by

grazing geese and goslings usually occurs when adjacent farmland is within 10 miles of

Service wetlands. Crop damage varies by location, with some District neighbors

suffering greater losses than others.

Under all of the alternatives, Districts would continue to assist landowners suffering

crop depredation when requested. Assistance in the past has been given to those

landowners losing soybeans to Canada geese with goslings. For this the Districts

provide technical advice on scare tape, goose-proof fences, scarecrows, and propane

guns and shell crackers.

4.6.10 Cultural Resources

The consequences of each alternative in terms of cultural resources are the same.

Undertakings accomplished on the District have the potential to impact cultural

resources. Although the presence of cultural resources including historic properties

cannot stop a federal undertaking, the undertakings are subject to Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act and sometimes other laws.

The District Manager will, during early planning, provide the Regional Historic

Preservation Officer a description and location of all projects, activities, routine

maintenance and operations that affect ground and structures, requests for permitted

uses, and alternatives being considered. The RHPO will analyze these undertakings

for potential to affect historic properties and enter into consultation with the public

and local government officials to identify concerns about impacts by the undertaking.

This notification will be at least equal to, preferably with, public notification accomplished for NEPA and compatibility.

4.7 Agricultural Production

The WPAs form a tiny fraction of the total acreage available for agricultural production within the Districts ranging from .01 to 2.2 percent of available land in the six

Districts. Any change in land use brought about by acquisition or management would

have minimal effect in overall agricultural production. The alternatives outlined in

this section discuss the direction of these small changes.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

80

Alternative 1 would have negligible effects on existing agricultural production. No

new land would be acquired for the Districts, leaving it available for farming. On the

other hand, much of the land the Service would be interested in acquiring is considered marginal farmland, and landowners would have one less potential buyer for land

they want to sell.

Alternative 2 (No Action) could result in somewhat reduced agricultural production

when existing cropland is converted to wetland or permanent upland cover. Approximately 3,000 acres of cropland is acquired in the six Districts annually by the Service

and converted to wildlands (willing seller only). However, these lands are spread over

a 43-county area, resulting in minimal impacts.

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) could result in reduced agricultural production

when existing croplands are converted to wetland or permanent upland cover. Approximately 45,000 acres of cropland in the Districts could be acquired by the Service

and converted to wildlands (willing seller only) over the next 15 years. Certain

programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and other State and

Federal private lands programs, offer landowners short-term contracts while keeping

land in private ownership. Any conversion of agricultural land to other uses would

occur gradually as acquisition and habitat restoration dollars become available over

time and as landowners emerge as willing participants and/or sellers.
Chapter 4 / Environmental Assessment

81

Table 10: Summary of Environmental Impacts

Issues and Needs Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 3

(Preferred Alternative)

Impacts Associated with Wildlife and Habitat

Waterfowl Productivity Waterfowl productivity on

District lands would remain

the same.

Waterfowl productivity on

District lands would slightly

decrease over time due to

acquisition of isolated,

smaller parcels of land.

Waterfowl productivity

would increase on District

lands due to increased

quantity and quality of

habitat.

Other Migratory Birds Species requiring larger

block sizes would gradually

decline. Other species would

benefit from continued

grassland restoration and

wetland and watershed

improvement.

Same as Alternative 1. Would result in increased

migratory bird use and

productivity of District

lands as additional land is

acquired focusing on prime

habitat and bigger block

sizes. Implementation of

habitat management

programs would also benefit

migratory birds.

Populations of listed species

on District land would likely

remain the same or increase

slightly as grasslands are

restored and wetlands and

the watershed are improved.

Populations of listed species

on District land would likely

remain the same or decrease

slightly as critical habitats

degrade due to the dilution

of management activities.

Populations of listed species

on District land would likely

increase over time as new

lands are added to the

Districts in a manner aimed

at concentrating resources

in high priority areas within

the Districts.

Threatened and Endangered

Species

Populations of native species

would remain the same or

decline somewhat depending

on their adaptability to edge

habitat.

Native Species Native species would benefit

from acquisition and gradual

restoration of land depending on their adaptability to

edge habitat.

Focus on acquiring larger

block sizes and prime

habitat would benefit native

species. Native species

would benefit from efforts to

prohibit the introduction of

non-natives.

Biological Inventories and

Monitoring

Biological inventories and

monitoring would continue

at the existing level.

Same as Alternative 1. Inventories and monitoring

would be significantly

expanded and techniques

would be scientifically

defensible. Management

would be more soundly

based on sound science.

Federal Trust Species vs.

Resident Wildlife

Efforts to balance needs of

resident wildlife and trust

species would remain the

same as Districts continue

to work with state wildlife

agencies and local organizations.

Same as Alternative 1. Positive impact as Districts

continue work with state

wildlife agencies and expand

these efforts to include

incentives to local landowners to implement techniques

for creating, maintaining

and enhancing habitat.

Invasive Species Impact would be neutral –

existing efforts to control

invasive species would

continue.

Acquisition of additional

land while maintaining

current management

practices and staffing would

negatively impact invasive

species control. There would

be fewer staff to cover more

acres.

Same as Alternative 1.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

82

Table 10: Summary of Environmental Impacts

Issues and Needs Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 3

(Preferred Alternative)

Habitat Restoration and

Management

Positive impacts due to

continued grassland

restoration and wetland/

watershed improvement on

existing land. Because no

new land would be acquired,

funding would be available

for habitat restoration.

Slightly negative impact due

to acquisition based on

opportunity rather than

habitat quality and having

fewer staff to manage more

land.

Positive impact due to

acquisition focused on prime

habitat and larger WPA

block size, and increases in

staffing that allow active

management of newly

acquired lands.

Contaminants Water quality would

improve as grassland

restoration and wetland/

watershed restoration

continues on existing lands.

Water quality would remain

the same or improve as

grassland restoration and

wetland and watershed

improvements were

implemented. Benefits

would be limited by staff

and funding availability for

work on newly acquired

lands.

Positive impacts due to

combination of more land

being acquired and restored,

more staff available for

restoration and technical

assistance, and working

with cooperating landowners in the Districts on

applying conservation and

environmental farming

practices on their lands.

Wildlife Dependent

Recreation and Education

Opportunities would remain

the same and possibly

improve as funding became

available for augmenting

programs.

Opportunities would

decrease due to limits on

staffing and funding. More

land would be available for

access and programs,

however these would only

be added as funding

permitted.

Opportunities would be

expanded on existing and

newly acquired WPAs.

Impacts Associated with Public Use

Land Acquisition No additional land acquisition would occur on the

Districts.

Somewhat positive impact.

Districts would continue

acquiring lands up to the

goal acres agreed to by each

county in the District

(164,068 in total remaining

for all districts). Acquisition

would be sporadic and

unfocused.

Positive impact. Districts

would continue acquiring

land up to the goal acres

agreed upon by each county

(164,068 remaining for all six

districts), and acquisition

would focus on prime habitat

follow SWAP guidelines.

Impacts Associated with Operations

Partners for Fish and

Wildlife Program

Program would increase in

size as efforts previously

spent on land acquisition

would be shifted to this

program. Area of influence

(scope) would remain the

same.

Program would remain the

same in size and scope.

Program would remain the

same in size but would be

focused within high priority

areas within the Districts.

Equipment Equipment funding would

remain the same. However,

the spending power would

increase over time as no

additional lands would be

added to the Districts in the

future. This assumes a

continuation of historic

funding levels.

Equipment funding would

remain the same.

Equipment funding would

remain the same. Management efficiencies would be

attained as larger blocks of

habitat would reduce the per

acre cost of management.
Chapter 4 / Environmental Assessment

83

Table 10: Summary of Environmental Impacts

Issues and Needs Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 3

(Preferred Alternative)

Management Consistency

Among Districts

Somewhat positive impact.

Individual WPA plans would

be developed as staff and

funding permit; no coordination among the WMDs in

Minnesota and border states

would be achieved.

Same as Alternative 1. Positive impact. Development plans for WPAs would

be completed within 3 years;

management among the

WMDs in Minnesota would

be more consistent with

districts in border states.

Fire Management Positive impacts. Fire

management would continue

to be used as a habitat

restoration tool, and all

Service policies would be

followed to assure the safety

of neighboring property.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

General Impacts Analysis: Habitat Restoration

Climate Change Positive impact in carbon

sequestration.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Environmental Justice No impact to minority or

low income populations

would occur.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Crop Depredation Positive impact. Districts

would continue to work with

local landowners to reduce

depradation..

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Archeological and Cultural

Values

Positive impact. Historic

preservation would continue

on existing District lands.

Positive impact. Historic

preservation would continue

on existing and newly

acquired District lands.

Same as Alternative 2.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

84

Chapter 5: List of Preparers

Don Hultman Refuge Supervisor, Great Lakes/Big Rivers Regional

Office, Fort Snelling, Minnesota (former). Contributed to

writing and editing the EA.

Kevin Brennan Wetland Manager, Fergus Falls Wetland Management

District, Fergus Falls, Minnesota. Responsible for public

involvement, CCP/EA preparation and review, and implementation of the CCP.

Barry Christenson Wetland Manager, Litchfield Wetland Management

District, Litchfield Minnesota. Responsible for public

involvement, CCP/EA preparation and review.

John Dobrovolny Regional Historic Preservation Officer, Great Lakes/Big

Rivers Regional Office, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. Responsible for cultural resources information and NEPA compliance.

Mike Marxen CCP Coordinator, Region 1, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Responsible for public involvement and CCP preparation

and review.

Jan Eldridge, Ph.D. Jan Eldridge, Ph.D. Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Great Lakes/Big Rivers

Regional Office, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. Responsible for

CCP preparation and review, environmental assessment

preparation, and NEPA compliance.

Thomas Larson Chief, Ascertainment and Planning, Great Lakes/Big

Rivers Regional Office, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. Contributed to writing and editing the EA.

Mary Mitchell Mary Mitchell Wildlife Biologist/Regional GIS Coordinator, Great Lakes/

Big Rivers Regional Office, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.

Responsible for GIS development.

John Schomaker, Ph.D. , Ph.D. Refuge Planning Specialist/CCP Coordinator, Great

Lakes/Big Rivers Regional Office, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. Responsible for CCP preparation.

Gary Muehlenhardt Wildlife Biologist, Great Lakes/Big Rivers Regional Office,

Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. Contributed to writing the EA.

Tom Magnuson Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Great Lakes/Big Rivers

Regional Office, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. Contributed to

writing the EA.

Jane Hodgins Technical Writer/Editor, Ascertainment and Planning,

Great Lakes/Big Rivers Regional Office, Fort Snelling,

Minnesota. Responsible for CCP preparation.
References / Environmental Assessment

85

Bibliography

Ball, I.J. Eng, R. L., Ball, S. K. 1995. Population density and productivity of ducks of

large grassland tracts in northcentral Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:767-773.

Burger, L. D., L. W. Burger, Jr., and J. Faaborg. 1994. Conservation of nongame birds

and waterfowl: conflict or complement? Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf.

59:337-347.

Duebbert, H. F., and J.R. Lokemoen. 1976. Duck nesting in fields of undisturbed

grass-legume cover. J. Wildl. Manage. 40:39-49.

Fitzgerald, J. A., D. N. Pashley, S. J. Lewis, and B. Pardo. 1998. Partner’s in Flight

Bird Conservation Plan for the Northern Tallgrass Prairie (Physiographic Area 40).

Version 1.0 59pp.

Herkert. J. R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on Midwestern grassland

bird communities. Ecological Applications 4: 461-471.

Herkert, J.R. 1994. Breeding bird communities of Midwestern prairie fragments: the

effects of prescribed burning and habitat-area. Natural Areas Journal 14: 128-135.

Hunter, M.L. 1995. Fundamentals of conservation biology. Rand McNally, Inc.

Taunton, MA 482 pp.

Johnson, D. H. and M. D. Schwarz. 1993b. The Conservation Reserve Program:

habitat for grassland birds. Great Plains Research 3: 273-295.

Johnson, R.G. and S. A. Temple. 1990. Nest predation and brood parasitism of

tallgrass prairie birds. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 54:106-111.

Klett, A.T., T.L. Shaffer, and D.L. Johnson. 1988. Duck nest success in the prairie

pothole region. J.Wildl. Manage. 52: 431-440.

Knopf, F. L. 1994. Avian assemblages on altered grasslands. Studies in Avian Biology

15: 247-257.

Krapu G.L. and K.J. Reineke. 1992. Foraging ecology and nutrition. In Ecology and

Management of Breeding Waterfowl, Eds. D. J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson,

C.D. Ankney, D. H. Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G. L. Krapu. PP 1-29.

Sample, D. W. and M. J. Mossman. 1997. Managing habitat for grassland birds: a guide

for Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 154pp.

Samson, F. B. and F. L. Knopf. 1996. Prairie conservation: preserving North

America’s most endangered ecosystem. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Samson, F. B. and F. L. Knopf. 1994. Prairie conservation in North America.

BioScience 44: 418-421.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts

86

Soule, M. E. and J. Terborgh. 1999. Conserving nature at regional and continental

scales–a scientific program for North America. BioScience 49: 809-817.

Stewart, R.E., and H.A. Kantrud. 1971. Classification of natural ponds and lakes in

the glaciated prairie region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 92.

57pp.

Tilman, D. and J. A. Downing. 1994. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature

367:363-65.

Wiens, J. A. 1995. Habitat fragmentation: Island versus landscape perspectives on

bird conservation. Ibis 137: 97-104.
Table 7: Wetland Management District Issues

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Wildlife & Habitat

1. Low waterfowl productivity 1597

2. Strategic acquisition 1689

3. Managing uplands 1596

4. Managing and restoring wetlands 1697

5. Improve biological inventories and 5 5 10 6

 monitoring.

6. Stem loss of prairie migrating birds. 1675

7. Manage to preserve & enhance 1675

 endangered species.

8. Reintroduce rare native species. 1565

9. Mitigate negative external influences 1685

 on WPAs.

10. Needs of federal trust species vs. resident 1575

 species.

11. Reduce crop loss from Canada geese. 1785

12. Control of invasive species. 1 7 8 5

People

1. Conflicting views on cost vs. benefit 5575

 of public land.

2. Provide adequate facilities for the public 1684

 in a compatible way.

Operations

1. Improve operations through increased 1 5 10 7

 staff and fund-raising.

2. Ensure all Districts apply policy and 1 6 10 6

 practice in a consistent manner.

Alternative 1: No management; stop all management actions. Alternative 1: No management; stop all management actions.

Alternative 2: Maintain current level and program. Alternative 2: Maintain current level and program.

Alternative 3: Implement CCP (preferred)

Alternative 4: Focus management and land acquisition program. Alternative 4: Focus management and land acquisition program.
Table 8: Objectives of the Wetland Management Districts

Objectives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt.4

Objective 1: Strive to preserve and maintain the diversity and increase the 1598

 abundance of waterfowl species of the Northern Tallgrass

 Prairie Ecosystem.

Objective 2: Within current acquisition acreage goals, identify the highest 1589

 priority acres for acquisition taking into account block size and

 waterfowl productivity data. These priority areas should drive

 acquisition efforts whenever possible.

Objective 3: Restore native prairie plant communities using local ecotypes of 1796

 seed and maintain the vigor of these stands through natural

 processes such as fire.

Objective 4: Restore functioning wetland complexes within Waterfowl Production 1696

 Areas (WPAs). There should be no drained wetlands on WPAs.

Objective 5: Maintain the cyclic productivity of wetlands on WPAs by increasing 1594

 the amount and quality of water level management.

Objective 6: Monitor the impact of management on target species as directed by 2496

 the Monitoring Plan. Monitoring is an integral part of management

 decisions within the Districts.

Objective 7: Collect baseline biological data using proven scientific methods so that 5486

 adequate information is available to evaluate management actions.

Objective 8: Preserve, restore, and enhance habitats to support diverse migratory 1698

 bird populations.

Objective 9: Preserve, enhance, and restore rare native Northern Tallgrass Prairie 2688

 flora and fauna that may become extinct.

Objective 10: Preserve, restore, and enhance rare and endangered native communities. 1688

Objective 11: Where feasible in both ecological and social/economic terms, reintroduce 1586

 native species on WPAs in cooperation with the Minnesota DNR.

Objective 12: Assess the external threats to each WPA during the preparation of 1687

 individual WPA Development Plans. Develop action plans to address

 these threats.

Objective 13: Preserve, restore, and enhance resident wildlife populations where 1667

 compatible with waterfowl production and preservation of other

 trust resources.

Objective 14: Work with the Minnesota DNR and the Department of Agriculture to 1575

 seek sustainable solutions to the impact of Canada geese on adjacent

 private croplands.

Objective 15: Continue efforts for direct control of invasive species to minimize 1586

 damage to aquatic and terrestrial communities.

Objective 16: Ultimately, our efforts should lead to a long-term solution to the 1586

 problem of invasive species with increased emphasis on biological

 control.

Objective 17: Continue efforts to restore wetlands and better define the role of each 5576

 District in assisting private landowners with upland and riparian

 restorations.
Table 8: Objectives of the Wetland Management Districts (continued)

Objectives Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt.4

Objective 18: Service land acquisition should have no negative impact on 10 3 6 4

 net revenues to local government.

Objective 19: Understand and communicate the economic effects of Federal land 1585

 ownership on local communities.

Objective 20: Provide opportunities for compatible public uses that promote 2685

 understanding and appreciation of the Prairie Pothole Region.

Objective 21: Promote greater understanding and awareness of the Wetland 1697

 Management District programs, goals and objectives.

Objective 22: Provide opportunity for environmental education that advances 1685

 public and private stewardship responsibility for the Prairie Pothole

 Region and brings about understanding of the multiple values of

 prairie wetlands and grasslands.

Objective 23: Provide necessary levels of maintenance, technician, and administrative 2 5 10 4

 support staff to achieve other Wetland Management District goals.

Objective 24: Provide all Districts with adequate and safe office, maintenance, and 2 5 10 5

 equipment storage facilities.

Objective 25: Acquire adequate equipment and vehicles to achieve other District 2 5 10 5

 goals. Maintain District equipment and vehicles at or above Service

 standards.

Objective 26: Ensure that annual capital development funds are large enough to 2595

 meet necessary development of new WPA land.

Objective 27: Annually, have adequate funds available to permit completion of 2595

 maintenance needs for each Wetland District’s current land base

 of WPAs.

Objective 28: Complete Geographic Information System (GIS) based WPA 2685

 Development Plans for each unit in each District.

Objective 29: Provide Districts with GIS to assist with acquisition, restoration, 2685

 management, and protection of public and private lands.

Objective 30: Develop and apply consistent policies for habitat, public use, and 2485

 and resource protection. Ensure frequent coordination among

 Districts, both in Minnesota and in neighboring states with WPAs

 (North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Wisconsin).

Appendix N: Drainage Policy

319

Appendix N: Drainage Policy

Appendix N: Drainage Policy

321

Wetland Management District

Ditch and Tile Maintenance Policy

This policy applies to existing constructed ditches or tiles that come onto Waterfowl

Production Areas (WPAs) where no reservation of a drainage easement exists in the

WPA title/deed. If there is a drainage reservation in the deed, we will follow the

terms of that reservation.

■ No new wetland or upland drainage facility will be allowed within a WPA.

■ Existing drainage cannot be improved beyond the original construction.

● Tile may not be replaced with a larger tile.

● Ditches may not be cleaned out beyond original depth, width or length

● Ditches may not be replaced with tile lines except where either the tile is

installed at the same or higher elevation than the original ditch bottom or

in other rare exceptions to solve severe erosion.

■ All materials cleaned out of the ditch will be removed from the WPA.

■ All construction sites on WPAs will be seeded down to a grass mix specified

by the Service.

■ Cleanout activities will not be allowed during the waterfowl breeding season

(April 1 through August 1).

■ If silt deposition is a concern, the Service will request that a grassed waterway or silt basin be installed upstream of our property to help reduce future

siltation.

■ Cleanout of natural (never ditched) drainageways will not be allowed.

■ Ditch and tile maintenance work on WPAs will only be done after the Wetland

District Manager has approved the project and issued a special use permit.

(Note: Compatibility Determinations are not necessary since the Service does

not control maintenance of the system; the Service only controls the timing

and scope of maintenance)

■ Landowners may still be subject to Swampbuster, WCA and COE rules on

maintenance and abandonment of ditches.

■ Mowing or spraying of approved herbicide in a ditch after August 1 may be

permitted in lieu of excavation.

■ If the ditch has not been cleaned or a tile not functioned for 25-plus years and/

or the watershed above the ditch has been substantially altered since the

Service purchased the property (i.e significant increase in flows or degradation of water quality) a formal ROW request maybe required as determined

by the Wetland Manager.

Appendix O: Disposition of Public Comments on the Draft CCP

323

Appendix O: Disposition of Public Comments on the Draft

CCP

Appendix O: Disposition of Public Comments on the Draft CCP

325

Minnesota Districts: Summary of Public Comments Received

■ Public funds should be used to purchase or improve only fee title lands, not

easements.

■ No buildings should be built on public lands - even for administration.

■ USDA program lands should be managed for wildlife and open to the public.

■ FWS acquisition in the Heron Lake Watershed should be approved by the

Heron Lake Area Restoration.

■ Private lands within the historic Heron Lake should be condemned and

restored and managed for wildlife.

■ FWS Realty process too slow - landowners have to wait too long.

■ Request that WPAs be used for non-motorized bike and hike trails

■ Pheasant wintering areas on WPAs

■ Establishment of food plots on WPAs

■ Establishment of shelter belts on WPAs

■ Increased management of resident Canada Geese

■ Support for continuing the private lands program

■ Numerous letters of general support for acquisition and management - keep

up the good work

Responses to above comments: Responses to above comments:

1. Public funds should be used to purchase or improve only fee-title lands, not

easements that do not allow public access.

The Small Wetlands Acquisition Program has included a perpetual easement

program component since its inception in 1959. The acquisition model designed at that time was to purchase a core area in fee title that would provide

a waterfowl brood marsh with surrounding permanent nesting cover. Perpetual Wetland Easements would protect satellite wetlands within one mile

radius of this core area. These satellite easement wetlands could then be used

by waterfowl for breeding and feeding purposes, while the same birds could

utilize the fee title area (WPA) for nesting and brood rearing.

Since 1959, land use has changed. In response to these land use changes, the

Service has expanded its suite of land protection programs. Habitat easements, which protect both upland and wetland habitats, has been successfully

used to protect and restore important wildlife habitat since the mid-1990s.

Advantages to protecting wildlife habitat through perpetual easements

include the initial reduced acquisition costs, reduced long-term management

expenses and less public resistance to excessive fee title acquisition.

Fee title acquisition is the most frequently used land protection method within

the five Minnesota Wetland Management Districts (180,267 fee-title acres
Litchfield Wetland Management District

326

versus 70,749 perpetual easement acres), representing 71.8% of lands acquired. Based on waterfowl biology habitat needs and land-owner interests,

the Service does not agree that we should eliminate the perpetual easement

program. The CCP proposes to continue both the traditional wetland and the

newer habitat (grasslands and wetlands) easements to protect high priority

wildlife habitats in cooperation with willing landowners.

2. No buildings such as Headquarters, Offices, or Maintenance facilities should

be built on FWS managed lands.

Personnel, equipment and materials are essential for the acquisition, restoration, protection and management of lands for the National Wildlife Refuge

System. These resources require facilities, and it has been the Service’s

practice to place these facilities on NWRS lands in locations where there is

minimal impact to wildlife or their habitats.

Visitor services facilities are also necessary to enhance the public’s knowledge

and understanding about issues that challenge the health of our wildlife

resources. These facilities can also encourage appropriate use of NWRS

lands and provide information that contributes to a quality experience by the

visiting public.

Facilities within the Minnesota Wetland Districts occupy only a minute

portion of fee-title acreage. For example, the Windom headquarters complex

is set on three acres - 0.02% of the District’s fee title acreage. Other districts

are similar. As new facilities are planned in the future, the Service will

continue to consider all impacts and effects of such plans on wildlife habitat

and make every attempt to minimize long-term adverse impacts.

3. Any private lands that come into federal ownership through delinquent loan

payments with the USDA should become public lands, managed for wildlife

and open for public use such as hunting.

The Service agrees that certain lands with high value to wildlife which come

into USDA ownership should appropriately be added to the National Wildlife

Refuge System. In the 1990’s, the Service worked closely with USDA to

transfer Farmers Home Administration Inventory Properties in the NWRS.

Many of these tracts are now actively managed for wildlife and open for public

use. Other tracts are protected from habitat destruction through perpetual

conservation easements enforced by the Service.

The Service will continue to look for opportunities to work in partnership with

the USDA to permanently protect high value wildlife habitat.

4. Several comments were received that addressed Service land acquisition

procedures in terms of the approval process and timeliness of appraisals and

offers to willing sellers.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acquires lands in Minnesota for the Small

Wetlands Acquisition Program under an agreement with the State of Minne-
Appendix O: Disposition of Public Comments on the Draft CCP

327

sota. This agreement provides an opportunity for comments by locally

elected officials. Prior to final acquisition approval by the State of Minnesota

(through the Land Exchange Board headed by the Governor), each tract is

discussed and reviewed in detail with the Commissioners of the County were

the tract is located. Township boards are also informed of these proposed

acquisitions and invited to attend and participate in the meeting with the

County Commissioners. Interested members of the public may attend these

meetings and make comments.

The Service believes the current approval process provides ample opportunity for review and comment by locally elected officials and the public and

does not support the addition of another layer of approval to this process.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Small Wetlands Acquisition Program is a

willing seller program. Land condemnation has not been used by the program

in the past and there are no plans to use condemnation in the future. Although its use would allow critical acquisitions to go forward in some cases

where landowners are not interested in selling, the long-term negatives

associated with condemnation often outweigh the short-term gain. The

Service is proud of its willing seller - willing buyer methodology and the CCP

maintains that means of land acquisition.

The Service agrees there is a need to reduce the length of time now typically

required to make an acquisition offer to a landowner. The Service can be

more responsive to acquisition opportunities and more effective in protecting

wildlife habitat by reducing the time required to complete the appraisal

process and make an offer. The CCP addresses this issue. On page 52, Goal 3/

Objective 3.3 outlines a timetable which would reduce the time allowed to

make an offer to a landowner to seven months.

Additionally, the Service Realty Branch just recently made organizational

changes designed to streamline the process time line.

5. Several comments were received supporting increased management efforts

for resident wildlife, notably, white-tailed deer and pheasants.

As indicated in the CCP, the primary purpose of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service’s Waterfowl Production Areas is to provide optimum habitat for

breeding and nesting waterfowl. Although every management practice we

implement for waterfowl may not be optimum for resident wildlife, we believe

the majority of our actions are mutually beneficial. Several Districts have

ongoing food plot or feeder crib programs, often in cooperation with Minnesota DNR or a local Pheasants Forever Chapter. It is the Service’s intention

to allow limited continued use of both food plots and feeder cribs. A draft

compatibility determination to maintain food plots on critical sites has been

prepared for public review and comment. That document helps managers

determine where food plots or feeder cribs can be used and where they must

be prohibited to ensure that our management is consistent with Service goals

and national policy.
Litchfield Wetland Management District

328

6. One reviewer expressed a desire that Waterfowl Production Areas be used

more to meet the needs of non-motorized bike and hike trail enthusiasts.

Waterfowl Production Areas are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System

(NWRS). The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act provides specific guidance to

the Service concerning management of the NWRS and establishes wildlife

conservation as the singular mission of this system. All uses of Refuge

System lands must be compatible with the mission of the system and purpose

of the specific unit involved. The Refuge Improvement Act established six

priority uses of the NWRS. These priority uses all depend on the presence of

or expectation of the presence of wildlife, and thus are called wildlife dependent uses. These uses include: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation.

Non-motorized bike and hike trails are not specifically identified as a priority

public use. Each request for a bike/hike trail would need to be evaluated as a

case-by-case basis. Many factors would need to be evaluated to determine the

trail’s potential impact on the WPA, and ultimately if the activity could be

considered compatible with the purpose for which the land was acquired.

7. Several reviewers expressed a desire that the Minnesota Wetland Districts

make a commitment to increase efforts to manage resident Canada geese,

specifically to minimize crop damage.

Within the federal government, animal depredation responsibility rests

primarily with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal Plant Health and

Inspection Service. Regardless of that mandate, the Minnesota Wetland

Districts have been assisting Minnesota DNR with local goose depredation

issues. In May of 2000 DNR and the Service agreed that each district would

increase its cooperative efforts to assist local DNR offices with goose complaints which originate from WPAs. Each district has designated a staff

person to respond to and work with their local DNR counterparts. Additionally, several districts have submitted funding requests to develop and manage

a depredation program which could include an initiative to purchase small

food plots in strategic locations on private land. Fencing to prevent geese

from entering neighboring fields can also be effective in certain cases, but

similarly is dependent on new specific funding.

8. Numerous comments were received in support of the Service’s Partners for

Fish and Wildlife Program.

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has been extremely successful

since its conception in 1986. Minnesota Wetland Management District staffs

have been at the national forefront of wetland restoration and with the

enthusiastic support of landowners throughout western Minnesota have

restored thousands of wetlands previously drained for agricultural purposes.

In recent years, we have also been working with landowners and private

conservation groups to restore native grasslands and interest in this program

is growing each year. The CCP declares our intention to continue working

with interested private landowners and with a multitude of partners to

accomplish conservation work on private land as well as public land as long as

that work is supported by Congress.
Appendix O: Disposition of Public Comments on the Draft CCP

329

9. Numerous letters were received which expressed strong support for continuing the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appreciates the support of individuals,

local sportsmen groups, and larger non-profit conservation organizations and

their affiliated local chapters for our ongoing efforts to improve Service lands

and add new lands for waterfowl and other wildlife. This CCP will provide a

roadmap for future management which should increase and improve our

efforts to work with partners to meet our Congressional mandate for management of migratory birds, especially waterfowl, in Minnesota.